President Bush recently spoke about an initiative to develop better gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. Prior to that, Consumer Reports magazine reported that these hybrids can pose a dilemma for car buyers. On one hand, hybrids do use less gasoline, and they produce fewer emissions. On the other, hybrids cost several thousand dollars more than their all-gasoline counterparts. According to Consumer Reports, “In our analyses, none of the six hybrids we have tested recovered its price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership. Nor did any when the analysis was extended to ten years and 150,000 miles.”

It sounds as if these gas-electric hybrids have a long way to go. So rather than trying to develop a better gas-electric hybrid, perhaps attention should be shifted to a different technology altogether -- say a gas-hydraulic hybrid.

In the last year or so, we’ve reported periodically on the progress of a couple new designs of hydraulic motors and pumps that may hold promise for more efficient hydraulic drives -- especially hybrid drives that use accumulators to store and recover braking energy.

One of these unconventional drives is called the Hydristor (www.hydristor.com), which operates much like a variable-displacement vane pump or motor. However, several design variations in the Hydristor all but eliminate sliding friction that plagues conventional vane pumps and motors, according to inventor Tom Kasmer.

The other unconventional design is the Sanderson Mechanism (www.sandersonengine.com), which uses a trio of pistons nestled in a cylinder block to drive (or be driven by) a rotating shaft. According to Robert Sanderson, inventor, the success of the design is attributed to a type of universal joint that eliminates side loading when converting the reciprocating motion of pistons to shaft rotation, or vice versa.
Variable displacement is a necessity for building a continuously variable transmission (CVT) -- a key element of hybrid drives. Of course, CVTs using hydraulics have been around for decades. We know them as hydrostatic transmissions (HSTs), which are widely used in mobile equipment. Skid-steer loaders probably are the most common and visible example of the impressive performance and versatility of HSTs.

More recently, we have reported on three projects underway to develop hydraulic hybrid transmissions. Our first report, in the October 2005 issue, describes a joint venture between the EPA, Eaton Hydraulics, UPS, and other organizations to develop and test a hybrid HST for a package delivery vehicle. Just last month, we reported on a joint program between the EPA and the University of Toledo to develop another version of a hybrid HST. Still another hybrid HST program was just announced by Parker Hannifin. In all three cases, the vehicles will rely on hydraulic braking to store deceleration energy as pressurized fluid in accumulators. On command, this energy can be used instantly to accelerate the vehicle.

So whether it’s with a tried-and-true HST, or with one of the new unconventional designs, hydraulics may be in the driver’s seat in our quest to conserve energy.

Alan L. Hitchcox
editor
ahitchcox@penton.com

Mr. Hitchcox,

I must agree with your conclusion that the hybrid cars being sold don't add up. The first thing you learn in physics is that you don't get something for nothing. Except for regenerative breaking and turning off the engine at stop lights a hybrid car could not possibly save gas. Then if you take into account the efficiency losses from converting energy from one form or another one would expect milage to be worst.

You bring up the use of hydraulics for use in hybrid vehicles and once again regenerative breaking is the method that the gas savings will be derived from. The added weight of the hydraulics and the associated losses of converting energy from one type to another is illogical and once again don't add up.

A hybrid car only can save gas if it is used for stop and go tight city driving.

The future for automobiles is total electric, everything else is an futile exercise.

Ethanol, fuel cells and hybrids are smoke and mirrors that are all intermediate steps.

Since the application is in town stop and go driving then we need total electric cars. These cars will be charged by power from nuclear or fusion power plants or better yet solar fields.

These cars will be small and lightweight, not hydraulic powered SUV's!

Jock Stucki
Wabash Plastics, Inc.
Evansville, IN

I agree that energy savings comes primarily from regenerative braking in these vehicles, and substantial power is lost when converting from one form of energy to another. and i agree that an all-electric vehicle has the greatest potential for savings. However, I don't think the technology you speak of will happen in my lifetime.

But regardless, I think you'll agree that the ramifications of high fuel prices are not all bad. It makes people aware of the energy they use, it makes many conserve energy, and most importantly, it stimulates the development of alternative sources of energy and drives.

Alan L. Hitchcox
editor
ahitchcox@penton.com

my reply is to Joe Stucki regarding the electric car. I am working on a 7,000 pound Expedition Hydristor conversion. At 60 Mph (88 feet/sec), a full braking at the limit of '1 g' will result in an instantenous braking road horsepower of:
7,000 x 88 = 616,000 pound-feet per second divided by
550 pound feet per second ( 1 Hp = 550 lb-ft/sec) or
1,120 road horsepower. Since 1 Hp = 746 watts, the watt equivelent is 835,520 or 835 Kilowatts. Since most people drive faster than 60, The Expedition would dissipate around a megawatt of instantenous power, declining to zero as the vehicle came to a stop. To summarize, do you know of any 1,500 Hp electric motors you can fit in an Expedition? A 200
volt battery system would have to absorb 5,000 amps initially. I worked on a drive for the Metro North railroad; 1,000 volts at 1,000 amps! The oscilloscope trace would turn 45 degrees on it's side due to the magnetic fields! What insane person would knowingly sit astride the magnetic field caused
by 5,000 amps, especially if it were switched with pulse width modulation. In order to drive an electric motor connected the wheels, PWM must be employed. Otherwise, the battery would attempt to
send many thousands of amps to the motor. If there
is a growing fervor over cell phone radiation, what about the electric car as far as health issues? Alan
Hitchcox is more than right in saying electric cars wont be seen in his lifetime. Electric cars have reached their limit of incompetence due to the limitations of electric motors and batteries. Now if you create an electric/Hydristor drive, the Hydristor is able to absorb the very high road horsepower requirements and average them out to a fairly constant speed electric deive system and associated battery. This is very doable and will be a future project of mine.

Tom Kasmer 607-7631607

1) The theory behind hybrids is not so much to save energy from regenerative braking as it is to allow the engine to operate constantly at it's most efficient rpm and torque, eliminating less efficient operation during hard acceleration and driving at a crawl. Whether the theory is put well into practice is another question, as is whether it is efficient to manufacture and carry around all those extra parts.
2) Wake up people, pure electric vehicles are here NOW. I drove one to work most every day for a year, sold it, and am building another. And no, I am not worried about those huge magnetic fields. Virtually zero fuel cost, no oil to change, a hundredfold reduction in the number of moving parts, all obtained with technology which has 'reached their limit of incompetence'...
3) Mr. Kasmer, please give me a call when you are ready to demonstrate that Expedition braking at 1 g. I would like to see it.

WOuld you believe 1,200 MPG

Take a look at this web site:

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1621387/posts?page=2

It all goes back to how much the vehicle and load weigh, and how fast you want to travel.

The gas mileage at the above web site is not a practical way for our normal travel day but certainly proves a point.

EATON, EPA SHOWCASE NEW FUEL-SAVING HYDRAULIC HYBRID UPS DELIVERY VEHICLE THAT WILL BE ROAD-TESTED IN CLEVELAND

August 14, 2006

CLEVELAND… Eaton Corporation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today showcased the first-ever hydraulic hybrid diesel urban delivery vehicle. The EPA’s patented hydraulic hybrid diesel technology is achieving a 60-70% improvement in fuel economy and more than a 40% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in initial laboratory testing of a large UPS truck. 

EPA estimates that the technology has the potential to save more than 1,000 gal per year for each urban delivery vehicle. UPS will begin testing the vehicle this year on the road in the Detroit area and then will bring it to Cleveland for additional testing. The vehicle was developed through a partnership between EPA, Eaton, UPS, International Truck and Engine Corporation and the U.S. Army. EPA unveiled the truck in Washington, D.C. in late June.
Today in Cleveland, Eaton employees, local, state and federal officials, and the media viewed the groundbreaking hybrid delivery truck, and were invited to take a test drive in Voinovich Park.

“Eaton is proud to be working with the EPA and our industry partners in bringing this leading- edge technology to market,” said Alexander M. Cutler, Eaton chairman and chief executive officer. “Innovative technologies such as the hydraulic hybrid truck represent Eaton’s focus on energy management, market-leading products and environmental responsiveness.”

Margo T. Oge, director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said the development of the series hydraulic hybrid technology highlights the benefits of public-private partnerships to further refine and commercialize advanced technology. 

“This breakthrough technology is good for the environment, good for our economy and good for the nation’s energy security,” Oge said. “This dynamic partnership with companies such as Eaton, UPS, International and the Army signals strong interest in the commercial viability of this technology.”

In the series hydraulic hybrid truck, a high-efficiency diesel engine is combined with a unique hydraulic propulsion system to replace the conventional drivetrain and transmission. The vehicle uses hydraulic pump motors and hydraulic storage tanks to recover and store energy, similar to what is done with electric motors and batteries in hybrid electric vehicles. Vehicle fuel economy is increased in three ways: braking energy that normally is wasted is recovered and reused; the engine is operated more efficiently; and the engine can be shut off when not needed, such as when stopped or decelerating.

"This hydraulic hybrid technology is quite promising and we're eager to see how the vehicle performs in a real-world setting as part of our fleet in Cleveland," said Frank W. Whalley, UPS vice president of its North Ohio district. "We have led our industry in testing alternative fuel vehicles because fuel conservation is critical to our business in Ohio and around the world." 

Eaton has been working with the EPA since October 2001 under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement involving hydraulic hybrid systems. As part of Eaton’s role in designing and developing hybrid technologies, company engineers have been co-located at EPA’s Ann Arbor, Mich. facility. Eaton is also working on a number of other hybrid vehicle initiatives with UPS, International Truck and Engine Corporation and others.

“Eaton sees the series hydraulic hybrid as a natural and exciting progression in the development of hydraulic hybrid systems,” said Craig Arnold, Eaton senior vice president and president – Fluid Power. “Eaton is committed to developing next-generation hybrid technologies and to developing products that benefit our customers, communities and the environment.”

Eaton is also partnering with EPA through the agency’s Green Suppliers Network (GSN) program. Eaton has joined a group of large manufacturers committed to sharing both manufacturing techniques and environmental process improvements with its small- and medium-sized suppliers to make them more competitive and environmentally involved as partners in the program. Eaton plans to involve 20 suppliers from Ohio in the first phase of the program as GSN partners. For more information, visit www.eaton.com.

Is it correct for the EPA and Eaton to claim that the hydraulic hybrid drives they are installing in UPS delivery trucks are innovative? The drives appear to be little different from the drives that were widely recommended 25-30 years ago when energy prices temporarily rose after the OPEC embargoes. The drives today may employ pump/motor piston seals, operate at somewhat higher pressures and use some light-weight non-metal materials in the accumulators, but these are advances in materials. The basic hydraulic machines seem to lack innovation and offer only marginal improvements over what could have been done 30 years ago. It seems the EPA and Eaton is just recycling old ideas because energy prices are up again.

Hydraulic drives have been criticized for being 1) not highly efficient, 2) bulky, 3) costly. I think it can be assumed that 25 years ago the manufacturers decided the benefit to cost ratio wasn’t adequate for them to under take the risk of adopting the drives. I do not see that EPA/Eaton has done anything to appreciably change this ratio, only higher fuel costs, which is not innovation. In fact, because of the lack of innovation in hydraulic power, it may be considered a stagnant technology. What you have today is what you’ll have tomorrow, little chance of improvement. Electric power is more dynamic because in recent years there have been significant improvements in power switches, magnetic materials, batteries, and conductors. So even though the hydraulics may be more economical today manufacturers may believe there is more of a future in developing electric drives.

Real innovation is needed to increase the efficiency, increase the operating pressure so as to decrease the bulk of the energy storage elements, and decrease the cost of hydraulic drives without increasing the risk of oil drops on the garage floor. This is why I find the Hydristor and Sanderson Mechanism interesting. I don’t know the capabilities of these machines but at least they appear innovative. In my maybe not as humble as it should be opinion, our tax dollars would be better spent funding the construction of bench-test model drives incorporating innovative concepts rather than in commercializing an Eaton product. The EPA should be acting as an independent and unbiased evaluator of innovative concepts. With the independent evaluations the manufacturers could choose which concepts merited further development. The EPA partnership with private industry amounts to Eaton receiving our tax dollars to design a transmission for delivery trucks using their technology. Now I expect the EPA is paying most of the cost of installing the drives in UPS trucks. I haven’t seen how much Eaton is being paid per installed transmission but they may well be inexpensive when compared to electric hybrids. The electric hybrid transit buses cost as much as $200,000 more per bus. But being cheaper than an electric hybrid does not mean the cost will be recovered in fuel savings. I believe Eaton had over $10billion in revenues last year. If a company that size cannot commercialize a product without government support then the product may not be commercially feasible. By making the EPA Ann Arbor facility a branch of Eaton in order to create a market for an Eaton product, the EPA is probably doing more to inhibit innovation than it is doing to foster it. In the past decade the US government has spent billions of dollars on the “super car” concept with almost no results, except perhaps to have spurred the Japanese companies to come out with the electric-hybrids. Meanwhile GM and Ford are generally described as continuing their downward spirals. True innovation is needed, not the claim that the recycling of an old idea is innovative. With a few notable exceptions, bureaucracies and large corporations have not been sources of innovation.

John Andderson wrote:

"The basic hydraulic machines seem to lack innovation and offer only marginal improvements over what could have been done 30 years ago."

My sentiments also

"Hydraulic drives have been criticized for being 1) not highly efficient, 2) bulky, 3) costly. I think it can be assumed that 25 years ago the manufacturers decided the benefit to cost ratio wasn’t adequate for them to under take the risk of adopting the drives. I do not see that EPA/Eaton has done anything to appreciably change this ratio, only higher fuel costs, which is not innovation. In fact, because of the lack of innovation in hydraulic power, it may be considered a stagnant technology. What you have today is what you’ll have tomorrow, little chance of improvement. Electric power is more dynamic because in recent years there have been significant improvements in power switches, magnetic materials, batteries, and conductors. So even though the hydraulics may be more economical today manufacturers may believe there is more of a future in developing electric drives."

We are in agreement but no one is listening???

Great post John.

Some recent news:
Digital pumps finally get wheels

See also:
Artemis site

According to the Artemis website this story appears to be over a year old... can anybody shed any light please?

The part-load efficiency is very exciting.

Kalmar helps develop a hybrid terminal tractor for US West Coast ports

Kalmar will contribute to a project that aims at reducing pollution in ports by integrating three of its terminal tractors with hybrid technology. The two-year project will be undertaken in cooperation with the West Coast Collaborative of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where the terminal tractors will be operated and tested for six months. The green hybrid equipment is expected to reduce air emissions by 93%, which equates to 19 tons of nitrogen oxide and 200 pounds of particulate matter.

Kalmar’s role in the US $1.2 million venture is to help with the selection of the hybrid system and to carry out the research and development associated with integrating the new system into the machines. The hybrid units will use either a hybrid-electric system to combine the cleanest available diesel engine technology with an electric motor, or a hybrid-hydraulic system that combines the cleanest available diesel engine technology with components that use hydraulic fluid compression to store energy.

According to Stefan Johansson, Vice President of Trailer Handling Product Development, many port and distribution customers have recently shown interest in combining terminal tractors with a hybrid engine. He explains:

“Our customers are interested in terminal tractors with hybrid systems because the new technology helps reduce fuel consumption, exhaust emissions and maintenance intervals. Strategically, it’s the right way to go. In the US, fuel is relatively cheap, but most people believe the cost will rise, therefore increasing the need and urgency for alternative methods.”

The hybrid technology is expected to reduce or eliminate emissions during idling, which can represent more than 50% of the terminal tractor duty cycle. Mr Johansson adds:

“As it conserves the energy necessary for breaking, the hybrid system is ideal for a machine like the terminal tractor, which operates in a continuous stop-and-go fashion.”
Another advantage of the hybrid technology is that it allows customers to keep their existing operations and maintenance infrastructure. The system runs with a diesel engine so the need for another type of fueling station is unnecessary.

This project by the West Coast Collaborative of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is part of a greater scheme, the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. Its objective is to significantly reduce emissions and associated health hazards resulting from port operations in the next five years. With the new hybrid terminal tractor, Kalmar will make an important contribution to the development of green technologies for yard equipment as a whole.

Following requests from its customers concerned over yard trucks’ high emission levels, Kalmar has been working hard since the late 90s to develop more environmentally friendly terminal tractors. Consequently, Kalmar developed a series of machines that could run on alternative fuels such as CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas).

The expansion of world trade poses a threat to the environment, which is why Kalmar, as an industry innovator, is seeking proactive solutions. The company is committed to expediting the development process as it believes creating sustainable solutions is a serious responsibility. Kalmar’s intelligent handling solutions will always meet or exceed the toughest global standards on pollution, discharges, noise, safety and the working environment.

By staying at the forefront of development, Kalmar can today offer customers a range of environmentally friendly solutions for container handling. These include:

* Zero emission and all-electric E-One RTG;
* All-electric straddle carriers, Edrive;
* Electrical and LPG-run forklift trucks between 5 and 9 tonnes; and
* Terminal tractors that run on CNG, LNG and LPG.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Paul J. Heney,

Eaton’s emission-reducing technologies to benefit Texas companies through state grant for environmentally friendly trucks
 
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. -- Diversified industrial manufacturer Eaton Corp. will debut its hybrid regenerative braking system on 12 new green refuse trucks in 2007 with the help of a State of Texas grant worth nearly $700,000.

The Texas government’s New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) grant will move Eaton’s Hydraulic Launch Assist (HLA) hybrid regenerative braking system toward commercialization.  Under the grant, Texas refuse companies that purchase a new truck chassis and refuse body can hybridize the vehicle at no cost, thus providing end users the opportunity to utilize the HLA system.

“This is a win-win; it cuts greenhouse gas emissions and fuel costs,” said Dr. Rudy Smaling, NTRD program director.  “The projected reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from the use of this technology are significant and especially welcome for the challenging applications targeted in this project.  Estimated fuel savings from the cost-effective HLA system also make this an attractive solution for end users."

“Eaton is truly a leader in developing hybrid technology and is doing an excellent job reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Smaling said.

Sohan Uppal, vice president, Technology, Eaton’s Fluid Power Group said, “The Houston Advanced Research Center is partnering with the industry to speed the development and introduction of emission-reducing technologies.  We applaud their forward-looking approach to improving air quality and are grateful for their support on this project."

A little HYDRAULIC HYBRID VEHICLE (HHV) history ... remember the Tucker in the late 40's.

More recently, the FORD/GM/EPA partnership in the late 90s resulted in a 1.9 ton vehicle that could do 0 to 60 mph in about 8 seconds and still get above 80 mpg. Then in March 2004, a FORD suv demontrated that improved fuel economy by about 80-85% using a "clean" diesel and a series hydraulic hybrid retrofit configuration (= automatic transmission?). An EPA estimate suggests that the HHV incremental cost could be in the range of $600 in production quantities.

According to the October 2006 status update, production level commercial delivery vehicles (FedEx.UPS/et.al.) will be available before 2009.

Some links:
http://files.harc.edu/Projects/Transportation/HydraulicHybridsGray.pdf
and
http://www.harc.edu/Projects/Transportation/HydraulicHybrid

I was speaking with someone yesterday (1/12/07) that had knowledge of the 7,000 pound (3.5 ton) prototype Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle, a modified SUV, that is getting about 30-32 mpg city AND highway using an "automatic" transmission and about 3.5 liter engine (gasoline I think ... I forgot to ask). Not bad for a "monster" machine.

That is about 108 ton X mpg [31 mpg X 3.5 tons] ... about 44% better than the Prius.

In case any of you are interested.

S Houston

Also read the second post in this thread.