Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f531a10f-cdb0-4ffe-8670-06e11dc04207@googlegroups.com:

Nobody has used them to power under-water inductive charging
stations yet, but it's an idea.

NOT.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f531a10f-cdb0-4ffe-
8670-06e11dc04207@googlegroups.com:

There certainly are underwater HV lines.

NOT ANY that get tapped along their entire length, you fucking idiot.
Look at the application. NOT transmission lines. Line wheich get
power pulled from the by nearby watercraft.

You really have serious reading comprehension problems.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f531a10f-cdb0-4ffe-
8670-06e11dc04207@googlegroups.com:

Flake your tools out obsidian?

If I get to test it across your neck when I finish it.... sure!

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:e0656687-f4de-4e2f-
b758-cecd6b76e323@googlegroups.com:

> You might have meant "self important".

You misspell all the time. I do not. You are impotent, and you did
it to yourself. Hence, self impotent.

You get it now, chump!

You might have wanted me to mean self important, but you are too
stupid to rise to the level of a Trump family member.

So no, dipshit... I hit it right on the mark.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c90d3b73-d39d-497d-9031-4d3f3e56c7ad@googlegroups.com:

Hauling performance isn't a problem. Electric motors have a better
power-to-weight and power to volume performance than their
hydrocarbon-fuelled equivalents.

Yes... The MOTORS do, but NOT the battery pack that pushes it.

We KNOW the difference in efficiency between IC Engines and Electric
motors at providing torque and power.

The powerplant is not the problem. The fuel container is.

We already know this. You acting as if you are the only one who does
makes you nothing more than a lame joke on actual intelligent men.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f531a10f-cdb0-4ffe-
8670-06e11dc04207@googlegroups.com:

The grid isn't some kind of static monolith.

Don't need a primer from a retard like you about the US electrical
grid.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:88fde6c0-af27-4fb5-a258-df52cb4ec249@googlegroups.com:

You literally know nothing about this and you don't want to know
anything. There is no point in discussing this with you.

--

If only you couls stop talking to the SloTurd. He fits your lame
profile posts better than I.

As far as you knowing what I know or do not know... well... If
you think you do, then you are nothing more than a street punk,
because you are about as far off the mark as it gets.

Just because there is demand for what he currently has built does
not mean they match performance, nor does it mean the current design
ever could.

That demand will wain once those purchasers find out about the
shortcomings. The actual perfect word for this.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:02bcce4b-1ab1-4487-9d48-d1025189419a@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 1:23:37 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
Michael Terrell wrote:

I've seen one gasoline fueled car on fire, but it didn't
emit the toxic chemicals that a burning EV does.

I drove past a burning truck once, and the stench was
TERRIBLE; if it isn't toxic, my nose was lying to me.
Burning rubber was the dominant odor, so that's sulphur
compounds, I suppose.

So, the tires on EVs aren't rubber? Did it require a permit
from the EPA to remove what was left of those tires?

What toxic chemicals are you talking about? You were asked
before, but you ignored the question. Unlike nickel cadmium,
modern batteries like lithium-ion and lithium polymer are
environmentally safe. I'm genuinely

curious, since it's not too uncommon for them to catch fire when
an remote controlled aircraft crashes hard. But I've never heard
the fear of toxic chemicals being released in such a fire.

In case you aren't aware, he makes up what he wants to believe
without a shred of evidence. This guy is pretty sad really.
Rather than learning about the world, he prefers to live in a make
believe world and criticize anyone who actually lives in the real
world.

DoeTard, Terrell, or both?

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:02:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

keith wright <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote in
news:2de79dd6-3b43-4285-a5c8-180763723e65@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, 29 June 2019 10:15:42 UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
...
Pay with a credit card and plug in, then the next guy parks in
between stations that are in use, so he unplugs you and
connects himself. Extension cords would have become available
by then.

The paying-for-charging negotiation would be electronic, between
the car and the charger. Next guy might unplug you and connect
himself, but he'd pay for the current.

Currently only Tesla uses authentication between the car and
charging station for billing purposes.

The high-speed DC charging standard implemented on all EVs that
support it has a communication channel provided for car to charger
negotiation for such purposes - only needs appropriate software,
no physical changes required to existing designs.

An electronically controlled mechanical lock on the charging
plug/socket wouldn't be impractical.

Most EVs already do that and lock the charging plug in place when
the car doors are locked..

...


Things are likely to move toward cable free inductive charging
stations. They could still have ID signatures in the system.

A person should do the main charging overnight at home. The
charge one gets on the road only needs be supplemental and not at
full rate. Inductive proximity type charging could end up in many
locations.

What we need to do is change the entire driving paradigm, and that
means an entire new type of city need to be started.

That's the real "green" agenda. Few of those people really care about
the planet, much less care about people. Green politics is just an
alternate path to power and money.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 23:06:50 -0700, Rick C wrote:

In case you aren't aware, he makes up what he wants to believe without a
shred of evidence. This guy is pretty sad really. Rather than learning
about the world, he prefers to live in a make believe world and
criticize anyone who actually lives in the real world.

You're only saying that because you have issues with his politics. I
don't recognise that description of Michael and it seems to have come out
of nothing more substantial than pure spite on your part.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:02:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

What we need to do is change the entire driving paradigm, and that
means an entire new type of city need to be started.

True enough; many metropolitan areas have grown some variety of people-mover.
Transit systems with tunnel elements (maybe including hyperloop)
are a likely short-haul innovation.

That's the real "green" agenda. Few of those people really care about
the planet, much less care about people. Green politics is just an
alternate path to power and money.

Now, that ignores the transit problem entirely, and detours to castigate
some nebulous 'them' instead. Obviously there's power, politics, money
in any major element of infrastructure, but let's not obsess on that!

Last time I visited San Francisco, I left the rental parked and got a taxi; the
locals may know how to get where they were going, but driving was NOT
the most effective way for a visitor to get places. Green isn't
the engineering problem, SOLVE THE TRAFFIC NETWORK.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:02:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

What we need to do is change the entire driving paradigm, and that
means an entire new type of city need to be started.

True enough; many metropolitan areas have grown some variety of people-mover.
Transit systems with tunnel elements (maybe including hyperloop)
are a likely short-haul innovation.

That's the real "green" agenda. Few of those people really care about
the planet, much less care about people. Green politics is just an
alternate path to power and money.

Now, that ignores the transit problem entirely, and detours to castigate
some nebulous 'them' instead. Obviously there's power, politics, money
in any major element of infrastructure, but let's not obsess on that!

In a free market, there is no transit problem. Let people decide where
to live and how to travel.

Last time I visited San Francisco, I left the rental parked and got a taxi; the
locals may know how to get where they were going, but driving was NOT
the most effective way for a visitor to get places. Green isn't
the engineering problem, SOLVE THE TRAFFIC NETWORK.

I drive to work and to shop and everything. We do hike down into Glen
Park Village, on mostly dirt lanes.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7jrjqi4u4ob5nvk/Penny_Lane_2.jpg?raw=1

This is on my way home from work:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9eci8g24lynbgys/Crossover.JPG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9xk3kxwd1j3uc7/Vermont.JPG?raw=1

I rarely see another car on the twisty part of Vermont. Tourists wait
hours to zigzag down Lombard.

San Francisco is a collection of rural vollages and a small
hyper-dense Downtown. We rarely go downtown. It does make sense to
take Bart or a taxi or Uber if we have to go into the dense parts of
town.

We do need another Bay Bridge and more lanes on US101 and I280, but
the greenies will never allow that. They'd rather pile on taxes and
waste the money on the Railroad to Nowhere

Frank Lloyd Wright designed a reall cool bay bridge, the Southern
Crossing.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11642644/the-beautiful-bay-bridge-frank-lloyd-wright-never-got-to-build


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 23:06:50 -0700, Rick C wrote:

In case you aren't aware, he makes up what he wants to believe without a
shred of evidence. This guy is pretty sad really. Rather than learning
about the world, he prefers to live in a make believe world and
criticize anyone who actually lives in the real world.

You're only saying that because you have issues with his politics. I
don't recognise that description of Michael and it seems to have come out
of nothing more substantial than pure spite on your part.

I say it because it is factually true. Did you actually read the discussion?

--

Rick C.

--+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

Even AlwaysWrong should know that imitating a brutal dictator
is disgusting and pathetic...

--
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno decadence.org wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.E15Ern5JFYjq4l1GyqCoLg.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno decadence.org
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Electric Cars Not Yet Viable
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 12:49:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <qfnh01$1k19$2 gioia.aioe.org
References: <qep68d$45o$8 dont-email.me> <9nl0he5qhanlcb2nmkrcqa39qcj5dmjmql 4ax.com> <irKdnWj3kfyMfY3AnZ2dnUU78dWdnZ2d brightview.co.uk> <23r1hept1cfr28frf3kjgtc49cb3sopbtl 4ax.com> <0e6eea09-6afb-4635-815c-6b0332155c01 googlegroups.com> <l8c2hedh73f8lsi1kkcns2cd7tva03khl3 4ax.com> <qf7jcr$e20$1 dont-email.me> <1187b960-b513-4878-9465-1586c2ad2202 googlegroups.com> <2de79dd6-3b43-4285-a5c8-180763723e65 googlegroups.com> <110ghe1eds6oe8ojqnd5vd6k7vud9pkbcr 4ax.com> <gjbghehp434k09iuvrkqan5geke0chaf7v 4ax.com> <543c357d-f546-4873-8757-9619bf5581d8 googlegroups.com> <e74da651-bc3a-4f87-a053-01e369f4fe09 googlegroups.com> <b587bffe-3814-4f3e-94a2-3d4351a61f59 googlegroups.com> <qfmmsl$8o6$1 dont-email.me> <02bcce4b-1ab1-4487-9d48-d1025189419a googlegroups.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: E15Ern5JFYjq4l1GyqCoLg.user.gioia.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:556570

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit gmail.com> wrote in
news:02bcce4b-1ab1-4487-9d48-d1025189419a googlegroups.com:

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 1:23:37 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
Michael Terrell wrote:

I've seen one gasoline fueled car on fire, but it didn't
emit the toxic chemicals that a burning EV does.

I drove past a burning truck once, and the stench was
TERRIBLE; if it isn't toxic, my nose was lying to me.
Burning rubber was the dominant odor, so that's sulphur
compounds, I suppose.

So, the tires on EVs aren't rubber? Did it require a permit
from the EPA to remove what was left of those tires?

What toxic chemicals are you talking about? You were asked
before, but you ignored the question. Unlike nickel cadmium,
modern batteries like lithium-ion and lithium polymer are
environmentally safe. I'm genuinely

curious, since it's not too uncommon for them to catch fire when
an remote controlled aircraft crashes hard. But I've never heard
the fear of toxic chemicals being released in such a fire.

In case you aren't aware, he makes up what he wants to believe
without a shred of evidence. This guy is pretty sad really.
Rather than learning about the world, he prefers to live in a make
believe world and criticize anyone who actually lives in the real
world.


DoeTard, Terrell, or both?

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 2:10:21 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

... Obviously there's power, politics, money
in any major element of infrastructure, but let's not obsess on that!

In a free market, there is no transit problem. Let people decide where
to live and how to travel.

People, rather than alligators, DO make those decisions. Never the
usesr, though, rather the owners... The 'free market'
for roads would never have given us the interstate highway system (in
fact, remnant toll roads are STILL an impediment in many places).
I've had to navigate through too many stops for toll-paying.

The 'free market' would never have coughed up anything as useful as the
internet, either. There's no PR machine telling you that public works are
superior for connectivity, but... they are.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 11:50:52 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 2:10:21 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

... Obviously there's power, politics, money
in any major element of infrastructure, but let's not obsess on that!

In a free market, there is no transit problem. Let people decide where
to live and how to travel.

People, rather than alligators, DO make those decisions. Never the
usesr, though, rather the owners... The 'free market'
for roads would never have given us the interstate highway system (in
fact, remnant toll roads are STILL an impediment in many places).
I've had to navigate through too many stops for toll-paying.

The 'free market' would never have coughed up anything as useful as the
internet, either. There's no PR machine telling you that public works are
superior for connectivity, but... they are.

The "free market" gave Richmond the "Nickle Bridge" which is now $0.35 built by the Boulevard Bridge Corp., a ten cent toll gave the original investors an "81.5 percent rate of return". Eventually the toll was raised to the present cost in spite of the fact that the bridge has been paid for many, many times over.

"Free market" for roads results in excessive tolls that are never removed.

--

Rick C.

--+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:53:15 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news3ishe998gkr8eqfjg52n17j3sk8ctkat8@4ax.com:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a080b026-5b18- 4a8a-8311-5c60d93dca31@googlegroups.com:

An electric semi can charge while the driver is taking his
break.

Bullshit.

First, it has to match hauling performance, THEN the charging
period requisite gets looked at.

Currently they do not perform load hauling at the same level as
diesel tractors in any way shape or form.

When they can, we can re-examine battery pack size and charge
times.

It certainly will not be something that charges during a break.
Not even during the 4 hour break that drivers are required to
take
here. Likely not even during an overnight break.

Just think... 50 drivers of ETrucks all at the truck stop
getting
fast charged... How many megawatt hours do you think the truck
stop would be pulling?

Not a problem feeding from a High Voltage (100+ kV) line.

Sure there is. One does not simply tap on. Safeties, fusing...
many elements need to be there.

Large industrial sites, especially metal or paper works already have
such connections. Look at the high voltage lines going to such sites.

Build
the truck stop close to a HV line or build a HV line branch to an
existing truck stop.

Easier with MV.

Even some medium voltage (MV) lines might do, but definitively not
those few kilovolts MV lines crisscrossing the residential streets
to feed the pig transformers.

The voltages they carry would work fine.

The largest sensible (unsegmented) conductor diameter is 15-20 mm (150
- 300 mm˛) due to the skin effect at 50/60 Hz. The maximum current
density is 1-2 A/mm˛ depending on cooling (underground cable or open
wire) so the maximum current is in the order of 500 A/phase.

If I understand correctly, the most common medium voltage feed at
residential areas in the USA is 14 kV, so such cable could supply 12
MW. With 132 kV HV line voltage about 100 MW.

So if a truck has 1000 kWh batteries that needs to be charged in less
than 1 hour, less than a dozen such trucks could be charged resp. less
than 100 trucks could be charged simultaneously.

What is the current residential area medium voltage feed conductor
diameter is an other question and limits the number of trucks that can
be charged simultaneously from existing networks.

The problems is the age
and leakage rate of said current system.

While I have heard horror stories about the problems with the
electrification systems in the USA, I still do not believe that
_leakage_ would be the problem.

More likely the problem is due to missed upgrades, now existing
networks are used at too high current densities. It should be noted
that I˛R losses increase with the square or current density.
..

We need new grid before
new rail system and vehicle charging port inclusions.

Keeping the conductor current density below 1 A/mm˛ helps in many
cases. This either requires increasing the conductors cross section by
installing new lines or using higher voltage lines to keep the current
density at reasonable levels.

>>> Sorry folks... But it's gonna be a while yet.

Running the system at the edge will increase the risk of complete
collapse.

So, you are saying that truck stops should now have their own
substation.

While in Europe a supercharging station might just barely work from
the 230/400 V low voltage network, but in the USA, you definitely
going to need a distribution transformer connected to a 14 kV medium
voltage network. For a big truck stop, you might even need a 132 kV
connection.

That would work, but the boys down at the generators
may not like it much.

These various size charging stations have some degree of intelligence
so the power generation people would have some control of their usage,
e.g. so that they can limit the number of new loads connected at once.

Again, new major grid elements and your special substations would
have to be put in place.

There is time for them. How many electric trucks are on the road these
days ?

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:k811ie9cvlih27j4h4dqurssbgsm28nk6v@4ax.com:

Large industrial sites, especially metal or paper works already have
such connections. Look at the high voltage lines going to such sites.

They feed into and utilize their own substation at that node.

Residences get drops. Ready to go. Downstream from a substation.

An industrial site gets to build their own step down house
(substation) Depending on their needs.

What do you think it takes to feed an inductive blast furnace?

Even the more efficient electric arc furnaces use a LOT of juice.

 

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:16:23 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfou5l$6an$2
@dont-email.me:

Even AlwaysWrong should know that imitating a brutal dictator
is disgusting and pathetic...


You embracing the near dead KRW retard's lame moniker makes you...

You can't even get _that_ right, AlwaysWrong. John Larkin gave you
that well deserved name.

YASEDRT

Yet Another SED Retarded Troll.

Your troll post claiming that someone imitates some lame past
despot is 100% retarded Usenet baby bullshit.

Good job, DoeTard.

Fuck the message header, dumbfuck... you need content, and this
pissy bitch baby bullshit ain't it.

You rate about 1 out of ten in electronics, and even less in
Usenet.

....and you're still AlwaysWrong.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfou5l$6an$2@dont-
email.me:

And you having ANY follow up in your settings is even more fucking
lame, jackass.