Shadow the Cats ownerAs for this going into a purely truck discussion Schillm CARB has made it's one goal to eliminate all diesel powered engines from the State of CA regardless of what they power from cars to trains to OTR trucks and they will not stop to they reach their stated goal. Yes their director was caught about 10 years ago saying that on a hot mic in Sacramento.
As I said, if you want to discuss trucks, use or start a truck forum. And your last remark is typical of the nonsense others have caught you spouting on these forums.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is a huge difference between the real world and what you can get in a climate controlled test cell when your trying to prove something works. Also with these test engines they use after a test they are totally overhauled with new parts nothing is reused except the blocks in them. Why so they can see if the parts are doing what their modeling programs show them. The fuel they run is so freaking pure and clean it's like getting it out of a clean room enviroment. I've seen how Caterpiller tests engines at their now closed Mossville plant and told them this is not real world testing. The engineer said yes it was. Their test cycles are all one speed one fuel setting no varying speed at all. Nice work if an engine can find it. My fleets are all over the place on a normal day from full fuel climbs to part loading cruise to being used as an engine brake. We flat out break the parts that are supposed to keep working for over 1 million miles on these things.
As for this going into a purely truck discussion Schillm CARB has made it's one goal to eliminate all diesel powered engines from the State of CA regardless of what they power from cars to trains to OTR trucks and they will not stop to they reach their stated goal. Yes their director was caught about 10 years ago saying that on a hot mic in Sacramento.
This thread has degenerated into an almost purely truck discussion. Why not take it to a truck forum (if one exists)?
I still don't have detailed knowledge. For me personally there are points in diesel engine development I can't put together.
There is the failure of EGR with heavy truck engines because of EGR valve problems. Having higher maintenance costs and worse fuel efficiency. Fleet loss about 30%.
But GE and EMD Tier 4 diesel engines seem to work satisfactorily with EGR said by GE to have better fuel efficiency and less maintenance costs.
In Germany the fuel efficency of a Mercedes Euro VI truck is about 20% better than a 1996 Mercedes Euro II truck and the Euro III 7% better than Euro II. Euro II and III were reached with measures in the engine itself. Included in this term is EGR which was used on Mercedes Euro III as far as I know. Euro IV and V were SCR and Euro VI is SCR + EGR. DPF were used from 2007. But that is just Mercedes.
How does all fit together?
And is it possible to build the EMD and GE diesel engines to heavy truck Tier 4 standards?Regards, Volker
ruderunnerTierV in the rail industry has similar downsides.
An instructive 'tidbit' concerning this issue can be found in the Railway Age article on the IHB CNG locomotive conversions. With a little selective analysis, it's pointed out that emissions from one pre-Tier 0 switcher exceed the savings from a very large number of OTR trucks "improved" from Tier 4 to Tier 5, and consequently there is much more public-benefit 'bang for even small numbers of switcher conversions than for widespread emphasis on, for example, near-zero OTR NO emissions.
We might gainfully take a leaf from the European cap-and-trade for carbon emissions to find a 'winning' strategy for reducing net NOx levels -- perhaps both focal and air-quality-management-district wide. And perhaps start reducing the Mickey Mouse piling-on of restrictions and annoyances on the OTR industry in California and other areas fond of manipulation...
So I've been following this conversation and am enjoying the range of topics. However I think a fair bit of the consternation about Volkers equally applied statements is a basic misunderstanding.
While he is correct that the proposed regs affect all the California trucking companies equally, it overlooks a couple factors. Namely that California does not contain all of the United States and that trucking isn't the only form of transport.
Starting with the latter, by applying these regulations to the trucking industry, and not applying similar regulations to air, water and rail transport the trucking industry is at a disadvantage. Some could argue that this simply evens up the difference between rail having to pay for it's infrastructure vs truckers having it provided but that still puts air and water at an advatage.
The difference between California truckers and regional or national truckers is a bit different. Truckers that solely operate in California of course will have to pay large up front costs but they will also get maiximum return on that investment since those trucks would operate full time in the area they are intened for.
Regional or national companies will have to replace some or all of their fleet even though they may only operate in CA 50% of the time (less for national companies) Hence a much longer time to get the return on investment if ever. And it's easy to say just swap tractors when entering/exiting CA but the facilities for that don't come free of charge, not to mention the staffing. Companies that don't operate in CA can have a large adavatage over truckers that do where their service areas overlap due to their lower costs.
TierV in the rail industry has similar downsides. And who would even attempt to try to swap planes in Nevada so the airlines can have a separate fleet just for CA?
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
VOLKER LANDWEHRI don't have detailed knowledge of fuel economy. Searching for information I found the Volvo statement. I posted it here as it was contradicting the information discussed here.
You're an engineer, you read what Volvo wrote, and you still find it contradictory?
Volvo was discussing a specific comparison: engines using SCR with DEF, and engines using massive EGR. Shadow's owner has, in past posts, gone very deeply into a number of the factors that make massive EGR both wasteful and stupid as a means of achieving lower NO emissions, including lower combustion efficiency that can translate into 'worse fuel economy'. She also noted that it was EGR that made for the host of problems, including dramatic loss of fuel economy, in the first place: the Volvo discussion is not about 'better' mileage, it's about marginally lower mileage in 'recovery' from a massive fall-off following EGR implementation in the first place.
But neither of these issues concerns what I think is the principal reason for the 'lower fuel economy' described for Tier 4 final, which is substantially an artifact of the DPF for (nominal, not health-danger-effective) PM redustion and its associated regeneration which burns added fuel and releases more of the CO2 Europeans seem to think is the 'most significant' emission to reduce.
CARB and to a lesser extent EPA seem to be reacting to NO emissions as though there were still high HC/VOC to convert them promptly in the atmosphere to NO, and to entirely the wrong PM in the wrong proportion using the wrong approaches. Having said that, I am well aware of the peculiar noxious nature of NO2, and I am old enough to remember the red-brown soup of photochemical smog that used to be seen around New York ... and in the Ruhr ... even into the middle 1970s. Perhaps there is actually enough biological risk from NO conversion to justify applying Tier 5 standards, a very, very small permissible nitrogen-oxide percentage at any point in the duty cycle, in absolute terms.
I don't think anyone in the United States thinks of CO2 as a noxious pollutant in the sense the EPA has used that term so many years (although CO clearly is). There is certainly some cognitive dissonance in attempting to demonize it as a major influence in AGW while simultaneously augmenting it with DPFs and the wrong application of EGR.
I believe the general idea of DEC has been thoroughly debunked as stupid with any kind of modern engine control system, albeit it was helpful in reducing sulfur content in diesel fuel (which appears to be a major contributor to nanoparticulate formation) to the current very low levels that could probably not have been legislated had the specter of increased catalytic-oxidation sulfuric 'acid rain' not been convenient to hand. HC of course shouldn't be observed in a properly-operated diesel, so no need for a catalyst to knock down what shouldn't be there...
RME you would be amazed at what all gets delivered by a class 8 semi to even those small mom and pop farm to table farms. Things like if they are organic fertilizer by the truckload if they irrigate their crops those came in via a truck to the dealership their tractors their seeds or plants were delivered to their nursery via a truck. You see even if you think that OTR trucking was never involved in the supply chain trust us somewhere in some way we are in there. It is the little things like gasoline diesel fuel that is hauled by semi trucks to the gas stations that people always forget about. Whenever there is a natural disaster guess which trucks are always given a waiver for HOS issues fuel haulers then the food and relief supplies coming into the area.
Shadow the Cats ownerName one product you use in your everyday life that an OTR Driver played zero part in getting to you for final usage
Easy, probably because I don't drink latte. We eat local, from small producers who use trucks for transportation, but not OTR in the annoying, road-damaging Class VIII eighteen-wheel sense I was referring to. There are plenty of other things that could travel reasonably in smaller trucks even if the costs of running large articulated trucks were to increase drastically. Now, you and I both know this would be 'net' worse for the environment, but the Californian who has just had to dodge semis on a rutted freeway or breathe diesel exhaust from his or her Porsche is not going to care. And the official pravda seems to be 'if we can't stamp out trucks we can make running them as complicated and difficult as possible for those who play by the rules'.
This emerging tendency to nickel-and-dime the drivers and stack Federal driving penalties on them more and more for fake violations of the kind you have mentioned -- the fake moving-the-truck-without-seatbelt being the one producing the most memorable sense of rage -- is just the latest in a long string of interlocking idiocies that are completely 'of a piece' with overregulation and application of 'strict scrutiny' in other areas.
You missed a sure bet, though: you could have used their own methods on the California guy if he did what you say. File charges on him and on his agency for assault and attempted battery -- intent to cause bodily harm if the stuff was above lukewarm. Civil damage to your property. You already have an admission of malicious intent aforethought, so he can't claim 'you made him lose his temper'. Be sure to string out his personal appearances as long as possible, on each of the charges, with continuances, and be sure that any convictions are sent in writing to his agency with a request for written confirmation of discipline. Also be sure to file rights-violation charges about his demeanor and get a restraining order (fear of further bodily harm) if he comes back on your property. Note that if the agency tries to assert their 'privilege' to send him back, they become parties to violation of the restraining order... and, of course, cultivate media contacts so that your side of the story gets out 'early and often' and the usual strict-scrutiny sneer campaign these people try to start is recognized and then outed for what it is.
As with most bullies, I expect that when confronted with organized resistance that has unpleasant consequences for them, they will become polite rather than arrogant. But it will take substantial action of a form they either respect or fear to make them do so.
Paul MilenkovicEuropean standards are lower? This means less strict, yes, because the EPA standards in question are indeed more strict. And that the people in Europe would like to have the standards yet less strict and strictly enforced that way?
Sorry that I was not able to express myself more clearly. Our car standards (not trucks) are less strict. If they stay this way we would like to have these standards enforced to the last detail. This isn't happening currently as the VW scandal and following measurements have shown. I would prefer to have the stricter EPA car rules as ours seem to neglect NOx and associated health issues.
I don't have detailed knowledge of fuel economy. Searching for information I found the Volvo statement. I posted it here as it was contradicting the information discussed here. I hoped someone with knowledge might comment it.
Paul MilenkovicThen you say that a 30 percent loss in fuel economy, were it true, would be no big deal because it is equally applied, but that people in Germany take climate change more seriously than in the U.S..
Shadow complained about the loss of fuel economy because of EPA regulations. My opinion was that I don't see a competetive disadvantage as all trucking companies are equally affected. I learned that up-front costs might ruin a company before they get the money from their customers. In Germany the goverment offered interest-free loans to avoid this situation.
I said that here in Germany it is general understanding that there is a climate change and a not insignificant part of it is man made.
These two statements were independent from each other to different statements from others.
The Euro VI truck regulations are quite close to EPA Tier 4. I posted them a few days ago. A independent test organisation has tested Mercedes trucks from 1996 (Euro II), 2003 (Euro III), and 2016 (Euro VI) over about 1000 miles. The Euro VI Mercedes Actros had a 22% better fuel efficiency than 1996 model of equal horsepower. The difference between Actros Euro V and Euro VI (both 2,200 Nm) was about 4% better for Euro 6. I know it is just one manufacturer.
Over the years the engine technology advanced and led to better fuel economy. It didn't lead to the expected CO2 savings as we bought more powerful cars. It seems the emission control disadvantages were compensated by better engine technology.
When Europe started the regulations the emphasis was on CO2 emissions. Because of the conflicting aims CO2, NOx, and PM the two latter fell back. Euro VI is still a bit more CO2 oriented. But measures in the last month have shown that car exhausts are twice as polluting as truck exhausts, different horsepowers not considered.
I think someone else pointed out that CARB and then EPA were more NOx and PM oriented because of the smog problems.
The remaining question you have to answer yourself.Regards, Volker
We lost 30% from the 02-03 engines the last year without any emission controls on them compared to where we are now. 15 years ago my boss his fleet was getting 8.4 MPG we lost 2.9 MPG with the 2010 EPA standards down to 5.5 we are back up to 6 as of the first quarter and with all the 2010 models out of the fleet now still down 30% compared to what we had. We have O/O's that running pre-emissions motors in a modern truck body get almost 10 MPG so tell me how burning 40% more fuel to move less cargo than he can is better for the enviroment. Yep their trucks on average weigh in over 1 ton less than our current ones.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Our standards are currently still lower but we would be glad if the limits would be lowered and as important be enforced. I don't know anything about fuel economy. Here is a link to a Volvo paper stating das diesel engines according to EPA #10 are more fuel efficient than the 2007 models. www.volvotrucks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VTNA_Tree/ILF/Products/2010/09-VTM097_FW_SS.pdf My understanding is that all trucking companies have to deal with EPA regulations so all have this proclaimed 30% loss in fuel efficency. So all are equal? Where is the competetive disadvantage? The question behind all this is how much worth is the environment to us. And I think there is a large difference between the USA and Germany. Here in Germany it is general understanding that there is a climate change and a not insignificant part of it is man made.Regards, Volker (Volker)
Our standards are currently still lower but we would be glad if the limits would be lowered and as important be enforced.
I don't know anything about fuel economy. Here is a link to a Volvo paper stating das diesel engines according to EPA #10 are more fuel efficient than the 2007 models. www.volvotrucks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VTNA_Tree/ILF/Products/2010/09-VTM097_FW_SS.pdf
My understanding is that all trucking companies have to deal with EPA regulations so all have this proclaimed 30% loss in fuel efficency. So all are equal? Where is the competetive disadvantage?
The question behind all this is how much worth is the environment to us. And I think there is a large difference between the USA and Germany. Here in Germany it is general understanding that there is a climate change and a not insignificant part of it is man made.Regards, Volker (Volker)
I am still having trouble parsing these statements.
European standards are lower? This means less strict, yes, because the EPA standards in question are indeed more strict. And that the people in Europe would like to have the standards yet less strict and strictly enforced that way?
OK, you are denying knowledge of the fuel economy effect of the strict Tier 4 EPA regs, but you at the same time stating you have knowledge that at least a Volvo engine has improved fuel economy under Tier 4?
Then you say that a 30 percent loss in fuel economy, were it true, would be no big deal because it is equally applied, but that people in Germany take climate change more seriously than in the U.S.. That means that people in Germany take a 30 percent loss in fuel economy very seriously on account of climate change, but you describe yourself as from Germany, but you don't take that loss in fuel economy as a serious matter, if it results in cleaner air. Which is the position of the U.S. EPA? Which means the U.S. EPA doesn't take Climate Change as seriously as the average person in Germany?
Professor, I'm confused!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicThat said, did an EPA agent really do that or you are saying this metaphorically?
I can believe it.
I worked for a government agency in an office that issued and monitored compliance with permits on goverment owned property. A number of people commented on how cooperative we in helping them to achieve their goals in a proper manor. Some told me about other offices that they percieved as out to stop them.
One lady told me how she had a good raport with an inspector from another agency when making improvment on her property. What he wanted was reasonable, she did what he said and he approved of the work. He retired before the work was finished. His replacement, a young man who appeared to be fresh out of school, ordered her to remove almost eveything and do it differently.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
We have several local agents that come by at least once a month to see how compliant we are since we have a Tank wash haul Haz-mat and also are if needed an emergency transporter for incidents involving it. Most of my job is paperwork I swear I kill 2-3 trees a week in trying to keep up with my workload. How the incident happened was this kid he was about 25 fresh out of school with his masters came into my office and flat out declared that he was going to find something he could fine us for regardless of what the regulations stated.
For me it was on then. I then asked him I would agree to that if he could name one item he used on a daily basis the OTR industry played zero part in the supply chain to get it to him. I laughed my butt off at the first attempt he said the gas his car burned. I was like how many gas stations have pipeline delivery points. He then said the food he ate. I went does your grocey store get its food by train or by truck. He then went the power he uses to charge his laptop. I went we haul the copper to the wire mills then to the stores to be used as household wiring. Right about then was when that Starbucks cup hit the wall. My boss came in after that told him to leave called me into his office and then gave me the rest of the day off with pay.
I'm only 35 however this EPA agent treated me my boss and my drivers as their were about 10 of them around like we all were criminals because we worked with a diesel engine. Well my boss filed a formal complaint with the agents boss over the incident demanded to see his college transcripts. Guess where Latte boy came from CA was taught by 2 CARB professors at Berkley. So his walking onto a lot full of cars trucks displaying Trump bumper stickers more than likely triggered him.
We heard he was transferred to San Fran he will be fine out there.
Shadow the Cats owner The EPA agent screamed threw his Starbuck latte at the wall and walked out.
The EPA agent screamed threw his Starbuck latte at the wall and walked out.
I support free expression of ideas and allowing people to speak to their personal experiences in dealing with regulations, regulatory agencies, and the government employees enforcing those regulations. I differ with people who say compliance is easy.
That said, did an EPA agent really do that or you are saying this metaphorically? I would find it much more plausible that you were told in a best just-the-facts, Ma'am Joe Friday voice, "Ms. Shadow, we all know of the importance of trucking to our economy and way of life, but I am here to see to it that everyone plays by the rules."
If this did happen this way, or do you suppose there was a chain of provocation and escalation leading up to this incident? I can picture some of my esteemed Forum participants acting this way when they felt they were being bested in an argument, but this doesn't square with my personal experiences with "G-men." I am personal friends with two such persons, one a former cop who went to work for OSHA and another a bank examiner with the FDIC. The cop talked about getting a suspension for punching a man in handcuffs who spit him in the face. He also spoke of talking tough as an OSHA inspector where he got the run-around-from-lawyers along with "you regulators are meanies" from a company where a worker died. He explained that as a cop that he really disliked lawyers for giving mealy-mouthed explanations when someone died.
Throwing a latte? Who works at EPA, anyway?
RME answer this question I was going to let that question slide but decided against it. Name one product you use in your everyday life that an OTR Driver played zero part in getting to you for final usage. The one thing not allowed is air that your breathing as everyone breathes the same air. So think you can do it. I have asked 15 various FMCSA EPA and IRS agents that same question in the last 6 months and not one has been able to come up with something. One even tried cell phone apps. I was able to prove that trucks carried the computers that the code was written on the cell towers that are used to download it and the fiber optic cables that interlink the network. The EPA agent screamed threw his Starbuck latte at the wall and walked out.
RME The sad part is, I think, that most voters don't give a crap about truck owners or drivers, and cheerfully support any moonbeam initiative that "demands a pH of zero" or at least pollution-scale numbers closer and closer to zero whether technically feasible or not, and reduces their riskcof disease or injury, all the while taxing those evil trucks for wrecking and blocking the public's driving roads.
You must be new around here
RME DSchmitt The cables would be powered by people walking on treadmills. Brought to the site in boxcars. White boxcars. With two rows of shackles...
DSchmitt The cables would be powered by people walking on treadmills.
Brought to the site in boxcars. White boxcars. With two rows of shackles...
Johnny
DSchmittThe cables would be powered by people walking on treadmills.
Victrola1 An absurd solution to absurd regulations could be back to the future. That solution maybe found in San Fransisco's famed cable cars. Transmit power by a series of long, continously circulating tow cables.
An absurd solution to absurd regulations could be back to the future.
That solution maybe found in San Fransisco's famed cable cars. Transmit power by a series of long, continously circulating tow cables.
The cables would be powered by people walking on treadmills.
0 emisions electric power for the home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYTJ9v2vsaE
When I checked the CARP proposal for "Tier 5" locomotives I realized that they are very similar to Tier 4 for heavy duty on-road diesel engines.
Question: Is it technicaly feasable to get the emissions of large slow running locomotive engines down to truck Tier 4 standard?
Most likely not without SCR and perhaps with higher rpms?Regards, Volker
DSchmitt Overherd at Railroad Hobbies (located 1 block from the Roseville yard) An UP Engineer/Model Railroader is supposed to have said "A diesel and a Genset working together could do the work of the diesel alone"
Overherd at Railroad Hobbies (located 1 block from the Roseville yard) An UP Engineer/Model Railroader is supposed to have said "A diesel and a Genset working together could do the work of the diesel alone"
Yep
The Gensets are now required to run in sets of 3 because they are so unreliable. And of course the Trim sets are all moving to SD40Ns.
Well they'll start caring real fast if those big bad trucks quit running all of a sudden and their local Whole Foods and Starbucks runs out of supplies. Then there is all the gasoline haul.
Shadow the Cats ownerwhat are these people smoking to think we are not trying to reduce our emissions and haul it as efficent as possible. Now they want us to try and use hybrid and hydraulic driven wheels. He wants to remove weight now your trying to add more to the truck.
Unfurtunately or not, I don't see an internal-combustion-engine truck achieving the required 'political' numbers without an energy-storage transmission of considerable capacity, and I think many areas in California will not be efficiently reached with such trucks without some kind of external power assistance.
I also worry that existing engine families will, indeed, require more and more weight and become more and more difficult to maintain as all the mandated systems burgeon into more packaging space, weight, and power to run. How they propose to get truck exhaust from any efficient diesel down to 0.02% or whatever NO while keeping hydrocarbons and PM emission low without making it utterly unresponsive not only to accelerator changes but even autonomous power changes (e.g., shifting transmission ratios, is something that requires both smoking something and some weird-tasting mushrooms. But that is what I see coming in the long run (perhaps with a reefer-madness/methamphetamine style demonization misinformation campaign to soften up the voting sheeple first)
The sad part is, I think, that most voters don't give a crap about truck owners or drivers, and cheerfully support any moonbeam initiative that "demands a pH of zero" or at least pollution-scale numbers closer and closer to zero whether technically feasible or not, and reduces their riskcof disease or injury, all the while taxing those evil trucks for wrecking and blocking the public's driving roads. If you're expecting Trump to make a difference with that -- the Democrats have already planned out the counter-strategy that will put restrictions back in place as soon as that ol' political prndulum swings the other way.
BTW: hydrostatic motors for trucks are a Bad Idea, although they do all right for lawn tractors and some industrial machinery. You would not believe the size, complexity, and operating difficulties involved with the necessary blowoff valves needed to accommodate large reverse thrusts on things like positive-displacement vane motors, and at peak accumulator pressures comparable to those in a rifle chamber at firing, you'd best believe there are some high intermediate torque shear forces involved.
Naturally the most practical thing to use is electric drive, perhaps with a fuel cell doing the thing it does best in an automotive context: driving the ancillary systems on the vehicle, in the way the little four-cylinder APU did for the SPV2000. Hydraulics only have the value of limited additional mass for the incremental horsepower 'storage' -- the tanks are spherical and highly reinforced and believe me, any accident where 'it sprang a leak' might eventually become a polluting environmental disaster, but the immediate effect involves a fairly prompt release comparable to about three sticks of dynamite in reaction, much more delightful than mere 300psi steam from a ruptured crown. There are reasons you didn't see hydraulic energy-storage transmissions rule the market, just like you didn't see engine barrier coatings in light diesels, in the late Seventies ... and, it might be argued, why subsequent attempts at commercializing appropriate-scale hydraulic assist (there was what I considered a good 'niche product' for garbage trucks a couple of years ago) have not thrived as 'hybrid alternatives'.
I live in farm country several of my mechanics in the shop are ex ag mechanics for the local John Deere and 1 came over from our local Case dealer. I asked them about hydrostatic drive as that is what your describing to a perfect description of it and how efficent it would be in an OTR truck. To which one of the ex Deere guys said hydrostatic drive is nice as long as you don't need to pull heavy loads. The worst thing about it is the weight. The latest verison of a John Deere combine weighs in over 6K pounds heavier than the last model that did not have hydrostatic drive on it. Hydraulic motors the size we need would be heavy the oil tank would be heavy and large. Any accident where it sprang a leak could be an enviromental disaster.
I also showed this thread to my boss along with your suggestions. I had to revive him after he fainted and he responded with what are these people smoking to think we are not trying to reduce our emissions and haul it as efficent as possible. Now they want us to try and use hybrid and hydraulic driven wheels. He wants to remove weight now your trying to add more to the truck.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I'm not sure if my statement might be correct in regard of gas turbine in military use.
To my knowledge you are correct with respect to the turboshaft packages used in the Burke (includng Flight III) and Zumwalt destroyers (which used JP5 when I knew about them).
It would have been interesting to see the result of the marine free-piston gas-generator systems, which promised to combine the economies of piston and turbine expanders ... had the noise problem been solved.
RME Turbines need high quality fuel and can't compete with HFO fueled diesel engines. Just out of curiosity, why would the technology in, say, the Siemens SGT-500 (an excellent German design} be unsuitable for ship propulsion using HFO?
I'm not an expert regarding turbines. So I looked the SGT-500 up and your hunch was correct. The SGT-500 is able to burn HFO. I fell into the WIkipedia trapp. I'm not sure if my statement might be correct in regard of gas turbine in military use.
There are reasons gas turbines are not used in merchant shipping. Their advantage is the compactness, the disadvantage initial costs, additional gearboxes, and much higher fuel consumption.Regards, Volker
Shadow the Cats ownerWhen your carrying around 46k lbs on with wide base tires as few as 6 tires on a tractor you want something that can handle the stress. A Ford 9 inch isn't going to be big enough. Our axle housings have solid castings over a half inch thick at their stress points.
a smaller engine can't produce the torque that a larger engine does. The old Cat 3176 was considered a decent motor however it only produced a max of 1350 ft lbs of torque. Its big brother the 3406e produced up to 1850 max. When your dragging 80k lbs up a 7 to even 10 percent grade and some U.S. routes have those on them. Your down on your knees with the smaller engine.
You continue to ignore the point that in a full-parallel setup THERE IS NO DIRECT APPLICATION OF CRANK TORQUE TO THE DRIVELINE. In the Karman setup, the accumulators and hydraulic motor(s) do all the work, the way the batteries and traction motors did on the old tri-power locomotives, and the engine only works as a hydraulic pump, wholly decoupled from driveline speed. Motor-electric drive is similar (cf. even Ward-Leonard control).
Yoi'd reach balancing speed on a steep upgrade pretty quick with the smaller engine, but you'd never, ever lug it down from effective torque peak (as all that would accomplish would be lower effective balancing speed).
Also the more clutches in something the more points for them to fail. Why do you think automatic transmissions never caught on in the OTR industry to many places to fail.
The real point is that a torque converter is an asinine thing to put behind a diesel engine, and always was. And by the time you put locks on the various speeds of even something as simple as an Allison 6-speed, you have much more complexity (and associated cost, maintenance, and failure points) than worth much.
What we have gone to is an automated manual gearbox were the clutch and shifting are handled by a computer.
I wqs an advocate of these more than 40 years ago, when I first discovered how a preselector transmission in a classic car operates and realized how simple this would be to adapt to even a split truck transmission. The last theoretical issues disappeared in the second round of dual-clutch SMGs (albeit their truck analogues requiring dynamic control of torque via something like torquemeter shafts as well as clever coordination of engagement positions).
What you still haven't realized here is that I said 'magnetorheological' clutch, and since I don't think you know what that is, I suggest you read a bit about what they involve. Naturally, the MR clutch(es) would be backed up by some kind of positive location, but that device sees little if any net torque during either locking or disengagement. Admittedly you need a controlled source of magnetic field, but that can be done mechanically as well as electrically (through the rotating equivalent of a magnetic chuck, for example) and can be made at least as robust and failure-tolerant as any mechanically-shifted multispeed gearbox that requires synchronizers.
Your boss wouldn't be moved by the argument that a beefed-up truck the size of a yard tractor could be sold to do the practical work of a full Class VIII unit in national service. That, at this point in time, is patently ridiculous outside California and any CARB states that try enforcing stricter truck aero or emissions controls. One thing I would at least try running past him is whether the expense of buying and maintaining a Tier 5+-compatible tractor is greater than the net cost of yarding moves just outside California and engaging a third party for, or leasing as 'power by the hour' or whatever, a California-specific hybrid for the intended service and dwell within the state. Net of all costs, incentives, insurance and possible fines, and risks.
Our power band is a narrow range between 900 to 1800 rpm. Peak mpg is obtained at around 1350. Why we have such large heavy engines and drivelines is simple reliability. When your carrying around 46k lbs on with wide base tires as few as 6 tires on a tractor you want something that can handle the stress. A Ford 9 inch isn't going to be big enough. Our axle housings have solid castings over a half inch thick at their stress points. A transmission for my fleet weighs in and we have aluminium cases at close to 900 lbs. We use heavy duty equipment to prevent breakdowns.
Also a smaller engine can't produce the torque that a larger engine does. The old Cat 3176 was considered a decent motor however it only produced a max of 1350 ft lbs of torque. Its big brother the 3406e produced up to 1850 max. When your dragging 80k lbs up a 7 to even 10 percent grade and some U.S. routes have those on them. Your down on your knees with the smaller engine.
Also the more clutches in something the more points for them to fail. Why do you think automatic transmissions never caught on in the OTR industry to many places to fail. What we have gone to is an automated manual gearbox were the clutch and shifting are handled by a computer. But they have a manual override if needed.
The OTR industry is almost like the railroads when it comes to technology. If you force something on us it better work 100 percent24/7 365 or we will reject faster than you can't believe.
We as an industry got burned in the 70s by the 121 standard for abs brakes that killed more of our drivers than it saved. They would hit their brakes and not have any at all. The ATA went to court and got them removed. Take our brake release system if there is no air pressure the brakes won't release at all. You have to have pressure to overcome the spring in our parking brakes. So if you lose your air pressure your brakes automatically apply and stop you.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.