Andrew Grebneff wrote:
> The good thing about a separate motor and charging system is that the
> engine can be positioned in any location, in any orientation, in
> which it will fit. It doesn't need to be connected to a transmission.
> It needs to be powerful enough to run the charging system, but no
> more than that. A supercharger of any kind is probably unnecessary
> complication.

I would think so....a simple motor with less to break that manages to
generate the necessary charge is enough.

I'm thinking a good charging motor might integrate the biggest part of
the power generation hardware into the design rather than driving a
belt/chain or shaft to an alternator/generator.

...some sort of turbine?  burning biodiesel or any suitable fuel?

low maintenance, cheap fuel.

> A single high-torque low-revving induction motor (printed circuit
> design for lightness?) would be ideal for conversion using the stock
> driveline, and of course would not need a clutch. It would not
> require reverse gear either, if the motor was reversible. If the
> motor was grunty enough it could run at low rpm but also be capable
> of high rpm, in which case you might not need to use the gears at all
> (just leave it in first), though if the gears WERE needed, then a
> clutch would be necessary to unload the gears for shifting... or else
> you could convert the trans to nonsynchromesh dog-type gears
> (motorcycles have these, and you only need the clutch for in-gear
> idling or moveng off from a standstill).

as mentioned in my previous mail, some of the efficiency gain is from
removing the existing drive train....because you lose some power in the
transmission/trans axle/differential of a traditional car.  Putting
smaller high torque motors on 2 or 4 wheels increases efficiency and
could allow for kinetic recovery.

--

Wil

-- http://www.charmfx.com/

"I passionately hate the idea of being with it, I think an artist has
always to be out of step with his time."
-- Orson Welles