Ever driven a vehicle with an automatic transmission rather than a manual gearshift with a clutch? Then you almost certainly used a fluid coupling: basically two fans in a can with oil so turning one turns the other.
The article is so full of hype it doesn't bother to explain how this is different from the "fluid gears" invented in 1905.
Many automatics these days are manual transmissions with a computer controlling the clutch. They have nothing in common with the slushboxes of old, the oil is just for lubrication.
Even slushboxes tend to aggressively lock up the torque converter. It's usually only in a "fluid dynamics" mode for brief moments. (Except maybe on a gentle hill start)
“The most common type of CVT uses a V-belt which runs between two variable-diameter pulleys.
[…]
A belt-driven design offers approximately 88% efficiency, which, while lower than that of a manual transmission, can be offset by enabling the engine to run at its most efficient speed regardless of the vehicle's speed.
[…]
Disadvantages of a hydrostatic CVT include:
Reduced efficiency. Gears are one of the most efficient methods of mechanical power transmission, with efficiencies as high as 90 percent in many cases. In contrast, few hydrostatic transmission systems achieve more than about 65 percent efficiency”
Except a fluid clutch actually works, and a torque converter works even better and has three fans inside it ;-)
I can see the "passive" cylinder getting dragged around a little by viscosity but I don't see how this could transfer even the tiniest amount of power.
As what efficency? The artical doesn't say, but hydraulics and automatic transmissions have been around for a long time and are less efficient than regular gears or electric motors. Cars got a good efficieny boost then the locking torque converter was developed.
I don't see how it could even have any measurable torque.
You could improve it by making the cylinders have sticky-out bits that would scoosh the fluid around better, like little paddle wheels, and if you wanted to get some serious torque transfer you'd push the two paddle wheels so close together that the paddles actually kind of intersect.
I'm not a fan of the bias towards "Gears are old tech, and that makes them bad" but I can see a lot of interesting possibilities with fluid coupling. The variables involved in power transmission for these things would be pretty wild to characterize, and the article video clearly shows inefficiencies in the system with the driven cylinder having counter rotational flow against it.
Do we understand fluid mechanics well enough now to just design things like this from scratch, or is it still mostly trial and error? TFA seems to imply the latter, but....
There must be some reason PRL chose to publish this, but it's not apparent to me from TFA or the abstract, and I'm not interested enough to login via my institution.
It's not new that you could set up co- or counter-rotation in such a system. This seems like the sort of thing G. I. Taylor had as a bath toy.
Maybe impossibly tiny and unresponsive torques are useful somewhere?
Check out what this dude came up with 120 years earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_F%C3%B6ttinger
Ever driven a vehicle with an automatic transmission rather than a manual gearshift with a clutch? Then you almost certainly used a fluid coupling: basically two fans in a can with oil so turning one turns the other.
The article is so full of hype it doesn't bother to explain how this is different from the "fluid gears" invented in 1905.
As immortalised in the 1978 song "Greased Ligthnin'" from the film Grease:
I am pretty sure that "hydromatic" there is actually "Hydramatic" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic).Many automatics these days are manual transmissions with a computer controlling the clutch. They have nothing in common with the slushboxes of old, the oil is just for lubrication.
Even slushboxes tend to aggressively lock up the torque converter. It's usually only in a "fluid dynamics" mode for brief moments. (Except maybe on a gentle hill start)
> Ever driven a vehicle with an automatic transmission rather than a manual gearshift with a clutch? Then you almost certainly used a fluid coupling
Are you sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmis...:
“The most common type of CVT uses a V-belt which runs between two variable-diameter pulleys.
[…]
A belt-driven design offers approximately 88% efficiency, which, while lower than that of a manual transmission, can be offset by enabling the engine to run at its most efficient speed regardless of the vehicle's speed.
[…]
Disadvantages of a hydrostatic CVT include:
Reduced efficiency. Gears are one of the most efficient methods of mechanical power transmission, with efficiencies as high as 90 percent in many cases. In contrast, few hydrostatic transmission systems achieve more than about 65 percent efficiency”
CVT != Automatic transmission (which is generally hydraulic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission#Hydraul...
There are also DCTs which IIRC don't use a torque converter. But chances are pretty good that an automatic transmission car uses a torque converter.
Except a fluid clutch actually works, and a torque converter works even better and has three fans inside it ;-)
I can see the "passive" cylinder getting dragged around a little by viscosity but I don't see how this could transfer even the tiniest amount of power.
As what efficency? The artical doesn't say, but hydraulics and automatic transmissions have been around for a long time and are less efficient than regular gears or electric motors. Cars got a good efficieny boost then the locking torque converter was developed.
Virtually zero torque right?
I don't see how it could even have any measurable torque.
You could improve it by making the cylinders have sticky-out bits that would scoosh the fluid around better, like little paddle wheels, and if you wanted to get some serious torque transfer you'd push the two paddle wheels so close together that the paddles actually kind of intersect.
you could increase fluid viscosity
I'm not a fan of the bias towards "Gears are old tech, and that makes them bad" but I can see a lot of interesting possibilities with fluid coupling. The variables involved in power transmission for these things would be pretty wild to characterize, and the article video clearly shows inefficiencies in the system with the driven cylinder having counter rotational flow against it.
> I'm not a fan of the bias towards "Gears are old tech, and that makes them bad"
If the gears don't at least require an app with a subscription and regular updates to use, they must be old tech
/sarcasm
Nice to see that they have discovered the Torque converter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter
Used since the 60s lol
Do we understand fluid mechanics well enough now to just design things like this from scratch, or is it still mostly trial and error? TFA seems to imply the latter, but....
There must be some reason PRL chose to publish this, but it's not apparent to me from TFA or the abstract, and I'm not interested enough to login via my institution.
It's not new that you could set up co- or counter-rotation in such a system. This seems like the sort of thing G. I. Taylor had as a bath toy.
Maybe impossibly tiny and unresponsive torques are useful somewhere?
How is this different from slushomatics? Sounds exactly like old school fluid couplings.
Or slushboxes …
reminds me of a tesla turbine -- only less efficient