300 kW EV Tractor vs 400 hp Diesel

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.

Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.

In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.

In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.

And that's just for one field.

Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
$350,000/field in 6 years.

The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.

Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
conspiracy and post there.


Bret Cahill

 

[phil hays]

BretCahill wrote:

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

For short periods of time.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)

Would be a failure as a tractor. One to two hours working time followed
by several hours of recharge time? The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would
take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour
(about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW..
Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that
would usually be done that slow, but there are crops I know little about,
like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and
that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20
cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different
machinery.


Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23853730-3102,00.html

Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200
acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in
the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?


--
Phil Hays

 

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.

I think your numbers are off.

Extrapolating from table 2 at this URL,

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/farmmgt/05006.html

I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a
square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do
it using a 244 hp tractor.

In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.

My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that
was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
require 400 hp.


Bret Cahill

 

[phil hays]

BretCahill wrote:

Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.

Show me. Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery
replacement costs and such what costs. Build a recharger, and find out
what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but

And don't forget:

The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.

In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.

So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?


--
Phil Hays

 

[Tim Wescott]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.

Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.

In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.

In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.

And that's just for one field.

Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
$350,000/field in 6 years.

The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.

Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
conspiracy and post there.


Bret Cahill

Please keep your off-topic spam off of sci.electronics.basics.

Thanks.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

 

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.

Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.

In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.

In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.

And that's just for one field.

Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
$350,000/field in 6 years.

The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.

Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
conspiracy and post there.

Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn
farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about
$1.60/gallon.

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf

It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming
operations.

My numbers were based on what a too-clever-by-half moron posted. He
was claiming that there was a farm operation that it would take an
hour to go half a mile for a 400 hp tractor running wide open.

While that situation is probably very rare if it ever exists, even if
it is common it does _not_ change the argument for battery-electric
tractors. The moron was simply too stupid to figure out that the more
electrical energy that the he claims the electric tractor will need,
the more the diesel is going to cost to do the same operation and the
stronger the argument for battery electric tractors.

It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since
then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to
spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough
methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the
required farming operation.

I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see
how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling
indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not
as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There
are many farming operations requiring different implements at different
times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others
where very little needs to be (or can be) done.

The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor.
The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for
instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it
uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising
at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind
resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given
to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is
about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250
kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes.

About the time a 400 hp tractor running wide open will need between
passes for most real life farming operations.

Need 12 minutes @ 400 hp? Spend a few thousand from the EIGHTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS in fuel savings to double the size of the battery
pack.

Need 60 minutes for the hypothetical 0.5 mph scenario? Then it's
_still_ cheaper to 10X the battery pack.

What am I saying? That's where the greatest savings are!

Then it would need to be
recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged
efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes.

Go window shopping at the Home Depot. Makita sells an 18 volt Li Ion
battery pack that recharges in 10 minutes.

No one in the industry or in tech will deny that recharge times will
continue to decrease.

It'll be five minutes before the first prototype E tractor can be
built.

It'll be 2 minutes before E tractors are in full production.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. They know that the
smaller the cells, the faster the charging time.

Guess what they'll do? They'll make smaller cells.

So you would need to
run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the
battery pack.

Just wire 4X more batteries in parallel.

We're talking $150,000 in fuel savings in 2 years for _one_ square.

That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a
day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times
bigger than the Tesla's.

I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one
way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude
reality check.

Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic
alternatives that will work.

There is no question that all kinds of custom tailored electric
systems will appear and work for almost all farmers. There's no
question the diesel thingy is over.

To speed things up I've proven a much bolder claim than that:

In a few short years the _least_ cost effective electric tractor
system is or will soon be wildly more cost effective than any diesel
in _any_ situation, _long_ before many E tractors are in production.

And this is with off the shelf technology.

Someone in the field should have said something before now. I've
upstaged everyone so now I should be able to request what is really
needed now:

A tractor pull.


Bret Cahill

 

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

For short periods of time.

The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
field back to the recharger.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)

Would be a failure as a tractor.

Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.

One to two hours working time

Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.

At today's prices.

In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.

In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.

Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:

Everytime you start talkin' energy, I'm gonna pop you on your fanny
with the diesel equivalent.

You'll then need to show how the batteries are _more_ expensive.

This, of course, ain't gonna happen.

followed
by several hours of recharge time?

You need to get out sometime. If you cannot afford gas try cycling to
the Home Depot. Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
minutes.

There isn't a soul in the industry or academia who will deny that this
time will drop.

The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.

At the typical 10 kW household current.

Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple
of minutes with off the shelf technology.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would
take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour
(about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW..

I guess we can forget about paying all that money for a lot of extra
batteries.

Hey, wait! That's an argument _for_ battery tractors.

You could knock me over with a feather!

Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that
would usually be done that slow,

Hey, it might become necessary someday! There's all kinds of
situations! Maybe they'll eventually try to clear Joshua Tree for
farming! The sooner they do _something_ with that hideous place the
better.

But yea, I agree. It ain't an everyday operation. Some too-clever-by-
half moron came up with that nonsense hoping it was an argument
against battery tractors.

It wasn't

but there are crops I know little about,
like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and
that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20
cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different
machinery.

Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23853730-3102,00.html

Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200
acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in
the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?

CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas.

If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately!


Bret Cahill

 

Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.

Show me.

Buy two Teslas for $100K each then scrap them for the motors and
batteries.

Already you've saved money compared to the diesel, maybe even in
initial cost alone!

Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery
replacement costs and such what costs.

Every cost is _already_ well known and can be easily calculated by any
IEOR.

Build a recharger,

What next? Reinvent the wheel?

and find out
what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but

And don't forget:

The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.

And you're whining about about battery technology being unproven?

? ? ?

We _know_ everything about the batteries. They already exist. We
only have _claims_ for the algae.

In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.

So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?

Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping
the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2
mile of fire tubing.

What's wrong with burning bio at a utility power plant set up to burn
bio?

A pizzeria is set up to make pizza.

A farm is set up to cultivate fields with grid power.

And a stationary power plant is set up to make power from bio.

Read the _Republic_ where each person does a specific task.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:57:28 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
minutes.

---
So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?

I think even you can figure out the answer to that one, LOL!
---

The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.

At the typical 10 kW household current.

---
10kW is power, not current.
---

Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple
of minutes with off the shelf technology.

---
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.

Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.

It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.

I think your numbers are off.

Extrapolating from table 2 at this URL,

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/farmmgt/05006.html

I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a
square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do
it using a 244 hp tractor.

In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.

---
How much smaller?

I've already shown you how to find the capacity of the battery you
need, so why don't you run the numbers and see whether what you have
in mind is realizable instead of just running your mouth?
---

My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that
was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
require 400 hp.

---
Hey, Brat, you were the one who came up with 400 HP, so if you
disagree with the numbers, change them to something you're comfortable
with and then post what capacity battery will be needed for that job.

And show your work, please.


---
JF

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/23/08 9:57 PM, in article
0ca72681-b687-47b9-9ff2-a5dd20e3de0b@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
"BretCahill@peoplepc.com" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas.

If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately!


Bret Cahill

IMO You have been less than ethical in your posts. Why would anyone care if
CBS beat you to something/

 

[Mark Thorson]

phil hays wrote:

So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?

Plant alternate rows with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_antisyphilitica

and the steam tractor could harvest its fuel
as it performs its function. Candelilla burns
quite well because of its high wax content.
In Mexico, peasants harvest wild candelilla
and boil it to extract the wax. The leftover
stalks are then burnt as fuel for boiling more
candelilla.

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 23, 10:57 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.
For short periods of time.

The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
field back to the recharger.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
Would be a failure as a tractor.

Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.

One to two hours working time

Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.

At today's prices.

In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.

In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.

Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:

Diesel will not keep rising at 30%. The only reason that it is not
already falling is that the lead time on making synthetic diesel from
coal is long and the initial capital investment is high, so noone has
taken the plunge. However, if the costs threaten to keep rising, it
will be done, as there are still huge reserves of coal and someone
stands to make a huge pile of money supplying cheaper energy.

 

[Mark Thorson]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping
the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2
mile of fire tubing.

There's nowhere close to that much tubing.
And all of that stuff would be burnt off
at the operating temperature.

You originally tried to dismiss the steam
tractor with the spectre of boiler explosions,
which are a non-issue for firetube boilers.

When that failed, you retreated to this
equally bogus argument. You don't know the
facts, and try to dismiss what you don't know
with hand-waving.

Steam has been practical for powering tractors
in the past, and with modern materials it
could be even more competitive. Best of all,
it is the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle, because
the fuel doesn't need to burn at a precise
rate under confinement. It doesn't even need
to be a liquid. It could even be coal (our
most abundant fuel), or wood (our most abundant
renewable fuel).

It's far more practical than hauling 10 tons
of batteries around. It's also more efficient
because it only converts chemical energy into
mechanical work. The battery-powered tractor
requires converting chemical energy into
mechanical work (at the power plant), converting
mechanical work into electricity (at the power
plant), transmission line losses, converting
electricity into chemical energy (charging the
tractor's battery), converting chemical energy
into electricity (discharging the battery),
and converting electricity into mechanical work.
You lose energy at every conversion step.
Game over. Not practical.

 

My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that
was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
require 400 hp.

---
Hey, Brat, you were the one who came up with 400 HP,

I didn't come up with _any_ of the numbers here except the 6 - 10 mph
speeds for the tractor, numbers that have been confirmed by another
poster citing figures from a government web site.

I got the 400 hp along with the 22 gallons/hr from the local Case
dealership. The biggest savings come from the biggest slurpers of
diesel.

Some vineyard selling overpriced wine is _not_ going to be my first
customer.

And I got the 0.5 mph from some too-clever-by-half poster claiming
that some farming operation would take an hour to go half a mile
running the 400 hp tractor wide open.

So you are boxed in.

If you claim that an operation requires a lot of energy, you are
arguing against the diesel tractor because the diesel will need to
consume so much $$$ to do an equivalent amount of work it's cheaper to
buy the laptop batteries.

If you claim that the operation doesn't require much diesel, then you
are also arguing for electric tractors because the battery pack will
be so small.

You don't need a spreadsheet to figger out the EV tractor will
_always_ be more cost effective than the diesel.

Take initial cost including whatever watt hour of batteries you think
it'll need. Take the time paying the tractor driver to pause 2
minutes at the end of the field

Then do the operating costs including grid costs and diesel fuel costs
_for the same operation_. I know you will try to dodge this one
because this is the reason diesel is no longer competitive.

Then compare the overall costs just like any sophmore IEOR student.


Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/24/08 11:57 AM, in article
630f9eaa-b166-4df4-8174-57faad6fa78e@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
"BretCahill@peoplepc.com" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

This thread is about electric v diesel tractors.

If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.

Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well.


Bret Cahill

Take your topic to an appropriate newsgroup and quit spamming this one with
your nonsense. It appears to me from a brief search that this trashing is
something you do often.

 

The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.

For short periods of time.

The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
field back to the recharger.

A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)

Would be a failure as a tractor.

Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.

One to two hours working time

Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.

At today's prices.

In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.

In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.

Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:

Diesel will not keep rising at 30%. ďż˝

True. It will probably start increasing at 40% - 50% a year as the
big wells give out lowering world production by a third in 8 years.

Far worse than the supply curve is the demand curve. China's double
digit growth rate means it will pass the U. S. in as little as 6
years, probably earlier if Soros is correct about the permanent U. S.
recession. Toss in India and the U. S. share of the global oil pie
will plummet.

Unlike 1929 the entire country is wired. The media cannot deceive/
dumb down anywhere nearly as effectively as before. The Fed knows
this and will want to keep unemployment as low as possible to keep the
frog from jumping out of the pot. The dollar will get even weaker
which will cause the price of oil to spiral even more.

The state of denial about the peak oil + China + the U. S. economy is
understandable.

It's a bleak situation.

The only reason that it is not
already falling is that the lead time on making synthetic diesel from
coal is long and the initial capital investment is high, so noone has
taken the plunge. ďż˝

How long will _this_ take?

What about the interim? Are we just going to "load shed" millions of
people?

However, if the costs threaten to keep rising, it
will be done, as there are still huge reserves of coal

It would be more cost effective to burn the coal in a power plant and
power the tractors from the grid.

and someone
stands to make a huge pile of money supplying cheaper energy.

Even the electric tractor, much faster than coal liquification or even
bio diesel, will take several years.


Bret Cahill

 

Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
minutes.

So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?

Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a
12 hour day to go through customs at the border.

Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
field instead?

After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two
years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator.

Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
to drop.

. . .

The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.

At the typical 10 kW household current.

10kW is power, not current.

Who suggested it was?

Anyway you dodged the issue.

The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
farm application.

Out in a field the 1 MW �line would charge up the tractor in a couple
of minutes with off the shelf technology.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)

Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.

Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?


Bret Cahill

 

This thread is about electric v diesel tractors.

If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.

Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
minutes.

So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?

Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a
12 hour day to go through customs at the border.

---
That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck, and isn't the
point, the point being that if 5 hours loss of productivity is due to
having to wait for batteries to charge up, Then the cost per hour for
the machine gets to be about 1.7 times what it would be if it were
running continuously.
---

Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
field instead?

---
Why not just admit that your pipe dream is fatally flawed and stop
trying to wriggle off the hook?

You're well and firmly hooked you know, and so does everybody else,
---

After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two
years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator.

---
Yeah, if your scheme was viable, but it isn't.
---

Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
to drop.

---
Meaningless prattle since there's no doubt that charging times will
drop if demand so dictates.

The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
huge currents. That makes your device impractical.
---

The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.

At the typical 10 kW household current.

10kW is power, not current.

Who suggested it was?
^

--- |
Short attention span? You did-----
---

Anyway you dodged the issue.

---
What issue?
---

The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
farm application.

Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
of minutes with off the shelf technology.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)

Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.

---
Apples and oranges.
---

Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?

---
Neither.

You, however, seem to get yourself into these little messes where you
have to squirm and slide in order to try to slime yourself out of
them.

Kind of like watching someone who's been shitting into a cesspool for
years falling in and realizing there's no ladder.

JF