Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

[Bret Cahill]

Not to worry, though. �With all the losses, snow won't stay around
long.

As usual, no numbers.

� �Too bad the idiot troll doesn't leave, too.

You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!-

Speaking of jokes, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

You know what happens when you make idle threats about suing for
defamation and then chicken out?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

I still don't understand what this has to do with soaring ground
transportation energy costs.

� �Really? �Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.

You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Speaking of jokes, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

You remember, the one where you became so vexed at being exposed as a
self deceiving nobody - dunce you made idle threats to sue me for
defamation?

Welching out of that defamation lawsuit can be taken as a tacit
admission that everything I said about you was true.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long
induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do
in order to get any useful amount of power into the
vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be?

We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: �75% (to
recharge a bus).

In your dreams.

If you are going to try to pretend you know something about technology
it would behoove you to at least google the terms before you post.

It's already clear you are incapable of the most rudimentary of
calculations.

A dunce on sci.electronics.basics, Terrel I believe, allowed himself
to be set up like that 6 months ago.

And then I pulled the plug.

More than a few have been sitting around watching, waiting for me to
pull the plug _again_ a _second_ time.

As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there
is no danger to pedestrians.

Urban area is where all the pedestrians are,

Which is why you use something safe like induction.

that's one of the reasons
they are called "urban".

Yup, a dunce.

Now get on Wiki and look up resonance inductive power transmission.

And don't come back until you can tell us what the efficiency is.


Bret Cahill

 

On Jun 1, 8:22 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:32:15 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net
wrote:



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.

See: "unsprung weight"

Why does the weight have to be unsprung? And what kind of roads are we
talking about?

People tend to raise this objection with no follow-through; if you are
a suspension engineer please elaborate. It is not my expertise but I
am pretty sure this is not a deal-breaker---you can certainly decouple
some of the mass. And I thought we were over the fantasy of needing an
SUV to go 'off-road' into the mall parking lot?

-tg

 

On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

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

   Really?  Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.

Not up on the concept of metaphor? By 'anyone', I mean that people
who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic
specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards
for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled
machines.

Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the
last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem
of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh.

-tg

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

On Jun 2, 12:30 am, 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.

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?

Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries.

Where does the electricity come from for the wheelmotors?

Bret Cahill

Batteries. But since the cost of the entire car over lifetime is much
lower, the cost of the batteries is absorbed.

Of course it will put conventional car companies out of business
faster than credit default swaps.

-tg

 

On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

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

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science
and real engineering for about 40 years now.

I have little patience for kooks who think arm waving and babble will solve
anything.

Hell, you can't even define the problem without drooling nonsense, much
less solve it.

--

You appear to be overly sensitive and insecure. *My* reply was to your
question about roadway electrification in wet conditions. Since this
is all fantasy speculation, it constitutes a perfectly reasonable
response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving
problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun.

-tg

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long
induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do
in order to get any useful amount of power into the
vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be?

We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: �75% (to
recharge a bus).

In your dreams.

If you are going to try to pretend you know something about technology
it would behoove you to at least google the terms before you post.

Some people get their education from sources other than Google.

This was covered in engineering classes over 30 years ago.

There is no magic to resonant induction.

The implementation costs would be astronomical, the losses are still
high, and the NIMBY's would be all over it.

<snip remaining babble>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science
and real engineering for about 40 years now.

I have little patience for kooks who think arm waving and babble will solve
anything.

Hell, you can't even define the problem without drooling nonsense, much
less solve it.

--

You appear to be overly sensitive and insecure. *My* reply was to your
question about roadway electrification in wet conditions. Since this
is all fantasy speculation, it constitutes a perfectly reasonable
response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving
problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun.

If you look at the headers, my reply above was not to you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?


How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway?

Other than they run costs way up, slow down traffic, and tend to be
dangerous, how about them?


They do exist. In some instances, a left exit is the only way it can
be built. With signs starting two miles from the exit, warning that it
is to the left it is as safe as any other. It does require a slightly
longer exit lane for the traffic to slow down. I an thinking of one of
I-4 near Orlando's International Drive, a very busy international
tourist area.

Yeah, sure they exist, I never said they didn't, but these days only if
there is no other alternative for the reasons stated above.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

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

Really? Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.


Not up on the concept of metaphor? By 'anyone', I mean that people
who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic
specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards
for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled
machines.

Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the
last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem
of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh.

In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that
you do.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science
and real engineering for about 40 years now.

I have little patience for kooks who think arm waving and babble will solve
anything.

Hell, you can't even define the problem without drooling nonsense, much
less solve it.

--

You appear to be overly sensitive and insecure. *My* reply was to your
question about roadway electrification in wet conditions. Since this
is all fantasy speculation, it constitutes a perfectly reasonable
response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving
problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun.

You are as ignorant as cahil


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

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

If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything.

Since your only public record appears to be lots of Internet babble,
I guess you haven't done anything.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the
grid.

Unless you electrify every highway, road, alley, and driveway all
the way up to the parking spot, you need something other than the
"grid".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

On Jun 2, 2:34 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

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

   Really?  Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.

Not up on the concept of metaphor?  By 'anyone', I mean that people
who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic
specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards
for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled
machines.

Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the
last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem
of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh.

   In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that
you do.

I know that people who know things aren't afraid to have concrete
technical discussions, and don't resort to personal insults. If you
or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why
don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying.

-tg

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

I

 

[Bret Cahill]

� �In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that
you do.

Yer projecting again. That sounds a lot like what disinterested third
parties are saying about you and the other sci.electronics.basics
dunces:

"You are nobody in real life so you try to be somebody here."

You can't have a sense of humor,

Speaking of humor, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

Now _that_ was funny!

A self deceiving loser making idle threats about lawsuits!

if you have no sense!

And you also have no sense trying to post on a tech chat group when
you have no tech background.

But you are good for a laugh!


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

� �Really? �Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.

Not up on the concept of metaphor? �By 'anyone', I mean that people
who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic
specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards
for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled
machines.

Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the
last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem
of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh.

� �In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that
you do.

I know that people who know things aren't afraid to have concrete
technical discussions, and don't resort to personal insults.

Hey, don't complain about my dunce!

He's a lot of fun when he gets mad and threatens to sue for
defamation.

�If you
or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why
don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying.

He has no EE degree from any accredited university. He has never held
a design job. He has never done anything noteworthy in tech or
anywhere else and has a low self esteem.

For awhile he may have scrapped by "repairing computers" but, as one
of the other dunce / rightards unwittingly pointed out, there hasn't
been any money in that for over a decade.

He can never address any tech issue because he's ignorant. So he does
the only thing he can do:

He project.

Now back to the batteries:

They already have high volume battery production and the cost or
performance of the battery is resistant to further improvements.

Using batteries to store grid energy is still twice the cost of the
grid electricity that will ever flow through the battery.

A businessman or a business plan ain't going to change the basic
economics of energy technology. You'll need a materials or transport
breakthrough for that.

Now, to be sure, batteries would probably eventually improve enough so
that EVs will become practical to many people _if_ we had time.

But we don't have time.


Bret Cahill

 

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

You could probably do something with induction coils.

Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long
induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do
in order to get any useful amount of power into the
vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be?

We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to
recharge a bus).

75% at less than a 100 W load a few feet away with non-moving coils.

Apparently your elementary school education didn't include the
efficiency of resonant induction.

No, but the University education did.

Most of what I've seen on the 'net about resonant induction is babbling
nonsense from drooling Tesla kooks that seem to think that just because
a transformer is resonant, it has some magical qualities that allow it
to operate in violation of Maxwell, Gauss, et al.

Hot flash; it is a near field effect.

<snip nonsense>

Again, where does "astronomical" appear in a spreadsheet?

Before one can use a spreadsheet, which you seem so obsessed with,
you have to have relationships, and you have none.

Even 30% efficiency is cost competitive with batteries.

Energy efficiency is essentially meaningless in the real world.

The only thing that really counts is $/W-hr delivered, including capital
and maintenance.

Not everyone is ignorant of the safety of inductive power transfer

Irrelevant; all you have to say is "wireless power transfer" and the
loud mouthed NIMBY's will have you tied up in court until your
grandchildren are retired.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science
and real engineering for about 40 years now.

You have exactly 24 hours to start bragging about some of them here or
everyone here will know you are indulging in self deception -- you
ain't foolin' anyone else --, just like the sci.electronics.basics
dunces making idle threats to sue for defamation.

If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries.

All potential EV customers are whining about batteries.

Where does the electricity come from for the wheelmotors?

Batteries. But since the cost of the entire car over lifetime is much
lower, the cost of the batteries is absorbed.

It's good to lower initial vehicle cost but that doesn't address the
subject of this thread:

operational cost issue:

Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the
grid.

Now, as fuel soars past $5, $8, $12/gallon, then battery costs may
increase too but maybe not quite as fast.

In that case non plug in hybrid owners will want to pay top dollar for
the most efficient battery available.

But they could get about the same carbon footprint / mpg with a diesel
rabbit.

The hard fact of life that no one wants to face is most Americans
won't be able to go for a Sunday drive when fuel is $25/gallon,
whether they are using wheelmotors non plug in hybrids.


Bret Cahill


Bret Cahill