75% Efficiency From Induction Electrification of Roadbeds

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

�Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

---
Which is precisely why you try to get others inflamed to the point where
they'll say: "Yes, dammit, I _do_ know!" and then they spill the beans
Can you name _one single poster_ who managed to acquire any IP of any
value with that tactic?

and you can pretend you knew the trick all along and owe them nothing.
But there is no trick or IP here.

You cannot patent the laws of physics that allow or prohibit moving
induction.

Again, you need to go to small claims court and sue to get your
"training" money back.


Bret Cahill
 
Since battery costs are 2X grid costs, even 33% efficiency would be
competitive with charging stations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distanc...

Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't sound like they were charging a moving vehicle.

Do you see any problems with a moving version? ?

---
Yes, many.

Which are?
Dodge 1.

Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

---
Yes

Which are?

You're trying to fly before you learn to crawl.
Dodge 2.

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.
If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

?If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? ?

---
Grasping at straws, are we?

You certainly are when you keep trying to fake a tech background.

You seem to think that just by endlessly parroting lies they'll suddenly
turn into truth.
Whatever happened to that defamation lawsuit?

If you don't defend your "good" name everyone is going to know, er
think, that you never took any thermo courses and you look like a
dunce trying to discuss indunction.

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. ?Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars

How many miles would it take for 100000 cars to be spaced, each with a
safe following distance?

Depends on the number of lanes,
First show us you are bright enough to do even one lane.

the speed at which the cars were moving,
Try working with a plausible number and then everything can be
adjusted later.

the reaction times of the drivers, and the phase of the moon.
Just admit it: You are too clueless to even set up the problem.

But that's your part of the problem, so get off your ignorant ass and
try to work it out.

and the load becomes 150000
amperes.

What is the spacing between the sub stations feeding the road?

You're the one who thinks it's a good idea,
For 150 megawatts with spacing of 100 cars/mile, about 40 feet
following distance, then you're talking a substation every hundred
miles.

Now why would anyone want to space substations that far apart?

Are you really this stupid in real life or do you just act that way
here?

and that's your part of the
problem, so get off your ignorant ass and try to work it out.
---

Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up.

Instead of paying $75,000/hour for $5/gallon fuel they could pay
15,000 for juice, savings of $60,000/hour or $6/hr/car.
Dodge 3.

The savings for a trucker would be over $50,000/year.
Dodge 4.

On top of that will be the I�R losses in the
rails themselves.

What's the conductivity of the rails?

Depends on how much loss you're prepared to suffer in the rails.
That comes from the spread sheet.

That's how IEORs find the minimum cost _overall_. They spreadsheet.

You know what an IEOR is or are you just plain ignorant of
_everything_ in tech?

.. . . .

A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. ?In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

Now _that's_ funny!
---

Is it as funny as burning $10/gallon fuel 100% of the time?

---
Much funnier, since gas is now about $2/gallon
Only because of the recession.

You have any clue as to how that guy with the nicely trimmed facial
hair at the fed is going to deal with the 15 trillion dolar debt, 1
trillion deficit and bailouts?


Bret Cahill
 
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:54:14 -0800 (PST), Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

?Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

---
Which is precisely why you try to get others inflamed to the point where
they'll say: "Yes, dammit, I _do_ know!" and then they spill the beans

Can you name _one single poster_ who managed to acquire any IP of any
value with that tactic?
---
Yes; you.
---

and you can pretend you knew the trick all along and owe them nothing.

But there is no trick or IP here.
---
Sure there is.

You keep lusting after clues you can use to support your untenable
position and hoping you'll get slapped in the face with them.
---

You cannot patent the laws of physics that allow or prohibit moving
induction.
---
You seem to have a remarkable grasp of the obvious, and while the laws
can't be patented, novel schemes which use moving inductors for one
purpose or another _can_ be patented.

Your pie-in-the-sky magnetic cable and pickup coil scheme might be a
candidate if it weren't for all the pitfalls surrounding it and, since
you're certainly not technically astute, you're trying to get that
information by angering folks who do know about that kind of stuff to
the point of giving it to you just to prove that they _do_ know what
they're talking about.

JF
 
For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.
---
"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically, but I see that's an alien
concept to you.

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

Looking for more free info, huh?

It ain't gonna work.
---

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.
---
Let's see...

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they were
always yours.

Getting close?
---

?If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? ?

---
Grasping at straws, are we?

You certainly are when you keep trying to fake a tech background.
---
Another attempt at getting some free tech data?
---

You seem to think that just by endlessly parroting lies they'll suddenly
turn into truth.

Whatever happened to that defamation lawsuit?
---
All in good time...
---

If you don't defend your "good" name everyone is going to know, er
think, that you never took any thermo courses and you look like a
dunce trying to discuss indunction.
---
"Indunction"??? LOL, that's rich!

There's no need for a defense since I've been around long enough and
done enough work here that no one thinks I'm a phony.

You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to destroy what little
credibility you may have started out with with every word you type.

If that's your intent you'll be pleased to know that it's working.
---

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. ?Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars

How many miles would it take for 100000 cars to be spaced, each with a
safe following distance?

Depends on the number of lanes,

First show us you are bright enough to do even one lane.
---
Geez, Bret, I set the problem up, so now the challenge is for you to
solve it.
---

the speed at which the cars were moving,

Try working with a plausible number and then everything can be
adjusted later.
---
Geez, Bret, I set the problem up, so now the challenge is for you to
solve it.
---


the reaction times of the drivers, and the phase of the moon.

Just admit it: You are too clueless to even set up the problem.
---
Hmmm...

You don't understand why the phase of the moon is important?
---

But that's your part of the problem, so get off your ignorant ass and
try to work it out.

and the load becomes 150000
amperes.

What is the spacing between the sub stations feeding the road?

You're the one who thinks it's a good idea,

For 150 megawatts with spacing of 100 cars/mile, about 40 feet
following distance, then you're talking a substation every hundred
miles.

Now why would anyone want to space substations that far apart?
---
For the single-lane, one-way road you describe, because that's all that
would be necessary, assuming no losses in the rails.
---

Are you really this stupid in real life or do you just act that way
here?
---
Me???

I didn't dream up that nutzoid 100 mile stretch of road and then have to
ask why the substations would be spaced 100 miles apart.
---


and that's your part of the
problem, so get off your ignorant ass and try to work it out.
---

Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up.

Instead of paying $75,000/hour for $5/gallon fuel they could pay
15,000 for juice, savings of $60,000/hour or $6/hr/car.
---
Well, let's see...

If:

C = fuel cost= $5.00 per gallon
P = vehicle power consumption = 20HP = 15kW
R = vehicle speed = 30MPH
Q = vehicle fuel consumption = 20MPG
n = number of vehicles = 10000
D = distance traveled = 100 miles.
T = time

Then for a single liquid-fueled vehicle the cost per mile would be:


C $5PG $5
--- = ------- = ----- = $0.25 per mile
Q 20MPG 20M


So, 100 miles would cost 100 times that, or: $25

For 10000 vehicles the cost would be 10000 times that: $250,000


Since you've specified the vehicle speed as 30MPH, the 100 mile trip
would take:

D 100mi
T = --- = ------- = 3.3 hours
V 30MPH


and the cost of fuel, per hour, would be:


$250000
-------- = $75000 per hour.
3.3H



For the electric, at $0.10/kWH, we'll have a 20HP motor dissipating 15kW
for 3.3 hours, which is 49.5kWH.

At $0.10 per kilowatt-hour that comes to $4.95 for the 100 mile trip,
which is $49,500 for the 10000 car fleet, or $15000.

So your numbers seem to be correct, but your cockamamie scheme is still
fatally flawed since you have no clue as to how to make it work or how
to bring it to fruition.
---

Dodge 3.

The savings for a trucker would be over $50,000/year.
---
If frogs had wings then beggars would ride...
---

Dodge 4.

On top of that will be the I?R losses in the
rails themselves.

What's the conductivity of the rails?

Depends on how much loss you're prepared to suffer in the rails.

That comes from the spread sheet.
---
So let's see something.
---

That's how IEORs find the minimum cost _overall_. They spreadsheet.

You know what an IEOR is or are you just plain ignorant of
_everything_ in tech?
---
Yes, and no.
---

A vac truck could come by every so often to keep trash from
shorting it out. ?In heavy downpours, ice or snow you burn fuel.

Now _that's_ funny!
---

Is it as funny as burning $10/gallon fuel 100% of the time?

---
Much funnier, since gas is now about $2/gallon

Only because of the recession.

You have any clue as to how that guy with the nicely trimmed facial
hair at the fed is going to deal with the 15 trillion dolar debt, 1
trillion deficit and bailouts?
---
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the
courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the
difference."

Reinhold Niebuhr





JF
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs

Please explain. A battery is a capital investment for energy storage.

How many times can the battery be cycled before it degrades and needs
to be replaced?
Depends on technology (chemistry - variation thereof etc) , depth of
discharge, rate of discharge, rate of recharge etc etc.

As low as 300 certainly.

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

Grid electricity is paying for energy as you use it.

Most batteries are so expensive they will need financing
I would see leasing with guaranteed replacements as capacity falls, as the
only practical solution.

BTW, a battery car that will do say 50 miles on a new battery may go only
35 miles on one that's about to be changed.


and people will be paying as they use the battery.
That doesn't address my initial point.

Grahan
 
John Larkin wrote:

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

Do you see any problems with a moving version? Not that it would
necessarily be cost effective but of anything in thermo or fields that
would make it impossible or very difficult?

The field shape would be tricky, especially since a vehicle wouldn't
always be in the exact center of a lane. And a road has to be pretty
thick to be strong enough to support trucks, so getting a small air
gap will be difficult. A few thousand miles of pole pieces and coils
and electronic drivers might get a tad expensive, too. Maintenance
would be interesting.

If you have a workable topology in mind, post a sketch and some
numbers. Words are cheap.
And the primary has to be run constantly with associated losses even when no
load is present !


Silly idea, when gasoline engines work so well.
And will work a lot better still in the near future. The target for 'new
generation' diesels for autos is 40% for example. And a lot of the ways it will
reach those figures are already known, like eliminating the camshaft and using
electronic valve control which is FAR more versatile and efficient.

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.
Do you realise what effect that would have on the number of potholes (and their
location) ?

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:
John Larking wrote:

On top of that will be the I2R losses in the rails themselves.

What's the conductivity of the rails?
Depends what they're made of doesn't it ? I believe the London Underground uses
high molybdenum steel for low wear. And you are going to have a LOT of wear.

So, go find the resistance of it and answer John's question.

Graham
 
"hhc314@yahoo.com" wrote:

A very different subject is non-contact of energy to individual
vechicles on a roadway.and not on a guideway or on tracks. The US
Federal Government as part of their IVHS program has been exploring
this for now well over 20 years, without much evidence of success thus
far. This project also addresses the driverless operation of
individual vehicles.

Surprising, the wireless transfer of operating traction energy to the
individual vehicles is not, as I understand it, the major obstacle,
but is problematic. As I understand it, the greates coefficient of
coupling thus obtained is about 15%, which is close to the figure
obtain by your inductively charged electric toothbrush. Energy
efficiency is not the issue here, since energy that is not coupled to
a load is not lost.
But the primary has to be constantly energised regardless of loading and
that DOES mean losses.

Also, the test bus they made (requiring an amazingly flat road) created
such high levels of acoustic noise from the power transfer that it would
never be acceptable. I haven't the article in front of me, but a figure in
the 70-80 dB region comes to mind.

Graham
 
In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.

Do you realise what effect that would have on the number of potholes (and their
location) ?

Graham
That's a minor issue.

The main problem is such things are horrifically expensive with the
total cost = number of lanes (in both directions) times number of miles
times cost per installed mile.

Technically possible does not mean fiscally possible, a fact the arm
wavers usually overlook.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 
Do you see any problems with a moving version?

YES !

Well?

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us them problems!

VAST problems.

But are these problems as vast as Al Gore?

?Basic to physics which you clearly have never understood,

Don't you want to enlighten all of Poo Bear's friends?

so it's largely pointless trying to explain why.

Especisally if you don't know.

---
Which is precisely why you try to get others inflamed to the point where
they'll say: "Yes, dammit, I _do_ know!" and then they spill the beans

Can you name _one single poster_ who managed to acquire any IP of any
value with that tactic?

Yes; you.
What was the IP?

And who was so stupid that he provided intellectual property to me for
free?

and you can pretend you knew the trick all along and owe them nothing.

But there is no trick or IP here.

Sure there is.

You keep lusting after clues you can use to support your untenable
position
If the ideas don't work, then how can there be any IP?

Your reasoning ability has been compromised.

and hoping you'll get slapped in the face with them.
With what?

You cannot patent the laws of physics that allow or prohibit moving
induction.

You seem to have a remarkable grasp of the obvious, and while the laws
can't be patented, novel schemes which use moving inductors for one
purpose or another _can_ be patented.
But I thought you proved it wouldn't work. The patent office is clear
that it won't provide protection on technology that doesn't work. See
the Code of Federal Regulations.

Your pie-in-the-sky magnetic cable and pickup coil scheme
Actually it's on the ground.

might be a
candidate if it weren't for all the pitfalls surrounding it
Then you need to get a Pell Grant, study engineering and explain why
circular furrows will never work.

Right now you just look like an idiotic - fraud trying to fake like
you unnderstand fields or thermo.

Also you self _un_employed types need to read the excellent article
below.

You wan't flame quite so much.


Bret Cahill



http://www.aarpmagazine.org/money/fear_economy_studs_terkel.html

The Great Depression. I was about 17 years old. Hoover was still
president. People had been living high off the hog. And then, boom,
comes the Crash. It was so sudden. Guys jumped out of windows. They
didn’t know what to do. The wise men ran around, and then they cried
out after Roosevelt for the government to help them out. Regulation.
They asked for it. They cried for it. The wise men were lost, just as
they are today. The free market fell on its fanny. We learned nothing.
It’s exactly the same today.

“The lessons of the Great Depression? Don’t blame yourself. Turn to
others. The big boys are not that bright.”

My mother ran a hotel, the Wells-Grand Hotel, for men, just outside
Chicago’s skid row.

Skilled workers. Mechanics. Guys with jobs here and there. Some
retired. It was fine. The lobby in the hotel was empty in the daytime.
It was just a little room, and at night they’d come play hearts and
pinochle. Then came 1929. Suddenly they’re not working. Or those guys
who retired, suddenly their pensions are gone. Now they’re in the
lobby in the daytime. They don’t know what the hell to do. So they
drank more. And played the horses more. And there were fights. What
were the fights over? Their own self-respect. I mean, they had nothing
to do. They were furious. Who do you blame? Who do you hit? You hit
each other. That was sort of a metaphor for what happened to the
country. They blamed themselves. Yet I met these people who weathered
it one way or the other, some just by lending a hand.


-- Studds Terkel
 
And the primary has to be run constantly with associated losses even when no
load is present !
Now when would _that_ be? At 3 am?

Actually the efficiency remain high even with poor "coupling" simply
because it doesn't draw much current at low or no load.

Silly idea, when gasoline engines work so well.

And will work a lot better still in the near future. The target for 'new
generation' diesels for autos is 40% for example.
The efficiency go up 10% while the cost of fuel goes up 1,000%

You cannot maintain any semblance of a western life style with those
numbers.

We'll all be staggering around behind oxen at that rate.


Bret Cahill
 
For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there..

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,
Who suggested it did?

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.
If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

Looking for more free info, huh?  
Not just information but ideas as well.

It ain't gonna work.
Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...
Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics
You already proved that several times, the most spectacular proof was
when you foolishly suggested that adiabatic engine systems could be
difficult to scale up.

That, without question, flags you as a complete ignoramous on thermo.

There isn't _one single engineer_, ME, EE, ChE, Mining Engineer etc.
on the _entire_ #$@#^! planet who would say something that stoopid.

you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they were
always yours.
Certainly not from you.

And if someone else here wants to discuss thermo issues, which you
don't understand anyway, what business is it of yours?

Getting close?
You need to be posting to alt.junkyardcomputers.

?If it's
stopped, why not used a connector, and get 100% transfer efficiency?

For that matter why not just put a couple rails in the pavement like
subways? ?

Grasping at straws, are we?

You certainly are when you keep trying to fake a tech background.

Another attempt at getting some free tech data?
Certainly not from you.

You need to be posting to alt.fakingtech.

You seem to think that just by endlessly parroting lies they'll suddenly
turn into truth.

Whatever happened to that defamation lawsuit?

All in good time...
Bluffing about a defamation suit just makes you look even more like a
fraud.

Email me the affidavits and a mailing address and I'll sign them
testifying that you are a fraud for trying to fake a background in
thermo.

Maybe I'll even put something on my web page.

If you don't defend your "good" name everyone is going to know, er
think, that you never took any thermo courses and you look like a
dunce trying to discuss indunction.

"Indunction"??? LOL, that's rich!
Maybe you can obtain gainful employment checking typos. Faking like
you have a significant number of "happy customers" ain't workin'.

There's no need for a defense since I've been around long enough and
done enough work here that no one thinks I'm a phony.
It's too late to try that. You already postured that you were going
to sue for defamation.

Your idle threats just make you look even more like a fraud.

You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to destroy what little
credibility you may have started out with with every word you type.
Then your defamation case should be easy to win.

If that's your intent you'll be pleased to know that it's working.  
Can you even make up your empty head if you are going to sue for
defamation?

Here, I'll repeat it:

You are a fraud for trying to fake a tech background by commenting on
thermodynamics.

Let's say we have this electric car which can tool along at 60MPH while
using 20HP worth of electricity supplied by the grid.

That's 15kW, so if we pick some more-or-less "safe" voltage on the
rails, say 1kV, that means the car will present a 15A load across the
rails. ?Multiply that by, say, 10000 cars

How many miles would it take for 100000 cars to be spaced, each with a
safe following distance?

Depends on the number of lanes,

First show us you are bright enough to do even one lane.

Geez, Bret, I set the problem up,
You cannot even make up you mind as to the number of lanes.

.. . .

the speed at which the cars were moving,
Above you say 60 mph.

Are you getting a SSI mental disability check?

If them "happy customers" start buying new computer equipment you
could easily be judged insane.

.. . .

the reaction times of the drivers, and the phase of the moon.

Just admit it:  You are too clueless to even set up the problem.

Hmmm...
Here, we'll try again:

Just admit it: You are too clueless to even set up the problem.

.. . .

and the load becomes 150000
amperes.

What is the spacing between the sub stations feeding the road?

You're the one who thinks it's a good idea,

For 150 megawatts with spacing of 100 cars/mile, about 40 feet
following distance, then you're talking a substation every hundred
miles.

Now why would anyone want to space substations that far apart?

For the single-lane, one-way road you describe, because that's all that
would be necessary, assuming no losses in the rails.
Necessary for WHAT?

Are you REALLY this stoopid or are you just pulling everyone's leg?

Are you really this stupid in real life or do you just act that way
here?

Me???

I didn't dream up that nutzoid 100 mile stretch of road
That's the distance you get with _your_ assumption of 150 MW.

Are you REALLY this stoopid or are you just pulling everyone's leg?

.. . . .

Put another way, that's 150 Megawatts, and that's just what
the cars are eating up.

Instead of paying $75,000/hour for $5/gallon fuel they could pay
15,000 for juice, savings of $60,000/hour or $6/hr/car.

Well, let's see...

If:

C = fuel cost= $5.00 per gallon
P = vehicle power consumption = 20HP = 15kW
R = vehicle speed = 30MPH
Q = vehicle fuel consumption = 20MPG
n = number of vehicles = 10000
D = distance traveled = 100 miles.
T = time

Then for a single liquid-fueled vehicle the cost per mile would be:

     C      $5PG     $5
    --- = ------- = ----- = $0.25 per mile
     Q     20MPG     20M

So, 100 miles would cost 100 times that, or: $25

For 10000 vehicles the cost would be 10000 times that: $250,000

Since you've specified the vehicle speed as 30MPH, the 100 mile trip
would take:

          D     100mi
     T = --- = ------- = 3.3 hours
          V     30MPH

and the cost of fuel, per hour, would be:

     $250000
    -------- =  $75000 per hour.
       3.3H      

For the electric, at $0.10/kWH, we'll have a 20HP motor dissipating 15kW
for 3.3 hours, which is 49.5kWH.

At $0.10 per kilowatt-hour that comes to $4.95 for the 100 mile trip,
which is $49,500 for the 10000 car fleet, or $15000.

So your numbers seem to be correct,
You'ld never make it through an engineering program. You are just too
slow.

I just heard Pell died yesterday so there will be no more Pell grants
anyway.

but your cockamamie scheme is still
fatally flawed since you have no clue as to how to make it work or how
to bring it to fruition.
Just write your congressman and senators that you want some scientists
and engineers to study the problem.

I might have a full plate.

Dodge 3.

The savings for a trucker would be over $50,000/year.

If frogs had wings then beggars would ride...
Where do frogs and wings appear on Excel?

Dodge 4.

On top of that will be the I?R losses in the
rails themselves.

What's the conductivity of the rails?

Depends on how much loss you're prepared to suffer in the rails.

That comes from the spread sheet.

So let's see something.
Stay tuned. In the meantime, Email them affidavits for your
defamation suit.


Bret Cahill



http://www.aarpmagazine.org/money/fear_economy_studs_terkel.html

The Great Depression. I was about 17 years old. Hoover was still
president. People had been living high off the hog. And then, boom,
comes the Crash. It was so sudden. Guys jumped out of windows. They
didn’t know what to do. The wise men ran around, and then they cried
out after Roosevelt for the government to help them out. Regulation.
They asked for it. They cried for it. The wise men were lost, just as
they are today. The free market fell on its fanny. We learned nothing.
It’s exactly the same today.

“The lessons of the Great Depression? Don’t blame yourself. Turn to
others. The big boys are not that bright.”

My mother ran a hotel, the Wells-Grand Hotel, for men, just outside
Chicago’s skid row.

Skilled workers. Mechanics. Guys with jobs here and there. Some
retired. It was fine. The lobby in the hotel was empty in the daytime.
It was just a little room, and at night they’d come play hearts and
pinochle. Then came 1929. Suddenly they’re not working. Or those guys
who retired, suddenly their pensions are gone. Now they’re in the
lobby in the daytime. They don’t know what the hell to do. So they
drank more. And played the horses more. And there were fights. What
were the fights over? Their own self-respect. I mean, they had nothing
to do. They were furious. Who do you blame? Who do you hit? You hit
each other. That was sort of a metaphor for what happened to the
country. They blamed themselves. Yet I met these people who weathered
it one way or the other, some just by lending a hand.
 
Grid electricity is paying for energy as you use it.

Most batteries are so expensive they will need financing

I would see leasing with guaranteed replacements as capacity falls, as the
only practical solution.
That doesn't change the fact that the battery is a consumable just
like the electricity that passes through it.

BTW, a battery car that will do say 50 miles on a new battery may go only
35 miles on one that's about to be changed.
That's why replacement costs must be treated as a consumable just like
electricity.

and people will be paying as they use the battery.

That doesn't address my initial point.
Who cares? It ain't gonna happen unless the _overall_ costs are
spreadsheeted.


Bret Cahill
 
Since battery costs are 2X grid costs

Please explain. A battery is a capital investment for energy storage.

How many times can the battery be cycled before it degrades and needs
to be replaced?

Depends on technology (chemistry - variation thereof etc) , depth of
discharge, rate of discharge, rate of recharge etc etc.

As low as 300 certainly.
So you must replace the battery every so often. That cost must be
spread sheeted just like electricity.

They are both consumables with the battery cost being at least 2X that
of the electricity.


Bret Cahill
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

Since battery costs are 2X grid costs

Please explain. A battery is a capital investment for energy storage.

How many times can the battery be cycled before it degrades and needs
to be replaced?

Depends on technology (chemistry - variation thereof etc) , depth of
discharge, rate of discharge, rate of recharge etc etc.

As low as 300 certainly.

So you must replace the battery every so often. That cost must be
spread sheeted just like electricity.

They are both consumables with the battery cost being at least 2X that
of the electricity.
Now I see what you mean. You mean as in spread over the economic life of the
battery.

Have you any supporting numbers for that ? Such as a worked calculation ?

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

Grid electricity is paying for energy as you use it.

Most batteries are so expensive they will need financing

I would see leasing with guaranteed replacements as capacity falls, as the
only practical solution.

That doesn't change the fact that the battery is a consumable just
like the electricity that passes through it.

BTW, a battery car that will do say 50 miles on a new battery may go only
35 miles on one that's about to be changed.

That's why replacement costs must be treated as a consumable just like
electricity.

and people will be paying as they use the battery.

That doesn't address my initial point.

Who cares? It ain't gonna happen unless the _overall_ costs are
spreadsheeted.
Believe it or not, I do actually agree about these points.

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

And the primary has to be run constantly with associated losses even when no
load is present !

Now when would _that_ be? At 3 am?
Are you going to power an entire interstate so that a few cars or buses can run ?


Actually the efficiency remain high even with poor "coupling" simply
because it doesn't draw much current at low or no load.
This where your lack of engineering knowledge lets you down ! You got it 100% back
to front.

Graham
 
Bret Cahill wrote:

PLEASE DO NOT TRIM THE IDENTITIES OF THE POSTERS YOU ARE REPLYING TO

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.
Eh ?


Graham
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top