The Electric Car
gyans...@gmail.com
roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
be used for short distances from home.
Eeyore
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
No.
This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
limitations.
Graham
Martin Griffith
If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
Martin
gyans...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:59:51 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore
>
>
> >gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
>
> >No.
>
> >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> >limitations.
>
> >Graham
>
> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>
> Martin
What about these?
http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
Eeyore
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> Martin Griffith wrote:
> >Eeyore wrote:
> > >gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
> >
> > >No.
> >
> > >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> > >limitations.
> >
> >
> > If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>
>
> What about these?
>
> http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html
Graham
Martin Griffith
That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
and going around bends in the road.
If 20 cars are recharging in say a small city, say 5Km^2, at any one
time, what are the total power requirements, and who has the capacity
to provide that power?
{ fun.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV_Dh2zvwLI }
The ancient US electrical power distribution system would barf, and
inwardly digest
Martin
Martin Griffith
so about 150€ then?
Martin
Eeyore
Martin Griffith wrote:
> gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Martin Griffith wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
> >>
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> >> >limitations.
> >>
> >> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
> >
> >What about these?
> >
> >http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
> >
> That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
> ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
> and going around bends in the road.
Around 30kWh.
> If 20 cars are recharging in say a small city, say 5Km^2, at any one
> time, what are the total power requirements, and who has the capacity
> to provide that power?
>
> { fun.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV_Dh2zvwLI }
>
> The ancient US electrical power distribution system would barf, and
> inwardly digest
If you could recharge 30kWh in 10 mins, each recharging car is going to require
180kW. 20 of those at any one time is 3.6MW.
Graham
J.A. Legris
wrote:
Energy wise, hybrids are only slightly better that the norm, and when
we include recycling all those spent batteries, lousy low-temperaure
performance and the ultimate source of the energy (coal and oil) it's
a boondoggle. The solution is either significantly lighter vehicles
(essentially electric bicycles with fairings), or horses. But when you
think about it, they're unsustainable too. The only real solution is
cutting the population of humans down by a factor of 10, and the only
practical and "humane" way to do that is to release a virus that
effectively sterilizes a whole generation, without prejudice.
Bioterrorists, get to work! The alternative is involuntary extinction,
pure and simple. Al Gore's been soft-peddling.
--
Joe
gyans...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Martin Griffith wrote:
> > gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Martin Griffith wrote:
> > >> Eeyore wrote:
> > >> >gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> >> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
>
> > >> >No.
>
> > >> >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> > >> >limitations.
>
> > >> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>
> > >What about these?
>
> > >http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
>
> > That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
> > ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
> > and going around bends in the road.
>
> Around 30kWh.
>
> > If 20 cars are recharging in say a small city, say 5Km^2, at any one
> > time, what are the total power requirements, and who has the capacity
> > to provide that power?
>
>
> > The ancient US electrical power distribution system would barf, and
> > inwardly digest
>
> If you could recharge 30kWh in 10 mins, each recharging car is going to require
> 180kW. 20 of those at any one time is 3.6MW.
>
> Graham
Don't give me your problems! Give me your solutions!! What's the
answer when the oil runs out?
Martin Griffith
A bicycle, aromotherapy, reflexology, and a debit account with the
Bank of Scientology PLC, a chiropractor, and condoms
Martin
Jim Thompson
Make it a virus that only infects leftist weenies and those living on
the government teat... THEN you have the answer ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Martin Griffith
Maybe, but just by culling the top 5% of the polluters, thats 25% of
the pollution cured, this will reduce the need for expansion in china,
so improving survival rate.
In the short term anyway.........
Yeah, AG has been soft peddling, damn commie republican
Martin
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> > limitations.
>
>
> Energy wise, hybrids are only slightly better that the norm, and when
> we include recycling all those spent batteries, lousy low-temperaure
> performance and the ultimate source of the energy (coal and oil) it's
> a boondoggle.
The 'plug-in' hybrid hugely improves efficiency when it can run on battery power
alone as is often the case.
What's the big deal about recycling battteries ?
> The solution is either significantly lighter vehicles
> (essentially electric bicycles with fairings), or horses. But when you
> think about it, they're unsustainable too. The only real solution is
> cutting the population of humans down by a factor of 10, and the only
> practical and "humane" way to do that is to release a virus that
> effectively sterilizes a whole generation, without prejudice.
> Bioterrorists, get to work! The alternative is involuntary extinction,
> pure and simple. Al Gore's been soft-peddling.
I dare we'll soon see green eugenics.
Graham
Eeyore
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> Don't give me your problems! Give me your solutions!! What's the
> answer when the oil runs out?
Oil's not running out. Conserving it (mainly not squandering it with huge V8 SUVs and
the like) would help cheap oil last longer though.
Graham
Martin Griffith
Rubbish, let the virus disable your corrupt government, then the
lefties would have to get a job, less taxes needed, more production,
more pollution, back to where we started.
Martin
John Larkin
<jale...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Ludicrous. Are you suggesting that, some Tuesday afternoon, the entire
population of Earth will simultaneously die from heat stroke?
Al Gore's been making $200,000 per lecture and burning vast amounts of
private-jet fuel in the process.
John
John Larkin
And homeopathic sodium chloride and colloidal silver.
John
Winfield
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:53:53 -0700, in sci.electronics.design Jim
>
Let me tell you Martin, the lefties do have jobs, good
technology-driven capitalist jobs, and they're raising
more money from more donors than the bankrupt righties.
If the world was populated only with rightist weenies,
as Jim would prefer, I can tell you he'd not like it.
Martin Griffith
And do the utilities have the capacity? Thats what I was really
getting at
Martin
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Bwahahahahahaha! Thanks, Win! I needed that laugh.
But I have to ask... where did you get that cockamamie idea about
donors? Righties are floating in money and lefties are trying to take
it. If you're drawing all your conclusions from the McCain
campaign... he deserves to lose.
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Jul 28, 8:12 pm, Martin Griffith <mart_in_medina@ya___.es> wrote:
Read this,
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
and get back to me.
John
Martin Griffith
The sad, but talented, Jim.
Blinkered, He Be, like that Carlin bloke said
"Everyone who drives faster than you do is a maniac, and everyone who
drives slower than you do is an idiot."
That is Jim :(
Martin
gyans...@gmail.com
So far I haven't seen a solution. How about we all go nuclear and run
about on electric trains.
I heard fusion power is getting there as well. Sooner or later there
will be no oil. It's nothing to do with being green, just finding what
to do when we run out. Of course the US will go on invading countries
that have oil reserves but even that has to end at some point.
Nobody
> That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
> ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
> and going around bends in the road.
Much of the energy required for acceleration is recoverable upon
deceleration via regenerative braking. It's just a question of efficiency.
The inevitable losses are friction and air resistance, primarily the
latter, especially at high speeds. For stop-start urban driving, failure
to recover kinetic energy upon deceleration (i.e. lack of regenerative
braking) is a significant efficiency loss.
Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
improves.
Taxis and buses are a different matter. For heavy use in an urban
environment, the efficiency gain from regenerative braking could make it
worthwhile developing the necessary infrastructure (i.e. places where you
can swap flat batteries for fully charged ones every couple of hours).
gyans...@gmail.com
Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
Eeyore
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> So far I haven't seen a solution. How about we all go nuclear and run
> about on electric trains.
I suggest you look at the cost of laying railway lines.
Rail is utterly useless for flexible travel too. It's fine if you have 100s of thousand
who want to comute in a city and also for fast long distance city to city travel like
the French TGV that can compete with planes, but it's so, so inflexible.
Anyway, there's no shortage of energy.
Graham
Eeyore
gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
> > widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
> > improves.
> >
> > Taxis and buses are a different matter. For heavy use in an urban
> > environment, the efficiency gain from regenerative braking could make it
> > worthwhile developing the necessary infrastructure (i.e. places where you
> > can swap flat batteries for fully charged ones every couple of hours).
>
> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
> one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
Just because the Tesla allegedly has " better acceleration than a Porsche "
doesn't make it a useful car. It's a rich man's toy that's all. Gimmicks like
these don't help really.
Graham
Guy Macon
Martin Griffith wrote:
>If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
To a first aproximation, given a large number of electric cars
on a power grid, the load on the power grid is almost the same
whether they recharge in ten minutes or ten hours. In the
later case, you have 60 times as many cars being recharged at
any given time, each of which is drawing 1/60th as much power.
Short recharge times would, however, have a large effect on the
time of day that the charging would take place. At ten hours
everyone will plug in when they get home. At ten minutes a
large number will try to recharge in the morning right before
leaving for work. And the grid has to be sized for peak load,
not average load...
Either way, I don't see the total capacity of the current power
grid being enough. Household nuclear reactors, anyone? :)
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Ross Herbert
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
>
>No.
>
>This is another reason why hybrids make more sense.
Not so, according to this page
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3627
default
>Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our
>roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
>acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
>say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
>be used for short distances from home.
>
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRd7ER7u-KU
Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours.
That is more than ample for most commutes.
Of course if you have the money for one, paying for gas ain't the
problem.
--
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Phil Allison
"default"
>>Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our
>>roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
>>acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
>>say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
>>be used for short distances from home.
>
> Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours.
> That is more than ample for most commutes.
** The Roadster has a recharge time ( from dead flat ) of 3.5 hours -
according to the makers.
Only thing is, owners need to have a dedicated, 3 phase power outlet
available at home with a capacity of 15 kW - then it will costs about
$10 or so in electricity for a full recharge.
However ..............
- just load the boot (ie trunk in the USA) with a bunch of these babies
and get it done in only 1 minute !!!!!
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Toshiba-One-minute.htm
All you need is ** 3 megawatts ** capacity in the garage !!!!!
Circa 4500 amps per phase .
....... Phil
J.A. Legris
I am suggesting that energy woes and global warming are only the tip
of the iceberg. The effects of overpopulation are multifacetted and
are accelerating, while the efforts to control them are piecemeal and
largely symbolic. We cannot even get a law passed to ban plastic bags!
Al Gore's individual consumption is irrelevant if he can motivate
large numbers of people to reduce theirs. He's making a significant
contribution to the effort. What's yours?
Personally, I almost never use a car any more - I walk or take the
bus. I work at at home and I don't travel except for a vacation every
5 years or so. I also piss into a pot and flush it when it's full
(thereby cutting my water bill by 30%) and never water my
"lawn" (looks more like a wild grassland now). I got rid of the
central air-conditioner and put a fan in the attic instead (only 150
watts!).
But these too are just band-aid solutions - I still consume vast
amounts of energy each winter just to stay warm. The one real
contribution I've made is having no kids, whose benefits will grow
exponentially as each successive generation of my non-existent heirs
produce no offspring.
--
Joe
MooseFET
> Martin Griffith wrote:
> >If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>
> To a first aproximation, given a large number of electric cars
> on a power grid, the load on the power grid is almost the same
> whether they recharge in ten minutes or ten hours. In the
> later case, you have 60 times as many cars being recharged at
> any given time, each of which is drawing 1/60th as much power.
>
> Short recharge times would, however, have a large effect on the
> time of day that the charging would take place. At ten hours
> everyone will plug in when they get home. At ten minutes a
> large number will try to recharge in the morning right before
> leaving for work. And the grid has to be sized for peak load,
> not average load...
At 2 seconds, people will recharge it just before they set out. At
ten minutes, they will plug the charger in when they get how. Nobody
wants to wait an extra ten minutes before they start on their hour
long commute.
> Either way, I don't see the total capacity of the current power
> grid being enough. Household nuclear reactors, anyone? :)
The owners will get a better deal on the power if they let the power
company control the charging current. The feature will be built into
the charger and most people will use it.
Eeyore
Ross Herbert wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense.
>
> Not so, according to this page
> http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3627
And a similar article thought it 'proved' even a Hummer was more green than a
Prius. A marketing company too, not scientific researchers.
I'll pass on that.
Graham
Eeyore
default wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:44:21 -0700, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our
> >roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
> >acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
> >say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
> >be used for short distances from home.
> >
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRd7ER7u-KU
>
> Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours.
> That is more than ample for most commutes.
The apparent absence of a roof renders it useless in the UK.
Graham
Eeyore
default wrote:
> Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours.
> That is more than ample for most commutes.
It's price is very ample too. Consider the impact on the environment of
scrapping/recycling all those batteries every few years as well.
Graham
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> I don't travel except for a vacation every
> 5 years or so. I also piss into a pot and flush it when it's full
And this is exactly how the alleged 'greens' want us all to live.
Sad isn't it ?
Graham
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> The one real contribution I've made is having no kids, whose benefits will grow
> exponentially as each successive generation of my non-existent heirs
> produce no offspring.
I'm sure the presumably negative effect on the average IQ will be something the
greens will be very happy about. Idiots are easier for them to brainwash.
Graham
Eeyore
MooseFET wrote:
That's a very sensible idea actually. The recharging rate could be dynamically
modulated to provide a full charge quite quickly whilst at the same time
minimising peak load on the grid (and obtaining optimal use of spare capacity) .
That'll keep the power generators very happy indeed.
Plus, you're presumably get a discount for plugging it in earlier rather than
later. That might provide the required incentive to do that.
I'd patent it FAST.
Graham
Guy Macon
J.A. Legris wrote:
>Al Gore's individual consumption is irrelevant if he can motivate
>large numbers of people to reduce theirs. He's making a significant
>contribution to the effort. What's yours?
I increased the battery life of a toy from 15 hours to 25 hours.
It used 2 AAA batteries, and we sold around 3 million of them.
I also decreased the weight of every Boeing 777 aircraft by
5 ounces, thus reducing fuel consumption by a tiny amount
per mile that will be multiplied by a large number of miles
before the last one is retired from service.
And yours?
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> Al Gore's individual consumption is irrelevant if he can motivate
> large numbers of people to reduce theirs. He's making a significant
> contribution to the effort. What's yours?
Aaaarrrgghh !
It turns out that CO2 isn't a problem. Expect the IPCC's extravagant and
extraordinary lies to be revealed in ever more gory detail over the next year or
two.
Al Gore is merely making a significant contribution to lining his own pocket. He
runs a company providing carbon offsets/credits. He profits from 'green gesturing'.
> But these too are just band-aid solutions
No 'solution' is needed. Although reducing use of oil to conserve supplies for
reasons of long-term energy security might be a smart move.
Graham
Richard Henry
wrote:
>
> Oil's not running out.
Where do you get your data?
Eeyore
Richard Henry wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Oil's not running out.
>
> Where do you get your data?
It's all over the place. Whay may be running out is CHEAP oil. Oil shales are
already being touted as being close to being economically viable.
Graham
Nobody
>> Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
>> widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
>> improves.
> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
> one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
But at what speed? Energy = Force * Distance, so the more force, the more
energy required. At anything much above jogging speed, air resistance
dominates, and that's proportional to the square of the speed.
IOW, for urban driving, electricity has everything in its favour. For long
distances on fast roads, the only way an electric vehicle is going to be
viable at present is to include a combustion-driven generator.
Using a generator to drive an "electric" vehicle isn't necessarily as
crazy is it may sound. An electric drivetrain with a generator running at
constant speed/load could conceivably be more efficient than a mechanical
drivetrain and the need for the engine to have a wide operating range.
Eeyore
Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:50:22 -0700, gyansorova wrote:
>
> >> Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
> >> widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
> >> improves.
>
> > Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
> > one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
>
> But at what speed? Energy = Force * Distance, so the more force, the more
> energy required. At anything much above jogging speed, air resistance
> dominates, and that's proportional to the square of the speed.
>
> IOW, for urban driving, electricity has everything in its favour. For long
> distances on fast roads, the only way an electric vehicle is going to be
> viable at present is to include a combustion-driven generator.
That's a hybrid. The *series* hybrid doesn't attempt to do any fancy mechanical
combining of traction power from an ICE with the electric motor and simply uses
the ICE to recharge the battery, thus making it much simpler than a parallel
hybrid.
> Using a generator to drive an "electric" vehicle isn't necessarily as
> crazy is it may sound. An electric drivetrain with a generator running at
> constant speed/load could conceivably be more efficient than a mechanical
> drivetrain and the need for the engine to have a wide operating range.
In a series hybrid, the ICE can always run at optimum efficiency (rpm), which it
doesn't in today's ordinary cars. Also, overall system efficiency is improved by
the use of regenerative braking. Plus, of course, with a series hybrid, you
don't need to use the ICE at all for short journeys. It seems to have all the
right cards in its hand.
OTOH, are they even necessasry ?
Graham
Nobody
> Consider the impact on the environment of
> scrapping/recycling all those batteries every few years as well.
Which? Scrapping or recycling?
Any battery large enough to power a car for 250 miles is bound to get
recycled.
The only reason anyone would consider the possibility of large batteries
being routinely scrapped is if they are intentionally trying to make the
figures look bad.
Eeyore
Nobody wrote:
So what is the impact of recycling huge batteries every say 3-5 years ?
Graham
Phil Allison
"Nobody"
>
>> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
>> one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
>
> But at what speed?
** Over the range from 0 - 60 mph - according to the makers.
Achievable in a bit over 4 seconds.
> Energy = Force * Distance, so the more force, the more
> energy required.
** The force is less than 1G for any normal car - since tyre to road
friction is less than the weight of the car.
0 - 60 mph in 4.3 seconds requires a continuous force of just on 0.64G -
plus the effect of increasing air drag at higher speeds.
> At anything much above jogging speed, air resistance dominates,
** Air resistance dominates the terminal speed ( said to be 130 mph for the
Roadster) - but tyre grip and engine power limits acceleration in the
range from 0 - 60 for a very low drag car like the Roadster.
..... Phil
J.A. Legris
wrote:
What's really sad is people squandering their children's future on
today's mindless consumption. Who needs to travel when we have the
internet and some imagination. For example, if you tour Europe, what
have you gained? Close up views of some nice art and architecture?
Maybe tried a few new foods? Seen some nice scenery? Met a few locals.
Five years hence, how much will you actually retain? Possibly a few
emotional reactions and some bragging rights. The rest you could have
had by studying Wikipedia for two weeks. There are immigrants living
nearby who are just as "quaint" as their relatives overseas, how come
nobody raves about the "great people they met" over there on the next
block. I live near a noisy highway, but if I sit in my back yard on a
nice day it's easy to convince myself that the ocean is nearby. Does
it really make much difference? I've seen a few nice tropical beaches,
so now I can revisit them whenever I want for free without leaving
home, saving who knows how many gallons of fuel and a lot of ancillary
tourism pollution.
--
Joe
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "J.A. Legris" wrote:
> > > I don't travel except for a vacation every
> > > 5 years or so. I also piss into a pot and flush it when it's full
> >
> > And this is exactly how the alleged 'greens' want us all to live.
> >
> > Sad isn't it ?
>
>
> What's really sad is people squandering their children's future on
> today's mindless consumption.
If you mean Playstations or whatever that teach their kids to become detached
from reality and view excessive violence as normal, yes I'd agree.
> Who needs to travel when we have the
> internet and some imagination. For example, if you tour Europe, what
> have you gained? Close up views of some nice art and architecture?
> Maybe tried a few new foods? Seen some nice scenery? Met a few locals.
It's doubly sad if that's what you think. What I've learnt through travelling is
somewhat intangible perhaps but probably most usefully I've learnt something of
the culture of the places I've visited. No Playstation can do that either. And
no way will the net tell you anything about that.
And mere pictures cannot even remotely substitute for being there. Pictures
can't ever do justice to Hong Kong harbour at night taking in the sea air.
> Five years hence, how much will you actually retain?
Well, I still retain plenty of my visit to Norway in 1976 for sure.
> Possibly a few emotional reactions and some bragging rights. The rest you
> could have
> had by studying Wikipedia for two weeks.
No you absolutely couldn't. Nothing for example could substitute for the hour
long chat we had in a souk in Sousse (Tunisia) with a local Muslim market trader
for example. It did require an ability to understand and use French of course.
Mind you, I do probably 'engage' rather more with the locals than it seems from
what I'vee heard, the typical US tourist does.
> There are immigrants living
> nearby who are just as "quaint" as their relatives overseas, how come
> nobody raves about the "great people they met" over there on the next
> block. I live near a noisy highway, but if I sit in my back yard on a
> nice day it's easy to convince myself that the ocean is nearby. Does
> it really make much difference? I've seen a few nice tropical beaches,
> so now I can revisit them whenever I want for free without leaving
> home, saving who knows how many gallons of fuel and a lot of ancillary
> tourism pollution.
The greens have brainwashed you well.
Graham
Nobody
> "Nobody"
>>
>>> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
>>> one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
>>
>> But at what speed?
>
>
> ** Over the range from 0 - 60 mph - according to the makers.
>
> Achievable in a bit over 4 seconds.
Ah; I should have removed the "Better acceleration than a Porsche" bit.
What I meant was:
>> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
>> one charge. That's not bad.
>
> But at what speed?
IOW, at what speed can you get 250 miles on one charge? Energy per unit
distance increases with drag and thus with speed.
>> Energy = Force * Distance, so the more force, the more
>> energy required.
>
>
> ** The force is less than 1G for any normal car - since tyre to road
> friction is less than the weight of the car.
>
> 0 - 60 mph in 4.3 seconds requires a continuous force of just on 0.64G -
> plus the effect of increasing air drag at higher speeds.
Here, I'm talking primarily about force due to drag, which is proportional
to the square of the speed. E.g. drag at 70mph is roughly 36% higher than
at 60mph, and almost twice that at 50mph. Energy per unit distance
increases likewise.
>> At anything much above jogging speed, air resistance dominates,
By which, I meant that it dominates over constant frictional forces
(rolling resistance).
Under heavy acceleration at low speed (i.e. 0-60 or standing 1/4 mile),
the force required to accelerate will be the main factor, but that's
recoverable with regenerative braking, while energy used to overcome drag
and friction is lost for good.
> ** Air resistance dominates the terminal speed ( said to be 130 mph for
> the Roadster)
Wow. The force required to overcome drag at 130mph is ~4.7 times that at
60mph. IOW, if the "250 miles on one charge" figure was for 60mph, you
wouldn't get much over 50 miles at 130mph.
Nobody
>> IOW, for urban driving, electricity has everything in its favour. For long
>> distances on fast roads, the only way an electric vehicle is going to be
>> viable at present is to include a combustion-driven generator.
>
> That's a hybrid. The *series* hybrid doesn't attempt to do any fancy mechanical
> combining of traction power from an ICE with the electric motor and simply uses
> the ICE to recharge the battery, thus making it much simpler than a parallel
> hybrid.
Do such things exist in production?
The main disadvantage with that is that all of the power has to come
through the motors, even at maximum speed. With a parallel setup, you get
the sum of the two rather than just the maximum. The advantage is that you
don't have the layout constraints (transmission tunnel etc) or complexity
of a mechanical drivetrain.
>> Using a generator to drive an "electric" vehicle isn't necessarily as
>> crazy is it may sound. An electric drivetrain with a generator running at
>> constant speed/load could conceivably be more efficient than a mechanical
>> drivetrain and the need for the engine to have a wide operating range.
>
> In a series hybrid, the ICE can always run at optimum efficiency (rpm), which it
> doesn't in today's ordinary cars.
Not having to be able to vary the speed means that you could use a
turbine engine; unfortunately, the high cost of those seems to be largely
inherent (i.e. they still wouldn't be cheap if Ford/GM were making a
million units a year).
> Also, overall system efficiency is improved by
> the use of regenerative braking. Plus, of course, with a series hybrid, you
> don't need to use the ICE at all for short journeys. It seems to have all the
> right cards in its hand.
>
> OTOH, are they even necessasry ?
What? An ICE generator? Until there's either a quantum leap in battery
technology or we get some alternative means of turning fuel into energy,
e.g. fuel cells, they're about the only way that you're likely to get
decent range (the cited 250 miles would need to get you "there" and back
again unless you have some way to recharge while you're there).
First, there's the energy density: 1 litre of petrol/diesel has a lot more
energy than you can store in 1000 cm^3 of battery. Second, there's the
infrastructure. A fuel tank only needs enough capacity to get you from one
petrol station to the next. Until there's similar infrastructure for
electric vehicles, being able to "recharge" by refuelling a generator is
likely to make a significant difference to viability for long distance
journeys.
OTOH, I suspect that there are a lot of people for whom it would suffice
to own an all-electric car (even with fairly limited range) and hire a
"real" car as and when they need it. Unfortunately, rationality and cars
don't necessarily go together; a lot of people would automatically rule
out a car with a 100-mile range even if it was only inadequate once or
twice a year.
Nobody
Probably not a great deal.
The energy consumption is likely to be miniscule compared to what a
vehicle uses in 3-5 years.
As for pollution: the usual metals (lead, nickel, cadmium, lithium) are
valuable enough that you are going to try to recover as much as possible
simply on economic grounds (and these aren't particularly hard to recover).
I don't know what else might be an issue, but it's usually the heavy
metals which are cited in anti-EV FUD. Organic pollutants are a
total non-issue if you're comparing against ICEs running on hydrocarbons.
Eeyore
Nobody wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> > Consider the impact on the environment of
> >> > scrapping/recycling all those batteries every few years as well.
> >>
> >> Which? Scrapping or recycling?
> >>
> >> Any battery large enough to power a car for 250 miles is bound to get
> >> recycled.
> >>
> >> The only reason anyone would consider the possibility of large batteries
> >> being routinely scrapped is if they are intentionally trying to make the
> >> figures look bad.
> >
> > So what is the impact of recycling huge batteries every say 3-5 years ?
>
> Probably not a great deal.
Probably ?
Today's cars have no requirement whatever for any significant partial in-service
recycling at all.
Just a thought.
Graham
Phil Allison
"Nobody"
Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>>> Well from what I have read they already are pretty good - 250 miles on
>>>> one charge. That's not bad. Better acceleration than a Porsche.
>>>
>>> But at what speed?
>>
>>
>> ** Over the range from 0 - 60 mph - according to the makers.
>>
>> Achievable in a bit over 4 seconds.
>
> Ah; I should have removed the "Better acceleration than a Porsche" bit.
> What I meant was:
** Sorry - not interested in your pathetic, asinine retraction.
>> ** The force is less than 1G for any normal car - since tyre to road
>> friction is less than the weight of the car.
>>
>> 0 - 60 mph in 4.3 seconds requires a continuous force of just on 0.64G -
>> plus the effect of increasing air drag at higher speeds.
>
>
> Here, I'm talking primarily about force due to drag,
** Bollocks - you are a ASD fucked fucking liar.
>> At anything much above jogging speed, air resistance dominates,
>
> By which, I meant that it dominates over constant frictional forces
> (rolling resistance).
** Sorry - not interested in your pathetic, asinine retraction.
>> ** Air resistance dominates the terminal speed ( said to be 130 mph for
>> the Roadster)
> Wow.
** Sorry - not interested in your pathetic, asinine retraction.
Go get fucked - you ASD fucked MORON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....... Phil
MooseFET
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:26:29 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> >> > Consider the impact on the environment of
> >> > scrapping/recycling all those batteries every few years as well.
>
> >> Which? Scrapping or recycling?
>
> >> Any battery large enough to power a car for 250 miles is bound to get
> >> recycled.
>
> >> The only reason anyone would consider the possibility of large batteries
> >> being routinely scrapped is if they are intentionally trying to make the
> >> figures look bad.
>
> > So what is the impact of recycling huge batteries every say 3-5 years ?
>
> Probably not a great deal.
>
> The energy consumption is likely to be miniscule compared to what a
> vehicle uses in 3-5 years.
>
> As for pollution: the usual metals (lead, nickel, cadmium, lithium) are
> valuable enough that you are going to try to recover as much as possible
> simply on economic grounds (and these aren't particularly hard to recover).
Here's basically how car batteries get recycled:
(1) Ship them to a 3rd world country
(2) Pour the acid out on the ground
(3) Make a big pile of them, pour gas on them and light it to burn off
the plastic.
(4) Have the women and children ccrape up want doesn't burn and put it
in a big pot.
(5) Chop down some rain forest trees to build a fire under the pot.
(6) Have the women and children scrape the junkc that rises to the
surface off.
(7) Pour into molds
(8) Ship recycled lead to 1st world countries.
Eeyore
MooseFET wrote:
> Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > As for pollution: the usual metals (lead, nickel, cadmium, lithium) are
> > valuable enough that you are going to try to recover as much as possible
> > simply on economic grounds (and these aren't particularly hard to recover).
>
> Here's basically how car batteries get recycled:
>
> (1) Ship them to a 3rd world country
>
> (2) Pour the acid out on the ground
>
> (3) Make a big pile of them, pour gas on them and light it to burn off
> the plastic.
>
> (4) Have the women and children ccrape up want doesn't burn and put it
> in a big pot.
>
> (5) Chop down some rain forest trees to build a fire under the pot.
>
> (6) Have the women and children scrape the junkc that rises to the
> surface off.
>
> (7) Pour into molds
>
> (8) Ship recycled lead to 1st world countries.
And all because of RoHS no doubt. Certainly Europeans won't touch the stuff any
more.
Graham
J.A. Legris
wrote:
Seriously, I hardly know the vast variety of immigrants living nearby.
I suspect the same is true of you. Why should either of us consume and
pollute just to visit their home countries until we've at least tried
to know the local ones? Do you find yourself oohing and ahhing at
local architecture or scenic vistas? What does it matter if you've
seen them before? They're still just as impressive aren't they? If you
really care about the countries you visit, just send the money and
stay home. When the big crunch arrives (can you really risk assuming
otherwise?), I won't feel so much brainwashed as preadapted.
--
Joe
Gary Tait
news:46ABDA2D...@hotmail.com:
> What's the big deal about recycling battteries ?
The cost to recover the materials inside is worth more than the materials
on the open market, at least in a enviromentally friendly way.
Eeyore
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
> Seriously, I hardly know the vast variety of immigrants living nearby.
> I suspect the same is true of you.
What's that got to do with anything ?
> Why should either of us consume and
> pollute just to visit their home countries until we've at least tried
> to know the local ones? Do you find yourself oohing and ahhing at
> local architecture or scenic vistas? What does it matter if you've
> seen them before? They're still just as impressive aren't they? If you
> really care about the countries you visit, just send the money and
> stay home. When the big crunch arrives (can you really risk assuming
> otherwise?), I won't feel so much brainwashed as preadapted.
You've not so much 'lost the plot' as never got it.
Graham
mh...@hvc.rr.com
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:27:09 -0700, "J.A. Legris"
>
>
>
> <jaleg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >On Jul 28, 4:59 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Can we now re-charge in say 10 mins?
>
> >> No.
>
> >> This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs have too many
> >> limitations.
>
> >> Graham
>
> >Energy wise, hybrids are only slightly better that the norm, and when
> >we include recycling all those spent batteries, lousy low-temperaure
> >performance and the ultimate source of the energy (coal and oil) it's
> >a boondoggle. The solution is either significantly lighter vehicles
> >(essentially electric bicycles with fairings), or horses. But when you
> >think about it, they're unsustainable too. The only real solution is
> >cutting the population of humans down by a factor of 10, and the only
> >practical and "humane" way to do that is to release a virus that
> >effectively sterilizes a whole generation, without prejudice.
> >Bioterrorists, get to work! The alternative is involuntary extinction,
> >pure and simple. Al Gore's been soft-peddling.
>
> Make it a virus that only infects leftist weenies and those living on
> the government teat... THEN you have the answer ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
> | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
> | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
> | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
>
> America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
That would take out the oil companies, the auto companies, the drug
companies, most agri-business, and pretty much anybody who drives a
car. It's going to be pretty when it's just the other bicycle radicals
and me.
MooseFET
wrote:
No, it long predates RoHS. It is the result of "market forces". The
only thing in the battery worth having is the lead. The rest is a
disposal issue. The ability to externalize the disposal cost is what
drove the recyclers overseas.
J.A. Legris
wrote:
Short little attention span? Let me summarize it for you:
- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are
much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term
solution on this overpopulated planet
- I also said Al Gore's contribution to the solution is to motivate
the masses. Mine is to live a low-impact lifestyle and have no
offspring.
- You said that's "sad"
- I said it's sadder that people don't seem to care about the long-
term effects of overconsumption, such as taking regular vactions, when
they could just read up on it or visit local "foreigners"
- You said there's no substitute for a real vacation, which presumably
includes visiting real foreigners
- I mentioned again the possibility of visiting local "foreigners"
after you ignored it
- You failed to see the connection
- There's your problem
--
Joe
Jim Thompson
<jale...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
>- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are
>much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term
>solution on this overpopulated planet
Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some
kind of idiot.
>- I also said Al Gore's contribution to the solution is to motivate
>the masses.
To CON the masses, and he's making a bundle doing it.
>Mine is to live a low-impact lifestyle and have no
>offspring.
>- You said that's "sad"
>- I said it's sadder that people don't seem to care about the long-
>term effects of overconsumption, such as taking regular vactions, when
>they could just read up on it or visit local "foreigners"
>- You said there's no substitute for a real vacation, which presumably
>includes visiting real foreigners
>- I mentioned again the possibility of visiting local "foreigners"
>after you ignored it
>- You failed to see the connection
>- There's your problem
My own state keeps me "vacationing" forever ;-)
Richard Henry
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris"
> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are
> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term
> >solution on this overpopulated planet
>
> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some
> kind of idiot.
You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally
fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's
luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed.
Jim Thompson
I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist
weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-)
And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT
my children and grandchildren ;-)
David L. Jones
> Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our
> roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
> acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
> say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
> be used for short distances from home.
It can be made reasonably practical. I know someone who modified a
small car into a fully electric car, even placed the mains plug for
charging under the old petrol cap. Drives it to and from work and can
plug it into an outside socket on the wall at work to let it charge
for 8 hours.
A local shopping center even has a dedicated space for an electric
vehicle to allow recharging.
Max range is about 50km which is not that great, but enough to get to
and from work, shopping, or across the city (Sydney).
And no, you can't recharge in 10 minutes.
I like the new electric scooters and bikes, very cool.
Dave.
Richard Henry
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry
>
> >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
> >Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris"
>
> >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are
> >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term
> >> >solution on this overpopulated planet
>
> >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some
> >> kind of idiot.
>
> >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally
> >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's
> >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed.
>
> I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist
> weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-)
>
> And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT
> my children and grandchildren ;-)
OOHH!. Think of the children...
You sound like a leftist weenie.
Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature.
krw
pome...@hotmail.com says...
Not at all. Not "the" children. *HIS* children. There is a
difference.
> Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature.
It's entirely possible as was explained at the time.
--
Keith
John Larkin
If your time is worth a few hundred bucks an hour, it's inefficient to
drive slow.
John
MooseFET
His fuel line leaks badly. Every minute the engine is on, it looses a
gallon,
David L. Jones
> "default"
>
> >>Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our
> >>roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on
> >>acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in
> >>say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to
> >>be used for short distances from home.
>
> > That is more than ample for most commutes.
>
> ** The Roadster has a recharge time ( from dead flat ) of 3.5 hours -
> according to the makers.
>
> Only thing is, owners need to have a dedicated, 3 phase power outlet
> available at home with a capacity of 15 kW - then it will costs about
> $10 or so in electricity for a full recharge.
>
> However ..............
>
> - just load the boot (ie trunk in the USA) with a bunch of these babies
> and get it done in only 1 minute !!!!!
>
> http://www.dcviews.com/press/Toshiba-One-minute.htm
"A prototype of new battery (a laminated lithium ion battery with
600mAh capacity) was discharged and fully recharged 1,000 times at a
temperature of 25 degrees centigrade and lost only 1% of capacity
during the test."
Damn, that's good. I wonder how many cycles they actually get before
it starts to lose some real capacity?
Dave.
Richard Henry
> In article <1185850948.051175.139...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> pomer...@hotmail.com says...
will be overcome by the inevitability of the non-linearity of increase
of air resistance with speed.
Glenn Gundlach
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:48:49 +0200, Martin Griffith wrote:
> > That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
> > ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
> > and going around bends in the road.
>
> Much of the energy required for acceleration is recoverable upon
> deceleration via regenerative braking. It's just a question of
efficiency.
The amount of kinetic energy is related to the speed, not the
acceleration. If you accelerate more rapidly, that extra energy is
not recoverable. Modest acceleration is less wasteful.
>
> The inevitable losses are friction and air resistance, primarily
the
> latter, especially at high speeds. For stop-start urban driving,
failure
> to recover kinetic energy upon deceleration (i.e. lack of
regenerative
> braking) is a significant efficiency loss.
>
> Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
> widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
> improves.
>
> Taxis and buses are a different matter. For heavy use in an urban
> environment, the efficiency gain from regenerative braking could
make it
> worthwhile developing the necessary infrastructure (i.e. places
where you
> can swap flat batteries for fully charged ones every couple of
hours).
Got a Prius last year. So far 52+ mpg for 15000 miles. It's the best I
can do.
GG
Phil Allison
"Glenn Gundlach"
> The amount of kinetic energy is related to the speed, not the
> acceleration.
** Correct.
> If you accelerate more rapidly, that extra energy is
> not recoverable.
** Shame how that flatly contradicts your first statement.
Fact is, there is no extra energy input.
Simply a larger power input applied for shorter time.
> Modest acceleration is less wasteful.
** Maybe so, in practice, with typical internal combustion engines - but
not for any simple physics reason.
...... Phil
John Larkin
The air resistance is highly nonlinear, cubic power:speed roughly,
whereas other losses are essentially independent of speed. Every car
will have an optimum speed for miles/gallon, and it won't be zero.
John
MooseFET
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:31:20 -0700, Richard Henry
>
>
>
It also won't be much over about 50MPH. It takes about 15 HP to push
a modest sized car at 50MPH. The windage losses per mile run as just
about the square of the speed.
Jim Thompson
I don't ever recall saying "more-efficient-at-higher-speed".
But I guess it WOULD depend on your definition. The engine is
optimized right around 3000RPM (85MPH), but external drag is higher.
Jim Thompson
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:02:28 -0700, Richard Henry
><pome...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>>Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature.
>>
>
>If your time is worth a few hundred bucks an hour, it's inefficient to
>drive slow.
>
>John
There ya go ;-)
Guy Macon
Jim Thompson wrote:
>I don't ever recall saying "more-efficient-at-higher-speed".
>
>But I guess it WOULD depend on your definition. The engine is
>optimized right around 3000RPM (85MPH), but external drag is higher.
Assuming that "optimized" means maximum efficiency as opposed
to maximum power or torque, wouldn't it be more efficient at
3000 RPM in first gear?
Part of me thinks about the far lower drag and says that it
would. Part of me thinks about those pistons moving up and
down more times per mile and sucking in about the same amount
of fuel per cycle and says that it wouldn't. Maybe it needs
an engine sized for 3000 RPM in first gear to make it work?
Also, I can't prove it, but I suspect that hard accelerating
to some speed (don't know how fast) and then shutting down
the engine and coasting down, then repeating, gives the
maximum fuel economy.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
John Larkin
Interesting curve:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
And it is reasonable to also factor in the value of your time.
John
Jim Thompson
"Remove excess weight"... don't give a leftist weenie a ride ;-)
Charlie Edmondson
>
> MooseFET wrote:
>
>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>>Martin Griffith wrote:
>>>
>>>>If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>>>
>>>To a first aproximation, given a large number of electric cars
>>>on a power grid, the load on the power grid is almost the same
>>>whether they recharge in ten minutes or ten hours. In the
>>>later case, you have 60 times as many cars being recharged at
>>>any given time, each of which is drawing 1/60th as much power.
>>>
>>>Short recharge times would, however, have a large effect on the
>>>time of day that the charging would take place. At ten hours
>>>everyone will plug in when they get home. At ten minutes a
>>>large number will try to recharge in the morning right before
>>>leaving for work. And the grid has to be sized for peak load,
>>>not average load...
>>
>>At 2 seconds, people will recharge it just before they set out. At
>>ten minutes, they will plug the charger in when they get how. Nobody
>>wants to wait an extra ten minutes before they start on their hour
>>long commute.
>>
>>
>>>Either way, I don't see the total capacity of the current power
>>>grid being enough. Household nuclear reactors, anyone? :)
>>
>>The owners will get a better deal on the power if they let the power
>>company control the charging current. The feature will be built into
>>the charger and most people will use it.
>
>
> That's a very sensible idea actually. The recharging rate could be dynamically
> modulated to provide a full charge quite quickly whilst at the same time
> minimising peak load on the grid (and obtaining optimal use of spare capacity) .
> That'll keep the power generators very happy indeed.
>
> Plus, you're presumably get a discount for plugging it in earlier rather than
> later. That might provide the required incentive to do that.
>
> I'd patent it FAST.
>
> Graham
>
>
Also, it isn't like 10 million cars will suddenly appear overnight, they
would be added over a period of many years. During this transition,
power companies will slowly be building up the grid, esp. in areas that
have more electric vehicles...
Charlie
MooseFET
The power companies can't be counted on to build up the grid.
Spending on new stuff would cut into this months profits. If it
doesn't look like the grid will support it, people won't buy the
cars. When people don't buy the cars no new grid is needed.
Jim Thompson
Just think of the litter, cars with dead batteries stalled on the
freeway, and no where to plug them in ;-)
MooseFET
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:02:28 -0700, Richard Henry
>
>
>
If you shift to a lower gear, 3000 RPM is at a lower speed. If there
isn't an issue that is well modeled by a fuel leak, the milage would
improve.
MooseFET
At those speeds it is drag not weight that matters. You shouldn't
wear a dress while driving.
krw
kens...@rahul.net says...
Ever consider that transmissions aren't equally efficient in all
gears and perhaps the over-drive locked-up may be a tad more
efficient than the lower gears? There is also work done just
spinning the engine. Me thinks you're wrong.
--
Keith
John Larkin
wrote:
You get the best mileage if you wear nothing at all.
John
JosephKK
Not necessarily. My first new car got about 22 mpg at 55 mph and
about 26 mpg at 70 mph. Back then i had plenty of documentation to
back it up. Kinda funny, 70 mph occurred right the rmp torque
peak. It couldn't be a coincidence could it?
JosephKK
> On Jul 31, 8:19 am, Jim Thompson
But my favorite gal likes wearing dresses. Oh wait, that wouldn't
be drag then. I guess i will have to tell her not to wear pants.
Spehro Pefhany
I suspect Spandex is better than nothing. More slippery than hairy
surfaces and it could prevent the energy-sapping oscillation of fatty
and/or dangly bits.
>John
Interesting that modern hybrids apparently get better gas milage in
city driving rather than highway.
Eg. Prius 60mpg city, 51mpg highway
http://www.toyota.com/prius/specs.html
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Richard Henry
<speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:29:24 -0700, the renowned John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:08:26 -0700, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net>
Richard Henry
> MooseFET kensm...@rahul.net posted to sci.electronics.design:
Documentation?
The first question would be: How did you measure it?
John Larkin
Well, I suppose some people are more viscous than others.
>
>Interesting that modern hybrids apparently get better gas milage in
>city driving rather than highway.
We have a friend who bought a Toyota hybrid. But hauling all those
batteries up and down the hills here apparently isn't efficient... her
mileage is mediocre.
>Eg. Prius 60mpg city, 51mpg highway
People don't buy Prius' to save gas, they buy them to be hip and
stylish. So instead of smog, we have clouds of smug.
John
Glenn Gundlach
Some guys thought the same as you and went and did it.
http://origin.www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2005/fall/marathon.html
This is absolutely not for real roads but it proves your point.
GG
Glenn Gundlach
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<snip>
> We have a friend who bought a Toyota hybrid. But hauling all those
> batteries up and down the hills here apparently isn't efficient...
her
> mileage is mediocre.
>
> >Eg. Prius 60mpg city, 51mpg highway
>
> People don't buy Prius' to save gas, they buy them to be hip and
> stylish. So instead of smog, we have clouds of smug.
>
> John
I did and do. What I REALLY want to do is tell them thar arabs I don't
want to use any more of their oil than I have to. Between my work
commute and _not_ using the wife's ML350 on weekends, the household
fuel use dropped 13 gallons a week with no fewer miles used. It
consistently hits 50+ MPG and you can see the gas records to verify
BUT my commute is almost ideal for a Prius. 25 miles each way,
moderate stretches of 35-40 MPH, not much freeway, no hills >400 feet,
7-8am so not hot, car parked underground all day 5-6pm going home,
also not hot so little A/C needed. Blah blah blah. Not smug, just
trying to do something better than before.
I'm too old to be hip and stylish though it does get washed.
GG
Nobody
>> > That is not the point, work out how much energy it takes to move say 1
>> > ton of metal a 100Km, with all the normal losses, like traffic lights,
>> > and going around bends in the road.
> >
> > Much of the energy required for acceleration is recoverable upon
> > deceleration via regenerative braking. It's just a question of efficiency.
>
> The amount of kinetic energy is related to the speed, not the
> acceleration. If you accelerate more rapidly, that extra energy is
> not recoverable.
No. The kinetic energy is related to the speed; how you got to that speed
only matters if it affects the efficiency of whatever generates the
kinetic energy (engine, motor).
> Modest acceleration is less wasteful.
Only insofar as some power sources will be less efficient when run at
higher power. This is particularly true for ICEs; typically less so for
motors, although copper losses will increase as I^2*R, so twice the
current for half the time will produce double the loss for the same total
energy.
My main point was that these aren't "inevitable" losses. E.g. using
thicker wiring or using higher voltage/lower current will reduce copper
losses, better MOSFETs will reduce conversion losses, etc. OTOH,
losses due to drag are inevitable. Given that the vehicle has to carry
passengers, you can only reduce the drag so far.
> > The inevitable losses are friction and air resistance, primarily the
> > latter, especially at high speeds. For stop-start urban driving, failure
> > to recover kinetic energy upon deceleration (i.e. lack of regenerative
> > braking) is a significant efficiency loss.
> >
> > Realistically, we aren't going to see electric vehicles becoming
> > widespread until battery (or equivalent energy storage) technology
> > improves.
> >
> > Taxis and buses are a different matter. For heavy use in an urban
> > environment, the efficiency gain from regenerative braking could make it
> > worthwhile developing the necessary infrastructure (i.e. places where you
> > can swap flat batteries for fully charged ones every couple of hours).
>
> Got a Prius last year. So far 52+ mpg for 15000 miles. It's the best I
> can do.
Conventional hybrids are hampered by transferring the motor power through
a conventional mechanical drivetrain. An all-electric drivetrain (e.g.
directly attaching a motor to each wheel) would be more efficient, and
also removes some layout constraints which may allow drag to be reduced.