> To further improve fuel efficiency and output, ZR15DDTe engine uses Nissan's unique STARC*2 concept paired with a large turbocharger.
If we are able to consider fixed RPM operation and are willing to endure turbomachinery, I don't know why we wouldn't just go all in on a gas turbine. You can reduce the number of moving parts dramatically and accept a much wider range of fuels.
Being able to engineer everything around a one fixed operating speed makes a huge engineering difference. Reciprocating engines are responsive to load and speed changes, but there are trade offs in many other categories.
You can also make a gas turbine power module quite small relative to the alternatives. Replacing the it at major service intervals could be made economically viable.
You might as well just use a small regular petrol/diesel engine.
The argument about fewer moving parts is often made. But generally turbines are more expensive to make. They require precision engineering. Whereas regular engines (if you've ever worked on one) don't require that nearly as much.
I appreciate this if it's for turbochargers, but turbines share many similarities with them.
bob1029 · · focus · HN ↗
If we are able to consider fixed RPM operation and are willing to endure turbomachinery, I don't know why we wouldn't just go all in on a gas turbine. You can reduce the number of moving parts dramatically and accept a much wider range of fuels.
Being able to engineer everything around a one fixed operating speed makes a huge engineering difference. Reciprocating engines are responsive to load and speed changes, but there are trade offs in many other categories.
You can also make a gas turbine power module quite small relative to the alternatives. Replacing the it at major service intervals could be made economically viable.
IslandRebel · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
IslandRebel · · focus · HN ↗
The argument about fewer moving parts is often made. But generally turbines are more expensive to make. They require precision engineering. Whereas regular engines (if you've ever worked on one) don't require that nearly as much.
I appreciate this if it's for turbochargers, but turbines share many similarities with them.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bZu8atQ8lY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bZu8atQ8lY
BTW, Garett builds/rebuilds turbochargers in many vehicles. If you have a vehicle with a turbo, see if it says 'Garett' on the side.
bob1029 · · focus · HN ↗
A turbocharger (compressor) is already about half of a typical Brayton cycle. The power turbine itself can also be radial in design.
Unless you need insane mass flow rates, radial is probably superior to axial.
Brayton cycle does not necessitate a free flowing jet engine style design.