Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rob Dekker]

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in message
news:488a71da$0$19697$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...
.....

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,

On behalf of sci.energy readers, THANKS for a great overview of electric
motor basics.
Very seldom do we see postings of this quality, and I at least very much
appreciate that.

Thanks again

Rob

 

[Androcles]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfc0a663-6ce6-4329-99f4-4441e2c57bf8@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Hi:
|
| Just how can microwaves be used to cool something? Usually they heat
| things up.
|
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070914105600.htm
|
|
| Thanks,
|
| Radium

Just how can friction be used to stop a car? Usually it heats up the brakes.

Heat is the kinetic energy of motion of the molecules. If you use a
microwave to stop a molecule then you've "cooled" the molecule.

 

[Wim Lewis]

In article <5f2d91fa-5edb-49d2-bc9a-a5b0f00de178@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

ELF can be inefficient because the wavelength is so large that it's hard
to build an efficient antenna for it. On the transmitting side, this
means that only a small amount of the current sloshing around in the
antenna gets coupled out into free-space radiation; as a result you need
higher currents in the antenna to get the same radiated output, and that
means more losses to things like resistive heating.

If you can build an antenna that's appropriately sized for the ELF
wavelength (hundreds or thousands of kilometers) then you can avoid this.
The US used to have a couple of giant ELF antennas in the Midwest; Wikipedia
says they were disassembled earlier this decade. I don't know how submarines
are signaled these days.

Anyway, MW has a shorter wavelength than ELF, so it's easier to build a
good antenna for that band.

of a higher-frequency has more
energy than a photon of a lower-frequency. [....]

The important thing is usually not how many photons can be emitted, but
how much energy can be picked up by the receiver compared to the amount
of noise it's also picking up. The amount of energy per photon really
isn't significant, at least not for radio. The energy of a single photon
is insignificant compared to the power of the Force ... errr ... I mean,
it's tiny compared to the amount of energy you need to be heard over the
background noise.

--
Wim Lewis <wiml@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1

 

[Androcles]

"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlawyer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e5d9d5b-95b2-4736-96e8-8332dd35e48b@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| On Jul 26, 10:28 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:bfc0a663-6ce6-4329-99f4-4441e2c57bf8@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| > | Hi:
| > |
| > | Just how can microwaves be used to cool something? Usually they heat
| > | things up.
| > |
| > |http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070914105600.htm
| > |
| > |
| > | Thanks,
| > |
| > | Radium
| >
| > Just how can friction be used to stop a car? Usually it heats up the
brakes.
| >
| > Heat is the kinetic energy of motion of the molecules. If you use a
| > microwave to stop a molecule then you've "cooled" the molecule.
|
| So hydraulics on a fridge is the next step in economic and engineering
| progress?

If you want to call the motion of fluid/gas in a fridge pipe "hydraulics"
then that step has already been taken, you are too late.


| Should be useful when moving too.
|
| What plagued the researchers at Los Alamos when working on the idea of
| a super bomb is that the heat generated would build up enough to
| ignite the atmosphere.

Not at all. It plagued the popular press who love to promote doom
and gloom to create newspaper and magazine sales, the researchers
just carried on, ignoring them.
That kind of idiocy is still with us today with the LHC.

I shall ignore you, too.
*plonk*

 

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

On Jul 26, 11:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Jul 25, 12:31 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <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.

It's cheap but not immune to noise and suseptable to multipath big-
time.

I never said supressed carrier wasn't immune to noise.

As for multipath, all modulation methods are susceptable to it. FM has
a slight advantage there with discriminator capture.

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

Do tell how...It's not in any text book so maybe we can learn with
your advanced knowledge.

See any current amateur radio transceiver. There have been IC's to do
it for decades.

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.

You have never heard of the inverse square law obviously. High
frequencies are line of site only and can go long distances
because you pump out more power. You need to compare apples with
apples.

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.

Define "high frequencies".

Things don't become line of sight until about 50 Mhz. Most long distance
terrestrial communications is done between about 5 Mhz and 30 Mhz, which
is HF.

The typical amateur radio transceiver puts out 100 W max in the HF
bands.

My log books, and the logs of 100s of thousands of amateur operators
are full of contacts around the globe with far less power than 100 W
in the 1.6 Mhz to 29 Mhz range.

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

About the only thing you got right.

The only thing we agree on - you must be a physicist - no idea about
engineering.

No, I'm a BSEE and an amateur radio operator for 40 years.

Have you ever seen a HF transmitter much less operated one?

As for your moon thing - it's line of site again!! Try communicating
from London to New York at 10GHz.

That's exactly the point. You can't communicate anywhere that isn't
line of sight much over about 100 Mhz no matter how much power you
run unless you use some reflective technique such as tropo scatter.

You know nothing about RF communications.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[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
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.

I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.

There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.

And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.

Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.

I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach
would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.

You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.

I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
assumptions about how we get from here to there?

Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as I have addressed the topic.

Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the batterys are swapped.

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.

Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?

Using solar, yep.

It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic,

Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?

which of course would be begging the question itself.

Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.

Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
to existing energy production an distribution methods?

Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Just more mindless silly shit.

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

They cant be with solar charging.

What if water was superheated and then stored in
thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling
at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.

There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way.

Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of
batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to
charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce?

Nope.

You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

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.

Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their
oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges.

Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the
charging to the battery swapping stations when you are
recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with
oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations.

It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead of
trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes no sense
at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge station when
its so easy to have a recharger at each battery swapping station
when the recharging is done from the grid.

For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile
was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy.

Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD.

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

And wouldnt be viable either.

Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling
down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio.

Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme.

YOU get to show how it can be done viably.

THATS how it works.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.

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.

If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.

Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength.

Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination
that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an engine
therefore it is impractical and may be impossible.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.

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.

The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility
of storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night.

Like I said, misses the point utterly.

Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries.

Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.

Sorry about the logic ribbing

Its actually desperate wanking.

but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc.

Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

 

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

Amateurs are the worst kind! There is not way to demodulate double
side-band supressed carrier (esp at low SNRs).

Nonsense but irrelevant as virtually no one uses double side band
supressed carrier and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous
discussion.

Double side band was played with about 40 years ago and essentially
abandoned as ssb is more efficient both in bandwidth and power.

Most all supressed carrier is done single side band.

Vestigial sideband is used extensively as in analog TV broadcast.

<snip babbling nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:

WWVB and Loran-C use low frequencies for phase stability. Ionosphere
bounce has bad fading and erratic prop delay; ground wave is very
lossy but is much more amplitude and phase stable. Both are being
killed by GPS.

Not quite; the decommisioning of the Loran system has been indefinetly
delayed and the implementation of a new generation Loran system as
a backup for GPS is under study.

1000 watts is enough for SSB communications halfway around the world.
You can't do that with a megawatt of ELF.

Much less than 100 W is enough for SSB communications halfway around
the world.

And depending on the state of the sun, 1 W is often more than enough.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

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



Amateurs are the worst kind! There is not way to demodulate double
side-band supressed carrier (esp at low SNRs).

Nonsense but irrelevant as virtually no one uses double side band
supressed carrier and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous
discussion.

Double side band was played with about 40 years ago and essentially
abandoned as ssb is more efficient both in bandwidth and power.

Most all supressed carrier is done single side band.

Vestigial sideband is used extensively as in analog TV broadcast.

Though oddly enough, the problem with SSB is that it's hard to tune.
Not in terms of receiving something listenable to, but to tune it
exactly. There is nothing to lock onto, so one always has to make
do with "that's about right". It's fine for voice since mistuning
only makes someone sound higher or lower pitched. But music is
horrible since you do notice when it's mistuned.

Why would anyone in their right mind transmit music with SSB?

Music is generally about fidelity which means bandwidth.

One of the primary reasons for using SSB is to reduce bandwidth.

The redundant sideband, as I posted about earlier, allows for
perfect tuning of the reinserted carrier. Plus the redundant
sideband, with the right detector, allows for a certain level
of frequency diversity reception, and of course the redundancy
means one sideband may arrive at your receiver without interference
while you have to live with what you get if one sideband is
sent.

I doubt you are going to see much benefit from a frequency diversity
of 6 Khz at 10 Mhz.

The carrier is the main hog of power at the transmitter, eliminate
it and you get a far bigger level of efficiency than going whole
hog and getting rid of the extra sideband. Sending the extra
sideband gives those advantages.

Well, it all depends on what it is you are trying to achieve.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting experiment converting a school bus into an electric
vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery pack.
These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery (in 2003).
In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet goes to about
$20,000 for the same battery pack.
Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most notably
its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare' metals.
Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery vans)
seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified", not just
because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking advantages),
and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but
also because they run short trips (no more than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfc0a663-6ce6-
4329-99f4-4441e2c57bf8@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Hi:

Just how can microwaves be used to cool something? Usually they heat
things up.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070914105600.htm


Thanks,

Radium

That *is* interesting!

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
....

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

---
AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used
they have to be kept hot.

Yeah. I initially thought that was a problem too.
But these things need only 40W to keep them hot (when they do not operate).
So that's not a really big deal.
Especially since most busses return to a spot where they can be recharged
every night.

JF

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
....

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.

Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.

....
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.

....

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another 20%
of fuel cost saved).

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an interesting
experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery pack.
These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery (in 2003).
In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet goes to about
$20,000 for the same battery pack.

Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most notably
its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare' metals.
Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery vans)
seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified", not just
because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking advantages),
and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but
also because they run short trips (no more than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

AIUI there's also that nasty catch that when they're not being used they have to be kept hot.

Yeah. I initially thought that was a problem too.

Corse its a problem.

But these things need only 40W to keep them hot (when they do not operate).

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

So that's not a really big deal.

Wrong again.

Especially since most busses return to a spot where they can be recharged every night.

Sure, THAT part isnt a problem.

Pity about the rest.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:g6gsn8$b9i$1@news.parasun.com...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
...
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.



Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).

...
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.

...

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal
(w.r.t. diesel).

And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another
20%
of fuel cost saved).

That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.
But it's no longer a no-brainer.

My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely competitive
(no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2dqnF8v39pU1@mid.individual.net...

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting
experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery pack.
These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery (in 2003).
In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet goes to about
$20,000 for the same battery pack.

Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most notably
its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of 'rare' metals.
Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery vans)
seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified", not just
because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking advantages),
and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in urban areas), but
also because they run short trips (no more than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

Rod, you are now officially a dick-head in my view.

First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.
Apart from the fact that he is right (see side-thread ; IF the battery
survives thousands of cycles than it IS already competitive with liquid
hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications), YOU made the claim that that's
NOT true if you count the cost of the batteries properly.

So now it's up to YOU to provide some data to show what you mean with the
"count the cost of the batterys properly" and that if you use that data that
batteries are NOT competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in ANY
application. YOU need to show that because YOU made that claim.

Rob

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <6ac1b501-7e73-4146-9b7d-914664f0206b@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:25 am, Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:25 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucege...@gmail.com
wrote:

Hi:

Just how can microwaves be used to cool something? Usually they heat
things up.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070914105600.htm

Thanks,

Radium

The temperature appears one-dimensional. A second axis as a cooler
then allows all axis to cool.

A RF signal as quanta is only a form of low energy light. Allowing
all coolers to function as a single applied axis of radiative energy
transfer.

A large mass as a turkey in the refridgerator can also be cooled. A
point as a center of irradiation allows all axis as a radiative
transfer.

RF
--------------> beam A turkey

A person simply needs to allow. In quantum theory a center smaller
than the RF wavelength must be created inside the turkey. A small
metal probe to make the center. A probe to cause inverted radiative
energy motion. Quantum theory is strange like this and a small probe
will cause a beam size to be predicted.

Small beam = axis size IN third energy transform.

size turkey/small probe -----proportional to beam diameter in
wavelength fraction/small mass

What you are doing is making the entire turkey now a small mass.

Hint: AN exact beam diameter will cool an exact sized turkey, NOT
HEAT IT.

So a variable beam size for the size of mass is a critical variable.

"A 0.6 Lamba beam size for a 1 lamda small chicken"

A beam must always be smaller than lamda!

Douglas Eagleson
eaglesondouglas...@yahoo.com

hint: a collapse as the size ratio causes a chickens interference. A
ceneter of the radiative interference pattern must be larger than the
chicken size! Denying a cooling effect as a whole until a sub-lamda
size of beam is encountered.

Hmm. I wonder if this microwave technology can be used for air-
conditioning. Cool your body the same way microwave heating would warm
it up. Is this possible?

Energy flows downhill in potential, and I give low prospects for a human
body to have emissivity much past 1.
If a human body with average surface temp. 305 K (90 F) is in a room
whose surfaces are at 293 K (68 F), I give awfully low prospects for the
body to get rid of heat much beyond 7.2 milliwatts per square centimeter.

be used for
cooling objects?

Despite existence of stimulated emission, I don't see much opportunity
to use a likely source of heat to assist something geting rid of heat,
especially if the object to be cooled has absolute temperature only to a
minor extent warmer than absolute temperature of its surroundings.

I also have doubts of much stimulated emission with frequencies much
under a gigahertz. Most stimulated emission events appear to me to
involve transistions of energy level higher than average kinetic energy of
molecules at ambient temperature, and that means mostly over .02 electron
volts, and photons of .03 electron volts have wavelength around 41
micrometers and frequency around 7.2 THz.

I am aware of masers with frequencies closer to a GHz - and I am unaware
of cooling to below ambient temperature with these or for that matter any
kind of laser. Lasers and masers produce heat, which flows downhill in
potential - such devices only have parts and components being warmer than
"ambient temperature" with only exception being "cool side of"
refrigeration devices.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting experiment converting a school bus into an electric vehicle.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/smud.pdf

The battery used here is a ZEBRA (NiNaCl liquid salt) battery
pack. These guys paid $53,500 for their 107 kWh ZEBRA battery
(in 2003). In volume production, the manufacturer price sheet
goes to about $20,000 for the same battery pack.

Lots of benefits here over other battery technologies, most
notably its cost, it's robustness, safety and its absense of
'rare' metals. Nickel and table salt (NaCl) are the main ingredients.

Technically, school busses (and city busses and most delivery
vans) seem to be a great early adopter to become "electrified",
not just because of their frequent stops (regenerative braking
advantages), and air pollution (noone likes stinking diesels in
urban areas), but also because they run short trips (no more
than one day at a time).

ZEBRAs seem to have a very bright future in PHEV tech.

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already
competitive with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Not if you count the cost of the batterys properly.

Any numbers ?

YOU made that stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the numbers to support that stupid claim.

THATS how it works.

Rod, you are now officially a dick-head in my view.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What your view might or might not be on anything at all in spades.

First of, I did not make the claim, Bret did.

You're lying now. YOU made that claim about hydrocarbons.

Apart from the fact that he is right (see side-thread ; IF the battery
survives thousands of cycles than it IS already competitive with
liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications),

No it aint, because of the cost of the batterys.

YOU made the claim that that's NOT true if you count the cost of the batteries properly.

In response to the your stupid claim just above that.

So now it's up to YOU to provide some data to show what
you mean with the "count the cost of the batterys properly"

Doesnt need data for something as basic as that.

and that if you use that data that batteries are NOT competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in ANY application. YOU need to
show that because YOU made that claim.

I never ever said anything like that you stupid liar.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:g6gsn8$b9i$1@news.parasun.com...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
...
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.



Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
o(

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.

Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the
battery fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still
negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see
report). That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about
$0.13/kWh.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital
cost).


...
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.

...

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty
equal (w.r.t. diesel).


And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically
another 20% of fuel cost saved).

That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.

Nope, not when you include the cost of the money used to purchase that battery.

But it's no longer a no-brainer.

My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be
truely competitive (no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.

And that aint gunna happen and wouldnt be true even if it did when you include the cost properly.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.

Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.

Actually that $0.0002/whr.

$20,000 / (1,000 cycles X 100 kilowatt hours) = $0.20/ kWhr.

If it can cycle several thousand times, however, then the price of is
only a few cents/kWhr

The cost of diesel increases that much in one year.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the
battery fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still
negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.

That could drop with cheap PV.

Nope, because cheap PV aint gunna happen, you watch.

Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see
report). That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.

In sunny areas the bus could be plastered with PV which would be a significant savings.

Wrong again. Pity about the cost of the PV and the kids vandalising it.

Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or
146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh.

Olive oil has 120 cal/serving (actually 120 kcal/15cc) or 8,000 kcal/liter or 33 kWhr/gallon.

Different calories, stupid.

Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in
between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?)

And that's when they are always running at optimum rpm.

Which no bus ever does.

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.

So using my battery cost figure diesel is slightly more expensice than battery-grid right now.

Wrong again.

Since we know diesel fuel will continue to spiral,

It hasnt even spiralled yet.

it would be foolish not to replace diesel with battery-grid as soon as possible where ever possible.

Wrong again. It makes a lot more sense to see if it ever becomes economic.

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

That'll be true in a couple years anyway.

Nope.

And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another 20% of fuel cost saved).

I think that's 20% recuperation per stop, not overall.

You're wrong.