Efficient Electric Car
Melvin Gladstone
efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
an alternator to the motor. This would supply some additional
electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
also be a drag on the engine. It's like when the alternator
dies on a conventional car, the battery goes dead real fast.
Also when you turn up the fan really high and stuff the alter-
nator puts a drag on the engine. The same thing would happen
in an electric car.
My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
idea won't work." Secure in their ignorance of physics they
will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
and happily pay $1000/week for gas, content that GM and Big Brother
are developing a real electric car for them. This in spite of
the fact that car makers and oil corporations and Big Brother
are in league.
I know that the car will not be a perpetual motion machine. I am
not stupid. With careful design, however, 100% can be approached
(though never reached due to quantum effects.) Eventually, the
efficiency will be such that only a small battery, e.g. a C-cell,
will be required. In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which
will get recharged during dynamic braking. Since the alternator
can only recover energy from the wheels, another efficient method
will be required to power the stereo and headlights. A solar panel
on the roof would probably suffice.
Feel free to diseminate this idea and make comments. They can't stop
us if everyone knows.
Melvin M. Gladstone
Paul Dietz
Clearly, deliberate flame bait. For shame.
Paul
Terry L Parker -- Personal Account
Melvin Gladstone <m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu> wrote:
>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
And the wheels are connected to the motor, right? So all you're doing
is moving its physical location and not how it fits into the system?
This shouldn't make a bit of difference.
>will be required. In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which
>will get recharged during dynamic braking. Since the alternator
There are already electric cars which reclaim electricity by clutch-
braking back into the system.
--
| Terry Parker - par...@rock.concert.net - Fido 1:151/143 - CI$ 76114,3715 |
| VP R&D CAVU Corp 919-846-9275 fax 846-2107 - Paradoxicon BBS 919-850-9289 |
| "Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time." - Steven Wright |
John Michael Watts
Yeah my cousin had a similar idea a few years back. He decided to
build a more efficient golf cart by connecting generators to the wheels,
which would in turn charge the batteries while you drove. Viola! A
self-perpetuating electric car. Why didn't I think of that?
John
--
___ | My opinions are mine, I answer to no one.
| /|/| wa...@cs.utexas.edu |--------------------------------------------
\| / | | "Why do you hang out with that sadist?"
-------------------------------| "Beats me!"
J. Mark Noworolski
>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
HA HA HA! This one was good.
Wait a minute.. maybe he means 'Connect the alternator to the steering
wheel and recover the energy the human puts in to make turns... yeah
that must be it!' ;-]
On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
for this demonstration though).
mark
--
J. Mark Noworolski j...@eecs.berkeley.edu
If you mailed to me and I was supposed to answer then either:
1. My answer bounced, or 2. I lost your mail.
or 3. The subdomain name changes going on here hosed your mail.
Larrie Simon Carr
{snip}
>
>On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
>the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
>into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
>in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
>engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
>for this demonstration though).
>
Maybe you could design a car that could be struck by lighting and connect
the battery to the front and back bumpers..... :)
--
Larrie Carr lar...@sfu.ca
MicroElectronics and Sensors Group
School of Engineering Science
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C, Canada V5A 1S6
David Vanderbyl
|> m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes:
|> >My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
|> >you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
|> [perpetual motion crap deleted]
|> HA HA HA! This one was good.
|>
|> Wait a minute.. maybe he means 'Connect the alternator to the steering
|> wheel and recover the energy the human puts in to make turns... yeah
|> that must be it!' ;-]
|>
|> On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
|> the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
|> into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
|> in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
|> engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
|> for this demonstration though).
Actually it does matter much. What you are saying is that a generator
driven by a 100% efficient gasoline powered engine will be able to
produce 60,000 watts contiuously using 1 gallon of gas per hour.
cla...@vms.macc.wisc.edu
>Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
>efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
>an alternator to the motor. This would supply some additional
>electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
>also be a drag on the engine....
>
>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>the motor....
This will put just as much of a load on the engine as if you hooked it up
directly. Even using some sort of transmission won't help--if you gear it up
(so the wheels are turning faster than the motor) the resulting resistance of
the alternator is increased by the same ratio. Your only hope of getting an
advantage from this type of set-up would be to try to make use of gravity,
e.g. by connecting the alternator as you coast down hills and disconnecting it
when you go up.
>Secure in their ignorance of physics they
>will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
>and happily pay $1000/week for gas, content that GM and Big Brother
>are developing a real electric car for them. This in spite of
>the fact that car makers and oil corporations and Big Brother
>are in league.
Surely we are above such hyperbolic ad hominems, aren't we?
--Clay
===========================================================================
| __ , _ . , , , , .__ | Clay Helberg |
| / / /_| | / / / / /__ | Internet: cla...@macc.wisc.edu |
| |__ /__ / | |/ / /__/ __./ | Bitnet: clavius@wiscmacc |
===========================================================================
der...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
>In article <2de575$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>, j...@crown.Berkeley.EDU (J. Mark Noworolski) writes:
>|> m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes:
>|> >My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>|> >you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
Well clearly you can't get something for nothing. If he means recovering
energy on the breaking that's one thing, if he want's to recover the energy
from the forward motion of the car that's another.
Perhaps a clutch that kicks in if the car gets a bit fast, or starts
down hill, might work, but it is probably more trouble than it's worth.
The first law of thermodynamics, states that energy is conserved. This
has been verified time and time again, if you think you have a way to
beat it, try again.
The second law of thermodynamics says entropy always increases. In effect,
you are not going to steal energy from the environment without wasting
some. So there is a theoretical limit to effiency that has nothing to
do whatsoever with the actual design of the engine (though it does
depend on the fuel source and its operating temperature). To the
best of my knowledge real cars are very far from this limit.
The bulk of the energy loss is internal friction(shafts rubbing, gears
grinding), and is lost in the form of heat. Then there is aerodynamics,
friction with the wind. At very high speed this may be more significant.
Of course all this depends on your design.
Adding extra features to recapture unused energy will probably only
increase the frictional loss. Note: if you recover the energy from
acceleration during decceleration the weight of the vehicle is not
as important, though it does increase the normal force and probably
the internal friction in return.
>|>
>|> On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
>|> the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
>|> into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
>|> in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
>|> engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
>|> for this demonstration though).
>
>Actually it does matter much. What you are saying is that a generator
>driven by a 100% efficient gasoline powered engine will be able to
>produce 60,000 watts contiuously using 1 gallon of gas per hour.
>
Assuming $1 per gallon (on a cheap day) that $0.017 per kW-hour. The
electric company charges about $0.12 (at least Boston Edison does).
This number is not as absurd as it sounds on first sight. When you
figure that only $0.03 of the Boston Edison charge is for fuel, they
loose power on their power grids, pay for maintenance, service,
finance, etc.
He has the correct order of magnitude. Think of pumping 200kW into a
car in five minutes.
Just my $0.02,
Mitch Dernis
Eric Mankin
>In article <1993Nov29.2...@news.nd.edu>, m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes...
>
>>Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
>>efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
>>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
>>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>>the motor....
>
>This will put just as much of a load on the engine as if you hooked it up
>directly. Even using some sort of transmission won't help--if you gear it up
> [it won't work]
Gentlement, please. A useful procedure to follow when you get a really
good idea -- or a brilliant refutation of what someon else says is a good idea
is to do at least a tiny bit of research before pressing F. In the present
case, the useful and very long established technological trick in question
is know as regenerative braking. You have to do work to slow a vehicle
down in any event. In most current designs for electric vehicles, this is
done by gearing the wheels to a generator which generates electricity to
recharge the battery. It works very well, and its been done almost as long
as there have been electric cars, which is a long time. Yes, it is a good
idea, and a practical one. No it is not new one.
j...@cmkrnl.com
> In article <2de575$5...@agate.berkeley.edu> j...@crown.Berkeley.EDU (J. Mark Noworolski) writes:
> {snip}
>>
>>On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
>>the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
>>into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
>>in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
>>engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
>>for this demonstration though).
>>
>
> Maybe you could design a car that could be struck by lighting and connect
> the battery to the front and back bumpers..... :)
Nah, we saw the results of that in _Back to the Future_. It has undesirable
side effects, especially if you're driving back from the surplus shop with a
load of flux capacitors...
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@cmkrnl.com (JH645) Uucp: uunet!cmkrnl!jeh CIS: 74140,2055
Phil Ngai
One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
ballpark.
--
Senator Moynihan: If I can't get a ban, I'll settle for a tax that destroys".
Adam Buckley
: One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
: are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
: ballpark.
This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Adam Buckley, Performance Benchmarking Unit ICL Bracknell BERKS ENGLAND |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Anyone have the cheat code for 4 ball mills mess ? |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| < Probably not the views of my employer> |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.M. Hicks
>Phil Ngai (pn...@mv.us.adobe.com) wrote:
>: One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
>: are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
>: ballpark.
>This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
>Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
It's nearly all heat. You use maybe 1kW of this to heat the car on a cold day,
and maybe 5W is converted into sound.
Christopher
--
==============================================================================
Christopher Hicks | Supports castles in the air? (6,8)
c...@eng.cam.ac.uk |
==============================================================================
Unknown
>Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
>efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
>electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
>dies on a conventional car, the battery goes dead real fast.
>Also when you turn up the fan really high and stuff the alter-
>nator puts a drag on the engine. The same thing would happen
>in an electric car.
>
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
>will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
>and happily pay $1000/week for gas, content that GM and Big Brother
>are developing a real electric car for them. This in spite of
>the fact that car makers and oil corporations and Big Brother
>are in league.
>
free wind power you're wasting too!
"See the results of outcome based education?" G. Gordon Liddy
Andrew Mitz
>efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
>an alternator to the motor. This would supply some additional
>electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
>also be a drag on the engine. It's like when the alternator
>
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
>various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
>idea won't work."
sci.electronics has just gone through the crackpot who "knew more
than scientists" (regarding how electromagnetic radiation and
central nervous system functions [might] interact). I hope,
rather than respond to people who's primary defense of their
pet theories are to use psuedoscientific doublespeak and
endlessly demean the "established" scientific community, that the bulk of
those reading the original post will ignore it and move on to
more fruitful discussions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mitz, Biomedical Eng., Nationl Institutes | Opinions are mine alone
of Health Animal Center, Poolesville, MD | a...@helix.nih.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kettell
Larrie Simon Carr <lar...@beaufort.sfu.ca> wrote:
>In article <2de575$5...@agate.berkeley.edu> j...@crown.Berkeley.EDU (J. Mark Noworolski) writes:
>{snip}
>
>the battery to the front and back bumpers..... :)
>
>--
>Larrie Carr lar...@sfu.ca
>MicroElectronics and Sensors Group
>School of Engineering Science
>Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C, Canada V5A 1S6
This only works for Deloreans traveling 88 miles per hour, and they have that
annoying problem of making you 30 years late for work
Greg.
Johnathan Vail
In article <1993Nov29.2...@news.nd.edu> m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes:
Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
an alternator to the motor. This would supply some additional
electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
also be a drag on the engine. It's like when the alternator
dies on a conventional car, the battery goes dead real fast.
Also when you turn up the fan really high and stuff the alter-
nator puts a drag on the engine. The same thing would happen
in an electric car.
My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
Melvin,
You didn't live in Framingham Mass about 13 years ago did you? The
guy with the Ford Pinto wagon full of batteries and the roof covered
with several small windmills? And the intricite mirror arrangement
used to watch TV in the rear-view.
Truly an idea ahead of it's time.
Phil Ngai
>Phil Ngai (pn...@mv.us.adobe.com) wrote:
>: One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
>: are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
>: ballpark.
>
>This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
>
>Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
It's partially the thermodynamics of heat engines and partially the
compromises required for an affordable mobile power plant.
I expect that alternative approaches, such as using a fuel cell
to run an electric motor, woudl have higher theoretical efficiencies.
mofo
>>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>>the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
>>various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
>>idea won't work." Secure in their ignorance of physics they
>>will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
>>and happily pay $1000/week for gas, content that GM and Big Brother
>>are developing a real electric car for them. This in spite of
>>the fact that car makers and oil corporations and Big Brother
>>are in league.
>>
> Gee! Maybe you could put a windmill on the roof and collect all that
>free wind power you're wasting too!
>
i got a better idea. attach a generator directly to the motor so's
you can generate power to recharge the batteries *whilst* you drive.
if you think this violates some principle, use a second bank of batteries
and switch between the two. who needs the laws of thermodynamics;
they're easily circumvented if you're clever enough. remember, you're
not really breaking the law if they havent actually caught you.
d
--
mo...@netcom.com fold, mutilate, and spindle *this*
Stergios Marinopoulos
The electric analog of the mechanical flywheel. (the origional author
must have meant this as a joke.)
stergios marinopoulos
Mike Loving
>>In article <1993Nov29.2...@news.nd.edu>, m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes...
>>
>>>Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
>>>efficient electric car. Currently, electric cars rely on large
>>>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>>>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
I don't believe you, but go ahead, build one and prove me wrong.
I doubt you will ever get to where you can run a bicycle with a C
battery let alone a car.
>
>Gentlement, please. A useful procedure to follow when you get a really
>good idea -- or a brilliant refutation of what someon else says is a good idea
>is to do at least a tiny bit of research before pressing F. In the present
>case, the useful and very long established technological trick in question
>is know as regenerative braking. You have to do work to slow a vehicle
>down in any event. In most current designs for electric vehicles, this is
>done by gearing the wheels to a generator which generates electricity to
>recharge the battery. It works very well, and its been done almost as long
>as there have been electric cars, which is a long time. Yes, it is a good
>idea, and a practical one. No it is not new one.
>
Umm, you gonna build us this car powered by a C battery like the original
poster suggested? I'd really like to see it, and you'll be rich!
Mike
Dan Hoey
> Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
> efficient electric car....
> My solution is to connect the [deleted] to the [deleted]....
> Eventually, the efficiency will be such that only a small battery,
> e.g. a C-cell, will be required....
Dear Mr. Gladstone:
Perhaps we should remind you of your message of Sun, 21 Nov 1993
00:09:57 GMT, in which you wrote:
> I will restrict my posting to non-big-brother related discoveries.
Perhaps it did not occur to you that the inefficiency of electric cars
is a vital economic asset to our nation's petroleum-based industries.
Security considerations prevent us from detailing exactly how your
theories might be considered prejudicial to these industries. But if
you don't think petroleum is a vital part of the complex popularly
known as ``big brother'', it is time for you to start thinking about
it. Think very hard.
Note that even if you heed this warning, it is impossible to rule out
the possibility that we will have to kill you.
Dan Hoey :: What are two things that the government wants
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil :: information on? Smoking, drugs, and sex, that's
:: what. How can such information be gathered?
jeff findley
|> Recent study and investigation have led me to a new idea for an
|> efficient electric car.
[stuff deleted from original article]
|> My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
|> you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
|> the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
|> various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
|> idea won't work."
Your idea won't work (as stated).
[stuff deleted from original article]
|> I know that the car will not be a perpetual motion machine. I am
|> not stupid. With careful design, however, 100% can be approached
|> (though never reached due to quantum effects.) Eventually, the
|> efficiency will be such that only a small battery, e.g. a C-cell,
|> will be required. In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which
|> will get recharged during dynamic braking. Since the alternator
|> can only recover energy from the wheels, another efficient method
|> will be required to power the stereo and headlights. A solar panel
|> on the roof would probably suffice.
|>
|> Feel free to diseminate this idea and make comments. They can't stop
|> us if everyone knows.
To get a car moving at a certain speed, you need to add
energy equivalent to the kinetic energy of the car at
the speed you wish to attain (note that I have neglected
*all* energy losses including friction and air resistance,
so my efficiency is 100%). A C-cell won't get a car moving
at an acceptable speed.
To get a car up a hill, you need to add to it the potential
energy caused by the difference in height between the two
points (again neglecting *all* energy losses, 100% efficient).
In other words, you'll need more than the energy in
a C-cell just to go up a very small hill. I'd hate to think
how much energy it would take to go from sea level (beach in
California) to several thousand feet (Rocky Mountains).
Also, even if you connect an alternator to the wheel and
a motor to the drive shaft, the output of the alternator
will never exceed the energy required to drive the motor.
The alternator will only be useful to recover energy normally
lost by braking. Running the alternator and motor at the
same time will *never* charge the battery unless the car is
slowing down, even if the efficiency of the motor and alternator
are both 100%.
As if that weren't enough, now add inefficiencies into the system:
o air drag (energy lost to the air)
o friction caused by the road/tires (energy lost as noise and heat)
o friction in the motor/alternator/transmission (energy lost as heat)
o resistance in the wires in the motor/alternator (energy lost as heat)
o resistance in the electrical wiring (energy lost as heat)
o other losses not covered above
You'll need something much bigger than an C-cell just to make up all
of these losses in your system.
You'd better read my .sig then hit the physics books again.
Jeff
-- _______________________________________________________________________
/ \
/ The opinions above are my own and do not reflect the opinions of SDRC. \
/ \
| The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of |
| altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their |
| views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the |
| facts that needs altering. -- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil" |
\ /
\ Jeff.F...@sdrc.com SDRC, 2000 Eastman Drive, Cincinnati OH 45150 /
\_______________________________________________________________________/
John Mechalas
<Crow> Mike! He's back! He's back!
<Tom> It's MEL! Hey, Mike, it's Mel!
<Mike> I knew I should have stayed in bed this morning.
>Recent study and investigation have led me to
<Tom> completely wrong answers.
>a new idea for
<Crow> a useless news posting.
<Mike> Crow, be nice! This sounds important.
>an efficient electric car.
<Mike> Never mind.
>Currently, electric cars rely on
<Tom> electricity.
>large batteries to power the motor
<Crow> I thought they were for the stereo.
>without making any attempt to recover wasted energy. One improvement would
be the addition of an alternator to the motor.
<Mike> Oh, *I* get it guys! Use electricity to generate electricity!
<Tom> Will someboday tell me why *I* didn't think of that?
<Crow> Because you're an idiot.
<Tom> Oh, yeah...
>This would supply some additional electricity to relieve
<Crow> the bladder
>the drain on the battery, but it would also be a drag on the engine.
<Mike> Man! That idea is such a drag!
>It's like when the alternator dies on a conventional car,
<Tom> its death diminshes every one of us.
>the battery goes dead real fast.
<Crow> This is one of those murder-suicide things, isn't it?
>Also when you turn up the fan really high and stuff the alternator
<Mike> He must be one hell of a taxidermist.
<Tom> I have a bunch of them on display in my room.
<Crow> Taxidermists?
<Tom> Shut up, Crow.
>puts a drag on the engine. The same thing would happen
>in an electric car.
<Tom> I think the solution here is simple: don't put a fan in the
electric car.
<All> But what about the stuff?!
>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel.
<Crow> The steering wheel?
>This way you'd get the battery saving effect
<Mike> without those pesky odors!
>without putting a load on the motor. Now, I realize people will
>at this point trot out various laws of thermodynamics and state
>triumphantly "your idea won't work."
<All> *triumphantly* Your idea won't work!
>Secure in their ignorance of physics they
>will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
<Crow> That's a pretty shallow flame.
<Tom> It lacks pizzaz. It lacks _feeling_!
<Mike> It lacks _imagination_!
<Crow> It lacks clues.
>and happily pay $1000/week for gas,
<Mike> Wow...these guys must be driving around the world or something.
<Tom> Is that possible?
>content that GM and Big Brother
<Mike> Big Brother?
<Tom> GM?
<Crow> McCloud?
>are developing a real electric car for them.
<Crow> Those fake electric cars just kill me.
<Tom> Aren't forklifts electric cars?
<All> *sings* He tri-i-i-i-ed to kill me with a forklift!
>This in spite of the fact that car makers and oil corporations and
>Big Brother are in league.
<Mike> And lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!
<Tom> Yes, folks, baseball and automobiles _don't mix_.
>I know that the car will not be a perpetual motion machine.
<Crow> Su-u-ure you do.
>I am not stupid.
<Mike> This is what we call "dramatic irony".
>With careful design, however, 100% can be approached
<Tom> 100% what?
<Crow> Cluelessness.
>(though never reached due to quantum effects.)
<Tom> Yep...there are those quantum effect thingies again! Damn, I
hate them!
>Eventually, the efficiency will be such that only a small battery,
>e.g. a C-cell, will be required.
<Tom> Batteries, however, are not included.
<Crow> Some assembly required.
<Mike> Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
>In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which will get recharged
<Mike> Oh, I get it! The rechargeable battery will be recharged!
>during dynamic braking.
<Tom> Heh heh..."more assembly required".
<Crow> No, Tom, that's "braking".
<Tom> Oh.
>Since the alternator
<Mike> is, by nature, alternating
>can only recover energy from the wheels, another efficient method
>will be required to power the stereo and headlights. A solar panel
>on the roof would probably suffice.
<Tom> Wait a minute...if we need to use the lights, then wouldn't a
solar panel be kinda useless?
<Crow> Stop confusing the issue with facts.
>Feel free to diseminate this idea and make comments.
<Mike> I think "disintegrate" is a better verb.
>They can't stop us if everyone knows.
<Tom> I'm confused, Mike. Who's "They"?
<Mike> They're like "Them", only meaner.
<Tom and Crow> Ohhh!
>Melvin M. Gladstone
1 ..... 2 ..... 3 ..... 4 ..... 5 ..... 6 .....
[The scene: Tom and Crow are working on a sailboat when Mike walks in]
<Mike> Hey, guys, what are you up to?
<Crow> Hi, Mike! We came up with a great new idea for an electric sailboat!
<Tom> Yeah! We'll make millions on this one!
<Mike> An electric sailboat? Isn't that kind of self-defeating? I mean, the
whole idea of a sailboat is to travel on wind power.
<Crow> We know that, Mike, but what about those times when there's no wind?
With our electric sailboat, you can still sail without any wind at
all.
<Mike> You mean you have a motor in the back of the boat? I think it's
already been done.
<Tom> Oh, please, Mike! We're not _stupid_. Our electric sailboat doesn't
have a motor. It has a _giant fan!_
<Crow> Yeah! You see, when the winds die down, you simply raise the fan
behind the sail, and turn it on. Then you'll have plenty of wind
for sailing!
<Mike> Well...I have to admit that it's an original idea. But it doesn't
sound very efficient. I mean, what powers the fan?
<Tom> Electricity. We run the fan with electricity.
<Crow> That's what this big windmill is for.
<Mike> You're going to put a windmill on the sailboat?
<Tom> Well it wouldn't do much good in my basement, now, would it?
<Mike> I dunno, guys. This sounds pretty shakey to me. I mean, how do
you power the windmill if there's no wind?
<Crow> We're still working on that part.
<Tom> I wanted to use a hamster and an exercise wheel, but there aren't
many hamsters up here in space.
<Mike> There's not any wind, either. Hey...Donnie and Marie are calling.
What do you think, sirs?
--
John Mechalas \ If you think my opinions are Purdue's, then
mech...@expert.cc.purdue.edu \ you vastly overestimate my importance.
Purdue University Computing Center \ Stamp out and abolish redundancy.
General Consulting Supervisor \ If you can read this you are too close.
Jim Frost
>Phil Ngai (pn...@mv.us.adobe.com) wrote:
>: One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
>: are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
>: ballpark.
>This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
>Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
Thermal loss is certainly pretty large, but consider the losses due to
reciprocating pistons (assuming it's not a rotary engine, of course)
not to mention all the other mechanicals for engine management.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
John Nagle
>On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
>the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
>into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
>in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
>engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
>for this demonstration though).
I understand a connector for that has recently been developed,
under contract to the California Air Resources Board, as a step towards
the "electric gas station". It's a tough connector problem; you need
a connector that can deliver something like a few hundred volts at
a few hundred amps, is totally safe for unskilled users in a wet
environment even if they do something really stupid like drive away
while plugged in, won't ignite inflammable fumes (this thing goes in a
gas station, remember), and will continue to perform after a few
hundred thousand insertions. I think they eventually settled on
a split-transformer design, so the coupling is magnetic.
John Nagle
Jimmy Mosquera
>batteries to power the motor without making any attempt to re-
>cover wasted energy. One improvement would be the addition of
>electricity to relieve the drain on the battery, but it would
>also be a drag on the engine. It's like when the alternator
>dies on a conventional car, the battery goes dead real fast.
>Also when you turn up the fan really high and stuff the alter-
>nator puts a drag on the engine. The same thing would happen
>in an electric car.
>
>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
>various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
>
>Melvin M. Gladstone
A further advantage of this is that a vehicle would be able to charge its battery while going down-hill without drawing additional energy from the motor.
Steven Michael Marthouse
Anyone remember the Newman motor? It was supposed to have
a large coil that re-captured the back emf and re-charged
the battery. The guy actually got business people to invest
and everything. Of course it went no where. The interesting
thing about that one was that the guy claimed that matter to
energy conversion was taking place in the coil.
On a more more mundane note, the topic of electric cars
reminded me of something that I have been thinking:
The main problem with electrics is the limited range. The best
way around this, it seems, is to have stations where electric
car owners exchange their dead batteries for fresh ones--like
pony express riders. Of course you would have to have a standard
battery bay in each car, and the stations would have to have
hoists to heft the batteries in and out. Also, the cars would
have to be designed so that the batteries could be easily
removed. The stations would have to have a large stock of
batteries that were continuously being re-charged, and instead
of owning your battery, you would pay for the exchange. Of
course, this complicates things because you could have someone
pull up with a battery that was on its last legs, and exchange
it for one that was almost factory new. I suppose you could
overcome this by having a counter on the battery. People would
acrew debt based on how many times they charged a battery. The
home re-charging station would have some kind of meter that
deducted not only for power usage, but battery depreciation also.
It seems this kind of system would solve the range problem, and
it would also soften the shock of having to make a major outlay
for a new battery every so often. Of course, getting manufacturers
to standardize battery compartments seems like an up-hill battle.
Also, you would have to pay several times more for the initial
cost of the battery, since this system requires that the number
of batteries excede the number of cars by some significant factor
(two or three maybe?)
Comments? Ideas?
Rob Samuelsen
takes energy. A current alternator can require as much as 5 horsepower. Just
because the engine (or electric motor) isn't powering the alternator, the
friction and drag of the alternator on the wheels would have a similar effect.
An example is a small generator on a bicycle wheel to power lights on the
bicycle. (you can buy these at any department store). It creates drag and
makes the bicycle harder to peddle.
We could however, apply the generator only when we are going down hill so that
the drag of the generator is offset by the coefficient of gravity. This
would at least provide an incremental improvement.
My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>you'd get the battery saving effect without putting a load on
>the motor. Now, I realize people will at this point trot out
>various laws of thermodynamics and state triumphantly "your
>idea won't work." Secure in their ignorance of physics they
>will return to their world defined by the large oil corporations
>and happily pay $1000/week for gas, content that GM and Big Brother
>are developing a real electric car for them. This in spite of
>the fact that car makers and oil corporations and Big Brother
>are in league.
>I know that the car will not be a perpetual motion machine. I am
>not stupid. With careful design, however, 100% can be approached
>(though never reached due to quantum effects.) Eventually, the
>efficiency will be such that only a small battery, e.g. a C-cell,
>will be required. In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which
>will get recharged during dynamic braking. Since the alternator
>can only recover energy from the wheels, another efficient method
>will be required to power the stereo and headlights. A solar panel
>on the roof would probably suffice.
>Feel free to diseminate this idea and make comments. They can't stop
>us if everyone knows.
>Melvin M. Gladstone
Eric Praetzel
Steven Michael Marthouse <sm...@hagar9.acc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>
>Comments? Ideas?
Yea. Show me one BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) calculation that shows
electric cars _could_ every at any time get say > 10% more efficiency
than an eternal combustion engine.
The losses in transmission of energy, storage, retrevial, conversion
etc. preclude this.
Consider: What is the point of this? You are simply moving the pollution
from the local of the car to the power plant (hopefully its not a nuclear
source). That serves no function except to remove the pollution generator
from the result of his actions.
We could very easily cut the pollution to 1/2 (automobile sources only)
by simply using the cars more intellegently. Better yet, axe those idiotic
car tests they have in places like California. Use real emissions measure-
ment systems that work (ie the one laser based one which works with cars
at < 20 mph), are cheap and will stop the 10% of cars that produce 90% of
the pollution.
Electric cars have no future, none, nada. Not unless someone comes up with
a cheap source of energy that does not offer pollution, leave radioactive
tailings, flood thousands of acres of land, etc will electic cars offer
anything except to the person who is driving very short distances. And
even in those cases, the exorborant cost makes the electric car not viable.
- Eric
Mike Loving
>
>Electric cars have no future, none, nada. Not unless someone comes up with
>a cheap source of energy that does not offer pollution, leave radioactive
>tailings, flood thousands of acres of land, etc will electic cars offer
>anything except to the person who is driving very short distances. And
>even in those cases, the exorborant cost makes the electric car not viable.
>
I differ with Eric on nuclear power (it is the cleanest and safest power
generation technology we have that generates the quantities we need), but on
electric cars, I tend to agree with him. Something I have kinda wondered
about is mods to our power grid that would be required to deliver charging
current for very many electric cars.
60Hp, 1hr per day, is about 45Kwh of electricity *per day*. That is
currently more than my household uses in a *month* - are we talking a
30 fold increase in our electric bills? Not that it is that big of
a deal to *me*, I commute the streets of LA on a bicycle so . . .
What sorta power grid would we need to deliver residential quantities
of 30x what we no deliver?
Mike
Tim Channon
> cost of the battery, since this system requires that the number
> of batteries excede the number of cars by some significant factor
> (two or three maybe?)
>
> Comments? Ideas?
>
Well, I do strongly question the wisdom of a headlong rush into electric
traction based on a remote utility supplying power to recharge a battery.
It's just too damn inefficient. That won't matter when energy is limitless,
not just yet...
I also don't see an easy way to persuade the majority of the US public to
switch to diesel even if toxic pollution is reduced as well as the typical
30% fuel efficiency gain. I doubt an electric car could be made that could
compete with diesel on energy efficiency if the electricity is fossil fuel
based.
That is slightly misleading because some of the dreadful efficiency of power
stations is due to the uneven load vs. time. Levelling the load could be
viewed as free energy.
An aside issue is the impracticality of generating the huge amounts of power
which would be needed if there was a mass switch to electric traction.
A further issue in some regions are things such as heating the vehicle
passenger space, it's comforting to know that the power station waste heat is
500 miles away when it's -20 outside. Anyone for anouther 10kW load? :-)
The question you pose is how to efficiently transport energy from the prime
mover (power station) to potential energy in the passenger vehicle.
Some of that is about energy density so that you move the smallest lightest
things with as little loss as practical.
It should be possible to manufacture a fully charged battery but who wants to
carry around such large things, although perhaps the only way of avoiding the
considerable transmission losses between a power station and 'gas' station is
to mechanically transport the batteries, or is it?
I wonder if it is possible to replace just the active components in a battery?
If so just moving those around might be a good solution... recharge in 30s?
Standardising battery internal components might be much easier than the whole
thing.
Please sent flame mail to NULL.
TC.
E-mail: tcha...@black.demon.co.uk or tcha...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Steven Michael Marthouse
Eric Praetzel <prae...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <CHE8w...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>Steven Michael Marthouse <sm...@hagar9.acc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>Comments? Ideas?
>
>Yea. Show me one BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) calculation that shows
>electric cars _could_ every at any time get say > 10% more efficiency
>than an eternal combustion engine.
>The losses in transmission of energy, storage, retrevial, conversion
>etc. preclude this.
>Consider: What is the point of this? You are simply moving the pollution
>from the local of the car to the power plant (hopefully its not a nuclear
>source). That serves no function except to remove the pollution generator
>from the result of his actions.
>
> - Eric
Isn't it easier to control pollution at central locations, such as
power plants? Electric cars would bring an end to the emissions
control hassles and expenses that we all now face, and place the burden
on fewer individuals. Also, large plants can be built to extract
energy from fossil fuels more efficiently than gas engines in cars.
(I think I heard somewhere that large plants are twice as efficient
at extracting energy from fuels. Also, line losses in power systems
are generally not that great. Sorry I can't cite exact figures and
sources; I hadn't really intended to start a research project.)
There are other "economy of scale" benefits that come in to play, when
you centralize the polution sources also. Of course, we wouldn't
be in nearly so much trouble if we hadn't torn up the streetcar
systems 1945-1960. Now those cars are gone and cities are dying
for light rail. The growth of the suburb is as much the problem
as the cars themselves. Also, no one should live in the country unless
they are a farmer. Of course, this is economics and politics, not
electrical engineering. If you really want to help the environment,
figure out a way to make city living affordable and pleasant, or at
least safe, like it once was.
--Steve
Joel Kolstad
[Stuff about electric cars deleted]
>Consider: What is the point of this? You are simply moving the pollution
>from the local of the car to the power plant (hopefully its not a nuclear
>source). That serves no function except to remove the pollution generator
>from the result of his actions.
Ah, but remember: Your local power plant is _considerably_ more highly
regulated than is the exhaust of your IC engine car. Power plants can
afford multi-million dollar pollution reduction system, whereas even Al
Gore wouldn't suggest that car owners can.
Next, what do you have against nuclear power? It's considerably cleaner
than coal burning plants, and the newer breeder designs used in Europe are
safe enough that I wouldn't at all mind having one in my back yard.
If coal eventually becomes scare (something it hasn't been doing recently
-- worldwide coal reserves have actually been increasing lately, as more
and more is discovered), it may eventually be economically feasiable to but
up a bunch of windmills or solar power stations out in the desert.
>We could very easily cut the pollution to 1/2 (automobile sources only)
>by simply using the cars more intellegently. Better yet, axe those idiotic
>car tests they have in places like California. Use real emissions measure-
>ment systems that work (ie the one laser based one which works with cars
>at < 20 mph), are cheap and will stop the 10% of cars that produce 90% of
>the pollution.
Hmm... this sounds interesting. Surely some politician would be
campaigning for the "real" emissions measurements if the current ones
didn't work? Is anyone?
>Electric cars have no future, none, nada.
That's really way too pessimistic. What do you think powers golf carts
right now? There are also some promising tests going on in Europe with the
use of electric delivery vans.
I think the major obstacle to be overcome in electric vehicle design is in
engineering a battery that's considerably better than what exists today.
Look at how practical all the electric trains in Europe are -- if we could
develop inexpensive batteries with very high energy capacities, you'd
quickly fine a lot of electric cars on the road.
It we solve the "battery problem," your statement is then reduced to saying
that vehicles powered by electric motors have no future, which is pretty
absurd.
---Joel Kolstad
Martin Schoon AR/RH
Go to your library. Find a monthly magazine called IEEE Spectrum.
Go back about a year (maybe a little more, I don't remember exactly)
and you will find a special issue about Electrical Vehicles. Read it.
An alternative (not as easilly digestable) is the September issue of
Proceedings of the IEEE where you will find "An Overview of Electric
Vehicle Technology" by C.C. Chan.
I recommend the special issue of IEEE Spectrum. I hope you will find it
as informative as I did.
============================================================================
Martin Schoon <era...@eras70.ericsson.se>
============================================================================
Robert J. Wade
cut cut....
>Yea. Show me one BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) calculation that shows
>electric cars _could_ every at any time get say > 10% more efficiency
>than an eternal combustion engine.
>The losses in transmission of energy, storage, retrevial, conversion
>etc. preclude this.
>Consider: What is the point of this? You are simply moving the pollution
>from the local of the car to the power plant (hopefully its not a nuclear
>source). That serves no function except to remove the pollution generator
>from the result of his actions.
>
cut cut..
>car tests they have in places like California. Use real emissions measure-
>ment systems that work (ie the one laser based one which works with cars
>at < 20 mph), are cheap and will stop the 10% of cars that produce 90% of
>the pollution.
>
>Electric cars have no future, none, nada. Not unless someone comes up with
>a cheap source of energy that does not offer pollution, leave radioactive
>tailings, flood thousands of acres of land, etc will electic cars offer
>anything except to the person who is driving very short distances. And
>even in those cases, the exorborant cost makes the electric car not viable.
>
agreed. city-cars, aka, minis make much more sense for large congested
cities. would help with traffic and they can be very efficient both in
terms of gas used and reduced emisions.
Robert J. Wade
>In article <CHF92...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> prae...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Praetzel) writes:
>
>[Stuff about electric cars deleted]
>
>>Consider: What is the point of this? You are simply moving the pollution
>>from the local of the car to the power plant (hopefully its not a nuclear
>>source). That serves no function except to remove the pollution generator
>>from the result of his actions.
>
>Ah, but remember: Your local power plant is _considerably_ more highly
>regulated than is the exhaust of your IC engine car. Power plants can
>afford multi-million dollar pollution reduction system, whereas even Al
>Gore wouldn't suggest that car owners can.
many plants get exemptions too. or buy pollution credits. don't fool
yourself into thinking that nothing but hot air is pouring out of our
electric producing plants.
keep in mind that pollution from stationary sources out-pollutes cars
these days. yes, it's true. we've made such great strides in cleaning up
cars, even though there are more of them on the road, cars still collectively
pollute less than stationary shources. so....guess where our clean-up
efforts should be focused now?????
>
>Next, what do you have against nuclear power? It's considerably cleaner
>than coal burning plants, and the newer breeder designs used in Europe are
>safe enough that I wouldn't at all mind having one in my back yard.
the vast majority of americans are rather ignorant about nuclear power
and afraid of it. apparently europe educated their population and handled
the p.r. correclty...
>
>If coal eventually becomes scare (something it hasn't been doing recently
>-- worldwide coal reserves have actually been increasing lately, as more
>and more is discovered), it may eventually be economically feasiable to but
>up a bunch of windmills or solar power stations out in the desert.
not on this planet...
>
>>We could very easily cut the pollution to 1/2 (automobile sources only)
>>by simply using the cars more intellegently. Better yet, axe those idiotic
>>car tests they have in places like California. Use real emissions measure-
>>ment systems that work (ie the one laser based one which works with cars
>>at < 20 mph), are cheap and will stop the 10% of cars that produce 90% of
>>the pollution.
>
>Hmm... this sounds interesting. Surely some politician would be
>campaigning for the "real" emissions measurements if the current ones
>didn't work? Is anyone?
try not to be so naive....politicians campaign to get elected...if they can
work the sheep into a frenzy about something...true or not...they will do it.
and right now it is politically correct to yap about car pollution and
electric cars.
>
>>Electric cars have no future, none, nada.
>
>That's really way too pessimistic. What do you think powers golf carts
>right now? There are also some promising tests going on in Europe with the
>use of electric delivery vans.
uh...lets see....golf cart is open...carries 2 people at speeds up to...what
...10mph...maybe 15...and is dead after 2 or 3 trips around 18 holes....
needing an overnite recharge....hmm....i don't think golf carts are quite
ready to venture out onto the interstate yet....
>
>I think the major obstacle to be overcome in electric vehicle design is in
>engineering a battery that's considerably better than what exists today.
>Look at how practical all the electric trains in Europe are -- if we could
>develop inexpensive batteries with very high energy capacities, you'd
>quickly fine a lot of electric cars on the road.
what we need is a *revolution* in energy storage devices....improvements and
evoluntinoary designs won't get us where we need to be in order for e.v.'s
to really be able to match current cars capabilities with less total pollution.
>
>It we solve the "battery problem," your statement is then reduced to saying
>that vehicles powered by electric motors have no future, which is pretty
>absurd.
your golf cart story was pretty absurd....
>
> ---Joel Kolstad
Robert J. Wade
>
cut cut....
>Isn't it easier to control pollution at central locations, such as
>power plants? Electric cars would bring an end to the emissions
>control hassles and expenses that we all now face, and place the burden
>on fewer individuals. Also, large plants can be built to extract
>energy from fossil fuels more efficiently than gas engines in cars.
well then, why aren't these central locations pollution being controlled?
are you aware that even with more cars on the road, we have made such
gains in reducing car pollution that now *stationary* polluting sources cause
more pollution than mobile ones(cars)??
we've reached the point of dimishing marginal returns on cars...any money
we would spend to make them pollute less would be better spent on and
have more effect if it were used on stationary sources...but no no...that is
no politically correct...electric cars are the hot topic for todays sheep.
>(I think I heard somewhere that large plants are twice as efficient
>at extracting energy from fuels. Also, line losses in power systems
>are generally not that great. Sorry I can't cite exact figures and
>sources; I hadn't really intended to start a research project.)
>There are other "economy of scale" benefits that come in to play, when
>you centralize the polution sources also. Of course, we wouldn't
>be in nearly so much trouble if we hadn't torn up the streetcar
>systems 1945-1960. Now those cars are gone and cities are dying
>for light rail. The growth of the suburb is as much the problem
>as the cars themselves. Also, no one should live in the country unless
>they are a farmer. Of course, this is economics and politics, not
sorry premier steve, but americans can live anywhere they want, they pay the
cost to live where and how they choose. you want to do central planning go
look for a job in the .USSR..oh..yea...that's right....they collapsed didn't
they...
>electrical engineering. If you really want to help the environment,
>figure out a way to make city living affordable and pleasant, or at
>least safe, like it once was.
that is the job of city governments...they are the ones who, through zoning
and taxing etc. have helped cause people and business to leave and helped
spawn the suburbs. chicago put a big tax on car dealers...guess what...they
closed shop and moved to the suburbs...more empty lots and less jobs in the
city...and less revenue.
>
>--Steve
Ren Tescher
>[Stuff about electric cars deleted]
>
>that vehicles powered by electric motors have no future, which is pretty
>absurd.
>
Yep! They fill some of their smaller trailers with batteries,
charge 'em up and rent 'em out. Then you just pull into any U-Haul
place, unhook your battery "pack", hook a recharged on (a standardized
polarized cable/connector in addition to lights/brakes cable and hitch)
and you could be outtathere in 5 minutes! And you wouldn't lose trunk
space either!
B^)
ren
dona nobis pacem
co...@thing1.cc.utexas.edu
In article <nagleCH...@netcom.com> na...@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> I understand a connector for that has recently been developed,
>under contract to the California Air Resources Board, as a step towards
>the "electric gas station". It's a tough connector problem; you need
>a connector that can deliver something like a few hundred volts at
>a few hundred amps, is totally safe for unskilled users in a wet
>environment even if they do something really stupid like drive away
>while plugged in, won't ignite inflammable fumes (this thing goes in a
>gas station, remember), and will continue to perform after a few
>hundred thousand insertions. I think they eventually settled on
>a split-transformer design, so the coupling is magnetic.
It certainly seems like a tough problem to me. But I doubt that a
magnetic coupling is the answer. A few hundreds of amps * a few
hendred volts is a few tens of kilowatts. A magnetic coupling
(transformer) would weigh enough to be a hazard all on that basis
alone. If you put most of it in the cars it would be a noticable
performance drag.
It seems likely that a "smart" connector would be desirable to do
things like pass billing information and reduce fraud. It could
be made smart enough to prevent really stupid things like driving
off or leaving it hot while the potential for touching the business
end exists.
It also seems like a trolley or electric train arrangement on the
highway would give essentially infinite range and leave you fully
charged to do your running around. Most trips are run over to the
freeway, drive the bulk of the distance, and get off fairly close to
your actual destination. In rural areas, the electrified sections
would not even have to be continuous. In urban areas, not every
lane would have to be electrified.
ken thompson
)On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
)the order of 60 kW-hours/gallon. Can you imaging pumping 600 kW-hours
)into your car (equivalent to ~ 10 gallons) at an 'electrical' gas station
)in about 5 minutes? (and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
)engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
)for this demonstration though).
Around here 600 kWh costs $60- ... expensive fillup!
--
Ken Thompson N0ITL Disk Array Hardware Development Peripheral Products MPD-Wichita NCR Corp. an AT&T company 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks 67226 (316) 636-8783 Ken.Th...@wichitaks.ncr.com
Steven Weigand
todays technology. However, I have increasing hope that we will be
able to come up with a design soon (maybe 15 years from now).
Idea 1: Batteries. You can charge a typical car battery in about
4 hours. The batteries in your car will take you about 3-400 miles
before losing their charge. Then you have to wait 4 more hours to
charge the things back up. Some people have jobs that are as much
as 150 miles away from their homes. So they'd just about run out
of juice before they made it back from work. Certainly long trips
would be impossible.
Idea 2: Batteries have a finite # of recharges before becoming
useless. I figure maybe every 30 recharges or so, you'd have to
replace the battery. The cost of the new-generation of batteries
will be much greater than the ones we have now, so you have a
large amount of money being put out just on getting more hardware.
You thought it was expensive to have an oil change every now and
then! Whoa! Try $200.00 for a new battery. You'd have about
a dozen of these batteries, so that's $2400.00 everytime you need
a new set of batteries. Uggg! I may be exaggerating here, but
you get the idea.
Idea 3: An argument against batteries has typically been that
they have all sorts of nasty things inside them like lead and
sulfuric acid. They say that if you throw them away, they'd
leak lead into the water supply and everything. I say that
these elements can all be reused easily. So there's no problem
here.
Idea 4: The development of battery "modules". You drive into
the station. The guy comes out, takes your spent batteries
out and replaces them with charged ones. Because of their design,
they can just snap out and snap in without any problems. The
guy at the station will then recharge the batteries and give
them to some other guy. You pay the guy a small fee to account
for the fact that each time you recharge a battery, it becomes
less useful.
I say these problems are too great to ignore right now. Maybe
15 years more research.
I think our best bet in the short run is to use natural gas
"capsules". You drive in, the guy takes out the old capsule
and replaces it with a new capsule of compressed natural gas.
It burns more efficiently and gives off H2O and CO2. That
way, no pollutants. (Actually, I think there is a small
amount of carbon monoxide in there somewhere.) It would
certainly be better for the environment. Question is: Is
natural gas as cheap as gasoline? If so, go for it!
Our best bet in the long run, however, is to create an electric
car that can be charged in small periods of time, retain its
charge for long periods of time (1 week), and not have any
parts that need to be replaced until a long time (60,000 miles).
Just throwing some ideas out,
- Steve Weigand
(Wei...@ee.udel.edu)
j...@cmkrnl.com
> what we need is a *revolution* in energy storage devices....improvements and
> evoluntinoary designs won't get us where we need to be in order for e.v.'s
> to really be able to match current cars capabilities with less total pollution.
It'll take more than that. We also need a revolution in the very concept of
"car", at least as far as its "commuter vehicle" function is concerned. Then we
won't necessarily need to match current cars' capabilities.
Unless we can get a government mandate that everyone live close to where they
work, and/or that everyone live and work in locations such that there are
obvious "corridors" where mass transit will help, we are stuck with one or
nearly one commuter per vehicle. (And even with mass transit you have fan-in
and fan-out problems that are best dealt with with single-occupant vehicles.)
Requiring that same vehicle to also work well as the vehicle you use to bring
home groceries, AND the vehicle you use to bring home furniture or building
materials, AND the vehicle you use to go on a two-week vacation with your 2.8
kids, is ridiculous.
For that matter, continuing to use the current car-and-road system for all of
its present uses, even though it kills tens of thousands of people per year, is
ridiculous.
I don't see any of this changing any time soon, of course. Viable alternatives
to cars-as-urban-commuter-vehicles have been designed, but they have to be
implemented almost all at once, a whole urban area at a time, to have much
effect.
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@cmkrnl.com (JH645) Uucp: uunet!cmkrnl!jeh CIS: 74140,2055
Gary Benson
>In article <1993Nov29.2...@news.nd.edu>,
>
>>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>
>is moving its physical location and not how it fits into the system?
>This shouldn't make a bit of difference.
>
>>will be required. In fact, a rechargeable C-cell may be used which
>>will get recharged during dynamic braking. Since the alternator
>
>braking back into the system.
>
>--
>| Terry Parker - par...@rock.concert.net - Fido 1:151/143 - CI$ 76114,3715 |
>| VP R&D CAVU Corp 919-846-9275 fax 846-2107 - Paradoxicon BBS 919-850-9289 |
>| "Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time." - Steven Wright |
>
Electric buses reclaim energy by means of a flywheel. I guess the thing is
spun by energy recovered going down hills, then released to assist the motor
going up hill.
At the University of Wisconsin engineering open house in the late 70's, a
student demonstrated a bicycle that did this trick using a spring. When you
rolled down hill, extra energy wound the spring, whcihc was like a clock
spring attached to the back axle. Going uphill, you moved a lever to permit
the spring to unwind and help you pedal.
As to the alternator on the wheel - try this simple experiment. Get a
generator driven light for your bicycle. Attach it, adjusted so that it
barely touches the wheel. Pedal up a hill and coast back down. Now adjust it
so that it is very tightly held against the wheel. As yhou pedal up the same
hjill, hyou should notice two things:
1. The light shines brighter, indicating you are getting more energy
from the generator.
2. The hill is harder to pedal up, because you (the MOTOR) are
supplying that energy!
--
Gary Benson-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people
one tenth part. -Benjamin Franklin
Gary Benson
>m...@rottweiler.ece.nd.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes:
>>My solution is to connect the alternator to the wheel. This way
>HA HA HA! This one was good.
>
>Wait a minute.. maybe he means 'Connect the alternator to the steering
>wheel and recover the energy the human puts in to make turns... yeah
>that must be it!' ;-]
>
>On a related note... Apparently the energy content of gasoline is on
Sure, and no doubt Exxon and Amoco already have the plans laid. Here's how
it'll be....
No individual owns the batteries - they are propery of Big Oil,
Incorporated, a Consortium of public-spirited corporations who conglomerated
just for the purpose of better serving the energy-consuming public. You
drive in, the old battery goes out, the new one goes in, you pay the bucks and
drive away. They recharge at their own leisure paying 1/10 the rates you do
at home, but they charge you double. Why not? It's the way America works,
correct?
(and no, I don't know if that 60 kW number is _after_
>engine efficiency is taken into account... doesn't seem to matter too much
>for this demonstration though).
>
>mark
>--
>J. Mark Noworolski j...@eecs.berkeley.edu
>If you mailed to me and I was supposed to answer then either:
>1. My answer bounced, or 2. I lost your mail.
>or 3. The subdomain name changes going on here hosed your mail.
Gary Benson
>a...@oasis.icl.co.uk (Adam Buckley) writes:
>
>>Phil Ngai (pn...@mv.us.adobe.com) wrote:
>>: One horsepower is about 750 watts. 100 HP is 75 kilowatts. Real cars
>>: are probably around 20-30% efficient so it seems in the right
>>: ballpark.
>
>>This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
>
>>Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
>
>and maybe 5W is converted into sound.
Also you lose about half a watt to odor, and between 6 and 8 milliwatts to
time distortion, depending on the color of the car. Knowing stuff like this
is the reason I subscribe to Scientific American.
>
>Christopher
>--
>==============================================================================
> Christopher Hicks | Supports castles in the air? (6,8)
> c...@eng.cam.ac.uk |
>==============================================================================
You're welcome.
Joseph T Bore
>
>This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
>
>Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
It's partially the thermodynamics of heat engines and partially the
compromises required for an affordable mobile power plant.
I expect that alternative approaches, such as using a fuel cell
to run an electric motor, woudl have higher theoretical efficiencies.
i remember reading somewhere on news a long time ago (thats news time,
real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
which was nearly 80% efficient. If i remember it was some sort of
thrust type device. Regular gas engines (cars and stuff) are 25%
(approx) efficient, diesel gas is about 35% and usually what the
electric company uses to generate your power is supposedly about
40-45%, so as you can imagine tesla's device was quite amazing. Now i
know that tesla was kind of a cook, but supposedly he actually had
built this thing back in the 20's or so? Any body know anything about
this?
--
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bore (jb...@esm.com) O:(???)???.???? | "The moral is, never
Enterprise Systems Management H:(201)792.5772 | underestimate the band-
805 Castle Point Terrace P:(917)205-3671 | width of a station wagon
Hoboken, NJ, 07030 P:(800)225.0256 | full of tapes hurtling down
pin 75003 | the highway" - AST
Woodward
support the electric gas station idea. Someone has developed a liquid that
can be charged. All you would need to do is drive up to a station and exchange
the liquid in the battery(or whatever).
Then, if all the major highways had an AC magnet runnning under them,
electric cars might be practical. I know there are ways to transfer electricity
in this manner. Mayby all you would need is a large coil on the bottom of the
car. In that case, maybe permanent magnets spaced in the cement would work.
Put some solar cell on the roof and you got your self an electric car.
Just my $0.02
Scott Woodward......
Bob Myers
opinion on electric cars and/or alternate fuels: get a stack of
_Car_&_Driver_ magazines from the past year, and look through 'em
for Patrick Bedard's articles and columns on these subjects. THEN
come back here, and we'll talk.
Bob Myers | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
my...@fc.hp.com | most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
| - Winston Churchill
j...@cmkrnl.com
> A quick recommendation for anyone interested in having an informed
> opinion on electric cars and/or alternate fuels: get a stack of
> _Car_&_Driver_ magazines from the past year, and look through 'em
> for Patrick Bedard's articles and columns on these subjects. THEN
> come back here, and we'll talk.
Hey, obviously the guy who suggested connecting the alternator to the axle
wasn't a SERIOUS wacko. If he had been, he'd have tossed in something about
the secret lost theories of Nikola Tesla, tapping the energy of the vacuum, or
pyramid power...
Trevor Corkum
plexiglass to the front of the car. This would block the wind
from hitting your car, thereby eliminating all wind resistance.
Why hasn't anybody though of this before. Excuse me, I must
run to the patent office...I'm going to be rich...
While I'm at it, I'll patent my invention to cut exhaust
emmisions by 50% at virtually no cost. All you do is block off
half the tail pipe.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Corkum, P.Eng. | The above opinions appear to be my own. |
tco...@bnr.ca | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Shaw
|> A quick recommendation for anyone interested in having an informed
|> opinion on electric cars and/or alternate fuels: get a stack of
|> _Car_&_Driver_ magazines from the past year, and look through 'em
|> for Patrick Bedard's articles and columns on these subjects. THEN
|> come back here, and we'll talk.
It seems to me that the last thing we need here is a rehash of C&D's
opinions as fact. I mean, these are the guys who still think the Cannonball
Run is a great idea.
mark
Mark Shaw
|> We could very easily cut the pollution to 1/2 (automobile sources only)
|> by simply using the cars more intellegently. Better yet, axe those idiotic
|> car tests they have in places like California. Use real emissions measure-
|> ment systems that work (ie the one laser based one which works with cars
|> at < 20 mph), are cheap and will stop the 10% of cars that produce 90% of
|> the pollution.
While I may agree with some of Eric's other comments; I have reservations
about the remote IR measurement technique being more accurate than those
idiotic tests used by most states.
I have seen the IR device in action and have talked with one one of it's
inventors (Stedman) and received some data from him. What is curious about
his cumlative data for some 50,000+ tests is the nearly conssitent indication
that about 20% of all cars (regardless of age) are significant pollutors.
Hence, Eric's comment above about the 10/90 rule. However, review of data
taken by Arizona in idle and dynamometer tests in Phoenix and Tucson areas
indicates a significantly different result (only about 2-6%) of the cars
built after 1985 fail a moderate limit of 1.2% CO.
I have heard criticism of the STedman/Bishop IR method with regards to
the fact that it cannot tell the state of the car passing by. It gathers
its data within 0.5 sec and there is no way to tell if the car was accelerating
or coasting at the moment. Since air-fuel ratios can vary from 12:1 to 18:1
then the amount of CO will vary widely, even for vehicles with proper tune
and closed-loop control with cats and OX sensors.
I wonder if such data merely reflects the average population of cars that
are accelerating/decelerating at that point in the roadway?
I do think it is a valuable tool to measure net effect of other measures
taken to insure that car owners keep their vehicles properly maintained
and not tampered with.
mark
Jim Frost
>This only works for Deloreans traveling 88 miles per hour, and they have that
>annoying problem of making you 30 years late for work
...or 30 years early.
"If my theory is correct when this baby hits 88 miles per hour we're
going to see some serious shit."
I loved that first movie.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
E. Michael Smith
> >This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
> >
> >Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
Yes.
>i remember reading somewhere on news a long time ago (thats news time,
>real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
>which was nearly 80% efficient.
Maybe you are thinking about his steam turbine? No 'blades'. Steam
just spirals (in?) between smooth disks. Surface flow friction does
the coupling of steam to 'blade'. Was supposed to be quite efficient
and quite easy to make (and ran at some outragious speed like 100k rpm).
All this is from flakey memory of a popular article not read closely,
so it may have some factual errors in it. ;-)
>If i remember it was some sort of
>thrust type device. Regular gas engines (cars and stuff) are 25%
>(approx) efficient,
I think these are now pushing 35%+ for some of the new ones...
>diesel gas is about 35% and usually what the
This is up a smidge too, but I'm not sure what the present number is.
>electric company uses to generate your power is supposedly about
>40-45%,
I think the best combined cycle gas turbine stuff is near 52%...
>so as you can imagine tesla's device was quite amazing. Now i
>know that tesla was kind of a cook, but supposedly he actually had
>built this thing back in the 20's or so? Any body know anything about
>this?
It may not be quite as amazing as you think, since as I remember it
the quoted efficiency was of the turbine ONLY and did not include the
losses in the combustor, steam generator, condenser, external pumps, etc.
(Where the above numbers for other plants do account for those...).
I believe that the Tessla steam turbine IS about as efficient as any
we have today, and I'm not sure why it wasn't commercialized, but it
isn't a great saviour, since the 'balance of system' efficiencies are
still limiting.
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Frank Deutschmann
> Then, if all the major highways had an AC magnet runnning under them,
>electric cars might be practical. I know there are ways to transfer
>electricity in this manner. Mayby all you would need is a large coil
>on the bottom of the car. In that case, maybe permanent magnets
>spaced in the cement would work.
I just recently heard that the HotWheels division of Mattel had
submitted a similar proposal to the US DOT...their proposal also included
installing vertical 360 and 720 degree loops on all major interstates,
ostensibly to "put the fun back into driving." The part proposing
periodic left-right traffic swapping intersections was deleted at the
last minute, though.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> Scott Woodward.....
-frank (sorry; couldn't resist!)
--
f...@panix.com | Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou
1 917 992 2248 | art convienently snack-sized and very tasty.
1 718 746 7061 |
Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.
>In article <JBORE.93D...@irt11.ml.com> jb...@irt11.ml.com (Joseph T Bore) writes:
...
>>i remember reading somewhere on news a long time ago (thats news time,
>>real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
>>which was nearly 80% efficient.
>
>Maybe you are thinking about his steam turbine? No 'blades'. Steam
>just spirals (in?) between smooth disks. Surface flow friction does
>the coupling of steam to 'blade'. Was supposed to be quite efficient
>and quite easy to make (and ran at some outragious speed like 100k rpm).
...
>I believe that the Tessla steam turbine IS about as efficient as any
>we have today, and I'm not sure why it wasn't commercialized, but it
>isn't a great saviour, since the 'balance of system' efficiencies are
>still limiting.
The reason it wasn't commercialized was because the materials available
prior to the last few years couldn't handle the "outragious speed" the
thing ran at -- in other words, the thing kept flying apart and so people
lost interest (and Tesla ran out of funding before he could develop the
needed materials improvements himself). Cost effective methods of producing
more durable materials are available now, and I remember reading recently
that someone had gone back to Tesla's patent for this steam engine and is
currently working on comercializing it, but I'd have to go look up who.
Leland D. Hosford | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
lel...@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
| OK, tell me why is it always :-) and never (-: ?
John Nagle
>In article <1993Dec7.0...@michael.apple.com>, e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <JBORE.93D...@irt11.ml.com> jb...@irt11.ml.com (Joseph T Bore) writes:
>>>i remember reading somewhere on news a long time ago (thats news time,
>>>real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
>>>which was nearly 80% efficient.
>>Maybe you are thinking about his steam turbine? No 'blades'. Steam
>>just spirals (in?) between smooth disks. Surface flow friction does
>>the coupling of steam to 'blade'. Was supposed to be quite efficient
>>and quite easy to make (and ran at some outragious speed like 100k rpm).
>prior to the last few years couldn't handle the "outragious speed" the
>thing ran at -- in other words, the thing kept flying apart and so people
>lost interest (and Tesla ran out of funding before he could develop the
>needed materials improvements himself). Cost effective methods of producing
>more durable materials are available now, and I remember reading recently
>that someone had gone back to Tesla's patent for this steam engine and is
>currently working on comercializing it, but I'd have to go look up who.
There's also the problem of what to do with a high-RPM mechanical
output. For 60Hz AC electrical generation, you want 3600 RPM or some fraction
thereof. Gears tend to wear heavily at such speeds, so gearing down
isn't a good option. Bearing wear is also a problem.
A permanent-magnet AC generator with is certainly possible.
1500Hz power can be converted to a more useful frequency today without
much loss, something that wasn't possible in Tesla's day.
John Nagle
Gary Benson
>Well, your idea won't work, but then you knew that anyway.
>Anyone remember the Newman motor? It was supposed to have
>a large coil that re-captured the back emf and re-charged
>the battery. The guy actually got business people to invest
>and everything. Of course it went no where. The interesting
>thing about that one was that the guy claimed that matter to
>energy conversion was taking place in the coil.
>
>On a more more mundane note, the topic of electric cars
>reminded me of something that I have been thinking:
>
>The main problem with electrics is the limited range. The best
>way around this, it seems, is to have stations where electric
>car owners exchange their dead batteries for fresh ones--like
>pony express riders. Of course you would have to have a standard
>battery bay in each car, and the stations would have to have
>hoists to heft the batteries in and out. Also, the cars would
>have to be designed so that the batteries could be easily
>removed. The stations would have to have a large stock of
>batteries that were continuously being re-charged, and instead
>of owning your battery, you would pay for the exchange. Of
>course, this complicates things because you could have someone
>pull up with a battery that was on its last legs, and exchange
>it for one that was almost factory new. I suppose you could
>overcome this by having a counter on the battery. People would
>acrew debt based on how many times they charged a battery. The
>home re-charging station would have some kind of meter that
>deducted not only for power usage, but battery depreciation also.
>It seems this kind of system would solve the range problem, and
>it would also soften the shock of having to make a major outlay
>for a new battery every so often. Of course, getting manufacturers
>to standardize battery compartments seems like an up-hill battle.
>
>Also, you would have to pay several times more for the initial
>cost of the battery, since this system requires that the number
>of batteries excede the number of cars by some significant factor
>(two or three maybe?)
>
>Comments? Ideas?
As we have already discovered, auto batteries are not to be considered
"private property" in the future. All batteries capable of powering a motor
vehicle will be licensed for ownership only by BigOil, Incorporated, a
wholly realized conglomeration of the Detroit Big Three automanufacturies
and the OIL EMBARGO CARTEL, GmBH. Mere single units (even polyandrous
mom-alikes) will not be permitted "ownership", at least not in the sense we
understand the term today.
Rather, batteries, as these strategic power sources will have been called,
will be "pure" property; that is, "owned" by BigOil. This idea was developed
and refined (:-) in 1988.
--
Gary Benson-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To stay alive as a program manager, the rule is to give 'em a number
or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once. -Anonymous
Steven Michael Marthouse
It seems to have taken some pretty wild turns also.
First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
re-charge process would take place at the station.
Second, the dude who suggested that only "Big Oil" would be allowed
to own batteries is out to lunch. That would be a clear violation of
anti trust law, would be a legal nightmare to enforce, and would
no doubt be unconstitutional. A good analogy would be taking out a
loan to buy a house. "Big Banking" is not forcing people to take out
loans, but anyone can see that this is better (usually) than paying
cash for a house. Same goes for the batteries.
--Steve.
Robert J. Wade
>I can't believe this discussion is still going on!
>It seems to have taken some pretty wild turns also.
>
>First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
>systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
>re-charge process would take place at the station.
>
quick steve, how fast can you pull and replace over 1000 lbs of batteries
out of a car? add to that different batteries and configurations for
different EV's...
battery exchange is a terrible idea for many reasons. gm has developed
a recharge system that requires special equipment that can do a recharge in
20 minutes, not that anyone would want to sit at the recharge station that
long, or pay the thousands of dollars to modify their house electrical to
support such equipment.
>
Jim Frost
>Also, line losses in power systems
>are generally not that great. Sorry I can't cite exact figures and
>sources; I hadn't really intended to start a research project.
Maybe you should. Line losses are very high over long distances,
easily in the tens of percent. Regardless, line losses are not the
most significant problem facing electric cars.
The big problem is, as always, that commercial battery storage today
is less than thirty percent efficient when operating optimally.
Lead-acid batteries are something like five percent efficient in cold
environments. Those losses *swamp* everything else. I'd be surprised
if today's electric cars + lines + plant are 10% efficient overall on
a good day in sunny southern California. In a New England winter we'd
be talking circa 2%.
Today's electric cars are marginally practical in warm, urban
environments. If you're in a cold rural environment they are useless
and will remain so until we get real batteries. If we're going to
push for more efficient cars I say hybrid is the way to go. CARB has
good intentions but they're just not using their heads.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Jim Frost
>Electric buses reclaim energy by means of a flywheel. I guess the thing is
>spun by energy recovered going down hills, then released to assist the motor
>going up hill.
I thought they tried that and gave up due to other effects caused by
the flywheel (like it really doesn't like radial motion perpendicular
to the axis).
The electric buses in Boston don't have any such mechanism.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Jim Frost
> I understand a connector for that has recently been developed,
>under contract to the California Air Resources Board, as a step towards
>the "electric gas station". It's a tough connector problem; you need
>a connector that can deliver something like a few hundred volts at
>a few hundred amps, is totally safe for unskilled users in a wet
>environment even if they do something really stupid like drive away
>while plugged in, won't ignite inflammable fumes (this thing goes in a
>gas station, remember), and will continue to perform after a few
>hundred thousand insertions. I think they eventually settled on
>a split-transformer design, so the coupling is magnetic.
Two things come to mind:
1. This does nothing at all about the range and speed issues currently
plaguing electric vehicles.
2. There are some health issues surrounding long-term exposure to
moderately strong EM fields. Wouldn't that kind of coupling have a
pretty large EM field at a distance of a foot or so?
(If you say "but you're only exposed to it for a couple of
minutes!" I say "yes, but how many times do you recharge in a
year?")
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Jim Frost
>real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
>which was nearly 80% efficient. If i remember it was some sort of
>thrust type device. Regular gas engines (cars and stuff) are 25%
>(approx) efficient, diesel gas is about 35% and usually what the
>electric company uses to generate your power is supposedly about
>40-45%, so as you can imagine tesla's device was quite amazing. Now i
>know that tesla was kind of a cook, but supposedly he actually had
>built this thing back in the 20's or so? Any body know anything about
>this?
Tesla is famous for his experimentation into uses for alternating
current. It's because of him we get 3-cycle AC at our houses instead
of DC current -- AC current carries substantially farther over wires
than does DC. (Edison didn't like AC.) Tesla invented quite a number
of things having to do with power generation, conversion, and use. If
I remember right he even had a remote-control ship model working
before Marconi ever did his experiments, and thus is the true inventor
of radio. It's for certain he had some novel techniques for
tranmitting power -- he had hand-held wireless lights in his
laboratory, for instance, running off a power field he'd set up in the
lab.
I don't remember him doing anything particularly novel in the field of
electric motors, though -- perhaps you're thinking of the AC
generators.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
d...@archimedes.lance.colostate.edu
: >
: >This 20%-30% figure is really depressing !
: >
: >Is the 70%+ loss really noise/thermal loss ?
Folks, the thermal efficency of a car MAY be around 20%. This seems very
very optimistic to me, though. If you look at the energy that went into
creating the fuels used, instead of only what they contain, its more like
0.1% thermal efficiency. Burning gasoline is, in the long run, stupid.
A nice way for a fledgling industrial economy to get on its feet, but beyond
that, not much of a solution to anything.
: It's partially the thermodynamics of heat engines and partially the
: compromises required for an affordable mobile power plant.
: I expect that alternative approaches, such as using a fuel cell
: to run an electric motor, woudl have higher theoretical efficiencies.
over 90% efficient electric motors are not that uncommon. In fact, you can
buy one from a number of companies. The one that comes to mind is 'Unique
Mobility', in boulder, colorado. I dont have their number, but I'm sure
information will give it to you.
The catch is, the peak efficency of these types of motors (3 phase DC brushless)
can only be achieved at a specific torque and power output. Get out of a
fairly narrow range and it sucks juice like any other motor. Maybe by
now someone has designed a motor/controller combination that helps reduce
this, anyone?
The second catch is, the one I played with cost $12,000 (20 horse). I think
they have smaller, cheaper versions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Doner
College of Engineering
Colorado State University
d...@lance.colostate.edu
Dale Mahalko
>lel...@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.) w
ites:
>>In article <1993Dec7.0...@michael.apple.com>, e...@michael.apple
com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>In article <JBORE.93D...@irt11.ml.com> jb...@irt11.ml.com (Josep
T Bore) writes:
>>>>i remember reading somewhere on news a long time ago (thats news time
>>>>real time may be 1.5 years) about Tesla. Supposedly he had a motor
>>>>which was nearly 80% efficient.
>>>Maybe you are thinking about his steam turbine? No 'blades'. Steam
>>>just spirals (in?) between smooth disks. Surface flow friction does
>>>the coupling of steam to 'blade'. Was supposed to be quite efficient
>>>and quite easy to make (and ran at some outragious speed like 100k rpm
.
>>The reason it wasn't commercialized was because the materials available
>>prior to the last few years couldn't handle the "outragious speed" the
>>thing ran at -- in other words, the thing kept flying apart and so peop
e
>>lost interest (and Tesla ran out of funding before he could develop the
>>needed materials improvements himself). Cost effective methods of produ
ing
>>more durable materials are available now, and I remember reading recent
y
>>that someone had gone back to Tesla's patent for this steam engine and
s
>>currently working on comercializing it, but I'd have to go look up who.
> There's also the problem of what to do with a high-RPM mechanical
>output. For 60Hz AC electrical generation, you want 3600 RPM or some fr
ction
>thereof. Gears tend to wear heavily at such speeds, so gearing down
>isn't a good option. Bearing wear is also a problem.
> A permanent-magnet AC generator with is certainly possible.
>1500Hz power can be converted to a more useful frequency today without
>much loss, something that wasn't possible in Tesla's day.
> John Nagle
Who says that the output DIRECTLY from the generator on this thing would
have to be a 60Hz xxx volts supply? We have the technology for efficient
conversion with DC and AC, so there's no point limiting it this way..
Bearings wear is seems pretty simple to solve: magnetic bearings! This way
repulsion keeps the shaft in place and the only thing touching the metal
would be air...
-Dale Mahalko
maha...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Paul Dietz
>sm...@helga10.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven Michael Marthouse) writes:
>> Also, line losses in power systems
>> are generally not that great. Sorry I can't cite exact figures and
>> sources; I hadn't really intended to start a research project.
>
> Maybe you should. Line losses are very high over long distances,
> easily in the tens of percent. Regardless, line losses are not the
> most significant problem facing electric cars.
The figures I recall are about 8% for North America as a whole,
and 6% for the US. Losses over long lines may be high, but most
electricity isn't sent terribly far (and that which is tends to
be cheap or surplus, else they'd build more local powerplants).
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rohester.edu
L.H....@lut.ac.uk
>na...@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>> I understand a connector for that has recently been developed,
>>under contract to the California Air Resources Board, as a step towards
>>the "electric gas station". It's a tough connector problem; you need
>>a connector that can deliver something like a few hundred volts at
>>a few hundred amps, is totally safe for unskilled users in a wet
>>environment even if they do something really stupid like drive away
>>while plugged in, won't ignite inflammable fumes (this thing goes in a
>>gas station, remember), and will continue to perform after a few
>>hundred thousand insertions. I think they eventually settled on
>>a split-transformer design, so the coupling is magnetic.
>
>Two things come to mind:
>
>1. This does nothing at all about the range and speed issues currently
> plaguing electric vehicles.
>
onerous.
>2. There are some health issues surrounding long-term exposure to
> moderately strong EM fields. Wouldn't that kind of coupling have a
> pretty large EM field at a distance of a foot or so?
>
> (If you say "but you're only exposed to it for a couple of
> minutes!" I say "yes, but how many times do you recharge in a
> year?")
You'll be sitting inside a metal car. It shouldn't be too difficult to
site the transformer outiside the body shell (slung underneath, say) and
use the shell as a Faraday cage.
L.
L.H....@lut.ac.uk
>
>Tesla is famous for his experimentation into uses for alternating
>current. It's because of him we get 3-cycle AC at our houses instead
>of DC current -- AC current carries substantially farther over wires
>than does DC. (Edison didn't like AC.)
Edison didn't like Tesla, either.
And Tesla didn't like Edison.
I think the Internet-fostered science-as-a-brotherhood academic co-operation
is where we're going wrong. We're just not getting the breakthroughs in
applied technology.
Flame a colleague today. It's competition, not co-operation, we need.
We need fusion energy sources, too. Flame Pons and Fleischmann particularly
hard.
>Tesla invented quite a number
>of things having to do with power generation, conversion, and use. If
>I remember right he even had a remote-control ship model working
>before Marconi ever did his experiments, and thus is the true inventor
>of radio. It's for certain he had some novel techniques for
>tranmitting power -- he had hand-held wireless lights in his
>laboratory, for instance, running off a power field he'd set up in the
>lab.
>
Not novel to anyone who has held a fluorescent tube up under an overhead
power cable.
Jim Frost
>>2. There are some health issues surrounding long-term exposure to
>> moderately strong EM fields. Wouldn't that kind of coupling have a
>> pretty large EM field at a distance of a foot or so?
>>
>> (If you say "but you're only exposed to it for a couple of
>> minutes!" I say "yes, but how many times do you recharge in a
>> year?")
>You'll be sitting inside a metal car. It shouldn't be too difficult to
>site the transformer outiside the body shell (slung underneath, say) and
>use the shell as a Faraday cage.
Somebody must plug it into the car.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Grant P Beagles
>In article <2do8id$b...@wcap.centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>na...@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
***** stuff deleted *****
>
>>2. There are some health issues surrounding long-term exposure to
>> moderately strong EM fields. Wouldn't that kind of coupling have a
>> pretty large EM field at a distance of a foot or so?
>>
>> (If you say "but you're only exposed to it for a couple of
>> minutes!" I say "yes, but how many times do you recharge in a
>> year?")
>
>You'll be sitting inside a metal car. It shouldn't be too difficult to
>site the transformer outiside the body shell (slung underneath, say) and
>use the shell as a Faraday cage.
>
>L.
>
Magnetic sheilding is not as simple as that. Also, a Faraday cage needs to be
grounded I believe and is only effective with RF.
--
***** My opinions are my own - for what ever that's worth!! *****
* Grant P. Beagles * Texas Instruments *
* (214) 575-6586 * bea...@mksol.dseg.ti.com *
*********************************************************************
Mark Shaw
|> First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
|> systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
|> re-charge process would take place at the station.
They published a picture of such a station for the electric vans used by
one of our local power companies in the paper.
My wife's rather wise observation was:
"If you notice how many cars pull into a gas station to fill up every day,
can you imagine how large that place would have to be to store all those batteries!?"
Go figure it out for X-cars per day and Y-hours for each battery pack.
When a typical gas station pumps 100,000 gallons per day, it's not a trivial
solution.
Not to mention that the whole automotive world would have to accept the
same standard for the battery pack size, voltage, location, mounting,
and connection. Fat chance.
mark
Steven Michael Marthouse
No they don't, not if it's inductive. They don't even have to stand
near it. An electric eye or some other sort of detector can be used
to sense when you are in place. It can turn it on just like an automatic
door. You pull into the bay, a sign says, "move forward", "move back"
or "stop now" when you are in position.
>
>jim frost
>ji...@centerline.com
Also, a 1500 W heater is not needed for the passengers. I heat
my room with a 600 W heater, although it takes a little while
to warm up at that wattage. BTW, J C Whitney sells electric
heaters for cars that use 180 or more watts. I haven't tried them,
but it's safe to assume they wouldn't be on the market if they
weren't at least half way decent.
--Steve.
Bob Myers
Well, now THERE'S a thoughtful, considered response. It even includes the
requisite ad hominem attack on the folks at C&D.
Re-read what I wrote, and point out where I said that Bedard's writings
should be accepted as Holy Gospel. Now, go ahead and grab that stack of C&Ds
I mentioned, and check out said articles. Have someone help you with the
big words, if needed. Then come back here, and tell me what parts of those
articles you find inaccurate, and *why*. Assuming that you can do that,
then we might have a basis for a serious technical consideration of the
merits of electric transportation. If you cannot, then perhaps it is time
to admit that there is as yet no rational basis for the belief that
electric vehicles are a viable alternative to current automotve technology,
nor is there any promising development in view that would make them so.
Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
Advanced Systems Div. |those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
hamil...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>Joseph T Bore (jb...@irt11.ml.com) wrote
>Folks, the thermal efficency of a car MAY be around 20%. This seems very
>very optimistic to me, though. If you look at the energy that went into
>creating the fuels used, instead of only what they contain, its more like
>0.1% thermal efficiency. Burning gasoline is, in the long run, stupid.
What are you talking about?. Crude oi is used to make most gasoline.
The transportation and refining losses have been estimated at 0.033%
of the crude throughput ( modern Petroleum Technology p1189).
The investment in turning plant life into oil happened so long ago
that it can be ignored. The energy costs of the actual refinery are
quite low ( otherwise it would be a huge heat source - and many of the
operations are highly temperature dependent ) as any losses or energy
wasted consumes valuable crude oil.
As I've pointed out several times, a modern IC engine can attain 27%
efficiency without to much trauma, and the Honda F1 1.5 liter engine
reached 32%. That is it could convert 32% of the chemical energy in the
fuel into nearly 800hp and 500lb/ft torque. The driving styles and vechile
use will damage that, but note the VTEC E Honda 1.5 Civic could reach 80
mpg (US) without being too much different. That's a production car
available today, using HC fuels available now.
>A nice way for a fledgling industrial economy to get on its feet, but beyond
>that, not much of a solution to anything.
Since the turn of the century, this "not much of a solution" has made
long distance ground and air transport very viable. sea transport is also
based on these HC fuels.
>: It's partially the thermodynamics of heat engines and partially the
>: compromises required for an affordable mobile power plant.
>
>: I expect that alternative approaches, such as using a fuel cell
>: to run an electric motor, woudl have higher theoretical efficiencies.
You can expect anything. I expect fuel cells to have improved performance,
but don't be surprised if HC fuels also climb the scale. Diesel can attain
40+%, and new materials are coming along. The future fuel may well not
be a gasoline, but it could still be crude oil derived HC.
>
>over 90% efficient electric motors are not that uncommon. In fact, you can
>buy one from a number of companies. The one that comes to mind is 'Unique
>Mobility', in boulder, colorado. I dont have their number, but I'm sure
>information will give it to you.
You keep bringing up efficiency as the wondrous reason why electric will
be the future. Electricity has to be stored ( or are you suggesting
we use long extension leads :-) ) Gasoline has a storage system
weight that is very low compared to pressurised gases or batteries
or even hydrides, and future liquid HC fuels are likely to be used in cars
that are far more efficient than todays. Look at the improvements since
1960, both in emissions and in economy, the future will be better.
Your claimed theoretical efficiency is only that, theoretical.
Alternative materials may permit alternative combustion conditions,
may even air will be replaced as the oxidant. There is no theoretical
limitation ( other than 100% ), it is usually a material limitation.
>
>The catch is, the peak efficency of these types of motors (3 phase DC brushless)
>can only be achieved at a specific torque and power output. Get out of a
>fairly narrow range and it sucks juice like any other motor. Maybe by
>now someone has designed a motor/controller combination that helps reduce
>this, anyone?
>
>The second catch is, the one I played with cost $12,000 (20 horse). I think
>they have smaller, cheaper versions.
A $12,000 (20 shetland pony) electric engine probably doesn't really
worry the IC engine crowd too much, especially given the storage
requirement for elecricity in cars that are able to travel reasonable
distances. There are niches for small frequently short distance trips
using electric vehicles, but they have a long way to go before they
approach the IC engine as a viable personal transportation choice.
Bruce Hamilton
Randy
The turbine could be made to run slower ( even 3600 rpm) just by making
it larger in diameter.
It would be huge, yes...powerful YES! And so, suited to running in large
power plants, that would find it a lot easier to make megawatts directly
at the line frequency.
For the home user of a tiny engine, then its practical to run at higher
freqs, and convert it to either 60cps...or to DC to direct-run ones
equipment ( a lot being DC now anyway), so the higher rpm, only means
less mass to the coils in the generator and the pole pieces.
I saw a small one of Tesla's disc-turbines running on compressed air, and
it spun quite fast, but you could stall it by holding the shaft.
But had it been geared down...it might pull a car!
--
Randy KA1UNW If you get a shock while
servicing your equipment, "Works for me!"
ra...@192.153.4.200 DON'T JUMP! -Peter Keyes
You might break an expensive tube!
men...@wronz.org.nz
> The way I see it, TOTALLY electric cars are far from realizable in
> todays technology. However, I have increasing hope that we will be
> able to come up with a design soon (maybe 15 years from now).
Garbage deleted ...
> Just throwing some ideas out,
> - Steve Weigand
> (Wei...@ee.udel.edu)
>
Hey all you Doubting Thomas's out there the technology does exist NOW!
Get a load of these specs from a Japanese manufacturer that has a car on
the road NOW!
The company is Mitsubishi, their electric car has the following specs ..
1. 1000 km range .. ( yes it is true )
2. 200 km top speed.
3. Powered by an AC induction motor.
4. Batteries are 28 365v alkaline.
5. Drag coefficient of .23
My only comment is that with that sort of range, who needs to stop at a
gas station, an over-night charge is sufficient.
Bernie Mentink
Christchurch,
New Zealand
email:men...@wronz.org.nz
Don T. Borowski
[stuff deleted]
: Tesla is famous for his experimentation into uses for alternating
: current. It's because of him we get 3-cycle AC at our houses instead
: of DC current -- AC current carries substantially farther over wires
: than does DC. (Edison didn't like AC.)
I think you mean 3 phase AC. I don't know of any homes being fed
3 phase AC. Industrial and large commercial buildings are fed
3 phase AC to run large electric motors, with single phase loads
like lighting distributed amoung the 3 phases. Homes are fed from one of
the three phase. The power company divides up which homes are fed
from which phase to do the balancing.
There are long distance DC transmission lines. An example close
to me is the Pacific Intertie, which runs from the Bonneville (sp?)
dam on the Columbia River (Northern boarder of Oregon) to Los
Angeles. Transmits power with less loss than an AC line would.
It's high voltage and low current which make for efficient power
transmission. But safety generally dictates low voltage at the
consumer end. The transformation from high transmission voltage
to low use voltage is cheaply and efficiently done with conventional
transformers, which must run on AC. The Pacific Intertie must use
more expensive DC - AC conversion equipment. But the conversion is done
only at the two ends. The extra expense of conversion is more than
paid for by the lower transmission costs.
Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
-G.K. Chesterton
Blair P. Houghton
>The electric buses in Boston don't have any such mechanism.
But the electric buses in Boston still emit soot...
--Blair
"Figure that one out..."
Jurkat
He also invented the AC brushless motor.
Daniel Rubin
>my room with a 600 W heater, although it takes a little while
>to warm up at that wattage. BTW, J C Whitney sells electric
>heaters for cars that use 180 or more watts. I haven't tried them,
>but it's safe to assume they wouldn't be on the market if they
>weren't at least half way decent.
>
>--Steve.
I don't know if this is a correct assumption. A 600 watt heater will
heat up a room in a short period of time because the room is insulated.
A car, on the otherhand, is most certainly not insulated. That is why
it takes so many BTUs to control the climate in a car. Most air
conditioners in cars, I am using AC as an example because auto heaters
are not usually rated while ACs are, have a BTU rating of a large room
air conditioner. I would think the windows in a car are the main factor
to the enegry loss. Maybe double pained lexan windows would fair better
but, the reason polycarbonate plastic is not used is because of yellowing
caused by sun exposure.
- Dan
--
Daniel Rubin ru...@cbzoo.att.com _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Go Bucks
Systems Administrator _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/
AT&T Bell Labs Columbus, Ohio _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/
(614) 860-6487 Go Bucks _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/
Andrew Hau Kin Tsui
>A car, on the otherhand, is most certainly not insulated. That is why
>it takes so many BTUs to control the climate in a car. Most air
>conditioners in cars, I am using AC as an example because auto heaters
>are not usually rated while ACs are, have a BTU rating of a large room
>air conditioner. I would think the windows in a car are the main factor
>to the enegry loss. Maybe double pained lexan windows would fair better
>but, the reason polycarbonate plastic is not used is because of yellowing
>caused by sun exposure.
>
> - Dan
Actually, GE Plastics has done lot towards eliminating that problem
now with their Lexan line. I don't think we'll be seeing polycarbonate
glazing on cars for a long time, though. The main reasons are to do with
safety (it's a lot easier to break a tempered glass side window to free a
trapped occupant than to break a polycarbonate window), marring (even with
a protective layer, Lexan Margard 5 used in operator protective structures on
forestry equipment become scratched within a few weeks of installation. Glass
has a much higher scratch resistance), and cost (compared to tempered glass or
glass laminate, Lexan is still quite expensive despite the ever increasing
market.
-= Andrew Tsui, UBC Mechanical Engineering student, (at...@ee.ubc.ca) =-
Jim Frost
>Most air
>conditioners in cars, I am using AC as an example because auto heaters
>are not usually rated while ACs are, have a BTU rating of a large room
>air conditioner.
Typical auto ACs have BTU ratings above 20,000. Typical home room ACs
have BTU ratings below 10,000.
Insulation isn't really why the AC units are so big in cars, though --
it's because cars are natural greenhouses and because car owners want
the AC to cool the car in just a couple of minutes.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Jim Frost
>In article <2e2ghp$3...@wcap.centerline.com> ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>The electric buses in Boston don't have any such mechanism.
>But the electric buses in Boston still emit soot...
Huh? Since when? The diesel-burning buses certainly do but the
electrics do not.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Weihnachtsfrosch
Scott Dorsey <klu...@grissom.larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>(And my home will soon be fed by three-phase AC. I have the line to
>the pole out front, and the internal wiring. I need to run my Cincinatti
>Milacron)
Good. Now you can buy a *real* VAX.
jkc
Gary Benson
>I can't believe this discussion is still going on!
>It seems to have taken some pretty wild turns also.
>
>First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
>systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
>re-charge process would take place at the station.
>
>to own batteries is out to lunch. That would be a clear violation of
>anti trust law, would be a legal nightmare to enforce, and would
>no doubt be unconstitutional. A good analogy would be taking out a
>loan to buy a house. "Big Banking" is not forcing people to take out
>loans, but anyone can see that this is better (usually) than paying
>cash for a house. Same goes for the batteries.
>
>--Steve.
The dude who suggested that only BigOil would be permitted to own batteries
clearly mispoke himself. My apologies to the assembled multitudes; what I
really meant to ssuggest was quite different. Now obviously, BigOil has no
monopoly on the production and distribution of petroleum products - each of
us is perfectly free to travel to the Mideast and make our own private
arrangements as we desire. It just so happens that these large-ish
corporations are better equipped to assist humankind in these ventures, and
they provide these services for practically no charge, out of the goodness
of their hearts.
When all the petroleum on the planet has been converted to carbon dioxide
and plastics, these same humanitarian companies will step forward with a
solution to our needs for electrical replenishment of our battery-powered
cars, and again, just as now, these services will be provided for only a
nominal charge.ll of us will be free to make other arrangements, but no one
will because the replacemnt stations on every corner will be doing it for
next to nothing, so there will be no incentive for us to make other
arrangements.
Sorry if there was any mistaking my meaning.
--
Gary Benson-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215,
there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional
law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of
juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral
intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary
and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all
laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all
persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws.
-Lysander Spooner, 1852
Dave Jones
> The company is Mitsubishi, their electric car has the following specs ..
>
> 1. 1000 km range .. ( yes it is true )
> 2. 200 km top speed.
> 3. Powered by an AC induction motor.
> 4. Batteries are 28 365v alkaline.
> 5. Drag coefficient of .23
>
> My only comment is that with that sort of range, who needs to stop at a
> gas station, an over-night charge is sufficient.
>
which is about what you'd need for a full overnight charge. Just the thing
for the Xmas stocking.
--
| d...@sunsrvr3.cci.com -----Dave Jones Northern Telecom Rochester NY|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| If you build it, they will cancel it. ----------------------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
d...@archimedes.lance.colostate.edu
: The dude who suggested that only BigOil would be permitted to own batteries
: clearly mispoke himself. My apologies to the assembled multitudes; what I
: really meant to ssuggest was quite different. Now obviously, BigOil has no
: monopoly on the production and distribution of petroleum products - each of
: us is perfectly free to travel to the Mideast and make our own private
: arrangements as we desire. It just so happens that these large-ish
: corporations are better equipped to assist humankind in these ventures, and
: they provide these services for practically no charge, out of the goodness
: of their hearts.
(stuff deleted)
Well, at least people like this poster keep this thread interesting (:
I like his 'light-hearted' sarcasm here. The scary thing is, it has
an odd flavor of reality to it.
Dan
Gary Benson
>In article <CHr0G...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sm...@helga7.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven Michael Marthouse) writes:
>>I can't believe this discussion is still going on!
>>It seems to have taken some pretty wild turns also.
>>
>>First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
>>systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
>>re-charge process would take place at the station.
>>
>
>quick steve, how fast can you pull and replace over 1000 lbs of batteries
>out of a car?
Not steve, but I'll answer as quick as I can: 1 minute and 24 seconds.
These things will be standardized, see? Cars will be built so the suckers
slide in and out kinda like the battery on a video tape recorder.
>add to that different batteries and configurations for
>different EV's...
Oh pshaw. You got a commuter sedan, you put in one standard cell; for a
screaming little sportster, you put in double the batteries, and connect
them in parallel for double amps at standard volts. Delivery van? Quadruple
batteries, series-parallel. Or double double-strength, or a single
quad-power. Come on, tougher technical problems were solved in developing
your pocket calculator!
>battery exchange is a terrible idea for many reasons.
Its the only logical answer, for one reason: it will fill the need.
>gm has developed
>a recharge system that requires special equipment that can do a recharge in
>20 minutes, not that anyone would want to sit at the recharge station that
>long, or pay the thousands of dollars to modify their house electrical to
>support such equipment.
Right. 20 minutes is no good, 10 either. In five minutes, you can get
replenished, and grab a dollar hotdog and a coke. But 5 minutes will mean
battery replacement, not recharging. I imagine it'll all be done using
robotics to save the labor costs, too.
--
Gary Benson-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. -Mark Twain
Mark Shaw
|> > In article, (Bob Myers) writes:
|> > |> A quick recommendation for anyone interested in having an informed
|> > |> opinion on electric cars and/or alternate fuels: get a stack of
|> > |> _Car_&_Driver_ magazines from the past year, and look through 'em
|> > |> for Patrick Bedard's articles and columns on these subjects. THEN
|> > |> come back here, and we'll talk.
|>
|> > It seems to me that the last thing we need here is a rehash of C&D's
|> > opinions as fact. I mean, these are the guys who still think the Cannonball
|> > Run is a great idea.
|>
|> Well, now THERE'S a thoughtful, considered response. It even includes the
|> requisite ad hominem attack on the folks at C&D.
|>
|> Re-read what I wrote, and point out where I said that Bedard's writings
|> should be accepted as Holy Gospel. Now, go ahead and grab that stack of C&Ds
|> I mentioned, and check out said articles. Have someone help you with the
|> big words, if needed. Then come back here, and tell me what parts of those
|> articles you find inaccurate, and *why*. Assuming that you can do that,
|> then we might have a basis for a serious technical consideration of the
|> merits of electric transportation. If you cannot, then perhaps it is time
|> to admit that there is as yet no rational basis for the belief that
|> electric vehicles are a viable alternative to current automotve technology,
|> nor is there any promising development in view that would make them so.
I suppose I made a incorrect assumption about the relative merits of reading
C&D. Then maybe not. Possibly it is the words that Bob uses to qualify
any further discussion (i.e. THEN come back.... or ....tell me what parts
of those articles you find inaccurate, and *why*.) If Bob is not calling the
C&D articles as holy gospel, he sure has some strong qualifications as to who
can participate in the discussion.
I find it curious that nobody can be properly "informed" about alternate
fuels/energy sources unless/until we go read C&D.
If such is the case, then I will choose to remain an idiot, because I
believe there are considerably better sources of information available
through the SAE and general college level textbooks.
mark
Robert J. Wade
>In article <CHs8o...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjw...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>>In article <CHr0G...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sm...@helga7.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven Michael Marthouse) writes:
>>>I can't believe this discussion is still going on!
>>>It seems to have taken some pretty wild turns also.
>>>
>>>First off, people don't seem to realize that "battery exchange"
>>>systems would eliminate the lengthy wait for a "fill-up". The long
>>>re-charge process would take place at the station.
>>>
>>>--Steve.
>>
>>quick steve, how fast can you pull and replace over 1000 lbs of batteries
>>out of a car?
>
>Not steve, but I'll answer as quick as I can: 1 minute and 24 seconds.
>These things will be standardized, see? Cars will be built so the suckers
>slide in and out kinda like the battery on a video tape recorder.
i don't believe it. are you saying all types of cars will standardize on the
exact same types and configuration of batteries, from vans to sprots cars?
>
>>add to that different batteries and configurations for
>>different EV's...
>
>Oh pshaw. You got a commuter sedan, you put in one standard cell; for a
>screaming little sportster, you put in double the batteries, and connect
>them in parallel for double amps at standard volts. Delivery van? Quadruple
>batteries, series-parallel. Or double double-strength, or a single
>quad-power. Come on, tougher technical problems were solved in developing
>your pocket calculator!
so you admit there will be multitudes of different configurations that this
battery stations must stock and be able to change in 1 minute and 24 seconds
for each and every vehicle that pulls up! and how much will this stations
charge to store and pull and replace all these packs? or will the local
football team donate their time just for the exercise of lugging 1,000 lbs+
of batteries for each and every car?
Bob Myers
> I suppose I made a incorrect assumption about the relative merits of reading
> C&D. Then maybe not. Possibly it is the words that Bob uses to qualify
> any further discussion (i.e. THEN come back.... or ....tell me what parts
> of those articles you find inaccurate, and *why*.) If Bob is not calling the
> C&D articles as holy gospel, he sure has some strong qualifications as to who
> can participate in the discussion.
> I find it curious that nobody can be properly "informed" about alternate
> fuels/energy sources unless/until we go read C&D.
Not at all. However, Bedard has very clearly and succinctly covered a
number of major objections to trying to force EVs to happen *now*. Covered
them well enough that we SHOULDN'T have to repeat them here - in the interests
of saving time, then, I suggest that someone wishing to consider the
question of EVs read them and consider these objections prior to jumping
to any conclusions.
I'll go ahead a repost what C&D already said, if you think it's needed.
But the original question still stands - assuming that you do read these
articles, is there anything you can disagree with in terms of the facts
presented? If not, then what problems do you have with the basic arguments?
And if you're not willing to read them, why not?
> If such is the case, then I will choose to remain an idiot, because I
> believe there are considerably better sources of information available
> through the SAE and general college level textbooks.
Such sources are certainly ONE way to get information; however, I think that
it is very rare for a textbook to provide truly current information on the
state-of-the-art. SAE, etc., journals are probably better at this, but
certainly aren't the only place to find it. We need to avoid the idea
that useful information is ONLY to be found in a few "blessed" sources -
facts are facts, regardless of who presents them or where.
Mark Shaw
|> > fuels/energy sources unless/until we go read C&D.
|>
|> Not at all. However, Bedard has very clearly and succinctly covered a
|> number of major objections to trying to force EVs to happen *now*. Covered
|> them well enough that we SHOULDN'T have to repeat them here - in the interests
|> of saving time, then, I suggest that someone wishing to consider the
|> question of EVs read them and consider these objections prior to jumping
|> to any conclusions.
|>
|> I'll go ahead a repost what C&D already said, if you think it's needed.
|> But the original question still stands - assuming that you do read these
|> articles, is there anything you can disagree with in terms of the facts
|> presented? If not, then what problems do you have with the basic arguments?
|>
|> And if you're not willing to read them, why not?
My reason for not reading C&D reporting is that they are not the ones who
have either generated nor gathered the original data upon which they have
made their conclusions. In essence we will be seeing their inteprtation
of someone else's data. Based on some of their past opinions about cars
and automotive life in general, I don't wish to give them that courtesy
(and definitely not my money).
|> > If such is the case, then I will choose to remain an idiot, because I
|> > believe there are considerably better sources of information available
|> > through the SAE and general college level textbooks.
|>
|> Such sources are certainly ONE way to get information; however, I think that
|> it is very rare for a textbook to provide truly current information on the
|> state-of-the-art. SAE, etc., journals are probably better at this, but
|> certainly aren't the only place to find it. We need to avoid the idea
|> that useful information is ONLY to be found in a few "blessed" sources -
|> facts are facts, regardless of who presents them or where.
It is not the name on the source, but the directness of the data. I have seen
really outrageous conclusions (with quotes) about SAE papers published by other
researchers. When I tracked down the actual paper, I found that the intepretation
was correct, but "out of context." The real data gave other perspectives.
My point. Why base your fundamental beliefs on someone else's analysis and
conclusions of data they are not presenting as first hand?
If I have to spend time or money to go down to the library or buy a magazine,
I'll spend it on more original sources. Sorry, call me silly :-)
mark
Scott Linn
:
: Get a load of these specs from a Japanese manufacturer that has a car on
: the road NOW!
:
: 4. Batteries are 28 365v alkaline.
:
: My only comment is that with that sort of range, who needs to stop at a
: gas station, an over-night charge is sufficient.
I don't think rechargeable alkalines are quite up-to-snuff for electric
vehicle use...
--
Scott Linn
sc...@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com
Gary Benson
Not "mulitutdes", dudes! I mentioned singles, doubles, adn quadruples. Sorta
like "Regular", "Unleaeded", and "Premium Unleaded" we have nowadays.
>and how much will this stations
>charge to store and pull and replace all these packs? or will the local
>football team donate their time just for the exercise of lugging 1,000 lbs+
>of batteries for each and every car?
Oh get out! we don't use football teams today to transport all that petrol,
why would we need it for battery replacement stations? Especially when you
realize that the replenishment will mostly be done at night, on site; no
transport needed. It probably won't take any more physical space than
today's tanks do.
--
Gary Benson-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Richard A. Schumacher
a hybrid system? Use the batteries as load levellers, not as primary
energy storage. You still get the econonmy of regenerative braking,
low emissions due to a constant (smaller) load on the prime mover,
great acceleration from the AC drive motors, AND the refueling problem
is already solved! Sheesh.
(Well, maybe I'll get my wish. Mercedes-Benz is rumored to be readying
just such a vehicle for 1995.)
Gary Coffman
>All this arguing about battery swapping! Why on Earth not just use
>a hybrid system? Use the batteries as load levellers, not as primary
>energy storage. You still get the econonmy of regenerative braking,
>low emissions due to a constant (smaller) load on the prime mover,
>great acceleration from the AC drive motors, AND the refueling problem
>is already solved! Sheesh.
It's because of the Kalifornia ZEV regulations. A hybrid doesn't
qualify.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |