Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rob Dekker]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.07.25.07.14.34.425024@woa.com.au...

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:53:26 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


But for tractors, the low-cost, high energy density molten salt
batteries (Zebra's, sodium/sulfur etc) are excellent :

Low cost? I want a url to a price sheet.
What is the energy density?

Energy density ? 150 Wh/kg has been reported. Similar to Li-poly.
Even higher for NaS.

Cost ? That's a bit tricky.
Currently only one factory in the world produces these batteries.

But I'm looking into this.
Remember that this whole large battery business is in it's infancy.

Rob

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:31:55 -0700 (PDT), "Green Xenon [Radium]"
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi:

I remember reading somewhere than ELF [Extremely Low Frequency] radio
transmission is inefficient because it requires to much power.

I suspect what you actually read about was the US military scheme to
communicate with submerged submarines using high-power VLF that could
penetrate seawater. At one point there were plans to use huge
underground ore veins in Michigan's Upper Penninsula as the
transmitter antenna. That might have been a tad inefficient!

There's also the issue of low carrier frequencies not supporting high
symbol rates. I seem to recall that the submerged subs would get only
code, at rates so slow even the rankest beginning amateur operator
would have had no trouble keeping up... <g>

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Jack]

"beav" <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message
news:10oj84te987rkv7d89eg4ek1e2rjm24cti@4ax.com...

point snipped, leaving wistful political stance

I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.


if you really look at his policies, he has none.

he's all sizzle and very little steak.

the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to
fame is "we aren't them."

when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic
vote pandering based on class envy.

this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the
parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction.

quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon.

I respected Obama's stance against suspending the gas tax even as McCain

favored it. As it turns out, the highway trust fund is bound to come up
short and we'll probably have to raise the gas tax to maintain
infrastructure. New public construction is the way to strengthen this
economy.

 

[Sid9]

"beav" <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message
news:10oj84te987rkv7d89eg4ek1e2rjm24cti@4ax.com...

point snipped, leaving wistful political stance

I believe Obama has the
leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution
to our energy problem going.


if you really look at his policies, he has none.

he's all sizzle and very little steak.

the democrats, as a party have no plan either. their ONLY claim to
fame is "we aren't them."

when they do open their yaps with 'ideas' they amount to diseconomic
vote pandering based on class envy.

this is a shame, because if we had countervailing plans between the
parties, the country could really make a choice and take a direction.

quit kidding yourself. there is no spoon.

1. There is a plan
2. Considering the fiasco of the Republican controlled government anything
is better than incompetence.
3. Whining that "they are the same" wont fly. Americans know better.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C4AF6CD8.BF560%dbowey@comcast.net...

On 7/25/08 10:18 AM, in article 488A0AD7.E569296@hotmail.com, "Eeyore"
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Bret Cahill wrote:

Losses aren't an issue.

I just love the stuff you come up with !

Graham


I'd like to know what he thinks losses are.

Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered
system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For
something like 90 HP, or 66 kW, a three phase 480 VAC supply at 80 amps per
phase could use #2 portable cordage. A 250 foot length is $14.49/ft, so you
are looking at a capital outlay of $3600 to allow the tractor to traverse a
circular field of 200,000 square feet, or about 5 acres. It would need to
be stowed on the tractor on a reel, and supported to its central connection
point on a pivot arm. This #2 cable has a resistance of 156 uOhms per foot,
so at 80 amps it will drop 3.12 volts out of 277, or roughly 1% loss. Even
a 1000 ft cable would still have acceptable losses, compared to efficiency
of the electric motor and distribution transformer at the central supply
point.

For higher HP ratings, multiple cables could be used, but I think a 90 HP
electric tractor is probably equivalent to a a 150 HP diesel, and you just
need to look at actual needs of torque and speed, which determine the HP
required.

There will probably be more losses with a hybrid system that uses 8000
batteries or the equivalent in battery packs. A mostly grid-powered system
is feasible using current technology, and should reap almost immediate cost
savings, or ROI within a few years.

But every objection to a proposed improvement is just an engineering
challenge that promotes thought and new ideas that can be shown to address
the problems and provide a workable solution. Almost every new technology
seems to be impractical or awkward in its infancy, but innovation prevails,
and changing economic realities make the future a different place.

Yet I can see that much of this discussion has degraded to a battle among
several narrow-minded viewpoints, and that will serve no useful purpose.

Paul

Paul

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488A0B9E.D35E7E2D@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) 11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles
of
cable.

You're thinking of using 11kV flexible cable (what happens to 'erosion' of the insulation btw ?) miles long in junction with
agricultural equipment designed to cut through anything like that.

Yes.

You're certifiably mad.

Hardly ever mad. Crazy sometimes, but only for fun.

Flexible high-voltage cables....
Do you want me to select one for you from a catalog ?
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/cable-assemblies-coaxial-high-voltage-9634304-1.html

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488A3319.C58B5C61@hotmail.com...

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered
system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For
something like 90 HP, or 66 kW, a three phase 480 VAC supply at 80 amps per
phase could use #2 portable cordage.

OK, but how long will that cable last being dragged around a field with sharp
stones, even if one of the tractor attachments doesn't sever it just for good
measure ? Arken Sparken time !

Yes. That would be crazy.

Sorry, but it sounds like one of the most utterly insane ideas ever from basic
principles.

Basic principles ?

Graham

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vqgk845oonjsuj6j1njlfrp3gbqpmpa264@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:57:23 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:488A3319.C58B5C61@hotmail.com...


"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well
engineered
system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For
something like 90 HP, or 66 kW, a three phase 480 VAC supply at 80
amps per
phase could use #2 portable cordage.

OK, but how long will that cable last being dragged around a field with
sharp
stones, even if one of the tractor attachments doesn't sever it just
for good
measure ? Arken Sparken time !

Yes. That would be crazy.


Sorry, but it sounds like one of the most utterly insane ideas ever
from basic
principles.

Basic principles ?

---
Sticks and stones may break my ohms...

But words never Hertz me...

The cable needs to be rolled and unrolled on the center pivot beam, so it
never even touches the ground. The tractor can support part of the beam and
can pivot at various angles so it can traverse the field with some freedom
of motion, but its best path will be concentric circles. It will be some
tricky engineering to allow the tractor to pass the other support/drive
wheels for the beam, but challenges like that are what make engineering
fun.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0lgk84dr7t0bhgh40rsia8e697hr4rptnc@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:48:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:41:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:44:16 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

And we haven't gotten to the favorable torque/rpm curve of electric
motors which allows a much smaller hp motor.

Didn't somebody already invent gears?

You _want_ to go Rube Goldberg?

If your goal is to cost farmers more money then that explains a lot.

---
So you don't even understand the function of a transmission?

_That_ explains a lot.

JF

Tee-hee, imagine an electric motor coupled directly to the drive
wheels of a tractor.

---
Not to add fuel to Brat's fire, but... Big-ass PWM controller?

The problem is getting enough torque at the low RPMs. It might be possible
to design a really large wheel motor with, say, 64 poles, that would run at
112 RPM at 60 Hz, but a really large wheel would still not have enough
torque to meet the requirements. Gears or some other speed reduction
mechanism are definitely needed for a tractor. Hydraulic motors are a
possibility, but they are probably not as efficient as a well made gear
train.

Tractor transmissions are already well-defined for an engine with about
1800 to 3600 RPM, so an electric motor would be an easy direct fit.

Paul

 

In sci.physics kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

" <glucege...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi:

I remember reading somewhere than ELF [Extremely Low Frequency] radio
transmission is inefficient because it requires to much power.

If that is the case, wouldn't MW [Medium Wave] radio transmission
require even more power?

MW and ELF are forms of electromagnetic radiation in the RF spectrum.

An photon [or electromagnetic wave] of a higher-frequency has more
energy than a photon of a lower-frequency.

Let's say there are there are two radio transmitters, one emits 2 GHz
waves while the other emits 2 kHz waves. If the two radio transmitters
use the same modulation scheme [AM/FM, etc.] and emit the same amount
of photons-per-second-per-square-meter, the 2 GHz transmitter will be
using more watts than the 2 kHz transmitter -- because a 2 GHz photon
requires more power to generate than a 2 kHZ photon. Right?

So how would transmitting a lower-frequency radio wave require more
power than transmitting a higher-frequency radio wave?

Thanks,

Radium

There is the modulation method - AM or FM. FM is more efficient - at
least narrowband FM. That's why we use FM for mobile transmitters. You
could use supressed-carrier AM of course but that is a sod to
demodulated.

Nonsense.

FM is common because it is intrinsically immune to impulse noise
and cheap to implement.

Supressed carrier is trivial to demodulate these days but more
expensive to do.

The higher the frequency the shorter the distance it can travel for a
given power. Therefore VLF can travel round the world and back again!

Nonsense.

Most long distance terrestrial communication is done on HF.

trouble is you may need for ELF an aerial the size of a mountain
range!

About the only thing you got right.

For a 10 Gig frenquency you would need to pump out a heluva lot of
power for it to go any distance. Inverse square law.

Nonsense.

At 10 Ghz, it is all line of sight and all in the antenna. It doesn't
take much power to hear your own signal bounce off the moon at 10 Ghz.

All space communications take place in the Ghz.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rgok845b855b1i0q7gtn4p876ohbdrnaf4@4ax.com...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:57:25 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
pstech@smart.net> wrote:


The problem is getting enough torque at the low RPMs. It might be
possible
to design a really large wheel motor with, say, 64 poles, that would run
at
112 RPM at 60 Hz, but a really large wheel would still not have enough
torque to meet the requirements.

---
Good point.
---

Gears or some other speed reduction
mechanism are definitely needed for a tractor. Hydraulic motors are a
possibility, but they are probably not as efficient as a well made gear
train.

Tractor transmissions are already well-defined for an engine with about
1800 to 3600 RPM, so an electric motor would be an easy direct fit.

---
That's interesting in that the motor could run at a more or less
constant, efficient speed, powered by AC mains, and transfer power to
the wheels or to the PTO via electronically controlled transmissions.

What about the size of the motor and cooling requirements VS those for
an ICE?

An AC induction motor exhibits a fairly flat torque curve from something

like 10% of design RPMs at 50/60 Hz, and then is usually shown as
decreasing, because, although motors can be driven by PWM to several times
their rated speed, it is not usually recommended (or feasible) to increase
the voltage accordingly (as a VF drive does). But there is nothing "magic"
about 60 Hz as a limit for the magnetics, and it is possible to design
motors that run up to at least 400 Hz. They are typically very high RPM,
but with enough poles, it is possible to boost the HP of a motor by several
times, using lower voltage windings and running at least up to 150 Hz. You
can get 2 or three times the HP from the same size motor. This is very
important for highway vehicles, where the weight and size of the motor
contribute a lot to fuel economy and performance, but probably not as much
for a tractor, where additional weight might be a good thing.

Since large induction motors are typically 92 to 95% efficient, a 75 kW 100
HP motor will produce something like 5000 watts of heat, which is removed
by means of self-contained fans. A motor specially designed to be
overdriven might be even more efficient, although there is a limit where
magnetic losses take over. The good thing about electric motors is that
they consume no power when they are idle, and their losses are at worst a
percentage of the actual output power, and may even be less when lightly
loaded. Losses are proportional to I^2, while torque is proportional to I.
They can also be "pushed" to 2 or 3 times their nameplate ratings for short
periods of time, so you can often get by with a smaller motor if your power
needs are intermittent.

So the transmission requirements are mostly to provide the needed torque,
and then the motor speed can be adjusted as needed. Large tractors probably
have trannies with 10 or 15 speeds or more, while an electric motor might
require only 3 or 4. This would be another saving. VF drives are so
efficient and inexpensive now, that any other motor controller is just
about unthinkable. And you can run a VF drive on 720 VDC directly, so it is
ideally suited to a battery pack for use when transferring from one power
source to another. This would require much less power than the tractor is
actually rated for, so the battery pack could be quite small.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:BemdnV9SCYkb7RfVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@web-ster.com...

lerameur wrote:
Hello,

I made myself a small electromagnet to activate a reed switch using a
6v supply. The problem is that I am pulling 3 amps, I do not want the
electromagnet to be bigger by making more turns, I believe there are
such electromagnet on the market that can activate a reed switch with
current in the milliamps. anybody know such device, I looked at
digikey and mouse but I did not find anything under electro magnet.

thanks

ken

Try using finer wire.

Look under "solenoid".

You could also try a capacitor and resistor in parallel to drive a quick

surge of 3 amps to activate the reed relay, and the resistor to provide
just enough current to keep it activated. I have done this to operate AC
relay coils using DC.

Paul

 

[Bob Eld]

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8cba1a2-1aa8-4e4f-ba59-b9624d250236@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

I made myself a small electromagnet to activate a reed switch using a
6v supply. The problem is that I am pulling 3 amps, I do not want the
electromagnet to be bigger by making more turns, I believe there are
such electromagnet on the market that can activate a reed switch with
current in the milliamps. anybody know such device, I looked at
digikey and mouse but I did not find anything under electro magnet.

thanks

ken

Yes they have reed relays that draw 10mA at 6 volts. Three amps means you
don't have nearly enough turns and, of course, the wire you are using is a
1000 times too fat.

If you are serious about it you'll have to wind them with AWG 44 or thinner
wire. Good luck finding that. Good luck winding that with 10,000 turns. Not
a job for the timid.

Look for reed relays under relays. Jameco has them.

 

[Rod Speed]

turtoni <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote:

Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the
electric in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block.

On Jul 24, 6:45 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
There are many ways to do it.
All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation.
Republican have demonstrated that they haven't got what's needed.

Politicians are salesmen.

For example Clinton had eight years.

I'm not interested in salesmen.

I'm interested in Scientists.

No one ever votes them into positions where they get to control anything.

 

[Rod Speed]

Sid9 <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"turtoni" <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:2b405835-12ee-4b9a-8c3f-4b3c9aa8ff7e@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Going electric would seem to be the way forward. Getting the
electric in and out of the grid is the big stumbling block.

On Jul 24, 6:45 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
There are many ways to do it.
All America needs is the leadership to provide the motivation.
Republican have demonstrated that they haven't got what's needed.

Politicians are salesmen.

For example Clinton had eight years.

I'm not interested in salesmen.

I'm interested in Scientists.

Einstein had a letter from scientists that would have gone nowhere
without a politician.
FDR had the leadership necessary the start the Manhattan project.

I believe Obama has the leadership qualities that
will get a scientific solution to our energy problem going.

Bet he doesnt. And I bet he wont get elected anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel.

Bret, the story is much more in favor of electricity than what you present.

Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or
146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh. Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in
between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life
use in a large vehicle.

That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh
and 16 kWh of work from one gallon of diesel.

At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California),
this is $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.

For gasoline, the story is even worse : 34.8MJ/liter
(132MJ/gallon), and lower efficiency (20%-25%) in real life
vehicles, gives 7.3
kWh - 9 kWh of work.
At $3.80/gallon gasoline, this is $0.42-$0.52 per kWh.

future predictions snipped

TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak.

You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the
amount of money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other
hydrocarbon fuel.

Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation.

Future predictions don't even enter the equation either.

The calculations are not even as sophisticated as back of envelope.

The real problem is psychological. Everyone is in a state of denial.

Nope, there's plenty of mindless hysterics, just like there always have been.

And this is not limited to newsgroups. You see this in industry, government, think tanks, universities . . . even
independent inventors.

Plenty of mindless hysterics like AlGore.

What did you expect ? Oil is a $4 trillion dollar/year industy. It's part of EVERYBODYs life ! This is the biggest
supertanker in the history of humanity !

It aint a supertanker. And nothing like it.

Psychologically, I think most (informed) people actually DO know
what's going on, and where we are heading, but it takes some pretty big steps to change the course of this
supertanker.

Nope, just piss off your fluffed up trucks etc so you dont
care if the price of gasoline triples from its current levels.

And remember, most people are reluctant to make big changes

We arent talking about big changes.

(big changes means big risks, which often decreases success).

Wrong again. A big change to telecommuting isnt a big risk.

It's often better to 'wait and see'.... So that's what people are doing.

Or just consider that europe carrys on fine even with a gasoline price of double what it is in the US.

Wait and see. I think that many people hope that somehow the whole Peak Oil thing might not be so difficult to get
through.

And they might well be right too.

Or that the peak is still more than 10 years away.

Corse it is.

That oil prices ARE caused by a temporary shortage in supply, or a speculators frenzy, not a structural inability to
produce more and certainly not a decline in supply.

The current price isnt due to a decline in supply.

Many hope that some more offshore driling will fix the problem for a while until we find a better solution. Or some
CTL, more biofuels, more efficient transport methods or something like that.

Or the whole lot is likely to see us survive fine.

So I think there is still hope with many that we can still jog on for quite a while longer in the direction that we
have been going for the past century.

Corse we can. We still dont fully exploit nukes or do anything like that.

Maybe some hope that some scientific breakthrough or some find of oil will come just in time and prevent that we have
to change something drastically.

We wont have to change anything drastically, the oil wont just run out.

The most that will happen is that the price increase signficantly.

Global Warming could not reduce human's appetite for fossil fuels. So
now there is an even stronger reason to kick the fossil fuel habit : Peak Oil.

We wont be kicking the fossil fuel habit, you watch.

Essentially because there is plenty of coal and that will last for a long time yet.

Psychologically speaking, I think Peak Oil is the biggest test of human nature that we have had since the indutrial
revolution.

Nope, because we can handle it fine.

If we still don't get it, then I fear that modern civilisation may end with the 21st century.

Not a chance. Even the Black Death didnt do that.

I think most people (businesses and individuals alike) "wait and see" for a very clear signal from their authorities
as to how we will tackle these problems.

Or they arent feeling enough effects to need to do anything much and
it makes more sense to see if the current price of oil stays for long.

So that we can start working together towards that solution.

Thats not how the first world works.

Here, the next president will have the chance to make the most
memorable speach in the history of the US, answering how will we
generate our energy in the decades and even the century to come.

It aint about speaches and the prez doesnt determine anything like that either.

Meanwhile, you have an advantage over most people : you know that electricity is cheaper than liquid fuel, so find the
businesses that will do well in that scenario.

We already know that.

Or even start a business yourself that makes electrical farm equipment

Thats not going to fly for anything except pumps.

or anything else that you think makes sense.

Or wait and see if the current oil price is just another spike like the 70s was.

As Stanford Ovshinsky said : "if you want to change the world, don't just talk about it. Do it !".

We dont need to change the world. And you preaching in usenet wont change a damned thing either.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.07.26.03.17.25.737139@woa.com.au...

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:13:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:



But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable
require

Stuff would already exist in the mining industry. The farmer would just
need a crane to connect and disconnect it. It is the rotating multipole
connector that has me intrigued

? And concentric circles IS NOT how farmers like to work fields for what
I hope
are obvious reasons. How about the getting into the 'corners' ?

He is avoiding all those problems by talking about mythical flat land
where you do not have corners in irrigation bays, etc.

Guys, show a little bit of imagination and engineering inginuity please.
After all, we wanted to get rid of the battery idea (gaining efficiency, and
most of all difficult recharges).

The cable can be suspended far over ground close to the tractor (away from
the moving parts), maybe even all the way across the field using a system of
overhead arms or small computer-controlled robot 'cable-suspension' cars.

A rotating multipole connecter should not be needed : a 1/2 mile cable can
handle a few 180's.

Also, the time is here that plowing (or seeding or so) no nonger needs a
human on the tractor. Much is being computerized, running the tractor on
pre-programmed patterns using GPS and such, so that effiency is maximized.
Even work at night is then possiible (which also reduces the machinery
deficit that seems to plague harvest time). So, you can simply program the
pattern so that 'twisting' the wire is not an issue.

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster than
putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.

Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of
time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars.
That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse
and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would probably
turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard arm comes out,
pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in, in seconds. Faster
than putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.

Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't
be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use?

No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which
they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate.

Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.

They cant be with solar charging.

Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.

If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.

Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project.

And wouldnt be viable either.

Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.

You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.

Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.

Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.