Hydraulic transmission gives engines, wallets a break

Another day, another potential find to avoid the imminent fuel crisis. On the docket today is Ernie Brookins' hybrid drive system, which "captures, compresses, and stores wasted drive-train energy produced when a vehicle's engine is running." Ernie here has concocted a hydraulic transmission that can reportedly power vehicles without the engine running all of the time, and he expects the solution to save motorists around 50-percent in fuel costs. Better still, the contraption could theoretically work on nearly any vehicle -- from school buses to grain trucks to high-octane Power Wheel Jeeps. As these things seem to always go, the project has hit a roadblock without a source of funding, so if any VCs out there are looking for a somewhat solid place to shove $250,000, give this man a ring. [Warning: read link requires subscription]

[Thanks, Rachel]

[Flashpoint @ May 27th 2008 10:11AM]

Saving 50% in fuel costs is not going to do anything to improve the environment. All it means is that people will psychologically be under less restriction to DRIVE MORE.

Scientific study has proven that hybrid vehicles that get large mpg, only entice consumers to drive more.

The only thing that will both help the environment and save the consumers from unaffordable fuel costs is some type of NUCLEAR/Electric power.
And guess whose holding that back?

"Fusion Power is impossible"

Sure it is, only if you wanna keep countries addicted to oil so you can make a billion a year and drive a Phantom.

[Kris @ May 27th 2008 10:18AM]

Good luck with that. It's insanely cheaper for auto makers to continue what they have been doing and they will continue to do so until their Sales drop too far. At that point (and only that point) will we start to see affordable, alternate fuel vehicles.

Interestingly enough, I remember a program on the TV about 8 years ago with a psychic making predictions and while fuel costs are an obvious "prediction", she did predict that fuel costs would rise so much so that in 2010 an auto maker will come out wiht a nuclear powered car. I don't believe in psychics and I can't imagine we'll _ever_ have a nuclear powered car (not because it's dangerous but because the public will _think_ it's a terrorist weapon),

[Warhorse @ May 27th 2008 10:18AM]

If i could afford to buy gas then i could drive to those "Green Friendly" meetings and volunteer more.

[tom @ May 27th 2008 10:25AM]

I see this differently, see the compost/recycle/garbage truck slowly move from house to house picking up trash. That's a lot of diesel wasted.

[sam @ May 27th 2008 10:34AM]

Nuclear is definitely the best way we have to produce industrial-scale amounts of clean energy. I definitely support it.

The factor that everyone ignores that is really the biggest cause of oil usage: our physical layout. Moreso than european countries, we are a country of suburbs and strip malls. This makes individual cars necessary, and walking, biking, and public transportation almost useless. In Europe they'll have metro stations and centers of life: housing, stores, etc, within walking distance of those stations. Development in America didnt go like that, starting relatively early we all had cars so we would build everywhere, often where land was cheapest, which is the most out of the way.

If we want to use less oil, the only government policy we can implement that will really have significant effect is shifting incentives from living in the suburbs to living in more urbanized areas. Theres this false association of urban areas with pollution, but with a few exceptions that opposite is true. People who live in cities can walk or ride their bikes a lot, and if the city has good planning than its also painless to take public transit to further locations. Look at NYC: maybe because it was one of the earliest major cities to develop, you could DEFINITELY live there without having a car, and many do. The subway runs everywhere, including the outer buroughs. Most people in London, or Paris, or Amsterdam dont have cars either. But they dont need them, they can get around because the cities are arranged around several central squares and public transportation.

[Daza @ May 27th 2008 10:57AM]

Kris, you might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon . That psychic's prediction came about 52 years late.

[Kris @ May 27th 2008 11:12AM]

Daza, that's awesome! I never knew any company actually worked on something like that let alone 50+ years ago.

While I would love to move towards nuclear power, I still don't think it will become a reality for quite some time given the public's impression of it being a dooms-day-terrorist-kill-everyone weapon.

[jbs @ May 27th 2008 11:27AM]

great... a greenie alarmist wacko...
prolly owns only Apple products, too.

[jason51873 @ May 27th 2008 11:43AM]

I have to agree with this guy on some of his points. We will never advance into the future of fuel until either our current supply to totally gone, or there is some major changes in national laws (which will not happen).

Oil companies are all reporting RECORD PROFITS right now. How can that be? We are getting raped for gas while they make record profits?

So - basically while these bastards are making record profits in the hundreds of billions don't expect there to be ANY sort or big push for alternative fuel anytime soon.

[Peter @ May 27th 2008 4:49PM]

Oil companies are recording record profits due to their smart investments, not due to us getting "rapped" at the gas pump.

[syadasti @ May 27th 2008 10:12AM]

REALLY old news...

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/epa-unveils-hydraulic-hybrid-ups-delivery-truck/

[Adam Filipowicz @ May 27th 2008 10:15AM]

If I had a Hydrid vehicle that used 40% less gas then i use now
I would probably only drive 10% more then I do now

still a savings in fuel and emissions

[mattclarkie @ May 27th 2008 10:18AM]

And if a hybrid car ever achieves the MPG they claim then I might get one to save me some mullah.

I can take my 35mpg any longer, the cost is killing me, but 45mpg from some stupidly expensive hybrid isn't going to help matters when I can get 60mpg from a diesel.

[sam @ May 27th 2008 11:02AM]

Which stupidly expensive hybrid is that?

[charlie @ May 27th 2008 10:21AM]

First of all, the idea of a hydraulic hybrid is not new at all, its been tossed around for years as a possible way to store energy for the hybrid drive, eg instead of batteries in a "hybrid-electric" such as a prius. People have also tossed around "pneumatic-hybrids", vehicles that would store energy as compressed air, and "flywheel-hybrids" that would store energy in a flywheel. In the end hydraulic hybrids are seen as more suitable for larger vehicles like trucks and larger because of the heavy weight of the components. I think Fedex might actually use a couple experimental hydraulic hybrid delivery trucks.

Theres no way the hydraulic hybrid system could save 50%, just like an electric hybrid system, in real world performance you might see a 15% to 20% savings.

[iptydafu @ May 27th 2008 10:26AM]

Flywheel was the first thing I thought of. -Like that old animated "versus" display in the original Epcot, World of Motion, pavilion. The little girl with the flywheel, and stations you could go to get it spun-up again.

[syadasti @ May 27th 2008 10:29AM]

In large vehicle applications probably will be at least 40-50% as they've done 60-70% in the lab:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/epa-unveils-hydraulic-hybrid-ups-delivery-truck/

"The EPA and UPS plan to evaluate the vehicle's fuel economy performance and emissions during a series of tests in 2006. In laboratory testing, the EPA's patented hydraulic hybrid diesel technology achieved a 60 to 70 percent improvement in fuel economy and more than a 40 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, compared to a conventional UPS vehicle."

[Walter @ May 27th 2008 10:42AM]

So where are the results of the 2006 study?

[Tim Brown @ May 27th 2008 11:36AM]

You just know that, when some one does mass produce a flywheel hybrid, some modder will come along and paint it like the Mac Beach Ball

[Christian @ May 27th 2008 10:41AM]

Jeez! I'd sell my house and give the guy the $250,000 to see something like this happen!!

[wickedpheonix @ May 27th 2008 10:59AM]

If Tesla Motors has $250,000, and this works in electric vehicles - increasing the range of the Roadster to 300+ miles just like that would be a real boon to them.

[sam @ May 27th 2008 11:02AM]

It wouldn't be as beneficial to an electric car because those don't need to keep running, but the last I heard they were having transmission issues.

[barry99705 @ May 27th 2008 11:11AM]

So what is this, a flywheel on a hydrostatic drive train? Would be nice if you didn't have to register to read the original story.

[Leoedin @ May 27th 2008 12:40PM]

It's not a flywheel. The system works using hydraulic pumps and motors. It's not clear exactly what happens, but energy (either from the energy at idle or from braking) is stored as compressed air in an accumulator. When you then go to drive again, instead of pushing the hydraulic fluid (which drives the motors) around with the gasoline engine, you push it with compressed air.

[Solah @ May 27th 2008 11:11AM]

Reminds me of the old Ford Tonka concept.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1193/Ford-F350-Tonka.html

[Leoedin @ May 27th 2008 11:40AM]

Artemis Intelligent Power (http://www.artemisip.com/appli_auto.htm) have a similar system that is considerably more advanced than that in the article (despite the somewhat dated website). They currently have a converted BMW 5 series, with no need to flip switches (the computer side is as important as the hydraulic side).

[Victor @ May 27th 2008 1:29PM]

Sam said, "Nuclear is definitely the best way we have to produce industrial-scale amounts of clean energy. I definitely support it."

Nuclear energy is relatively clean until something unexpected goes wrong, e.g., an accident, an attack, etc. No matter how reliable the technology is made, there's still risk, and when it materializes, the consequences can be very bad, e.g. turning lands into waste lands for thousands of years.

There's a MUCH better way to produce large amounts of truly clean energy... where it's needed. Read http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/. Briefly:
- relatively small areas of cheap land can be used to produce electricity for many users;
- the energy production can be decentralized -- no need to build expensive energy transmission lines, etc.
- the plants can be built relatively VERY fast for relatively LITTLE money
- the price of energy produced with Nanosolar technology is about the cost of energy produced by coal plants.
- the cost of this energy will go down with time because there's no fuel to feed the plant.

[Victor @ May 27th 2008 1:36PM]

I forgot to mention that the Nanosolar's technology is already here, implemented, done, ready, and products have been shipped.

[ax0n @ May 27th 2008 3:10PM]

I can actually get behind off-grid power generation such as you see with wind and solar. There are a lot of problems keeping this from going totally mainstream such as transient power generation due to things like cloud cover, night time, or periods of calm winds. Of all the "alternative energy" solutions for powering vehicles and homes, these seem to be the most viable.

Moving 1,500 miles (likely in a diesel-guzzling behemoth) just to live in a region with mostly hydro-power so you can smugly pat yourself on the back for being "green" as you fill the tank on that plug-in hybrid you paid way too much for? Well, that doesn't sound terribly viable to me.

[Taylor @ May 27th 2008 2:07PM]

Damn, this is probably the design i have been wanting to tinker with, but never had time. I've studied hydraulics and i always thought you could make a really efficient powertrain in a car with it...
-Taylor
(i actually came up with the idea when trying to figure out how to make Halo's Warthog drivetrain a possibility, heh)

[ax0n @ May 27th 2008 2:27PM]

When will people figure out that modified petroleum-fueled vehicles are not the answer to our petroleum crisis? This goes as much for biofuel as it does for (likely coal-fueled) plug-in hybrids and EVs.

Reducing the distance we drive these things is a much better (and cheaper) way to answer the fuel problem. That includes finding places closer to home to shop, using non-motorized transportation (walking, bicycling, skateboarding, whatever) to get to those nearby places when feasible, or combining the entirety of a few days' worth of errands into one efficient automobile trip instead of driving to the grocery store, back home, waiting a few hours, running out to get supper, back home, running out to rent a movie, etc...

Regardless your eco-stance, throwing technology at the fuel cost/supply/pollution problem is just a bad idea when there are so many simple cheap or free solutions right here in front of us.

[rdude @ May 27th 2008 2:51PM]

The reason plug-in hybrids and EVs are part of the answer is that people are always going to drive some amount and consume some power, so generating that power a central location and then sending it out through the electrical grid is much more efficient than your standard engine. Even if the central location is a coal power plant.

And you could always move to Seattle, where the vast majority of our power is hydroelectric.

[ax0n @ May 27th 2008 3:06PM]

For most people, simply keeping your modestly efficient compact car (I know a lot of people have them) and driving it less would do quite a bit more than buying a brand new hybrid, PHEV or EV would, all impact (economic, environmental and otherwise) considered. Again, I'm going back to discovering your local "village" - the network of small shops, vendors and grocers in a small radius (say 2 miles frome home, an easily walking or bicycling distance for many Americans). This is very easy to do in most suburban settings. A little lifestyle change is not only cheaper than shelling out for a high-tech vehicle, it's healthier as well. Instead of using less fuel, you're using no fuel other than what you'd probably eat anyways.

When America (and other countries, admittedly) gets over its addiction to fast, long-distance mobility, we'll finally see some reprieve. We might even see some slimming waist-lines.

[phanbouy @ May 27th 2008 3:38PM]

"Jim, you're a funny son of a gun you are, now how about looking at the road for a change, mmkay?"

[Big Al @ May 28th 2008 11:33AM]

When will people figure out that modified petroleum-fueled vehicles are not the answer to our petroleum crisis? This goes as much for biofuel as it does for (likely coal-fueled) plug-in hybrids and EVs.


"Rome wasn't built in a day" I know tacky cliche but when will people understand that this isn't going to happen overnight. Hybrids are the first step. And i personally love my gas guzzler. Even if gas cost $10 dollars a gallon I will go where I want when I want at 13mpg's. Until someone designs something better than my guzzler that is what i will drive. I am not going to sacrifice comfort, convenience, or anything else to drive some hippy clown car. in time they will figure it out but hippy clown hybrids and the people who buy them are better for the environment and for research until the create the best new thing.

[griffonwing @ May 29th 2008 9:58AM]

This is seconhand information, so it may not be accurate. But it was from a repuatable source.

The U.S. has not paid any more for oil for the last 10-15 years. We have been buying it for the same price. What was the cost of a gallon of gas in 1998? It was about $1.10. Now we are paying near 4 bucks, more in some places, and rumors of 6 bucks by mid summer. This is out of hand.

The only reason the prices are shooting upwards is because the government has allowed OIL to be bought and sold on the future's market. Some rich basturd buys up thousands of barrels, the prices for the remaining goes up, becaause there's no oil, then when the price is high, he sells. He makes his money, but the cost of the oil does not diminish back to it's starting price.

Oil, and every other type of nationaly needed commodity, should NEVER be allower to be used for future's. This goes for corn (ethanol AND food supply) as well as others I'm sure you can think of.

Personally, I think the oil and gas companies SHOULD be run and controlled by the federal governement. This would take it off the futures market, and prevent oil companies from raping the people. I personally beleive in a smaller government, and I think states should have more power... just like the Constitution dictates. But the Federal government should be in charge of those states as a whole, and it's national power consumption is one power that I would allow it.

Just my thoughts.