Locomotive turbine conversion?

First of all, sorry for crosspost, but I need very good and adequate answer.
This is the first time I write on these newsgroups, sorry on my bad
english.Because in croatian Internet web pages or gruops has nothing on this
issue, I hope that you will help me!
I'm a fan of machines, first of all piston engines, but last couple of
months I've been interested in something more exotic - gas turbine engines!
I have found on Internet many webpages with home made built gas trubine
engines, but all these are small, and inefficent in matter of, that you
can't use them even for gokart ( OK, some you can ).
So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
engine, from a locomotive turbo?So, if I have can do this, could it be
posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
planning )?What amount of power could that size turbo produce?Estimated?
Pictures of turbo that I'm talking about:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/turbo.jpg

This turbocharger is from this locomotive:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/slike/loko...2/Dsc04232.jpg

You can see also pictures of other croatian diesel locomotives on this page:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/lokomotive/diesel/indexd.htm

Click on links too see pictures, and if you don't see pictures when you
enter page, just click "Galerija" under image.

Croatian railways have GM EMD locomotives 2043, 2044, 2061, 2062 and 2063
series, from which 2044 and 2063 have turbochargers.Could that turbo's be
used for this kind of project?

--
Posjetite:
http://www.zeljeznice.net
http://www.zeljeznice.net/forum

Guiseppe Belluzzo used turbine engines on locomotives back before WW2
and that led him to design a circular flying bomb with a flat turbine
engine- the Turbo Proietti.
If he could design that then certainly there should be some way to
adapt a train turbine to a car...

Rob

I think conversions of gasoline based internal combustion engine
turbochargers to gas turbines are not that uncommon. I saw a Sydney
University student do it for his thesis once.

An issue with diesel turbochargers is that they may be made of alloys
less heat and corrosion resistent than that of gasoline ones since the
diesel cycle has a much lower exhaust temperature (550C) than a
gasoline engine (850C). This should effect life iof the turbocharger.
Many automotive turbo's are now ceramic based.

I believe the turbochargers of diesel trucks such as SAAB and Volvo and
other European types are turbocompounded have for many years had a
hydraulic torque coupling to put surplus power not needed for the
compressor back into the drive shaft.

"Anton" wrote in message ...
So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
engine, from a locomotive turbo?So, if I have can do this, could it be
posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
planning )?

Do we have a Darwin award in the making here? :^)

Si

"Anton" wrote in message ...
First of all, sorry for crosspost, but I need very good and adequate
answer.
This is the first time I write on these newsgroups, sorry on my bad
english.Because in croatian Internet web pages or gruops has nothing on
this
issue, I hope that you will help me!
I'm a fan of machines, first of all piston engines, but last couple of
months I've been interested in something more exotic - gas turbine
engines!
I have found on Internet many webpages with home made built gas trubine
engines, but all these are small, and inefficent in matter of, that you
can't use them even for gokart ( OK, some you can ).
So I came on a crazy idea, could it be posibble to make a gas turbine
engine, from a locomotive turbo?

Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...ry_team02.html

So, if I have can do this, could it be
posibble to put it in a car... ( I don't know why could not, I have whole
idea in my head, but only problem is gas turbine, could it work as I'm
planning )?What amount of power could that size turbo produce?Estimated?
Pictures of turbo that I'm talking about:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/turbo.jpg


Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
high revving turbine to the transmission.

This turbocharger is from this locomotive:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/slike/loko...2/Dsc04232.jpg

You can see also pictures of other croatian diesel locomotives on this
page:

http://www.zeljeznice.net/lokomotive/diesel/indexd.htm

Click on links too see pictures, and if you don't see pictures when you
enter page, just click "Galerija" under image.

Croatian railways have GM EMD locomotives 2043, 2044, 2061, 2062 and 2063
series, from which 2044 and 2063 have turbochargers.Could that turbo's be
used for this kind of project?


Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
have been built. The real question is why ?

Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
vehicle.

Keith

"Keith W" wrote in message
...
Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
have been built. The real question is why ?

Marine Turbine Technologies build production motorcycles and trucks with
helicopter turbo-shaft engines:

http://www.marineturbine.com/motorsports.asp

Si

Richard Riley wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:01:44 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote:
:
:Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
:have been built. The real question is why ?

I agree so far...

:
:Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
:using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
:A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
:at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
:vehicle.

But then I have to ask why back? In the size you're talking about, a
piston engine has much better fuel specifics than a turbine, about .4
against .6 or .7 - worse at low power setting. A small turbine just
can't get the compression ratio that a piston can. And since it can't
cool itself between combustion cycles, the metalurgy required means
it's very expensive.


Gas Turbine Vehicles for land traction must be designed for different
characteristics than those for aircraft propulsion.

An aircraft requires takeoff power of about 100% or maximum power
followed by cruising power or around 65%.

A car cruises at about 10% to 20% at the most.

If cars opperated in the same regime as aircraft then they would be
more suitable.

A gas turbine for land traction is NOT designed to have a high
compression ratio. It requires these modifications:
1 a low compression ratio compressor that is more suitable for low load
factors.
2 a centrifugal style compressor that has a broad efficient opperating
range. (possibly variable geometry could be used.)
3 a heat regenerator: a device consisting of a roting mesh or cermaic,
glass or metal that soaks up heat wasted in the exhaust and then
preheats air after compression but before burning with fuel.

Such engines have been made, for instance Rovers engines of the 1950s
and 1960s.

advantages of the gas turbine are
1 about half the zize and weight of IC engines.
2 no torque pulsations therefore lighter drive train.
3 Indifferent to fuel: cetane and octane ratings are irrelevent. Can
run on virtually any gaseous or liquid fuel.
4 Easier to make.

Point 4 might be a suprise but it is in essence true. The problem with
gas turbines has always been not the manufacturing costs (which can be
made tiny by mass production and automation) but the costs of the raw
materials which are exotic alloys of nickel, chromium, rhenium,
zirconium, molydenum and cobalt. There material costs can not be
reduced.

Ceramics have held out much hope and producing Aluminium Nitride and or
Silicon Carbide turbine blades and turbine nozzles has been possible
for decades: they are reliable however they do not outperform advanced
alloys perhaps a little less. When ceramic opperating temperatures are
extended beyond that of metalls they will work but they are no longer
reliable for aviation.




I can see the arguement for piston/storage (battery, flywheel,
compressed gas, whatever) hybrid - a very small piston engine, with a
lot less internal friction than a large piston engine, and running at
or near it's optimal, tuned speed. Even better is a fuel cell hybrid.
But once you're doing a hybrid, why give away half or more of your
fuel specific just to go turbine for the power. Turbines are great
for power to weight and maintence per operating hour - neither of
which are the driving goals in a car.

I question whether maintenance per opperating hour are not a driving
factor. The US Auto industry as the British one before it has failed
to that fundemental lesson in time.

I personally would prefer and engine that never wears out and only
needs new bearings every 30,000 hours and new oil once per year.

They hybrid concept for gas turbines is probably quite practicable.

Another option is the closed cycle gas turbine that transfers heat into
the working fluid via heat exchanger walls and then cools them
likewise. The German divisions of swiss companies attempted such
engines in WW2 but the Swiss Company Bruckner Kanis made some engines
for electricity generation in the 1950s. They have excellent
multifuel capabillity including solids and their partial load abillity
is excellent because the working fluid can have its peressure altered
to suit the load conditions and also because regeneration is relatively
easy to accomplishin the future.



By coincidence I've ridden in three turbine cars. The first was a
1963 Chrystler Turbine, one of 55 built. The second was a 73 'Vette
with a PT-6, the spare engine from the STP Indy turbine car.

The third was a Model T with an Allison 250 in it. It got 4.5 MPG.
But that wasn't the point.

Apart from the infant Chrysler these were all not properly designed for
land traction use and oversized.

The Avco Lycoming AGT-1500 which is of similar configuration to the
T-53 is a case in point. It gave the Abrams tank unbeatable
performance that can only be matched by the latest MAN hyperbaric
diesels. The AGT-1500 has no regenerator but I suspect that tanks
doesn't spend too much time on very low partial load. The t-53 engine
was designed as a personal project intended for Helicopters by Franz
Anselem who was also the Chief Engineer for the Junkers Jumo 004 used
on the Me 262 jet fighter in another time.

As a side note during the second world war the Germans built the AFV GT
101 gas turbine for use in Panther and Tiger tanks. It was loosly a
scaled down BMW 003 turbojet with a similar anular combustion chamber
but with a unique exhaust duct and power takeoff to the rear. It was a
direct drive turbine that required a 3 speed governor opperated gearbox
plus torque converter to keep the main shaft opperating at around 80%
of rate shaft speed before it went to a normal transmission. The
engine had only half the fuel economy of a normal Panther petrol engine
but the Germans were after engines that were
1 Able to run on any fuel (they only had poor grade synthetics)
2 Easy to make (it would proably only have requred 500 man hours)
3 Give their tanks a power to weight ration advantage (critical for
tank combat)

As a side effect that direct drive gave 2600hp of engine braking and
the flywheel effect had the inertia of the entire 45 ton Panther tank
at 26mph which gave a smooth ride.

Further planed engines were the GT102 which had a second independent
turbine for power takeoff and the GT103 which used a quartz glass mesh
heat regenerator for a 30% improvement in fuel consumption.

After the war Rover Cars and Leyland Trucks produced technically
sucessfull engines with heat regenerators. There was a slight smell
of kerosene.

In general the gas turbine if properly designed is competitive with
petrol and diesel engines if a touch less efficient and more expensive.
They continue to be of great interest for trucks, ships etc.

The big advanate of the IC petrol and diesel engine is that they use
cheap materials despite their mechanical complexity. Only the possible
development of higher performance ceramics will change this.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:01:44 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote:
:
:Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
:have been built. The real question is why ?

I agree so far...

:
:Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
:using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.
:A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
:at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
:vehicle.

But then I have to ask why back? In the size you're talking about, a
piston engine has much better fuel specifics than a turbine, about .4
against .6 or .7 - worse at low power setting. A small turbine just
can't get the compression ratio that a piston can. And since it can't
cool itself between combustion cycles, the metalurgy required means
it's very expensive.


The poster was asking about gas turbine implementations.
I answered him, I am not proposing that Ford start mass
producing them.

Keith

"Keith W" wrote

Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...ges/jet_racer/
diary_team02.html

Hmm...That text is little bit confusing, in fact I don't really understand
what are they talking about...They have said much, but still, nothing.Only
some story from that race.

Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
high revving turbine to the transmission.

I know.High revs can be solved with reductor.Now, I need more information
about compressor stage and burner cans
I presume that all this could fit to a car, for example Ford Cortina, or
something like that.
How strong must be, I mean how much thrust could turbocharger from car
produce?Could I make a one man vehicle from that?

Given enough time and money you can build anything and gas turbine cars
have been built. The real question is why ?

I know that gas turbine cars have been built, but the real question is, have
they been built in private garages?
Why?
Why do people climb on mountains, why do people surf, why do people like
diving..?
I hope you understand what am I aiming for.I want to have a first gas
turbine powered car in Croatia. Is that enough?
Jet powered streetrace car...Hmm...Nice... ( like Homer Simpson would said )


Such a vehicle is likely to be unreliable and extremely inefficient in
using fuel and probably could not be certified for road use.

That isn't my intention at all.I want to make that car, not for daily use,
but for streetrace, for example, why not?That would be a show...

A better approach may be a hybrid using a small gas turbine running
at constant speed to charge a battery for an electrically driven
vehicle.

If I wanted to do that, I would go on some 1.4 liter diesel engine, which
can I buy almost everywhere and make electric car.

Anton wrote:
"Keith W" wrote

Yes, its been done with the turbo's for road vehicles

Sure BUT it would be a very complex build as you'd need to build a
compressor stage and burner cans and then couple the
high revving turbine to the transmission.

I know.High revs can be solved with reductor.Now, I need more information
about compressor stage and burner cans
I presume that all this could fit to a car, for example Ford Cortina, or
something like that.
How strong must be, I mean how much thrust could turbocharger from car
produce?Could I make a one man vehicle from that?


So... When I was young, my father told me, "If you have to ask how much
it costs, then you probably can't afford it."

I work in computer software. Once a month or so, someone will ask me,
"how hard would it be to build a program which does XYZ?"

The answer: "That depends."

It depends especially on WHO is building the program.

Have you totally rebuilt an old car, with your own hands, from the
wheels up?

Have you ever taken a car and fitted a much larger engine to it?

Have you ever worked with turbine engines before? (Obviously not, based
on your questions)

If you read about how the Wright brothers built their airplane, they
tackled it in pieces, one step at a time. First they built kites, then
gliders, a wind tunnel, did lots of experiments, another glider, and
then the Flyer. They learned how to solve each problem one at a time.

In order to succeed, you first need to turn your turbochargers into a
turbine engine. Before you can even begin to think about doing this you
need to learn how turbines work. Then you can begin laying out a plan.
This is a project that would probably keep you busy for 5 years if you
work part-time.

As for how much power it puts out, who knows? There's a ton of
variables in there. I'd suspect a few hundred horsepower, maybe more,
quite likely less. It will probably turn out heavier than an equivalent
piston engine, and thus the car will actually go slower. How cool will
that be?

Best,
-cwk.