Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

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".

Don't be a "magic bullet" fundy.

Babble.

I was stating a very simple and very obvious fact.

What makes you think I was talking to you?

By the headers and the threading; do you not know how to use a news
reader?

My primary audience isn't necessarily in the header.

Kook babble; learn to use USENET.

<snip long-winded rambling>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

On Jun 3, 10:48 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus,

'Design' of what?

Sigh. Do you always start arguments without any clues?

I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?

really? They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine. You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.

I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle.

How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
numbers?

I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors,
and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no
magic in the technology; all the components are there already.

You've heard, but have no details? Big deal. I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one..

If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?

Because gas is still cheap?

No, because batteries are still expensive.

TN Val Auth will sell locals 6 GW for 70 cents/gal equivalent if they
charge up at night.

Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the
electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv.

Except that I will be saving (more than) the cost of the battery by
eliminating the transmission and the brakes and the lifetime
maintenance of the all the fluids and so on. I can build a *more
capable* car for half the money, excluding the battery, because the
motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying
that 70 cents per gal equivalent.

Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the
car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime,
which will be greatly extended.

-tg

That's the _big_ cost.  The battery.

It cannot be eliminated but we can reduce it greatly with
electrification.

Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers?

Because there is no infrastructure to cheaply provide electricity to
the motor.

Any street mohead can drop an electric motor into a conventional drive
train chasis and drive for 70 cents/gal equiv in the TVA area _if_ he
could get grid electricity to the wheels.

People generally prefer tippy toe changes.  Look at the Model T body.
It really does look like a horse drawn carriage.  There was no reason
to make it look like a horse drawn carriage other than Ford was
focused on getting something out the door.  Ford got the first thing
he could find with wheels on it and put a motor in it.

Many want to replace gas stations with battery charging stations.
Instead of fueling up you swap out the battery.  No one needs to
drastically change his habits or thinking.

It's a tippy toe change.

Sometimes the tippy toe change ain't the way to go.

Taking off in a plane for example.  You aren't going to tippy toe off
the runway.

What a
silly question.
Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes?

What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles,
Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about.

He has nothing to contribute and feels left out.

All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
wheelmotor configuration.

The real problem is getting grid electricity to the four motors or two
motors or one motor.

Having four electric motors in the wheels or tires will still cost 70
cents/gal equiv.

and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by
wire has absolutely no connection to reality.
Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient
background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what
fly-by-wire means either.

Any engineer or physicist can ask him a few questions where the answer
requires some actual numbers or equations or insights and he's lost.

That's how anyone can tell he ain't no EE.

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).

75% at less than a 100 W load

A 100 W bus?

Do you even think about what you are typing?

a few feet away

Four _inches_ away.

with non-moving coils.

Can you think of any problems designing a moving version? You think
the coils would have to move?

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

No, but the University education did.

Did what? Tell you that the efficiency was 75%?

Most of what I've seen on the 'net about resonant induction is babbling
nonsense from drooling Tesla kooks

Again, it would behoove you to look it up before you spout off at the
mouth. You are really digging yourself into a hole on this one.

I'll be blunt: You are now beyond the capability of any janitor to
clean up the mess you are in now.

You are now a confirmed dunce.

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.

Don't even think about dodging the efficiency issue.

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

Before one can use a spreadsheet, which you seem so obsessed with,

Like every IEOR involved in every large project.

It's clear you've never been involved in any design that required any
sophistication.

No one will think you know anything about tech if all you do it hype
one factor and pretend that's the end of the discussion.

you have to have relationships,

OK, where does "astronomical" fit into any of these relationships?

That type of "cascaded dodge" doesn't work for the looneytarians
either.

and you have none.

Arm waving about "relationships" only highlights your lazy slopping
thinking.

Instead of numbers you use words like "huge" and "astronomical."

The only cost we know for sure that is approaching infinity is the
amount of money going overseas to buy oil.

Even 30% efficiency is cost competitive with batteries.

Energy efficiency is essentially meaningless in the real world.

Could you find _any_one who will agree with that statement?

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

That's the argument for spreadsheeting electrification and other
alternatives.

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.

That didn't happen to high voltage ac lines. A study in Sweden even
found a some health correlation and eventually subsequent studies said
there were no ill effects to living under transmission lines.

It's only an issue today because of aesthetics.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

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".

Don't be a "magic bullet" fundy.

Babble.

I was stating a very simple and very obvious fact.

What makes you think I was talking to you?

By the headers and the threading; do you not know how to use a news
reader?

My primary audience isn't necessarily in the header.

The following should clear up this matter, however, for most doubting
Thomases:

No one will deny that one technology will often dominate or
completely
eliminate everything else in an application or field, as ICE has land
sea and air transportation. If nothing else can compete then nothing
else can compete and unless you just want gratuitous technology
there's no reason to promote a "mix" -- the word DoE uses for the
growing diversity of energy solutions.

But no one will deny there are far too many people waiting for a
super
battery or a super algae breakthrough.

Too many want to replace oil BTU for BTU.

Energy _solutions_ generaly aren't going to work like that.

The average farm -- what am I saying? -- the typical household is run
with more sophistication than that.

All the problems with roadbed electrification are so mundane-
pedestrian that no brilliant engineering breakthroughs are necessary.

The solutions may be clever but they will not appear in _Nature
Physics_.

When someone appears at the construction site he'll ask, "what's that
thing for?" and the answer will be something like, "well this was
grandfathered in in Phoenix and they didn't need blah blah or they
wanted to compromise with the European version so both systems could
be compatible blah blah blah, and once the pickup coil technology was
developed is was cheaper to change the blah blah . . . the Ways and
Means Chairman felt
like he needed to run I-40 through every congressional district in
Texas . . ."


Bret Cahill


"Those who have an implicit faith in elegant transportation solutions
and
sausages should not watch them being made."


-- Bret Cahill

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus,

'Design' of what?

Sigh. Do you always start arguments without any clues?

I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?

really? They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine. You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.

I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle.

How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
numbers?

I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors,
and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no
magic in the technology; all the components are there already.

You've heard, but have no details? Big deal. I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one.

If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?


Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity. An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit. You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes?

What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles,

Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about. All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
wheelmotor configuration.

Sigh. All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive. You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is, or the problems
it causes. Your group also decries transmissions, yet they are used in
machine tools with big electric motors because the electric motors have
a different power curve than Internal combustion engines. This are
large three phase motors, run off variable frequency drives, just like
you need for an electric powered vehicle.

and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by
wire has absolutely no connection to reality.

Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient
background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what
fly-by-wire means either.

'Fly By Wire' replaced mechanical linkages in aircraft with
electronics and servo motors.

Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 2:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus,

'Design' of what?

Sigh. Do you always start arguments without any clues?

I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?

really? They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine. You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.

I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle.

How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
numbers?

I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors,
and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no
magic in the technology; all the components are there already.

You've heard, but have no details? Big deal. I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one.

If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity. An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit. You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.


Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. If you insist on
endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you.

bret shits on his floor, too. Big deal. He hasn't got a clue about
the real reasons there are so few electric powered cars, and the price
of oil isn't it.

Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes?

What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles,

Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about. All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
wheelmotor configuration.

Sigh. All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive.

You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been
around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD.
Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the
concept.

And you know nothing of the real world, just like your lover, bret.

You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is,

Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably
don't understand those either. I've answered that poster; if you
disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you
actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard.

Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis. The more
unsprung weight, the more stress on the vehicle suspension, which
affects the handling and stability in a turn, or on a rough road. That
is another advantage of a conventional drive train.

I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you
are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4
small motors, that may weigh only 50-75 lbs each. The motor will not
be a proprietary part of the vehicle, but as with my example of
graphics cards in computers, manufacturers can compete to supply
different quality and functionality. You can swap them out yourself
if you decide to upgrade.

Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, and on the existing
mounts. How do you upgrade, with those limitations? How many
horsepower do you think you'll get from a motor that size and weight?
How long do you think they will last, inside a hot tire & rim? You
idiots have no clues about the design requirements for a production
vehicle that will pass te required safety tests in the US. As far as
swapping them out yourself? Have fun. You will be doing it quite
often.

And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power
curves? Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has
traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors.
What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I
think.

Sigh. Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran
Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from
the ceilings. Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at
each machine. A wire brush company in Cleveland, Ohio still has them,
but stopped using them long ago. The old machines were modified to a
motor per machine cofigurations, and all new machines were built that
way, from the ground, up. The owner posts on rec.crafts.metalworking,
but don't start any crap there. They will ream you a new asshole as
they tell you why your ideas are useless, and they aren't polite with
morons.

Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the
driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo-
steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother. If you had
reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though.

It would play hell with your tires if you did. So you want to
eliminate the steering mechanism, as well. I hope you get to drive that
abomination some day, on a bad road. Like the two lane between
Fairbanks and Delta Junction, Alaska. You would never suggest it
again. In fact, you would likely drive off the road, and down the
mountainside where many have died while driving much safer vehicles.


Also, I would never drive any vehicle without real brakes. Your idea
is suicide when you have a motor or controller failure, which would be
quite common with millions of poorly designed crap vehicles (That you
and bret are insisting are the best design) on the road. You spit out a
load of ignorant crap, and have no clue about the engineering required
to produce a safe and efficient vehicle that will survive wrecks, severe
weather, and last long enough for a decent ROI.


Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have.

Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics.

Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes.

Only if you find idiots amuzing. BTW, 'Fly by Night' is a theif.


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

 

On Jun 3, 2:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

   YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING!  You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue.  If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus,

'Design' of what?

   Sigh.  Do you always start arguments without any clues?

 I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business?  Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?

   really?  They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine.  You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.

I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle.

   How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
numbers?

I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors,
and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no
magic in the technology; all the components are there already.

   You've heard, but have no details?  Big deal.  I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one..

   If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?

Because gas is still cheap?  Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers?  What a
silly question.

   What a stupid statement.  The first problem is the existing power
grid.  I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.  An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.  You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. If you insist on
endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you.

Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes?

   What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways?  All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles,

Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about.  All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
wheelmotor configuration.

   Sigh.  All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive.

You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been
around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD.
Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the
concept.

 You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is,

Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably
don't understand those either. I've answered that poster; if you
disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you
actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard.

or the problems
it causes.  Your group also decries transmissions, yet they are used in
machine tools with big electric motors because the electric motors have
a different power curve than Internal combustion engines.  This are
large three phase motors, run off variable frequency drives, just like
you need for an electric powered vehicle.

I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you
are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4
small motors, that may weigh only 50-75 lbs each. The motor will not
be a proprietary part of the vehicle, but as with my example of
graphics cards in computers, manufacturers can compete to supply
different quality and functionality. You can swap them out yourself
if you decide to upgrade.

And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power
curves? Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has
traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors.
What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I
think.

and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by
wire has absolutely no connection to reality.

Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient
background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what
fly-by-wire means either.

   'Fly By Wire' replaced mechanical linkages in aircraft with
electronics and servo motors.

Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the
driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo-
steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother. If you had
reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though.

   Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics.

Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes.

-tg

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

 

[john joseph]

Nothing is free. Entropy shall not be denied. The electricity must come
from somewhere. If carbon-sources are out of the picture, then has
anyone calculated how much raw nuclear power is available to the planet?

 

[krw]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 02:17:24 -0700 (PDT), tgdenning@earthlink.net
wrote:

On Jun 2, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:32:27 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net
wrote:



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?

  "Anyone can make _wheelmotors_" (emphasis on wheelmotors mine)

Wheel motors are, by their nature, unsprung weight.

No. Four wheels driven by four independent motors.

No matter.

The coupling
between the motor and the wheel is not necessarily fixed and rigid,
and so the entire mass of the assembly is not necessarily unsprung.

Then it's not a "wheelmotor". There is a transmission inbetween
sucking up power. Get your terminology straight if you want to
communicate.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

It's astounding -- and funny -- how often our dunces will shoot each
other in the foot:

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.

Nah, he'll now show you that he's a legal assistant with a court case
under his belt. ?His "public record" crap is his MO. ?Ignore Cahill.
Everyone else, including his mommy, does.

? ?He's the new 'Rodney Dangerfield'.

Dangerfield is

1. in the public record.

So what! You are a total moron, Cahill.

2. wealthy.

Whoopie. He's also dead, so he is not #2, idiot.

Neither is true for our sci.electronics.basics dunce Terrel.

Again, whoopie!

You can't have a sense of humor,

Speaking of humor, hows that defamation suit coming along?

You know . . . the one where I said your "computer repair" business
was as worthless as Al Gore in a dust devil and you got your panties
all wet.

if you have no sense!

You certainly have no sense if you keep coming back for more ridicule.

Cahill is the epitome of senseless.

Everyone is laughing at you.

No, Comrade Cahill. That's a mirror you're looking gazing into.

 

On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 2:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

   YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING!  You are just claiming it can be done by
'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue.  If you want a real discussion post
links to the designs you want to discus,

'Design' of what?

   Sigh.  Do you always start arguments without any clues?

 I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are
more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal
combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the
business?  Is it that electric motors and controls are far more
interchangeable than ICE and transmissions?

   really?  They why are their thousands of different electric motors,
and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine.  You
can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work.

I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some
specific vehicle.

   How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard
numbers?

I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors,
and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no
magic in the technology; all the components are there already.

   You've heard, but have no details?  Big deal.  I've heard that there
are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one.

   If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?

Because gas is still cheap?  Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers?  What a
silly question.

   What a stupid statement.  The first problem is the existing power
grid.  I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.  An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.  You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors.  If you insist on
endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you.

  bret shits on his floor, too.  Big deal.  He hasn't got a clue about
the real reasons there are so few electric powered cars, and the price
of oil isn't it.





Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes?

   What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the
roadways?  All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered
vehicles,

Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know
what you are talking about.  All wheel drive has everything to do with
electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the
wheelmotor configuration.

   Sigh.  All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive.

You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been
around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD.
Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the
concept.

  And you know nothing of the real world, just like your lover, bret.

You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is,

Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably
don't understand those either.  I've answered that poster; if you
disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you
actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard.

   Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis.

Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when
you go out, right?

Yup, you're a real technology guy.

 The more
unsprung weight, the more stress on the vehicle suspension, which
affects the handling and stability in a turn, or on a rough road.  That
is another advantage of a conventional drive train.

I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you
are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4
small motors, that may weigh only 50-75 lbs each. The motor will not
be a proprietary part of the vehicle, but as with my example of
graphics cards in computers, manufacturers can compete to supply
different quality and functionality.  You can swap them out yourself
if you decide to upgrade.

   Right.  The motor has to fit inside the wheel,

Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor
is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along,
since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis.

and on the existing
mounts.

Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something? How would they be
unsprung then?

 How do you upgrade, with those limitations?  How many
horsepower do you think you'll get from a motor that size and weight?
How long do you think they will last, inside a hot tire & rim?  You
idiots have no clues about the design requirements for a production
vehicle that will pass te required safety tests in the US.  As far as
swapping them out yourself?  Have fun.  You will be doing it quite
often.

And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power
curves?  Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has
traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors.
What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I
think.

   Sigh.  Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran
Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from
the ceilings.  Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at
each machine.  

Yes I'm familiar with that. But then they've also been run by
windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it
have to do with transmissions and power curves?

A wire brush company in Cleveland, Ohio still has them,
but stopped using them long ago.  The old machines were modified to a
motor per machine cofigurations, and all new machines were built that
way, from the ground, up.  The owner posts on rec.crafts.metalworking,
but don't start any crap there.  They will ream you a new asshole as
they tell you why your ideas are useless, and they aren't polite with
morons.

Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the
driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo-
steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother.  If you had
reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though.

   It would play hell with your tires if you did.  So you want to
eliminate the steering mechanism, as well.  I hope you get to drive that
abomination some day, on a bad road.  Like the two lane between
Fairbanks and Delta Junction, Alaska.  You would never suggest it
again.  In fact, you would likely drive off the road, and down the
mountainside where many have died while driving much safer vehicles.

 Also, I would never drive any vehicle without real brakes.  Your idea
is suicide when you have a motor or controller failure, which would be
quite common with millions of poorly designed crap vehicles (That you
and bret are insisting are the best design) on the road.  You spit out a
load of ignorant crap, and have no clue about the engineering required
to produce a safe and efficient vehicle that will survive wrecks, severe
weather, and last long enough for a decent ROI.

  Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close?  I have.

Well yes, but I don't think that makes me more or less qualified to
evaluate auto designs. I've also spent a bunch of hours using bobcats
and tracked excavators, and while it is fun to spin them around on the
flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try
that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench.

Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my
reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible
response I will deal with it.

-tg

   Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics.

Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes.

   Only if you find idiots amuzing.  BTW, 'Fly by Night' is a theif..

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis.

Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when
you go out, right?

Your ignorance is depressing. Have you ever designed anything
mechanical in your sorry life?

Yup, you're a real technology guy.

Yes, i am. I built Telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry.
You, on the other hand, couldn't buy a clue if they were but a penny.

Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel,

Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor
is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along,
since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis.

If it isn't inside the wheel, additional load is applied to the motor
bearings. Of course if you knew anything about Physics, you wouldn't
make so many ignorant statements.

and on the existing
mounts.

Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something? How would they be
unsprung then?

Sigh. Did you fail third grade science class? You still can't grasp
what 'unsprung' means. Heaven forbid you actually crack a book, and try
to learn something.


Have you ever heard of intetia? Do you have any idea why you want to
keep most of the vehicle's mass moving in one plane? I guess the sring
inside your nearly empty head has snapped, at last.

Sigh. Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran
Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from
the ceilings. Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at
each machine.

Yes I'm familiar with that. But then they've also been run by
windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it
have to do with transmissions and power curves?

I gess that you're too stupid to live. If you weren't, you would
know the answers.

Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have.

Well yes, but I don't think that makes me more or less qualified to
evaluate auto designs. I've also spent a bunch of hours using bobcats
and tracked excavators, and while it is fun to spin them around on the
flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try
that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench.

So, you're a dangerous fool, too. That is no surprise.

Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my
reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible
response I will deal with it.

Incohernt? That's a laugh. You know as little about physics as your
butt buddy, bret.

-tg

Does this mean your some kind of cross dresser or drag queen? I know
you aren't a dairy in Florida.



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

 

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote:

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.

Calculations please ?

Absence of reply noted. Any idiot can make stupid claims.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

On Jun 4, 1:43 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

   Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis.

Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when
you go out, right?

   Your ignorance is depressing.  Have you ever designed anything
mechanical in your sorry life?  

A *sensible* response would involve you explaining how parts that are
"detached from the chassis" have any function at all.

Yup, you're a real technology guy.

  Yes, i am.  I built Telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry.
You, on the other hand, couldn't buy a clue if they were but a penny.

Now I remember---you are the guy who put the screws into the cover of
the equipment and polished up the case. We thank you for your service.

People who know stuff like physics tend to talk about problems in
concrete terms---they would be interested in showing me why my idea
doesn't work, and they wouldn't be afraid to describe things in
detail. You are obviously bluffing.

-tg

   Right.  The motor has to fit inside the wheel,

Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor
is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along,
since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis.

   If it isn't inside the wheel, additional load is applied to the motor
bearings. Of course if you knew anything about Physics, you wouldn't
make so many ignorant statements.



and on the existing
mounts.

Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something?  How would they be
unsprung then?

   Sigh.  Did you fail third grade science class?  You still can't grasp
what 'unsprung' means.  Heaven forbid you actually crack a book, and try
to learn something.

  Have you ever heard of intetia?  Do you have any idea why you want to
keep most of the vehicle's mass moving in one plane?  I guess the sring
inside your nearly empty head has snapped, at last.

   Sigh.  Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran
Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from
the ceilings.  Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at
each machine.

Yes I'm familiar with that. But then they've also been run by
windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it
have to do with transmissions and power curves?

   I gess that you're too stupid to live.  If you weren't, you would
know the answers.

  Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close?  I have.

Well yes, but I don't think that makes me more or less qualified to
evaluate auto designs. I've also spent a bunch of hours using bobcats
and tracked excavators, and while it is fun to spin them around on the
flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try
that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench.

  So, you're a dangerous fool, too.  That is no surprise.

Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my
reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible
response I will deal with it.

  Incohernt?  That's a laugh.  You know as little about physics as your
butt buddy, bret.

-tg  

   Does this mean your some kind of cross dresser or drag queen?  I know
you aren't a dairy in Florida.

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

 

[john joseph]

Unsprung weight in an automobile (motorcycle, bicycle, etc.) typically
is in the wheels before the suspension and is a concern largely for high
performance and ordinary performance on imperfect roads. There are
vehicles with the motor(s) in the hubs of the wheels. Conventional
affordable electric engines tend to be quite heavy (emphasis on
economical because if you wish to spend enough, this weight can be
dramatically reduced.)

The proposal for electrified roads suggests that these roads could be
made quite smooth and turns radiused and possibly banked to reduce the
need for less unsprung weight. It's all a trade-off.

I am particularly interested in carbon-fiber wheels but they are not DOT
approved for road use and regardless, changing the tires is very
difficult to do without damaging the rims.

Oh, check this out: http://www.pmlflightlink.com/news.html

The article in that link is problematic in one regard, "Torque Ripple"
is actually beneficial to traction as evinced in such applications as
"big bang" engines which are either engines with, for example, two
cylinders firing in 45 degree or less (Suziki, Harley-Davidson, Honda's
V4 modified to two oval cylinders and four connecting rods) and an
exotic 16 cylinder engine that fires four cylinders at once.

The same 'ripple' or pulsed power effect is what makes anti-lock brakes
more effective than conventional.

 

[Bret Cahill]

If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy
rich building your wet dream on wheels?

Because gas is still cheap?

No, because batteries are still expensive.

TN Val Auth will sell locals 6 GW for 70 cents/gal equivalent if they
charge up at night.

Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the
electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv.

Except that I will be saving (more than) the cost of the battery by
eliminating the transmission and the brakes and the lifetime
maintenance of the all the fluids and so on.

These are not significant _operating_ costs. They don't cost anything
on a _per mile_ basis.

The battery, while it is part of the initial cost, is also part of the
operating cost because it must be replaced every few years. This
isn't true for a transmission.

I can build a *more
capable* car for half the money, excluding the battery,

But the 800 lb gorilla cost is the operating cost of the battery.

because the
motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying
that 70 cents per gal equivalent.

If you are charging and discharging a battery, you will always be
paying at least $2.70/gallon.

The $10,000 battery needs to be replaced several times over the cars
lifetime.

Now, if you want, you can calculate battery cost as part of the
initial cost. Just pay for all the necessary batteries up front and
your $20,000 EV will cost $60,000.

So no matter how you try to calculate it, the battery cost is the
killer.

Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the
car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime,
which will be greatly extended.

Any street mohead can convert any old pu or SUV to an EV for less than
what anyone could sell a new EV.

Why isn't this more common? Because of the battery cost.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

If anyone ever doubted this guy was a dunce . . .

Because gas is still cheap? �Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? �What a
silly question.

� �What a stupid statement. �The first problem is the existing power
grid. �I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity. ďż˝

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit. ďż˝

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes into
the spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel
(yesterday's price in LA) is 13 kW-hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52
of power over the next 50 years costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X
50 yr = $1.3 million dollars

2. a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so to run a 13 kW electric motor
over the next 50 years would cost $26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

There is only one word to describe some moron who talks off the top of
his head without doing any calculations:

a dunce.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

There is only one word to describe someone pretending to know
something about electronics who cannot even do the most elementary of
power calculations:

a dunce.

Anyway, back to the issue:

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

Only a dunce thinks fuel will remain at $3/gallon so batteries will
eventually be competitive with oil.

But nothing is cheaper than roadbed electrification.

You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Anytime you want to sue in small claims court to recover any tuition
you may have paid to some scam electronics trade school, I'll be glad
to testify on your behalf.


Bret Cahill

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:15:06 +0000, jimp wrote:

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.

I donno. Mr Cahill seems to avoid the technical merits of people's
arguments and asks them to make an appeal to authority fallacy, or his
"public" standard and all that... yet as you say, he has little to show
himself.

He's a real conservation kill, that Mr. Cahill.




--
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]

Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors.

Wheelmotors, however fascinating, have nothing to do with the subject
of this thread which is storing and distributing energy to motor
vehicles.

�If you insist on
endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you.

He is easy to dump on when he manages to stay on topic. That's why he
trys to get off topic.

.. . .

� �Sigh. �All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel
drive.

You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been
around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD.
Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the
concept.

Maybe so. Perhaps you should start a thread on it.

But it is irrelevant to this thread which is about the cost of getting
energy to the motors in the first place.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Stafford]

On 6/3/09 10:29 AM, in article
8ac333b5-c882-4d32-a4e0-2ef713745a47@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com,
"tgdenning@earthlink.net" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:

Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the
electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv.


Except that I will be saving (more than) the cost of the battery by
eliminating the transmission and the brakes and the lifetime
maintenance of the all the fluids and so on. I can build a *more
capable* car for half the money, excluding the battery, because the
motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying
that 70 cents per gal equivalent.

This link shows one of my cars. It was originally an electric car. Now it
has a 165HP aircooled gasoline engine. Batteries then (seventies) were way
too much of a hassle, and expensive. One nice thing was that I could
eliminate the transmission.

I still have it. Recent snapshot: http://www.digoliardi.net/images/002.jpg

Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the
car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime,
which will be greatly extended.

Batteries are still rather expensive. Heck, they charge $5 to throw one away
here!