Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

[Bret Cahill]

� �So, you have no clue

A sci.electronics.basics dunce post is easy to predict:

No matter what the previous or OP poster says, the dunce posts start
off:

"You have no clue . . ."

The dunce then tosses in some brand names he saw at Best Buy.

Then the dunce types "LOL!"


Bret Cahill

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

$10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days.

Is that $10 million per mile or mile lane?

No answer?

Here's a clue for you:

Adding one lane to the 57 Freeway for about 5 miles is estimated to cost
$140 million.

That only highlights some the cost advantages of electrification over
new highway construction:

No,

Merely denying a post and snipping the content is called "dodging the
issue."

<snip long winded babble>

Try to address the issues.

The issue was construction and maintenance costs, not the convienience
of electric cars.

It is no longer 1957.

True. Construction techniques have improved and since no land will
need to be acquired it can be expected to be an even smaller % of the
federal budget as the original highway system.

Construction techniques haven't changed since the bulldozer was invented.

What has changed is things like Environmental Impact Reports, seismic
standards and requirements, general requirements on roads, etc.

But most important of all, back then the cost of oil imports wasn't
expected to soar past 20% of GDP for decades.

The cost of oil at any time is irrelevant to the maintenance and
construction costs other than the fuel to run the bulldozers, and
that is a small fraction of the costs.

We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road
immediately.

It doesn't matter what you think we need.

As far a public spending is concerned it matters what the _majority_
thinks.

The majority want to get off oil.

Maybe.

The reality is the median age of a car in the US is 9.4 years and
climbing.

That'll drop if roadbed power is unmetered for the first 10 - 20
years.

Only if the cost of ownership is lower.

I believe in choice. You will have two choices at the beginning of
the electrification program.

You can drive your old SUV and pay $15/gallon.

Not going to happen.

Or you can buy a new EV or hybrid and have your tires as your only
operating cost.

Plus total battery replacement every 3-5 years.

With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil
shock.

Hybrids have nothing to do with electifying the highways unless they
already have the equipement installed to charge off of an electrified
highway.

Cars with equipment to charge off of a highway won't appear until the
majority of the highway is electified.

Not unless:

A) Any changes to roads are 100% compatible with all existing vehicles.

How would electrification _not_ be compatible?

With any scheme other than inductive charging.

<snip babble>

B) All new vehicles have the same capabilities as existing vehicles.

Why would anyone want that?

Americans want things to get better and better.

OK, same or better.

A motorist will soon be able to drive coast to coast and never stop to
refuel or switch out batteries.

Irrelevant; the range of most people's bladders is less than that of
the car.

A Tesla with fewer batteries will be able to go from zero to 60 in 3
seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Irrelevant babble.

That means "we" would have to electrify all 210,000 lane miles of
highway first,

Is there some theory where one road cannot be electrified unless _all_
roads are electrified? If so, please don't tell anyone. Email me so
_we_ can take out some patents.

I didn't say "all" roads, I said the highway system.

Learn to read.

As with any other construction project we could just tippy toe in with
I-40 and CA99 and learn as we go.

That isn't the way it works these days.

You haven't a clue how much planning goes into something as seemingly
simple as restripping a road.

<snip long winded irrelevant babble>

The people here built a demo system without spreadsheets:

http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf

They were certainly thinking about optimization. They looked at
"tradeoffs", i.e., the "overall cost" might be lower by reducing
efficiency to reduce construction costs. Whenever you hear the key
words, "tradeoff" and "overall cost" you know they are about to click
on Excel.

Maybe for you, but not for most people.

How much to put such a system on 210,000 lane miles of highway?

As the Berkeley researchers pointed out, it's difficult to project
costs on new technology.

Since it has been done, it is no longer new.

That's why we need to start off with a few hundred miles. The
selection should include different climates and have a lot of
distribution centers at each end.

Childish nonsense.

If you want to electrify highways, YOU need to do a cost estimate to
implement.

I assume you can come up with a pencil and an old envelope, which is
all you need to do the calculations.

Months ago, working alone, I posted a similar conclusion as the
Berkeley researchers with my own back of envelope calculations.

Where's the test data?

It's cost effective to shift to lower efficiency.

Maybe.

I told you once and I'll tell you again. Do _not_ post links on prior
art to invention threads.

Fuck off and die.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a
point. �But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right
through your dishonest tactic. �I won't even bother to repost, I'll just
mention that the original subject was regenerative braking on
automobiles, and I was clearing up some confusion on the issue.

Actually the original subject was �Fuel Savings from Roadbed
Electrification,
�I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion.

That's nothing. One poster has been insisting for over a week that
the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification.

Other than the fuel cost to run the construction equipment, the cost
of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification.

<snip babble>

The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system,
not BUILDING it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

$10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days.

Is that $10 million per mile or mile lane?

No answer?

Here's a clue for you:

Adding one lane to the 57 Freeway for about 5 miles is estimated to cost
$140 million.

That only highlights some the cost advantages of electrification over
new highway construction:

No,

Merely denying a post and snipping the content is called "dodging the
issue."

Here, we'll try again:

EVs and hybrids can charge up where ever the road bed is electrified,
that is, where ever it was cost effective to electrify, and then run
off the battery if a 5 mile stretch is prohibitively expensive to
electrify. 100% coverage isn't necessay for a motorist to be able to
fuellessly access 100% of a region. Ramps might not be cost
effective
either.

This isn't true for conventional new highway construction where they
don't have the option to "merely omit" ramps and new lanes which
require condemning / buying expensive land downtown.

But we keep overlooking the real advantage of electrification:
convenience. Battery only EV travel will soon be competitive with
liquid fuel on an overall [capital + operating] _per mile_ basis when
fuel reaches something like $6 - $8 gallon.

The problem is even then electric only travel still won't be
_convenient_.

You charge up at home and if you go more than a few dozen miles your
EV is either stuck or your hybrid is right back to liquid fuel.

Everyone within 40 miles of an electrified freeway however -- about
99.99% of the population -- could charge his Volt at home, drive 40
miles to the freeway, recharge as he goes down the freeway, and then
drive another 40 miles without ever using any liquid fuel.

Try to address the issues.

.. . .

It is no longer 1957.

True. Construction techniques have improved and since no land will
need to be acquired it can be expected to be an even smaller % of the
federal budget as the original highway system.

But most important of all, back then the cost of oil imports wasn't
expected to soar past 20% of GDP for decades.


.. . .

We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road
immediately.

It doesn't matter what you think we need.

As far a public spending is concerned it matters what the _majority_
thinks.

The majority want to get off oil.

The reality is the median age of a car in the US is 9.4 years and
climbing.

That'll drop if roadbed power is unmetered for the first 10 - 20
years.

I believe in choice. You will have two choices at the beginning of
the electrification program.

You can drive your old SUV and pay $15/gallon.

Or you can buy a new EV or hybrid and have your tires as your only
operating cost.

With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil
shock.

Not unless:

A) Any changes to roads are 100% compatible with all existing vehicles.

How would electrification _not_ be compatible?

Do you think conventional drive trains blow up nead a B field?

Maybe the gasoline would short out the wires and cause a fuel - air
explosion just like in an excitin' Hollywood action movie?

This is why we need to have electrified roadbed races on a regular
basis.

To educate the general public as much as to discover real issues.

B) All new vehicles have the same capabilities as existing vehicles.

Why would anyone want that?

Americans want things to get better and better.

A motorist will soon be able to drive coast to coast and never stop to
refuel or switch out batteries.

A Tesla with fewer batteries will be able to go from zero to 60 in 3
seconds instead of 4 seconds.

That means "we" would have to electrify all 210,000 lane miles of
highway first,

Is there some theory where one road cannot be electrified unless _all_
roads are electrified? If so, please don't tell anyone. Email me so
_we_ can take out some patents.

As with any other construction project we could just tippy toe in with
I-40 and CA99 and learn as we go.

Adapt hybrid electric Peterbilts for dedicated runs from warehouses in
the Central Valley to distribution centers in NC on I-95.
Conventional vehicles could also use the roads and fueling stations
would remain in place. If it turns out that no one on the planet
wants the remaining oil except Americans and the price of oil drops to
$2/barrel, then nothing is wasted.

The electrified road bed can electric tractors can still operate
independently of the rest of the system.

If it turns out that China, India, Europe and the rest of the planet
are willing to pay $400 / barrel for the oil, then we do I-95, I-10
and I-5.

And when the price of a gallon of diesel soars past $20/gallon we
electrify the rest of the system.

The oil companies will have made so much money by then they won't even
want to rip off the public anymore.

then about 10 years after that is done about half
of the cars on the road would be able to use the electricity provided.

That should give us some time to beef up the grid!

It looks like everything can work out after all!

.. . .

The people here built a demo system without spreadsheets:

http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf

They were certainly thinking about optimization. They looked at
"tradeoffs", i.e., the "overall cost" might be lower by reducing
efficiency to reduce construction costs. Whenever you hear the key
words, "tradeoff" and "overall cost" you know they are about to click
on Excel.

How much to put such a system on 210,000 lane miles of highway?

As the Berkeley researchers pointed out, it's difficult to project
costs on new technology.

That's why we need to start off with a few hundred miles. The
selection should include different climates and have a lot of
distribution centers at each end.

I assume you can come up with a pencil and an old envelope, which is
all you need to do the calculations.

Months ago, working alone, I posted a similar conclusion as the
Berkeley researchers with my own back of envelope calculations.

It's cost effective to shift to lower efficiency.

I told you once and I'll tell you again. Do _not_ post links on prior
art to invention threads.

It prejudices any inventor - lurkers who may be here.


Bret Cahill

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The is how Americans stop trains:
�http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml#DynamicBrakes

Typically American, the energy as wasted as heat.

That's nothing.

You ought to see them water the banks of the freeway in the middle of
a "state of emergency" drought.

In most places that is non-potable grey water from waste water with
the nasty stuff removed.

By using it to irrigate, it trickles down to the water table getting
cleaned by nature for free on the way.

You really don't know how much of anything in the real world works,
do you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a
point. But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right
through your dishonest tactic. I won't even bother to repost, I'll just
mention that the original subject was regenerative braking on
automobiles, and I was clearing up some confusion on the issue.

Actually the original subject was Fuel Savings from Roadbed
Electrification,
I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion.

That's nothing. �One poster has been insisting for over a week that
the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification.

Other than the fuel cost to run the construction equipment,

Now that's a critical issue too.

And the ONLY thing the cost of oil has to do with the construction cost
of electrification.

<snip arm waving babble>

of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification.

Why would the electorate want to pay for the cost for electrification,
which everyone agrees will be significant, if they didn't think the
price of oil would soar?

They wouldn't and they don't.

No one, and especially you, has come up with even a wild guess on the
cost to implement and the cost that doesn't exist hasn't been
presented to "the electorate" for an opinion.

<snip off topic, irrelevant babble>

The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system,
not BUILDING it.

You think we are going to go back to oil fired power plants?

Babbling nonsense that has nothing to do with the statement.

<snip remaining babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a
point. But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right
through your dishonest tactic. I won't even bother to repost, I'll just
mention that the original subject was regenerative braking on
automobiles, and I was clearing up some confusion on the issue.

Actually the original subject was Fuel Savings from Roadbed
Electrification,
I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion.

That's nothing. �One poster has been insisting for over a week that
the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification.

Other than the fuel cost to run the construction equipment,

Now that's a critical issue too. The longer we wait before we start
electrification the higher the cost to electrify because construction,
like most everything else, is so highly dependent on affordable fuel.

There may very well be some point of no return where we end up with
neither oil nor any other means of transportation.

Then we are just screwed.

the cost
of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification.

Why would the electorate want to pay for the cost for electrification,
which everyone agrees will be significant, if they didn't think the
price of oil would soar?

To be sure there are quite a few folk greenwashing themselves. They
like to talk up a storm about clean air and polar bears but this ain't
got the political umph as $15/gallon fuel.

For example, last year Republicans were hoping to make an issue out of
$5/gallon fuel prices. Their talking point "soution" was drilling off
shore.

Even though every economist would agree that no effect whatsoever on
global market prices -- and prices at the pump --, it must have been
gaining traction with voters as the Democrats were about to cave.

The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system,
not BUILDING it.

You think we are going to go back to oil fired power plants?

Now you have to play janitor to your own mess, a mess _no one_ can
clean up.

Your only option now is to dissemble, dodge re explain, and generally
look disreputable.


Bret Cahill

 

[Androcles]

<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fbca14c3-3447-4be7-b6d9-1beb1b28c1ff@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 9:47 am, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I
said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have
as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential.
But they do not.

Now you are being silly. Do you understand what reversing the motor
means?

"as much stopping potential as starting potential" is incorrect. It is
not proportionate. The stopping potential depends upon the electrical
load of the system. More 'need for juice' == greater stopping power.

Using the electric motor as a brake in an automobile requires a load on
the electrical system. Granted, such is usually the case, for example
when the battery is not fully charged and an appliance or the lights are
on. Regardless, super capacitors can add to the necessary load.

But it's not proportionate. Not really.

Ok, now I can see that you actually don't get what I am saying. By
reverse, I don't mean "reverse the function so the motor becomes a
generator". I mean "reverse the direction that the motor is trying to
turn", which will actually *use* battery juice that is already stored.

Remember, the original question was whether you can bring the car to a
complete stop using only electricity and no mechanical brakes. The
answer is yes.

You are correct that it is not a simple 1:1 relationship in a
practical sense to stop the car with the generator effect. The most
obvious reason is that you usually would like to stop faster than you
have accelerated to the current speed, and you may be going downhill
as well. This means that even if you 'short' the motor<>generator as
someone suggested, the kinetic energy of the car will be have to be
dissipated as heat at a rate that will prevent damage to the motor.

I am suggesting that there will be a combination of effects used to
provide the system load, and that over time, it will develop into a
mostly electric system which gives ABS, and mechanical brakes will be
a back-up component and for parking. Right now, it isn't even legal to
have a car without mechanical brakes, no matter how reliable electric
braking could be made, so the argument is purely academic.

-tg

'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken

Aside: the lights and accessories of the conventional car draw extra
horsepower than if they were off. It's related to the load on the
alternator/generator. So driving with everything on causes a minor loss
in mileage. Oh, and your alternator does not recharge the conventional
car system when you take your foot off the gas at speed because it's
engineered (using a diode) to direct the juice one-way. Removing that
diode will raise hell.

A funny and pathetic aside - At one time Volkswagen used the generator
warning light bulb (a tiny thing in the speedometer) to first energize
the alternator's field so that it would generate electricity. If that
stupid bulb burned out, then after you stopped the engine and started it
again, you just drew from the battery because the alternator was not
energized, was not charging. Lesson: if it did not come on don't just
think "aw it's just an affirmation bulb" and drive away - your battery
will discharge eventually and turn you into a pedestrian. (problem
solved with tiny resistor in circuit.)

 

[Androcles]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2nql25tg2ln9l1ao9ih730cee9gu2tpsib@4ax.com...

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 19:04:11 +0100, "Androcles"
Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vvqk251o7rb5ifrc43sdqss6htmqi43vmk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:47:58 +0100, "Androcles"
Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7lkj25hof1airoq6rgodu1reqcupd0rj3p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:35:23 -0500, john joseph <nowhere@nowhere.nl
wrote:

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:28 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:02 pm, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article
o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com,
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I
said.
Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking
period
you are recovering the kinetic energy, which is why it is
called
regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have no
disc
brakes at all. If you need further explanation please let me
know.
Motor/generators are transducers, not brakes. That means you can
only
slow down, not come to a complete stop. If the electronic
controller
failed, you couldn't even slow down. How big a market do you
expect
for
cars without brakes?
True. Thanks for the affirmation, Bill.
But motors can be reversed, and so you can certainly come to a
complete stop using only the motors. However, as I said, there can
be
a simple type of brake, since you need something for parking.
No they cannot! Not in real world applications! Try it! Try using
only
engine braking. Engine braking has far more stopping potential than
an
electric motor. But it still is far from enough!

I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I
said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they
have
as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential.

But they do not.

---
I'm not well versed in this field, so I'm asking: If the input to a DC
motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop
it
than to run it up using a voltage source with a higher impedance than
the brake?
---
Huh?
If you short any motor, AC or DC, it will stop faster than you can
finish
the word "stop".

---
My point exactly, which was directed at the "But they do not."

[have as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential]

comment.

Let us assume we apply a low voltage to an unloaded DC motor
and it takes 10 seconds to accelerate to 1000 RPM, overcoming
inertia (or we could just load it with a heavy flywheel or propel
a train). Force = mass * acceleration.
With a higher voltage we can reach 1000 RPM in 5 seconds,
we've increased the force so we increase the acceleration.
Now we disconnect the supply and short the terminals on the motor.
It grunts and stops in a few milliseconds no matter what voltage
we used to accelerate it. All the kinetic energy of the flywheel
or train is dissipated in the windings which heat up rapidly.
deceleration = -Force/mass.
Therefore they have MORE stopping potential than starting potential.

Incidentally, I've actually done this with a tapping machine that
was snapping taps as it cut threads and bottomed in a blind hole.
The usual solution is to break torque mechanically, but I tripped
the breaker on increased current as the motor slowed and shorted
the motor with normally closed contacts on the breaker.
That was many years ago.

---
I've done the same thing on an orbital welder in order to make sure the
weld head is indexed properly at the end of a weld, but let's go back
and review what's going on here.

Somebody wrote:

"I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I
said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have
as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential."

That, to me, means that they can be stopped in _at least_ as much time
as it took to get them up to speed.

Then someone else wrote:

"But they do not."

That, to me, means that the poster thought a motor can't be stopped in
the time it took to run it up, and it would always have to take more
time.

Not believing the second poster, since I've plugged a few motors in my
time, I asked why it would take longer to stop the motor than to start
it.

Interestingly, you took exception to my position even though you agree
with it!

What's up with that?

You asked: "If the input to a DC motor is shorted, once it's running, why
would it take longer to stop it ... yada yada yada (impedance)"

That, to me, means that you thought a motor can't be stopped in
less time than it took to run it up.

I said "Huh?" because it will NOT take longer to stop it.

What's up with that?

 

[John Nagle]

(A discussion thread for people with a clue.)

A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up
some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power
electric vehicles in a freeway lane.

There have been a few schemes to do this inductively. CALTRANS
once fielded a test bus in Berkeley which recharged using a split
transformer at each bus stop. It worked, but wasn't that successful.
The precision required of the driver in stopping in the right place
was inconvenient, and there were concerns about the rather large stray
magnetic fields. This was about twenty years ago, though; we might be
able to do a bit better now.

There's a GE patent on a system with a long split transformer
under the entire length of a lane. This would probably work, but
miles of transformer would be expensive. Road lanes with this
would probably cost like maglev track. (Which is why nobody
builds maglevs that go very far.)

Conductive schemes are possible. The safety problem is hard,
but not insoluble. Lille, France has some in-city trams that
are powered from a third rail. The third rail is sectioned, and
only the section entirely under the tram is "hot". The relays for
each section ground all the sections that aren't live. There's a backup
system which monitors each section, and will cut off an entire
group of sections if anything shows a voltage that shouldn't. The
trams have some battery backup, so they can continue over failed
sections of track.

A conductive scheme for roads might work. But it's tough.
Trams are long enough that sections about 10m long will work.
For cars, 2m is probably a maximum. So you need 5x as much
switchgear.

Pickups are a problem, but not an insoluble one. Vehicles
would need automatic lateral guidance, so that once near the
lane center, they'd automatically align properly. Then the
contact pickups can be lowered to the in-ground power rails,
which are just railroad-type rails embedded in the pavement
about two feet apart, sectioned every 1.5m or so into
a separately switched section. The brushes transmit a signal
into the rails which tells the rail section to switch on.
That's also how the ID for billing (it's not going to be
free) is sent.

The rail sections should only be energized for vehicles
moving above some minimum freeway speed, so that the system
is never "hot" when vehicles are just creeping along or stopped,
and someone might get out.

This doesn't require a dedicated lane; vehicles that
don't use the system can share the lane.

For this to be really useful, it has to be able to deliver
enough power to power heavy trucks up hills. This runs
up the switchgear and transmission costs. But the payoff is
that truckers will use the system to cut costs, so there's
an initial customer base.

There are lots of problems, all of which are familiar from
electric railroads. Dragging objects. Road debris.
Sparks igniting vehicle cargoes. Rain and snow. All of those
can be overcome, as they have been for third-rail electric railroads
in harsh climates. But they're worse for cars, partly because
cars are so much closer to the ground. When you have third rail
problems with trains, there's more space for arcs to dissipate.
And rail cars are solidly grounded through steel wheels and rails.
Cars are not. A GFCI won't help much; there's going to be enough
leakage in wet weather to trip any useful GFCI.

So it's technically possible to do this, but probably not economic
until gas hits $10-$15/gal. It's only necessary if the battery cost
problem isn't solved. Electric cars work fine now if you can
afford the battery.


John Nagle

 

In sci.physics John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> wrote:

(A discussion thread for people with a clue.)

A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up
some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power
electric vehicles in a freeway lane.

There have been a few schemes to do this inductively. CALTRANS
once fielded a test bus in Berkeley which recharged using a split
transformer at each bus stop. It worked, but wasn't that successful.
The precision required of the driver in stopping in the right place
was inconvenient, and there were concerns about the rather large stray
magnetic fields. This was about twenty years ago, though; we might be
able to do a bit better now.

There's a GE patent on a system with a long split transformer
under the entire length of a lane. This would probably work, but
miles of transformer would be expensive. Road lanes with this
would probably cost like maglev track. (Which is why nobody
builds maglevs that go very far.)

Conductive schemes are possible. The safety problem is hard,
but not insoluble. Lille, France has some in-city trams that
are powered from a third rail. The third rail is sectioned, and
only the section entirely under the tram is "hot". The relays for
each section ground all the sections that aren't live. There's a backup
system which monitors each section, and will cut off an entire
group of sections if anything shows a voltage that shouldn't. The
trams have some battery backup, so they can continue over failed
sections of track.

A conductive scheme for roads might work. But it's tough.
Trams are long enough that sections about 10m long will work.
For cars, 2m is probably a maximum. So you need 5x as much
switchgear.

Pickups are a problem, but not an insoluble one. Vehicles
would need automatic lateral guidance, so that once near the
lane center, they'd automatically align properly. Then the
contact pickups can be lowered to the in-ground power rails,
which are just railroad-type rails embedded in the pavement
about two feet apart, sectioned every 1.5m or so into
a separately switched section. The brushes transmit a signal
into the rails which tells the rail section to switch on.
That's also how the ID for billing (it's not going to be
free) is sent.

The rail sections should only be energized for vehicles
moving above some minimum freeway speed, so that the system
is never "hot" when vehicles are just creeping along or stopped,
and someone might get out.

This doesn't require a dedicated lane; vehicles that
don't use the system can share the lane.

For this to be really useful, it has to be able to deliver
enough power to power heavy trucks up hills. This runs
up the switchgear and transmission costs. But the payoff is
that truckers will use the system to cut costs, so there's
an initial customer base.

There are lots of problems, all of which are familiar from
electric railroads. Dragging objects. Road debris.
Sparks igniting vehicle cargoes. Rain and snow. All of those
can be overcome, as they have been for third-rail electric railroads
in harsh climates. But they're worse for cars, partly because
cars are so much closer to the ground. When you have third rail
problems with trains, there's more space for arcs to dissipate.
And rail cars are solidly grounded through steel wheels and rails.
Cars are not. A GFCI won't help much; there's going to be enough
leakage in wet weather to trip any useful GFCI.

So it's technically possible to do this, but probably not economic
until gas hits $10-$15/gal. It's only necessary if the battery cost
problem isn't solved. Electric cars work fine now if you can
afford the battery.


John Nagle

Nice arm waving.

Any electrification of the roadway will have to be compatible with existing
roads and existing vehicles or it will never be built.

Propose an in the road system of any kind that is compatible with existing
vehicles and roads that won't be rendered useless by precipitation. Third
rail railroad technology is not compatible with existing vehicles and roads
and neither are overhead wires.

Detecting vehicle speeds under about 25 MPH is highly problematic with
most existing equipment. The majority of Caltrans sensors, for example,
are inductive loops spaced about 1 to 2 miles apart. The ability to
sense speeds below about 25 MPH is dismal.

If a working system were ever to be developed, the mechanics of charging
for it are trivial. You put a tamper proof power meter into the vehicle
and hook it to the same RFID technology used for toll roads.

Whether the system is prepaid or billed once a month I leave to the bean
counters.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Androcles]

"John Nagle" <nagle@animats.com> wrote in message
news:4a4d779a$0$1585$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

(A discussion thread for people with a clue.)

A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up
some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power
electric vehicles in a freeway lane.

What on earth for when rail already exists?
Get a clue.

 

[Uncle Al]

John Nagle wrote:

(A discussion thread for people with a clue.)

A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up
some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power
electric vehicles in a freeway lane.
[snip crap]

Give a cost estimate for electrifying one commuter lane from Corona,
CA to Los Angeles and the number of kilowatt-hrs/day to be fed into
that single lane of 50-mile traffic jam twice/day. From where will
the electricity originate?

Gonna use extension cords? Inductive coupling? A third rail? Gonna
bill for energy used plus the $billions to construct, plus interest on
the bonds?

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:16:13 -0700, John Nagle wrote:

So it's technically possible to do this, but probably not economic
until gas hits $10-$15/gal. It's only necessary if the battery cost
problem isn't solved. Electric cars work fine now if you can
afford the battery.

I think that the population might resist, because who wants to drive

a slot car? People like to choose their own path, be it right or
wrong. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Androcles]

"Bill Ward" <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:idqdnQ9yaM4qMrTXnZ2dnUVZ_jhi4p2d@giganews.com...

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:30:02 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:y7Odnd0c1pP27rTXnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:35:02 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Ward" <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:26 am, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
On 6/5/09 7:52 AM, in article
a187370d-0d8a-4565-8cb8-407364942...@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com,



"tgdenn...@earthlink.net" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:13 am, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:58 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:

It is very simple. Think of motors in a wheel bouncing down
the road. Heavy is not good because too much energy is fed
right back to them because the suspension cannot transfer it
quickly enough to some putative absorber in the chassis.

However, if one distributes the total desired power among four
wheels, then each will be lighter and life is good again.

My friend, I have been building race setups for forty years. I
know this shit.

Glad to hear it. I like to talk to people who know what they
are talking about. However, my point does not change---the
benefit of 4 electric motors is pretty much the same even if
they are 'mounted inboard'. I am not interested in worrying
about what you call them.

Never seen "inboard" mounted wheels on an autombile. What would
they look like?

http://teslamotorsclub.com/technical/303-hub-motors-dual-
motors.html

That is not an inboard hub motor. It is not a hub motor at all. It
is a perfectly conventional motor. A hub motor is inside the wheel,
not just something that drives the hub. There are no motors or
engines that drive the wheel anywhere but to the hub. None drive at
the rim of the wheel (except for a couple exotic show motorcycles
that are impractical. Citations available.)

You lost me there---I'm in favor of using perfectly conventional
motors if that works.


If I were home I'd shoot some pics of the Porsche's IRS and you
would see it's connected to the transmission just like that
illustration done by the would-be impressionistic, unlearned
contributor to the site in question.


The picture is just so people can visualize the possible
configuration. I don't see anything wrong with it.


So, let's stick to real-world terms. I would not use the post in
question as a source of any authority.

Scroll down to number 8 I think. I would dispense with disc
brakes on the wheel and put some very simple parking-brake device
on the inboard side as a 'final ultimate' emergency stopping
option, relying on electric braking.

Old hat. We have been mounting disc brakes on drive shafts for many
years. I think Lotus does it. I have done it. You can't turn a disc
brake into a generator. Its lack of a flywheel effect and radius
make it impractical, and also consider that all electric motors are
also generators, but not particularly powerful.

Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I
said. Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking
period you are recovering the kinetic energy, which is why it is
called regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have
no disc brakes at all. If you need further explanation please let
me know.

Motor/generators are transducers, not brakes. That means you can only
slow down, not come to a complete stop. If the electronic controller
failed, you couldn't even slow down. How big a market do you expect
for cars without brakes?

Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have
to do it.

Don't know much about stepper motors, do you?

Well, I've designed control systems and drivers for them, but I haven't
ever seen one used for vehicle propulsion or regeneration. Please tell
us more about that. An example or app note would be nice.

Just because you've never seen it doesn't make it a negative
requirement, the wheel is redesigned for every new model of car. ICEs
are redesigned and improved constantly, why not electric motors?

What's wrong with a bicycle wheel with alternate permanent magnets
around the rim and a horseshoe stator with a single coil to drive them,
fitted like a caliper brake?

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jh15/bikes/images/stdreach.jpg

Speed control is merely frequency control, you can get the magnets by
recycling old hard drives, the magnets in those are very strong.
Embed the magnets in a solid tyre or fit them to the spokes.
Cheap and super simple, easy to fit, no problem with torque.

How is that different from a multipole PM motor? Once you learn some
physics, you may be able to put your imagination to practical use. Until
then, it appears it will mostly provide entertainment.

Bwhahahahahaha!
Pissed off because you've never been practical, huh?

I could think of several uses for a nice four quadrant stepper system.

Such as regenerative braking, perhaps? Oh wait, you are against that
idea, right?

Not at all. I'm just waiting for you to explain how to do it with a
stepper motor. I don't think it's in the wiki, so you may have to
actually think realistically about the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper_motor

However, any vehicle would have brakes for parking if nothing else.

The question was about the size of the market. I'd want disk brakes,
or equivalent, capable of several reliable maximum emergency stops, and
I don't think I'm alone in that. Call me old fashioned...

Nothing wrong with belt and suspenders or wearing a parachute if you
plan on strapping a military jet to your arse and jumping up the air.

Or driving at 80 on the freeway. You do know, don't you, that nearly all
vehicle hydraulic brake systems are actually two redundant systems? Most
people consider brake reliability important.

You do know, don't you, that nearly all aircraft hydraulic systems are
actually never used for brakes?

Should you ever learn engineering you may never be able to put your
pathetic lack of imagination to practical use. It appears it will mostly
provide mild amusement.

But the real solution is rail; the infrastructure is mostly in place,
its cheaper
than road beds, easily electrified and vehicles can be individually
controlled
and navigated by computer, eliminating the train. You load your
vegetables on a truck and send it direct to destination, at night,
phasing out 18 wheelers.

It sounds easy, until you start to understand some of what's involved.
But dream on, you'll never be the one actually expected to do it.

Rail was always easier than road, that's why it was built first.
It's easier today, we are not limited to grossly underpowered steam
locomotives that can't climb hills so we wouldn't need the tunnels
and bridges the Victorians built. Why, I've even heard of ships that
are nuclear powered, unlike the coal-fired Titanic of your non-existent
old-fashioned imagination.

But you carry on living in the 20th century with your electric motors
that are also generators, but not particularly powerful like this:
http://www.railwayclassics.com/images/acl01/ACL501%20color.jpg

Who needs truck drivers anyway? Re-employ them as maintenance crews.

If you want to go somewhere you call a rail taxi, board it and the
computer takes you to your destination. Or you buy your own computerized
rail vehicle.
Leave the freeways for those that want to kill themselves with ICEs.
Size of market? The whole damn world. Can it be done? Cities had trams,
computers are cheap, cell phones... of course it can. Breakdown? push
the vehicle off the main rails into a siding
and send a repair crew with a tow truck.

Using the rails? Or do you plan to still have roads for when you really
need something to work?

No, and I also plan to dump you for the miserable and highly limited
unimaginative old-fashioned fuckhead you really are.