|
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
|
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:39:11 PM UTC-8, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... Here's a link that works. http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk Exactly. In the early 90's there were several experimental Buick's running around for testing. They neither had a starter or alternator on them. The idea of no starter was that the crank position sensor would know which piston had just gone over TDC and when you hit the key would inject bit of fuel and spark turning the engine over then typical ignition would occur. Now how they got away from a standard belt driven alternator was they took lessons off of Ford at the turn of the last century, (or a common Briggs engine) and they mounted magnets on the transmissions torque converter which swung by a high energy rectifier, regulator pac. putting out approx 140 amp at 15 volts. From what I understand, or don't was that it was a fairly fool proof idea but was too costly to promote, and there was a concern of safety of the engine running in high or flood waters causing high ac voltage to turn loose on the occupants so it was tabled. |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, KC wrote: On 1/17/2015 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2015 11:27 AM, wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:06:02 -0500, KC wrote: Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder in line is how we thought it would work... How would that work? To start an engine you need fuel, air, spark and compression. If the car had sat more than a minute, there would be no compression and most injected engines cut the fuel off before the engine stops spinning these days to mitigate "making oil" so the "next cylinder" would be dry. I don't think Scott understands what "start-stop" is. Is there a particular dictionary definition, or do I have to join a secret club to know? I think of start stop as the engine cutting at stop signs or even down hills.. then starting back up when it's needed again. Am I close professor? When you write .... "Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder in line is how we thought it would work... " ... who knows what the hell you are talking about? Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago. |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:04:11 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 3:55:10 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094588_will-ultracapacitors-save-start-stop-systems-from-consumer-wrath My Audi A6 has the start-stop system on it. Fortunately, it also has a button that allows you to disable it, which I did. The article points out one reason, additional wear and tear on the battery. The second reason that they didn't point out is the wear on the starter and engine itself. With the type of driving I do the fuel savings would be insignificant anyway, and would never come close to paying for the added maintenance. ................ Interesting it's on the Audi. Volkswagen was toying with the idea back in the early 70's when they were going over to liquid cooled engine. There idea was to cut the ignition at a full stop, You put the car (manual) into neutral then press the accelerator and it would crank and start the motor. Back into gear you went until the next stop. Thank goodness it never went through then. |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On 1/17/2015 4:52 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:39:11 PM UTC-8, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Here's a link that works. http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk Exactly. In the early 90's there were several experimental Buick's running around for testing. They neither had a starter or alternator on them. The idea of no starter was that the crank position sensor would know which piston had just gone over TDC and when you hit the key would inject bit of fuel and spark turning the engine over then typical ignition would occur. Now how they got away from a standard belt driven alternator was they took lessons off of Ford at the turn of the last century, (or a common Briggs engine) and they mounted magnets on the transmissions torque converter which swung by a high energy rectifier, regulator pac. putting out approx 140 amp at 15 volts. From what I understand, or don't was that it was a fairly fool proof idea but was too costly to promote, and there was a concern of safety of the engine running in high or flood waters causing high ac voltage to turn loose on the occupants so it was tabled. The Mercruiser 3.7L engine was such an animal. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On 1/17/2015 4:52 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:39:11 PM UTC-8, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Here's a link that works. http://tinyurl.com/njrwkpk Exactly. In the early 90's there were several experimental Buick's running around for testing. They neither had a starter or alternator on them. The idea of no starter was that the crank position sensor would know which piston had just gone over TDC and when you hit the key would inject bit of fuel and spark turning the engine over then typical ignition would occur. Now how they got away from a standard belt driven alternator was they took lessons off of Ford at the turn of the last century, (or a common Briggs engine) and they mounted magnets on the transmissions torque converter which swung by a high energy rectifier, regulator pac. putting out approx 140 amp at 15 volts. From what I understand, or don't was that it was a fairly fool proof idea but was too costly to promote, and there was a concern of safety of the engine running in high or flood waters causing high ac voltage to turn loose on the occupants so it was tabled. Yup... :) |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:02:45 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:04:11 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 3:55:10 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094588_will-ultracapacitors-save-start-stop-systems-from-consumer-wrath My Audi A6 has the start-stop system on it. Fortunately, it also has a button that allows you to disable it, which I did. The article points out one reason, additional wear and tear on the battery. The second reason that they didn't point out is the wear on the starter and engine itself. With the type of driving I do the fuel savings would be insignificant anyway, and would never come close to paying for the added maintenance. ............... Interesting it's on the Audi. Volkswagen was toying with the idea back in the early 70's when they were going over to liquid cooled engine. There idea was to cut the ignition at a full stop, You put the car (manual) into neutral then press the accelerator and it would crank and start the motor. Back into gear you went until the next stop. Thank goodness it never went through then. Audi is VW. It's come back, but with a bit more finesse. |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:55:55 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago. But Richard, the ever arrogant asswipe, wont appologise. |
Speaking of Ultracapacitors ....
On 1/17/2015 4:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, KC wrote: On 1/17/2015 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/17/2015 11:27 AM, wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:06:02 -0500, KC wrote: Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder in line is how we thought it would work... How would that work? To start an engine you need fuel, air, spark and compression. If the car had sat more than a minute, there would be no compression and most injected engines cut the fuel off before the engine stops spinning these days to mitigate "making oil" so the "next cylinder" would be dry. I don't think Scott understands what "start-stop" is. Is there a particular dictionary definition, or do I have to join a secret club to know? I think of start stop as the engine cutting at stop signs or even down hills.. then starting back up when it's needed again. Am I close professor? When you write .... "Back in the 80's when we were discussing this we assumed by now there would be no starters... The computer would just fire the next cylinder in line is how we thought it would work... " ... who knows what the hell you are talking about? Scott was right Richard. BOA posted a link that I was aware of several years ago. My apologies to Scott then. I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com