Automotive Total machine system efficiency

AI Thread Summary
To determine the overall efficiency of a system with multiple gearboxes, one should multiply the efficiencies of each gearbox rather than averaging them. For example, three gearboxes with efficiencies of 70%, 80%, and 90% yield an overall efficiency of 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.9, resulting in a significantly lower efficiency than the average. The type of gearbox affects efficiency, with planetary gears generally being more efficient due to their ability to cancel side forces, while worm gears are less efficient, especially when driven in reverse. Additionally, the design and bearing quality within the gearbox can impact overall performance. Understanding these factors is crucial for accurately assessing system efficiency.
Pinon1977
Messages
126
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Trying to determine the total efficiency of a system of gearboxes within a larger machine system
Please see the attached sketch. Basically I have a system of three gear boxes, each with their own respective efficiencies. I'm trying to determine, at the end of this string of gearboxes, what the overall efficiency is. How might one go about determining this? Do you just take the average? 70 + 80 + 90 / 3?
IMG_20230622_190057704_HDR.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I'm no expert on gearboxes, but for most systems you would multiply the efficiencies of the series systems to get the overall efficiency. So 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.9 = ?
 
  • Like
Likes Pinon1977, Baluncore, Bystander and 1 other person
Consider a line of 16 gearboxes, each with an efficiency of 90%. The average efficiency would be 90%. But energy must pass through each gearbox in turn to reach the next, with a loss at each step.
In reality, the efficiency would be;
0.9016 = 0.1853 = 18.5%.
 
Baluncore said:
Consider a line of 16 gearboxes, each with an efficiency of 90%. The average efficiency would be 90%. But energy must pass through each gearbox in turn to reach the next, with a loss at each step.
In reality, the efficiency would be;
0.9016 = 0.1853 = 18.5%.

Wow!!!! That's not the explanation I was expecting, but it make sense to a certain degree.

Does it matter what kind of gearbox it is? Planetary vs worm gear vs helical, etc? I was loosely presuming that there would be some sort of gearbox constant or multiplier (depending upon the type of gearbox being used).
 
Pinon1977 said:
Does it matter what kind of gearbox it is? Planetary vs worm gear vs helical, etc?
Different types of gearboxes have different energy efficiencies.

Generally, a two-step reduction box is less efficient than a one-step reduction, but the one-step reduction weighs more for the same ratio and power.

The bearings used inside the gearbox make a big difference as they are subjected to significant side forces on the shafts.

Planetary gears can cancel side forces on the shafts, so are often more efficient.

The ease of driving a gearbox backwards has efficiency implications. A worm gear is very inefficient when driven backwards.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Back
Top