Chip with simple program for Toy

[Dustin Kick]

wow, I figured out how to install "stufff"... wait, no,that's right, I
already had it installed, the "real" newsreader. and don't like the
interface. I guess I can live without "sci"."electronics".basics, where
the bulk of messages are flame wars.

In article
<61cb3b66-b952-4ec4-86a3-447a67183280@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Dustin Robert Kick <vieuxnez@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there any way I can filter out messages from a digest? I don't
need instant updates from this forum, so I get it in digest form, and
I'd like to be able to get the digest, with certain messages removed,
such as any messages titled "Another puppy gets trained", or "Rod
Speed".

--

Dustin Kick
http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vieuxnez

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Jonathan Grobe" <grobe@netins.net> wrote in message
news:slrng9v8r8.esg.grobe@worf.netins.net...

On 2008-08-11, Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

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).

The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1.
And the motor mass difference could make up for another factor of 4 or
so (simple replace the heavy ICE by battery mass).
So in reality the Zi-air battery should be less than a factor 2:1 off
with a gasoline driven car, and probably at par in many
applications.

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 ?

Rob

 

[Falko Rudolph]

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

regards
Falko Rudolph


"Zul" <zulkafli@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b0148a88-9f63-43b0-89c9-0889356b8dbd@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

Currently I building a circuitry to have 8 I/O pins being demux into
64 mutually exclusive outputs to control switching of 64 selenoid
relays. I am planning to place a Darlington array in between the
output of the demux and the ground for the relay because I believe a
demux output can't sink high current enough to operate a relay.

My problem arises as both the demux and the darlington array are open
collector devices. In this case the output of the demux are either
ground or floating. For darlington array the input must be LO (output
to floating) or HI (output to 0.6V). As I see it, I could not get a HI
input from an output of a demux with open collector configuration.

I was thinking to place an inverter between the demux and the
darlington array. I also looked for a demux with totem pole
configuration with active HI to match it with the darlington array but
could not find it. All I can find are demux with active LO.

If anybody have the opinion this, appreciate the response.

thanks,
Zul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"John G" <green@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:489ebfb9$0$8681$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

vinta.daga@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27ef9f9b-03a4-49f1-8065-81e1f187f2d2@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
i need to know semiconductors.

simple.
by definition "Half conductors"

I thought semi-conductors were guys with batons who stood in the middle of
the highway and orchestrated the movement of 18 wheelers.

The really good ones wear capes, and become superconductors.

Paul

 

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Duane C. Johnson" <redrok@redrok.com> wrote in news:489ecff6$0$18418
$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net:

Kris Krieger wrote:
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

They are now experimenting with large sailing kites
to help pull container ships across the ocean to
reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help keep
water transportation preeminent and competative.

Is that serious, or a joke?
If it's serious, do you have any links handy?

See:
http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13

TIA!

Duane

Thanks!

INteresting adaptation of the, what's it called, ?parasail?.

I'm trying to get a sense of the materials cost (since it seems certain
that a regular ol' parasail would wear out under that much strain), and
what the materials are. Also what wind speed is required to actually help
pull the ship. THe intriguing thing is that it doesn't require all of the
superstructure required for masted sails - also, as teh PDF showed, it
moves freely, so has a far smaller chance of tipping th eship.

INteresting and curious. I'll have to look at this periodically and see
what happens.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Tim Jackson <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in
news:Mv6dnU7wkP4b1ALVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet:

Bret Cahill wrote:

The hard part would be deploying the kite.

Catapult? Rocket? We can deploy a jet fighter, I'm sure a kite isn't
impossible. You throw a stunt kite. Landing an unpiloted craft safely
on a carrier is I think the harder task.


Tim

Uhm, wiouldn't it be like a regular kite, i.e. pretty much self-deploying
in a good wind? ((I'd imagine that using the thing is a gentle souigh
wouldn't be worth the trouble, sot here has to be an efficiency curve for
a given size of unit, ship size, and wond speed, showing when deployment
yields pull.))

 

[Kris Krieger]

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.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:mpi0a45l430mc992mhu42rm7copkc0bu6i@4ax.com...

[snip sniping]

I write what I like, when I like, regardless of your displeasure.

And "We"???

I think you attribute to yourself support which isn't there.

I agree. I found some of the early discussion interesting, and proposed
some possibly more practical alternatives, which were reluctantly and
incompletely accepted or rationally debated. This has deteriorated into a
lot of childish banter, and I have removed myself from further "discussion"
until something more substantial and worthwhile is posted. My silence does
not indicate support for the original idea. I see promise for some of the
alternatives, but it seems counterproductive to exchange insults. Where is
Phil when we need him?

Paul

 

[Kris Krieger]

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

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

<rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3462f333-0a9b-4b5a-96c9-dcac079a3c1c@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 11, 7:33 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

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.


What does this have to do with the weight of an electric tractor?

An electric tractor will be just as heavy as the comparable diesel
tractor, or it will not be able to pull the same equipment in the same
conditions. Electric forklifts are exactly the same weight as ICE
forklifts, but replace the heavy steel counterweight with a heavy lead-
acid battery (high battery weight for a forklift is a feature, not a
bug). My experience with electric forklifts is that the battery is
sized to last, under expected use, at least as long as the recharge
time, so that you can get away with only two batteries.

Tractors pull ploughs through soil and haul heavy loads around (hence
the name tractor), so long as it does not sink into the soil, weight
is a feature of a powerful tractor, not a bug. Traction is a function
of weight and friction, so heavy-duty tractors need heavy weights. A
light weight tractor is only capable of light work.

Unless your farm is really small, driving to and from the battery
station, even if the battery change itself consumes no time, is going
to be a serious usability issue. If the battery pack will not run
from at least dawn to noon, there may be acceptance issues. For
bringing in the hay, after cutting, but before the rain, may
necessitate a tractor that can have its battery changed in the field,
so it can run 'til dusk. Farming is a business with such slim
margins, that if an electric tractor does not save money in the
current crop, the savings may be too distant to be worth considering
the expense.

The best way to figure out if your electric tractor scheme is on the
right track is to go to a farmer and ask what sacrifices he will
accept for a cheaper to run tractor.

I wonder how much energy is lost due to friction and slippage of tractor

tires in mud and soft earth, and if it could be improved by propelling the
farming implement (plough, disc, harrow, whatever) by means of a cable
between two solidly fixed points. I can envision a sort of large scale x-y
plotter arrangement that would have two solid rails in one direction, and a
cable stretched between two trolleys, and the implement attached to the
cable. I would think such an arrangement could easily cover a 25 acre field
(1000 x 1000 ft), and it could be operated at any time of day or night, and
in any weather, with minimal human interaction. I saw mention of this
elsewhere, so I don't claim this as my idea, but IIRC it was implemented
with rather old technology, and modern engineering might make it more
practical.

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@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.

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

An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

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.

The industry has, however.

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.

That's why electrification of agriculture is a pretty sure bet.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

Biodiesel will be used instead, you watch.

Even if it is likely that biodiesel will predominate why risk
even a 20% chance of bio diesel not being cost effective

The costs are completely known right now because
veg oils have been produced for centurys now.

when that risk isn't necessary?

Why spend heaps on trolley wires on farms and on batterys when they arent viable
when you can use biodiesel in engines without any modification of that machinery ?

Ralph Nader made a career of safety technology and safety
doesn't improve your chances of survival, let alone quality of
life, nearly as much as having backup energy technology.

Dont need to do anything special, just use biodiesel when the price of diesel makes that viable.

Human labor isn't an option.

"Labor" here means some fat guy sitting in an air conditioned electric tractor.

You havent established that there will be any more of that post peak oil.

You haven't established that bio diesel will cost less than $10/ gallon.

Wrong, as always. Veg oils have been produced for centurys now.

Has anyone _ever_ gotten more than 2,000 gallons / acre-year?

Yep, and that doesnt produce $10/gallon anyway.

If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

Even I don't go that far.

Americans did pretty well before the first tractor.

Much better than the Africans today.

Not really. The main problem the africans have is FAR more kids than their situation can support.

The very first did in fact starve.

They were English subjects, not U. S. citizens.

Irrelevant.

The difference is the early English settlers had funny ideas about personal hygiene.

It had absolutely nothing to do with that.

They thought bathing was unhealthy. They stunk so bad
all the game fled before it could be hunted and killed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

It wasnt about the lack of game, stupid.

Oysters can't run or swim and therefore would have the perfect food.

Nope, you'll die if you only eat that.

There were thousands of tons of oysters in the James
River but the settlers were too stupid to eat them.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

You're making the exact same mistake right now.

Nope, you are. Ignoring biodiesel when veg oils have been produced for centurys now.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"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

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

Diesel engines for a tractor can feasibly hit 35%, even if it spends
time idling between tasks. Really large diesels can hit 50%
efficiency through nothing fancier than turning slowly enough to get
an optimum burn. Turbocompounding can push the efficiency of a
tractor's diesel to 50%, too.

With battery charging inefficiencies factored in, the overall
efficiency of an electric tractor is not even twice as efficient as
the diesels currently in use, and not as efficient as an improved
diesel, so the only question is whether the electricity is cheaper
than the energy in the diesel fuel and that the farmer can afford the
investment.

This is why I think that producing synthetic oil from coal is probably
a better short term bridge between oil and fuel cells than battery
powered tractors.

Nope, biodiesel is. Veg oils have been produced for centurys now.

 

[Rod Speed]

Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
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?

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*!

But arent as viable as replacing the batterys as required.

Talk about shutting off one's brain

You're the one doing that.

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.

Dont need to invent anything for perfectly viable solar lights.

Thats already been done and you can buy them anywhere for peanuts.

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

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable alternative.

 

In sci.physics Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:

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.

Ideas that are theoretically impossible don't become practical which
is what most of the hair brained schemes posted on USENETe are.

Ideas that are merely economically impractical may have a slim chance at
some point in the future.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"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

Any idea of the overall electrical efficiency of a zinc-air battery,
with the zinc oxide converted back to metallic zinc using electrical
power?

John

 

In sci.physics Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:

I wonder how much energy is lost due to friction and slippage of tractor
tires in mud and soft earth, and if it could be improved by propelling the
farming implement (plough, disc, harrow, whatever) by means of a cable
between two solidly fixed points. I can envision a sort of large scale x-y
plotter arrangement that would have two solid rails in one direction, and a
cable stretched between two trolleys, and the implement attached to the
cable. I would think such an arrangement could easily cover a 25 acre field
(1000 x 1000 ft), and it could be operated at any time of day or night, and
in any weather, with minimal human interaction. I saw mention of this
elsewhere, so I don't claim this as my idea, but IIRC it was implemented
with rather old technology, and modern engineering might make it more
practical.

You've never seen real fields where real crops are grown, have you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3462f333-0a9b-4b5a-96c9-dcac079a3c1c@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 7:33 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

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.


What does this have to do with the weight of an electric tractor?

An electric tractor will be just as heavy as the comparable diesel
tractor, or it will not be able to pull the same equipment in the
same conditions. Electric forklifts are exactly the same weight as
ICE forklifts, but replace the heavy steel counterweight with a
heavy lead- acid battery (high battery weight for a forklift is a
feature, not a bug). My experience with electric forklifts is that
the battery is sized to last, under expected use, at least as long
as the recharge time, so that you can get away with only two
batteries. Tractors pull ploughs through soil and haul heavy loads around (hence
the name tractor), so long as it does not sink into the soil, weight
is a feature of a powerful tractor, not a bug. Traction is a
function of weight and friction, so heavy-duty tractors need heavy
weights. A light weight tractor is only capable of light work.

Unless your farm is really small, driving to and from the battery
station, even if the battery change itself consumes no time, is going
to be a serious usability issue. If the battery pack will not run
from at least dawn to noon, there may be acceptance issues. For
bringing in the hay, after cutting, but before the rain, may
necessitate a tractor that can have its battery changed in the field,
so it can run 'til dusk. Farming is a business with such slim
margins, that if an electric tractor does not save money in the
current crop, the savings may be too distant to be worth considering
the expense.

The best way to figure out if your electric tractor scheme is on the
right track is to go to a farmer and ask what sacrifices he will
accept for a cheaper to run tractor.

I wonder how much energy is lost due to friction and slippage of
tractor tires in mud and soft earth, and if it could be improved by
propelling the farming implement (plough, disc, harrow, whatever) by means of a cable between two solidly fixed
points.

That was used at one time with stationary steam engines.

Turns out that modern tractors are a lot more viable.

I can envision a sort of large scale x-y plotter arrangement that would have two solid rails in one direction, and a
cable stretched between two trolleys, and the implement attached to the cable. I would think such an arrangement could
easily cover a 25 acre field (1000 x 1000 ft), and it could be operated at any time of day or night, and in any
weather, with minimal human interaction.

Nothing like as viable as using biodiesel in existing machinery.

I saw mention of this elsewhere, so I don't claim this as my idea, but IIRC it was implemented with rather old
technology,

Yes, but not that XY approach.

and modern engineering might make it more practical.

Biodiesel in existing machinery is a lot more practical.

 

[Rod Speed]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:


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.

Ideas that are theoretically impossible don't become practical which
is what most of the hair brained schemes posted on USENETe are.

Ideas that are merely economically impractical may have a slim chance
at some point in the future.

And some things that are currently economically unviable become
economically viable as stuff like the price of oil increases and stays high.