Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rob Dekker]

<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:28d85f72-7d28-4866-b6fb-54ef3d19f693@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
..........

You can't just look at the weight of the drivetrain/exhaust, etc--you have
to compare
the weight of the whole ICE car vs the weight of the whole electric car.

Mmm. Is there a reason why the mass of the chassis and chairs and steering
and other stuff not related to powering the car would be much different for
an electric vehicle than for a ICE vehicle ?

I've mentioned this before on alt.origins. If they have a compromised
reasoning ability it's pretty much a farce to try to discuss science
or tech issues with them. For example, the creationists will say
something like, "two hearts beating = two souls" and all these
Carlinish jokes come to mind, "does a mechanical heart have a soul
too?" etc.

Try as you will to be polite but there is no practical way you can
avoid ridiculing them.

I do not ridicule anyone for any reason. Once you start ridiculing people, they will ridicule you back, and you end up shutting down
all communication.

Jonathan had something in mind when he made his comment, and I want to hear what it is. I simply did not understand his concern, but
that does not mean that he has something to add to the discussion. I want to hear what he has to say, so I asked. Call it
politeness, but I believe that most people have good ideas and good intentions, although they might have a difference of opinion,
or a difference in line of thought.

IMHO it is more benificial to listen than to speak. I try to speak only when it comes to correcting or bring up facts, and build my
opinion using facts, and try to express them without insulting anyone.
The people that I ever insulted I never want to talk to again and they are on my kill-file list (only two names there).

Bret Cahill


"Math is applied logic."

-- Nietzsche

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ujg1a499pak1t82s9aletdbte4prq73dhl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:20:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:11 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l1i0a4hiqhbib5il3kumlrkr0ndh1grteo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:58:58 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c0ou94h6skor1kicrp0brqo6eoq0ruc5on@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:14:39 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news8bu94pft0vnpoh62j67rgvnujsovvpqob@4ax.com...
....

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob


The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?


Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

rob



If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

My guess is as good as yours. But I think there are multiple reasons :
(1) The cost advantage (of going electric versus running gasoline) is only pretty recent : oil was $35/barrel only 4 years ago, and
$70/barrel last year.
(2) As a result, there are virtually no vehicles with electric drive available where ANY (plug-in) battery technology can be easily
tried out or retrofitted.
(3) There is no infrastructure and no standards to swap out Zi-oxide for a new 'tank' of Zinc (no Zinc-stations). That's a LOT of
work and time right there, and that requires a deliberate political decision (to go for Zi-air) too. Currrent thinking is more in
the line of traditional batteries (Li-ion/NiMH/ZEBRA batteries) for (PH)EVs.

Rob

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery

JF

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ujg1a499pak1t82s9aletdbte4prq73dhl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:20:31 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:11 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l1i0a4hiqhbib5il3kumlrkr0ndh1grteo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:58:58 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c0ou94h6skor1kicrp0brqo6eoq0ruc5on@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:14:39 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news8bu94pft0vnpoh62j67rgvnujsovvpqob@4ax.com...
....

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob


The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?


Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

Not really. My kid's Toyota Echo holds about 12 gallons of gas, which
weighs around 32 KG. That's a practical amount of fuel for a usable
car. 32 * 34 = 1088 KG, so the zinc-air fuel cell weighs over a metric
ton. That's when it's "full"; it weighs more when it's "empty."

Even if the fuel cell is 2:1 net more efficient, that's still 1000
pounds.

Remember the efficiency difference ?
"The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1."

So if the mass of the zinc-air battery is 7 * 32kg = 224 kg, and with that will obtain the same range as the gasoline version.

rob



If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery

JF

"Metallic zinc could be used as an alternative to hydrogen as an energy transfer medium (a fuel). The zinc would be either used in a
zinc-air battery or used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis near the point of use."

Zi-air energy density is superior (and way cheaper) than say Li-ion, so personally, I'm thinking that building a zinc-air battery
for retrofit on hybrid vehicles, and a 'home-charging' unit would be interesting business idea (turn your hybrid into a long-range
plug-in hybrid).

Peak Oil and the continuation of high oil prices until we use less of it creates all kind on new business opportunities.

Rob

 

[Kris Krieger]

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in
news:C4C5C822.C0FC6%dbowey@comcast.net:

On 8/11/08 10:28 AM, in article
g_CdnVaL-_tm6z3VnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kris Krieger"
me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in news:C4C48D45.C0E7A%
dbowey@comcast.net:

On 8/10/08 11:18 AM, in article
0aa05f31-8cb4-4f63-b58c-fdcb4c791e8d@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com,
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Some dreamer once wanted to use "super" capacitors to power a
road EV but the energy density is still too low. ?By one
calculation a 100 ton cap would be necessary to store the energy
in a 15 gallon (100 lb) gas tank.

For electric farm tractors energy density is much less an issue
than the lifetime cost of the energy storage device. ?With enough
trolly wiring caps would work better than batteries.

A spread sheet would determine the economic advantage.

Fine; show your calculations.

Only an idiot such as yourself would do all those calculations when
excel is available.


Bret Cahill



Only an idiot such as yourself would not know Excel does
"calculations" among other things.

So post the spreadsheet(s).



Your version can't calculate, for a specified range of cells, a
formula that you input? I have a 1997 version, and it does that.
Strange.


Who said it could not? Your post does not appear to respond to
anyone.

Um, I evidently misread one of the quotes.

Sorry about that.

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in
news:48a089c3$0$24546$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net:

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news82dnTirqNQb5j3VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@earthlink.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
news:1isu94hg2hk1sinl4ik239fm5un4nlloos@4ax.com:

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

And hope for a better battery.

---
Hope?

Instead of helping in the quest, technically, it seems that all you
want to do is sit on the sidelines, puff yourself up as being an
authority, and poo-poo everyone else's work even though you haven't
the technical acumen to do so.

To what end?

JF


Naysayers are so weird IMO. I'd mentioned, in the e-design group,
the idea
of using controlled capacitor output as a possible way to power solar
lights (yeah, I'm still on that - chugging through my books, now that
they
arrived <G!&gt without requiring battery replacement every couple
years. Someone just *had* to go on about how "stupid" the idea was -
even tho' the
idea had come from *products which already exis* and are *being
sold*!

Talk about shutting off one's brain

There is nothing easier than sitting around and calling other
ideas/people
stupid, and/or merely "wishing/hoping". What's hard is getting off
one's butt to actually work on doing/creating/inventing something.

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the
idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the planning,
sketching, info
research, and other creative thinking, and so on, needed to at least
*try*
to make it succeed

I agree. Many advances have been made when people have ignored those
who said something would never work, or laughed when initial attempts
failed. All ideas should be "on the table", even "obviously"
unworkable ones, to be subject to analysis and debate. Sometimes
factors change over time, and an idea that is impractical one day
might be usable a year later.

Paul

Yup. The other thing is that people often learn more from "failures",
than from successes. If you go through a planning process, or through
someone else's plannnig process, and find out that the idea is
unworkable, you've learned something (or at least had a great opportunity
to learn something). In a way, success is built upon prior failures -
both one's own, and those of others.

The trick is knowing when to realize that an idea is unworkable,
disengage form it, and then take the experience gained and rework it.

 

[Falko Rudolph]

(snip)

Use PNP-Darlingtons instead of NPNand switch Supply with it instead of
GND. It's the easiest way.

(snip)

Unless you're driving the relays from a different +V.

Why? As long as they are based on the same GND you only need to adjust the
base resistor. That's what o.c. outputs are made for( and more, right).
As John suggested normal transistors may be better than darlingtons when V+
is only 6V.
What do I not see?

regards
Falko Rudolph

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

I provided evidence,

You're lying, again. You didnt provide even a shred of evidence what
so ever and the shit you did wave around had no relevance what so
ever to what was actually being discussed, HOW NEW IDEAS SHOW UP.

The activities of the brain is how they show up, duh.

Doesnt mean that there is any RANDOM process involved
in new ideas, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is
waste their time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

Nope, excuting silly little children like you is.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

You wouldnt know what a real ox was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newsd12a4ta8aatlfg9iailsodfgb5s16opc6@4ax.com...
.....

If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

My guess is as good as yours. But I think there are multiple reasons :
(1) The cost advantage (of going electric versus running gasoline) is
only pretty recent : oil was $35/barrel only 4 years ago, and
$70/barrel last year.
(2) As a result, there are virtually no vehicles with electric drive
available where ANY (plug-in) battery technology can be easily
tried out or retrofitted.
(3) There is no infrastructure and no standards to swap out Zi-oxide for
a new 'tank' of Zinc (no Zinc-stations). That's a LOT of
work and time right there, and that requires a deliberate political
decision (to go for Zi-air) too. Currrent thinking is more in
the line of traditional batteries (Li-ion/NiMH/ZEBRA batteries) for
(PH)EVs.

Rob



Actually, some zinc-air vehicles have been built... google turns up a
number of them.

I found these too. Zn-air seems to be a serious candidate for electric
vehicles.
What I found that it is often compared to 'hydrogen' fuel cell vehicles, and
then it performs better in many ways.
But hee, pretty much anything is better than hydrogen as a 'fuel'.

I haven't seen any numbers on the overall fuel cycle
efficiency.

I googled this at another computer, and found only some bloggers that
mention cycle efficincies between 30% and 50%. Nothing solid (in terms of
numbers) since the efficiency relies very much on HOW the ZnO is recycled
back to Zn pellets. But it seems clear that cycle efficiency is not as good
as secondary (rechargable) batteries, which often get 90% or better cycle
efficiency.

There are suggestions that battery life is short, months maybe.

Well, it's not really a battery in the strict sense of the word.
It's actually a fuel cell : put Zn pellets in and get ZnO and electricity
out.
The fuel cell has much longer lifespan than months AFAIK.

John

Interestingly, there is also an Al-air battery (or let's say fuel cell). Up
to 1300 Wh/kg (2000 Wh/kg). Now we are talking real gasoline-equivalence,
with batteries of less than 100 kg for a full range similar to gasoline.
Powered by electricity (at less than $1/gallon equivalent).

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles
finally move away from the inefficient, polluting, and heavy ICEs, and
towards an era of clean electric drive.

Rob

 

In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is waste their
time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Nope. Horses.

Nah, lpg or synthentic fuel (whatever the feed stock).


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 12, 1:05 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is waste their
time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Bret Cahill

Why do we need algae diesel as a plan A, when there are centuries
worth of synthetic crude to processed from coal?

We know oil from coal will work, and that will allow us to stay
wealthy enough to fund the research to get fuelcells and/or advanced
batteries up and running.

There's also lots of LPG in North America (among other places).


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 12, 1:30 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Yesterday I posted:

"Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we
must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel."

Bret Cahill

Funny, I posted about how that 3X-4X efficiency was just plain false,
because even farm diesels can feasibly be built to 50% efficiency and
there has to be a conversion loss from whatever it was that generated
the electricity. Unlike Otto cycle ICE's, the part-load efficiency of
a diesel is also rather high. As they are always run at wide open
throttle, even idling is not overly consumptive of fuel( truckers
stopped idling their engines to stop polluting, not to save money
[although they now do that, too]).

The biggest advantage of electrics is not efficiency, but combining
all of the polluting where economies of scale lessen the costs of
pollution control/ CO2 sequestration.

And eliminating CO2 completely by using nukes to generate the electricity.

Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:31 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its
chargable component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes.
Sure sounds like a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.
Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.
The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.
That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a
big problem ?
Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.
The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95%
efficiency or so. The gasoline drives a heavy ICE (+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20%
efficieny or so (if you are lucky).
Some posters here have no education in thermodynamics which is why
we must constantly explain that an electric motor is 3X - 4X more
efficient than a diesel.

Only if you ignore the efficiency of whatever makes electricity. We
cannot just pump electricity out of the ground, nor does it fall from
the sky in a readily collectable form. It has to be converted from
some other energy. Our best option, efficiency wise, is natural gas
fired, combined cycle plants with thermal efficiencies advertised at
60% (GE H1), so the electric motor is limited to 57%, not counting
transmission losses, and assuming a connection from the power station
to the vehicle without having to store it in a battery.

It also puts food production into a single point failure condition.

No big deal when the grid is so reliable now.

No functional power grid, no food nor meat.

But the functional power grid always comes back quickly.

It would be extremely stupid to transform to electric power.

Have fun explaining how come factorys manage that fine.

 

[Rod Speed]

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com wrote

BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

The last thing my farmer relatives want to do is
waste their time refueling when doing the field work.

No one ever promised that post peak would be a rose garden.

Maybe algae diesel will work out. That's plan A.

If it doesn't then we need a plan B.

Plan C is oxen.

Why do we need algae diesel as a plan A, when there are
centuries worth of synthetic crude to processed from coal?

We know oil from coal will work, and that will allow
us to stay wealthy enough to fund the research to get
fuelcells and/or advanced batteries up and running.

Dont need to do any research, as you say the coal will last for
centurys and we can use hydrogen from nukes when that peaks.

Hydrogen is ALREADY being used as a transport fuel.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
Jonathan Grobe wrote:
On 2008-08-11, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours
and hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.
That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.
Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.
The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed
the first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple
concept: Pre peak: Easy street.
Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.
Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be
starving.
I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the
tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional cost
you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs electricity).

The author has no farming experience. How is he going to recharge
those batteries? There isn't any power outlet in the middle of
1000 acres. Run power lines? Then a plow can't plow the soil and
a combine can't harvest. Going around things is not a nice thing
to have to do when farming fields.

All real world problems are trivial to the arm chair, hand waver who
has never done any real work nor paid the bill for their own ideas.

I'd spent a year in this newsgroup when I decided that one solution to the abject stupidity was to have all kids spend
2 years working on a farm.

Thats what Cambodia and China tried. No thanks, comrade.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message newsd12a4ta8aatlfg9iailsodfgb5s16opc6@4ax.com...
....
If it makes sense, how come nobody is doing it?

My guess is as good as yours. But I think there are multiple
reasons : (1) The cost advantage (of going electric versus running
gasoline) is
only pretty recent : oil was $35/barrel only 4 years ago, and
$70/barrel last year.
(2) As a result, there are virtually no vehicles with electric drive
available where ANY (plug-in) battery technology can be easily
tried out or retrofitted.
(3) There is no infrastructure and no standards to swap out
Zi-oxide for
a new 'tank' of Zinc (no Zinc-stations). That's a LOT of
work and time right there, and that requires a deliberate political
decision (to go for Zi-air) too. Currrent thinking is more in
the line of traditional batteries (Li-ion/NiMH/ZEBRA batteries) for
(PH)EVs.

Rob



Actually, some zinc-air vehicles have been built... google turns up a
number of them.

I found these too. Zn-air seems to be a serious candidate for electric
vehicles.
What I found that it is often compared to 'hydrogen' fuel cell
vehicles, and then it performs better in many ways.
But hee, pretty much anything is better than hydrogen as a 'fuel'.

I haven't seen any numbers on the overall fuel cycle
efficiency.


I googled this at another computer, and found only some bloggers that
mention cycle efficincies between 30% and 50%. Nothing solid (in
terms of numbers) since the efficiency relies very much on HOW the
ZnO is recycled back to Zn pellets. But it seems clear that cycle
efficiency is not as good as secondary (rechargable) batteries, which
often get 90% or better cycle efficiency.

There are suggestions that battery life is short, months maybe.

Well, it's not really a battery in the strict sense of the word.
It's actually a fuel cell : put Zn pellets in and get ZnO and
electricity out.
The fuel cell has much longer lifespan than months AFAIK.


John


Interestingly, there is also an Al-air battery (or let's say fuel
cell). Up to 1300 Wh/kg (2000 Wh/kg). Now we are talking real
gasoline-equivalence, with batteries of less than 100 kg for a full
range similar to gasoline. Powered by electricity (at less than
$1/gallon equivalent).

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities
when vehicles finally move away from the inefficient, polluting,
and heavy ICEs, and towards an era of clean electric drive.

Pity none of them are economic except for very short range
vehicles which dont have the range that most of us need.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ge39dFf5pc6U1@mid.individual.net...

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

Interestingly, there is also an Al-air battery (or let's say fuel
cell). Up to 1300 Wh/kg (2000 Wh/kg). Now we are talking real
gasoline-equivalence, with batteries of less than 100 kg for a full
range similar to gasoline. Powered by electricity (at less than
$1/gallon equivalent).

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities
when vehicles finally move away from the inefficient, polluting,
and heavy ICEs, and towards an era of clean electric drive.

Pity none of them are economic except for very short range
vehicles which dont have the range that most of us need.

The Chevy Volt is supposed to go 40 miles on a charge. My commute is 30
miles each way, so it would work for me, if I could charge it up while I
was at work. There is also the option, for all-electric vehicles, of adding
a small trailer with an ICE and generator, that essentially turns the
vehicle into a hybrid when you need to go on a long trip.

Electric vehicles are ideal for shorter commutes, especially in cities,
where for stop and go driving eats fuel and raises pollution levels
drastically. EVs use zero energy when stopped, and can recoup energy when
coasting downhill.

Long trips at highway speeds are still most economically accomplished with
a reasonably sized compact car. My 1998 Saturn SL1 got about 45 MPG on a
long trip, and my "new" 1999 will probably do the same. Newer models got
into the HP war games and economy suffered. Now GM is playing catch-up.

For really long trips and for most long-haul freight, trains should be
used. A "rail ferry" system could be used to transport your car to its
ultimate destination at a fraction of the fuel use, and it would become
economically attractive if it were scaled up much more than it is today.

Electrically powered trains could return power to the grid by using
overhead wires and a pantograph on long downhills where they now waste the
energy in friction brakes and resistor heaters from regen braking. And if
they are carrying a load of electric vehicles, they could dump some of that
energy into their batteries.

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Interestingly, there is also an Al-air battery (or let's say fuel cell). Up to 1300 Wh/kg (2000 Wh/kg). Now we are
talking real gasoline
-equivalence, with batteries of less than 100 kg for a full range similar to gasoline. Powered by electricity (at
less than $1/gallon equivalent).

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities
when vehicles finally move away from the inefficient, polluting,
and heavy ICEs, and towards an era of clean electric drive.

Pity none of them are economic except for very short range
vehicles which dont have the range that most of us need.

The Chevy Volt is supposed to go 40 miles on a charge.

Thats not enough for most. What matters is the worst distance, not the usual.

My commute is 30 miles each way, so it would work for me, if I could charge it up while I was at work.

And it isnt viable to have them charged at work.

And like I said, its not the usual trip that matters, its the worst you do often.

There is also the option, for all-electric vehicles, of adding a small trailer with an ICE and generator,

Pointless. You'd be a lot better off with a hybrid car instead.

that essentially turns the vehicle into a hybrid when you need to go on a long trip.

Still stupid even for those and most cant drive cars with
trailers and they dont work in public parking etc either.

Electric vehicles are ideal for shorter commutes,

Trouble is that hardly anyone has those.

especially in cities, where for stop and go driving eats fuel and raises pollution levels drastically.

The current hybrid cars are a much better approach
for that and dont have the long trip problem either.

EVs use zero energy when stopped, and can recoup energy when coasting downhill.

Yes, but so do the current hybrid cars and they are much more viable.

Long trips at highway speeds are still most economically accomplished with a reasonably sized compact car.

But they arent necessarily big enough for those trips.

My 1998 Saturn SL1 got about 45 MPG on a long trip, and my "new" 1999 will probably do the same. Newer models got into
the HP war games and economy suffered. Now GM is playing catch-up.

For really long trips and for most long-haul freight, trains should be used.

Nope, trains are WAY past their useby date for long trips.

A "rail ferry" system could be used to transport your car to its ultimate destination at a fraction of the fuel use,
and it would become economically attractive if it were scaled up much more than it is today.

Taint gunna happen. Its operationally too messy.

Electrically powered trains could return power to the grid by using overhead wires and a pantograph on long downhills
where they now waste the energy in friction brakes and resistor heaters from regen braking.

They've been doing that for a long time now.

And if they are carrying a load of electric vehicles, they
could dump some of that energy into their batteries.

Nope, its not practical to do that.

 

[Rod Speed]

T-minus108 <foltzted@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
T-minus108 <foltz...@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

Once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, is the truth
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Wrong.

Sounds correct to me,

More fool you.

unless ANYTHING is possible.

The other obvious possibility is that there are a number of possibilitys
that arent impossible and that only one of those is actually the truth.

You can implode between the ears now.

I beleive it is relevant to say sir Athur Conan doyle never
said that there could only be one truth remaining.... count it

You cant have more than one truth in the sense that he meant that.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message news:b5GdnVYdLbZb5jzVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@rcn.net...
.......

There are just an amazing amount of new battery possibilities when vehicles
finally move away from the inefficient, polluting, and heavy ICEs, and
towards an era of clean electric drive.


I keep hearing that phrase, "clean electric drive". Electricity is not
clean.

But A LOT cleaner than gasoline and diesel burned in ICEs ?
And it we ramp up electric power from renewables, and phase out coal, then it gets even a lot better.

Go work in a wire manufacturing factory for a while.

I actually did. Worked in a high-voltage cable manufacturing plant in the Netherlands for a while. It was pretty clean there )

What are you trying to say ?

Rob

/BAH