Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

[Daniel T.]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Electric vehicles work in the real world in one of two ways:

Through overhead wires where they are open to the elements.

The wires wouldn't have to be overhead exactly though...

I'm thinking of a system where the "wire", rather more like a skid
plate, is along one side of interstate highways (say the right side for
sake of example.) Cars in the right hand lane could hook up to the grid
while in motion, cars in the left lane would run on battery power.

If there is any speed restriction due to the physical connection, that
would be handled naturally since the right lane is the "slow" lane
anyway. Cars that are off the interstate system would use their
batteries and plug in when parked.

There are plenty of technical issues that would still need to be
overcome, (including installing trolly poles on a 4,000 kg vehicle
without destabilizing it,) but if electric cars were ubiquitous, there
would be plenty of incentive to overcome them.

I think Bret's idea has some merit, but starting with the most
experimental part of the system is a recipe for failure IMHO. First get
us in a situation where every town is swarming with electric cars that
want to travel longer distances...

 

On May 30, 2:40 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 11:29:52 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote:

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea..
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community.  Zermatt in Switzerland banned
internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles
like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution
(important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets..
 Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries.  It would
be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.

I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, which is
understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals,
but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation.

Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and
brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by
standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC
model.

Think about it.

-tg

I

--
Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to
tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent
question and you want it answered, repeat it for them.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On May 31, 6:48 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:

If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the
first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road.

You have it backwards.

The first step is to electrify the roadbed and then allow market
forces to allow consumers choice in selecting their vehicle.

I don't know enough about this subject to answer your questions, but I
do know this. A company (Better Place) has signed contracts with several
governments and an auto manufacturer to create electric cars and the
infrastructure to make them a workable alternative. Shai Agassi plans on
a system that works much like our current cell phone system. You buy the
miles, and get the car as part of the contract. They have prototype
vehicles, a prototype fully automated battery switching station and
already have installed electric rechargers in real parking lots.

When you get some government willing to sign a commitment to electrify
all of their roadbeds, you let us know... Frankly, I hope you can do it;
sounds like a great idea to me. I hazard to guess that half the roadbeds
in America already have electric transmission lines running along side
of them (either above ground or underground,) so it probably wouldn't
even be that big of a deal.

It wouldn''t. But the main problem with that hair-brain idea is
what called the brain-drain.
As people with brains having been telling the internet Tesla-
Wannabe cranks, and
Physics idiots for even longer, is that after 100 years of repaving
you get a whole bunch of politician
idiots running everythiing, and the only thing they even know
about engineering or science
or electricity or machines at all is 60 Hz.

So, that's why the people with the 21st Century Engineering and
Technology Advancement
Brains work on Cruise Missiles, AUVs, Drones, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches, Optical Computers,
C++, Distributed Proceesing, Digital Fiber Optics Comms, Cell
Phones, Satellites, GPS,
Digital-Terrain Mapping, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Light
Sticks, MP3, MPEG,
Flat-Screen HDTV Software Debuggers, Blue Ray, All-In-One
Printers, XML, USB,
Holograms and Holographics, Lasers, Masers, Microwave Ovens,
Microwave Cooling,
Thermoelectric Cooling, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Banking, On-Line
Publishing,
Biodiesel, Solar Energy, Pv Cell Energy, Neo Wind Energy, Self-
Assembling Robots,
Post Lead Batteries, and Self-Replicating Machines, and let the
science wanks worry of
the Circa-1900 Coils.

The cynic in me says that until someone finds a way to make a whole lot
of money off of it, such a system isn't going to go anywhere. Mr. Agassi
thinks he can make a lot of money off of selling EV miles instead of
cars, and he has managed to convince a number of big money players that
they can too. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:45:49 -0700, tgdenning wrote:

I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, which is
understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals, but
not for people who claim to be interested in innovation.

Drive trains consume a lot of energy by friction. They exist because when
cars were first developed, complex electrical control systems didn't
exist, and gasoline was cheap so no one cared.

First thing to go with electric cars is that transmission, as electric
motors don't have the torque problem of gasoline engines. That saves a
lot of energy.

I am sure that various design alternatives can be worked and the
traditional drive train would be ruled out.

Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and brakes,
and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by standardization
and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC model.

Think about it.

-tg

I

--
Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to
tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent
question and you want it answered, repeat it for them.

 

[Bret Cahill]

If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the
first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road.

You have it backwards.

The first step is to electrify the roadbed and then allow market
forces to allow consumers choice in selecting their vehicle.

I don't know enough about this subject to answer your questions, but I
do know this. A company (Better Place) has signed contracts with several
governments and an auto manufacturer to create electric cars and the
infrastructure to make them a workable alternative. Shai Agassi plans on
a system that works much like our current cell phone system. You buy the
miles, and get the car as part of the contract.

Isn't that what rental car companies do (at a much higher cost / mile
than vehicle ownership)?

They have prototype
vehicles, a prototype fully automated battery switching station and
already have installed electric rechargers in real parking lots.

When you get some government willing to sign a commitment to electrify
all of their roadbeds, you let us know...

No one was suggesting every dirt road be electrified, just busy
freeways.

Frankly, I hope you can do it;
sounds like a great idea to me. I hazard to guess that half the roadbeds
in America already have electric transmission lines running along side
of them

1. most don't have parallel lines

2. that isn't always necessary

3. the lines that do exist are probably not enough

(either above ground or underground,)

Underground high voltage lines?

so it probably wouldn't
even be that big of a deal.

The cynic in me says that until someone finds a way to make a whole lot
of money off of it, such a system isn't going to go anywhere.

Like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System?

Mr. Agassi
thinks he can make a lot of money off of selling EV miles instead of
cars,

Why not just call it an "Rental Car Company" that focuses on electric
cars?

The more I hear that there's some novel trade or novel financial
arrangement involved the more I think it's a scam.

and he has managed to convince a number of big money players that
they can too. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting...

Is this business plan patented?

If not Avis and Hertz will move in.


Bret Cahill

 

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

Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of
the country?

Just for giggles I looked it up.

Some representative cities and average annual day of measurable preciptation:

1. That's not the % of time it's raining, which is far less.

It represents the number of days which an electrified roadbed would
be useless.

2. Even a 60% reduction in transportation fuel comes out to be $300
billion a year at $5/gallon.

Irrelevant to not working in wet weather.

HUNTSVILLE, AL 117
MONTGOMERY, AL 108
TUCSON, AZ 53
LOS ANGELES C.O., CA 35
SAN FRANCISCO C.O., CA 67
DENVER, CO 89
WASHINGTON NAT'L AP, D.C. 112
DAYTONA BEACH, FL 114
MIAMI, FL 129
ATLANTA, GA 115
CHICAGO,IL 126
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 126
LEXINGTON, KY 130
BALTIMORE, MD 113
DETROIT, MI 136
MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL, MN 115
ST. LOUIS, MO 111
LAS VEGAS, NV 26
NEWARK, NJ 122
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 61
SYRACUSE, NY 171
COLUMBUS, OH 137
PORTLAND, OR 151
PITTSBURGH, PA 153
NASHVILLE, TN 119
HOUSTON, TX 106
NORFOLK, VA 115
SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA 154

So it looks like for most of the country about 30%.

Does the word "winter" mean anything to you?

Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you?

How do you plow water?

Do the phrases "short circuit" and "electrolysis corrosion" mean anything
to you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon.

Oil isn't sold by the gallon.

When did you make _that_ earth shaking discovery?

Grade school.

If you know oil isn't sold by the gallon, why did you say "oil will stay
at or below $5/gallon"?

About 68% of oil is used for transportation, the rest goes for other
things, mostly industrial use.

You've managed to whittle down by 32% a commodity that often
fluctuates in price over 200% a year?

Babble.

The fact that 68% of oil is used for transportation has nothing to
do with the price.

<snip remaining babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of
the country?

Just for giggles I looked it up.

Some representative cities and average annual day of measurable preciptation:

1. That's not the % of time it's raining, which is far less.

2. Even a 60% reduction in transportation fuel comes out to be $300
billion a year at $5/gallon.

HUNTSVILLE, AL 117
MONTGOMERY, AL 108
TUCSON, AZ 53
LOS ANGELES C.O., CA 35
SAN FRANCISCO C.O., CA 67
DENVER, CO 89
WASHINGTON NAT'L AP, D.C. 112
DAYTONA BEACH, FL 114
MIAMI, FL 129
ATLANTA, GA 115
CHICAGO,IL 126
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 126
LEXINGTON, KY 130
BALTIMORE, MD 113
DETROIT, MI 136
MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL, MN 115
ST. LOUIS, MO 111
LAS VEGAS, NV 26
NEWARK, NJ 122
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 61
SYRACUSE, NY 171
COLUMBUS, OH 137
PORTLAND, OR 151
PITTSBURGH, PA 153
NASHVILLE, TN 119
HOUSTON, TX 106
NORFOLK, VA 115
SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA 154

So it looks like for most of the country about 30%.

Does the word "winter" mean anything to you?

Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.

Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years.

In 2008, oil was at it's higest price

Which will seem like the good ol' days in a couple of years.

and averaged a bit under $100/bbl
for the year.

That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions.

0.5 trillion / year or 3 - 5 trillion by the time electrification is
"shovel ready."

But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon.

Oil isn't sold by the gallon.

When did you make _that_ earth shaking discovery?

But wait, there's more.

About 68% of oil is used for transportation, the rest goes for other
things, mostly industrial use.

You've managed to whittle down by 32% a commodity that often
fluctuates in price over 200% a year?

Are you being funny or _what_?

Even if you assume 60% is for road use, which is probably high, that
means $0.3 trillion a year goes to road use.

Maybe you can get the sci.electronics.basics dunces to say $300
billion is chump change.

Everyone else will think you're my sock puppet, deliberately tossing
me the easiest lobs for me to put away.

That means oil would have to average about $670/bbl to get to "trillions".

You ain't too fast but you'll figger it out with a couple more years
of diminishing supply and increasing demand.

Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico.

It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded at
world market prices.

I though your big concern was oil from "oil rich despotisms".

Well there's your problem: You don't unnerstand macro supply and
demand.

Here, I'll chop it up micro size so even idiots can unnerstand.

1. Tankers can move oil around the world at a few dollars/barrel.

2. A tanker picks the oil in Venezuela and returns to SE Texas and a
U. S. broker pays Chavez. The mideast despotisms hear about Chevez
getting all this money and know that _they_ can charge Chinese,
Indians and Europeans more for _their_ oil.

The Iranians then use the money from the oil that was _inflated in
price by the U. S. oil company buying from Chavez_ to build nuke
bombs.


Bret Cahill

 

In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.


Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the
capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community. Zermatt in
Switzerland banned internal combustion engine
vehicles (except for some special vehicles like
fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce
air pollution (important in this tourist town)
and because of the very narrow streets. Almost
all vehicle trffic is electric, running off
batteries. It would be much greener to have
no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful.

Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a
controlled environment. �We only need to look at subways and toys to
know it works.

The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a
problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles
and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over.

� � � � Jim P. mentioned winter in another post. � �Snow would
naturally fill the grooves cut into the roadway for
the conductors due to the wind. �That snow would turn to ice
eventually. ďż˝ ďż˝ Road crews would also push snow into the grooves as
they cleaned the road. ďż˝

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

Then there are the chemicals they apply to
help keep the highways from freezing. � They also use �sand and gravel
on the roads in places to help traction. ďż˝ Guess where that would end
up.

DoT can always use some of the hundreds of billions a year in fuel
savings to buy a sweeper or vac truck.

ďż˝ ďż˝ Ice storms would create another problem. ďż˝ The storms could take
down the power lines supplying the roadway conductors. � �The
electrically powered traffic would stop. ďż˝ ďż˝

The series or "true" hybrid-electric vehicle is the best way to go.

Now that we own GM it's critical that we all write our congress
critters and tell them it's critical for GM to shift all resources to
the Volt.

Even those who don't support electrification need to go hybrid.

Most of the U.S. is
probably subject to freezing rain and
snow at times.

That's the argument against CA 99 - I 80.

It might be better to start off with CA 58 - I 40.

These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very
low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt.

A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different
environments and situations around the country in locations where it
was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales.

If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then
the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread
sheet.

And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.

Bret Cahill

 

In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?


Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense?

Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing
out that something *could* be done along those lines. You could also
use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes.
You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you
are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then
go back to the regular traffic. There wouldn't be a 'start' of the
third rail to run into.

It seems we are going around in circles.

If the third rail isn't elevated, how do you keep it out of the water?

If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community. �Zermatt in Switzerland banned
internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles
like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution
(important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets.
�Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries.. �It would
be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.

I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries.

There's a minor issue about sprung weight but in general, all the
significant waste of energy has been eliminated.

Tweaking 3% here and 2% there won't save the day when oil is going up
100% a year.

Sooner or later transportation will power off the grid, either with
some kind of energy storage or directly.

For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain,

Retooling an auto line costs billions.

That's why it is often easier to prototype a new ship engine than a
vehicle engine. Ship engines are all custom made anyway.

which is
understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals,
but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation.

Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and
brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by
standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC
model.

In ten years you'll be able to go to a junk yard and get a perfectly
good traction motor or 10 kW generator for $100.


Bret Cahill

 

On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

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

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and
don't really care.

I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for
elecric/hybrid vehicles.

-tg

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

On Jun 1, 3:38 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community. Zermatt in Switzerland banned
internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles
like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution
(important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets.
Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries. It would
be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.

I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries.

There's a minor issue about sprung weight but in general, all the
significant waste of energy has been eliminated.

Tweaking 3% here and 2% there won't save the day when oil is going up
100% a year.

Sooner or later transportation will power off the grid, either with
some kind of energy storage or directly.

For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain,

Retooling an auto line costs billions.

Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit
model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors
that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software.

-tg

That's why it is often easier to prototype a new ship engine than a
vehicle engine.  Ship engines are all custom made anyway.

which is
understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals,
but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation.
Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and
brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by
standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC
model.

In ten years you'll be able to go to a junk yard and get a perfectly
good traction motor or 10 kW generator for $100.

Bret Cahill

 

On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?

Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense?

Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing
out that something *could* be done along those lines. You could also
use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes.
You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you
are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then
go back to the regular traffic. There wouldn't be a 'start' of the
third rail to run into.

-tg

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Very bumpy when you switch lanes.

I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and
don't really care.

I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for
elecric/hybrid vehicles.

Way out of what?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

The issue was snow.

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Actually that would prejudice the inventors here.

Do _not_ post any prior art to my threads.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

As they say at HP:

Invent.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea,
and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world
it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything.

Why did you say this after the D.H. post? He's the most respectful
sincere poster here. If you are _that_ thin skinned you need to mover
to another . . . another universe.

If an idea is good and merits attention, it will get attention. A
confederacy of dunces will immediatly form to oppose you.

If an idea isn't any good then it won't go anywhere.


Bret Cahill


"The errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little
men."

-- Nietzsche