What Are the Benefits and Challenges of Using a Turbine Engine in Cars?

[Time]

TL;DR

The 48 tucker car, turbine engines and the big 3 control. My question is why is it so difficult to come up with a way to significantly improve MPG? Is innovation dead?

For me, and what I understand the main problem with turbine engines in cars is MPG because they required to run constantly at same rpm. Why no some kind of hybrid combo? With the way transmission have changed in last 5 year's how difficult would it be to transfer energy? As far as I understand they can use just about any kind of fuel. They do have an issue with heat in some articles I have read. Jay Leno has a car with turbine engine and he was quoted as being the future. It has the least amount of moving parts. I see no reason why this cannot have outside of the box thinking and designing to overcome flaws. <deleted conspiracy theory>

https://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html

 

[Dale]

Summary: The 48 tucker car, turbine engines and the big 3 control. My question is why is it so difficult to come up with a way to significantly improve MPG? Is innovation dead?

Why no some kind of hybrid combo?

A hybrid gas turbine-electric vehicle sounds interesting. In a serial hybrid configuration you could never idle the turbine, but always run it at its peak efficiency.

The heat is a big problem. The exhaust is quite hot which results in rather poor fuel efficiency. The combustion chamber is also very hot requiring expensive materials. The M1 Abrams is famous for that sort of thing.

 

[anorlunda]

Why no some kind of hybrid combo?

Indeed yes. RR diesel-electric-hybrid locomotives with regenerative braking for example. They have a big advantage over cars because they can be very big and very heavy.

Use the Prius as a guide. The size/weight/cost of the turbine would need to be comparable to the size/weight/cost of the gasoline engine in the Prius.

 

[Rive]

Turbine-electric transmission exists already. I guess adding batteries would eventually happen once the circumstances (weight, cost) are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine-electric_transmission

 

[Time]

A hybrid gas turbine-electric vehicle sounds interesting. In a serial hybrid configuration you could never idle the turbine, but always run it at its peak efficiency.

The heat is a big problem. The exhaust is quite hot which results in rather poor fuel efficiency. The combustion chamber is also very hot requiring expensive materials. The M1 Abrams is famous for that sort of thing.

What about different fuels as different fuels combust at different temperatures. (Example: alcohols, coal) what about different ways to cool system or engine. Maybe multiple small turbine engines that become efficiant at different rpm's? Why is the changing or ability to control turbine engine throttle and heat distribution so difficult? Air cooled vs cooling liquids. Maybe a combined system. Total energy output split to other helpful sources to enable engine efficiency. What about hydrogen? Maybe instead of a battery and fuel maybe hydrogen fuel and alcohol fuel. At any rate it seems that there are so many possibilities. I had a link on here about history of Chrysler turbine engines. I think that was reason of my warning. The article suggested that if it wasn't for government rules of loan. Chrysler's turbine engines would have been developed more. Frustrating to me that there isn't a better option for engines. The standard block engine is preferred.

 

[Dale]

Sorry, that is a whole barrage of questions. Can you focus your question a little? Maybe just one “what about” and a little more detail describing the concern you have for that “what about”.

 

[Time]

Sorry, that is a whole barrage of questions. Can you focus your question a little? Maybe just one “what about” and a little more detail describing the concern you have for that “what about”.

Ok i will do my best. I often over think, or at least that is what I have been told by many friends.

Would encasing engine or exhaust with a type of circulating cooling system work for exhaust heat issue?

 

[anorlunda]

Ok i will do my best. I often over think, or at least that is what I have been told by many friends.

Would encasing engine or exhaust with a type of circulating cooling system work for exhaust heat issue?

Let me consolidate your many questions into one question.

Have the turbine engine engineers thought through the problem; trying to think of a simple obvious way to make the turbines practical, thereby preserving their jobs? My guess has to be, "Yes of course they did."

 

[Dale]

Would encasing engine or exhaust with a type of circulating cooling system work for exhaust heat issue?

Yes. Usually the goal, however, is not just to cool the system but to get additional work from the heat of the exhaust. This is called a combined cycle. For instance, in power plants often they will combine a large turbine and cool the exhaust by using it to convert water to steam and use the steam to drive a steam turbine. All of this adds to the size and weight of the engine, so it is more feasible for fixed installations than for small vehicle applications.

 

[Time]

Sorry, that is a whole barrage of questions. Can you focus your question a little? Maybe just one “what about” and a little more detail describing the concern you have for that “what about”.

Forgot to expand on the "what about" hydrogen. My thought was possibly using a turbine engine to break down the water to provide the fuel for vehicle 4,6,8 cylinder block engine. Essentially turning a turbine engine into some kind of electrolysis device for producing hydrogen from water. Maybe using heavy water, or salt water. I imagine though salt water would have a lot of build up.

This thought came to me when I learned newer diesels use DEF fluid for exhaust emissions. My brain has a weird way of connecting subjects, and would take a long time to explain.

There was 2 additional subjects that caused me to think of this idea of using hydrogen. Which by the way as you will see has nothing to do with hydrogen. There was an article I read about metals reacting to different temperatures of heat. This architect designed a building that had 2 different metals that reacted to different temperatures allowing the building to open up letting cooler air move in the building. When the outside temperature drop these metal fins on build would close trapping existing heat.

The other thought trigger was computers. Computers use multiple memories and many chips to do different functions.

Lastly I think everything is basically chemicals. Those that cool and those that heat(other terms like acidic/alkaline, expand/contract, breathing in and out) react causing some form of motion or no motion at all. The way I see things even gravity is created by a chemical reaction.

Sorry went on a little tangent but my thoughts some how connect these things to engines.

 

[Time]

Let me consolidate your many questions into one question.

Have the turbine engine engineers thought through the problem; trying to think of a simple obvious way to make the turbines practical, thereby preserving their jobs? My guess has to be, "Yes of course they did."

Ok thanks for helping me organize my questions and thoughts. I didn't mean to wast anybodies time. I just haven't read enough material as to why certain ideas failed. Thank you for your time.

 

[Time]

Yes. Usually the goal, however, is not just to cool the system but to get additional work from the heat of the exhaust. This is called a combined cycle. For instance, in power plants often they will combine a large turbine and cool the exhaust by using it to convert water to steam and use the steam to drive a steam turbine. All of this adds to the size and weight of the engine, so it is more feasible for fixed installations than for small vehicle applications.

Okay thank you helping me to better understand problem. I thank you also for your time spent replying.

 

[russ_watters]

What about different fuels as different fuels combust at different temperatures. (Example: alcohols, coal) what about different ways to cool system or engine. Maybe multiple small turbine engines that become efficiant at different rpm's? Why is the changing or ability to control turbine engine throttle and heat distribution so difficult? Air cooled vs cooling liquids. Maybe a combined system. Total energy output split to other helpful sources to enable engine efficiency. What about hydrogen? Maybe instead of a battery and fuel maybe hydrogen fuel and alcohol fuel.

Let me try an sum this up in some related constraints:
1. Fuel should be green, so no coal (natural gas, hydrogen, some liquid hydrocarbons may be ok but eventually may need to be phased out).
2. Hotter combustion = more efficient.
3. Turbines are small, which means high power density, which means difficulty dissipating heat.

Start with the wiki on "microturbines", then surf/google through to references for some active projects for making really small turbines, including one from MIT.

Some really smart people are working on this problem, and if they solve it, they'll start producing them. And always remember that in nearly all cases:

Scientists and engineers drive the creation of technology, but consumers drive its implementation. If consumers won't buy it, it, it won't catch on.

 

[Time]

My last thought on turbine subject. There are 4 different types of turbines water, gas, steam, and wind. Can exhaust heat cause a different turbine design to move efficiently?

Sometimes I wonder if ideas are lost or not thought due to the scientific field the idea came from. Of course it is silly to think this way. Just glad there are patient people willing to discuss things with people similar to me.

 

[Dale]

My thought was possibly using a turbine engine to break down the water to provide the fuel for vehicle 4,6,8 cylinder block engine. Essentially turning a turbine engine into some kind of electrolysis device for producing hydrogen from water.

Well, you could do that but it would be very inefficient. Water is chemically very stable, so it takes a lot of work to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen. Then there are the inefficiencies in storing an transporting hydrogen, made worse by the fact that there is no infrastructure for doing so efficiently. Then when you burn it again you get more inefficiencies.

So, yes, I believe that it is possible but it is not done because of the inefficiencies involved. In the end you would get much less out than if you had simply put it into an inefficient engine to begin with.

The way I see things even gravity is created by a chemical reaction.

That is just silly.

 

[Time]

That is just silly.

I guess maybe the thought of gravity being a chemical reaction is "just silly".

Yet electricity is moved by electron and proton imbalance in an atom. An atom is the base of chemistry. Would gravity exist without atoms? Well maybe your right gravity just simply exists and an imbalance of the atom makes no difference. Although the sun does have a strong gravitational pull and nothing but chemical reactions happening there right?!

Thanks again you have been most helpful.

 

[Dale]

Would gravity exist without atoms?

Certainly. White dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes are all examples of gravity without atoms. Also, a large portion of the mass of normal stars like our sun consists of fully ionized plasma instead of atoms, so if gravity required atoms then even our sun would have much less gravity than it does.

Although the sun does have a strong gravitational pull and nothing but chemical reactions happening there right?!

Wow. Really? That has been known to be wrong since the 19th century.

 

[Time]

Certainly. White dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes are all examples of gravity without atoms. Also, a large portion of the mass of normal stars like our sun consists of fully ionized plasma instead of atoms, so if gravity required atoms then even our sun would have much less gravity than it does.

Wow. Really? That has been known to be wrong since the 19th century.

Sheesh didn't think I would have a discussion about gravity, bit ok.

If you believe suns gravity and it's gravitational pull has been proven to be wrong. Who then proved the sun has no gravity or gravitational pull?

Who disproved that all mass does not contain some measure of gravity? Ionized plasma aka ionized gas has mass. No scientist fully understands the black hole, as far as I know. To suggest the black hole has no mass based on limited ability to prove any theory is in itself silly as you say. I say this because the nearest black hole is approximately 3,000 light years away. The best tests that can be done is by satilite imaging (basically by visual observations). Though in many books you will read that black hole's have mass.

I hope you correct my errors.

Lastly isn't an ion simply a negative or positively charged atom?

Well have a great day and cheers.

 

[Dale]

Sheesh didn't think I would have a discussion about gravity, bit ok.

Well, you are the one who brought it up. I am not sure why you brought it up, it had no connection with the topic at hand, and yet you felt compelled to mention it. And then when it was pointed out that it was a silly comment instead of saying "oops, I guess it was silly" you are doubling and tripling down on it.

If you believe suns gravity and it's gravitational pull has been proven to be wrong. Who then proved the sun has no gravity or gravitational pull?

No, your claim that "nothing but chemical reactions happening" in the sun was proven wrong in the 19th century. At about that time people were able to calculate that a sun based on chemical reactions would extinguish in about 50,000 years, which is much shorter than the then accepted value for the age of the earth.

Ionized plasma aka ionized gas has mass.

Yes, it has mass and therefore gravity, but is it an atom? Free protons and free electrons in a highly ionized plasma are certainly not undergoing chemical reactions, they are far too energetic to form any stable molecular bonds. So claiming that their gravity is due to chemical reactions is silly. They have mass and they have gravity but they don't have chemistry so their gravity is not due to chemistry.

To suggest the black hole has no mass based on limited ability to prove any theory is in itself silly as you say.

I never said that. I said they don't have atoms so they don't have chemical reactions. They still have mass and therefore gravity.

No scientist fully understands the black hole, as far as I know.

We do, however, understand white dwarfs and neutron stars, which are other examples of objects that have mass and gravity, but not atoms and therefore not chemical reactions.

Lastly isn't an ion simply a negative or positively charged atom?

Fair enough, we can classify ions as atoms. That still doesn’t change the fact that they are largely far too energetic to form stable molecular bonds and participate in chemical reactions. So that cannot be the source of their gravity.

In case you are not aware, on this site we discuss and teach mainstream science as understood and practiced by professional scientists today. We are not interested in discussing non-mainstream theories, particularly not silly ones like "gravity is created by a chemical reaction". There is no support in the professional scientific literature for the claim that gravity comes from chemical reactions.

 

[russ_watters]

Please pull the ripcord; this is off topic, and you're just digging a deeper hole.

 

[Time]

Please pull the ripcord; this is off topic, and you're just digging a deeper hole.

Ok will pull topic tonight.

 

[anorlunda]

The OP question has been well answered.

Thread closed.