Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

[Bret Cahill]

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

Much electrical power in the US is green hydroelectric. ďż˝(Indonesia is
pure red, though.)

High efficiency requires the economies of scale of large power plants.

Small adiabatic engines are inherently dirty and inefficient.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it
today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine
runs about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60%
is a figure that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines
approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite
cheap. No doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems
to be at least a potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested
already in ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then
lots of technologies must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher
fuel price. It's the only way to inform people of what they
right decision will �be.

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000
lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important
as the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by
batteries or road electrification.


Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

In article <4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
lcargill@cfl.rr.com says...>

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John


The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

 

[John J]

patmpowers@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:55 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:


Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.
Poorer quality? Really? Please provide an example.



Sure. Chevy Chevette. There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

I vote for the Chevy Vega first because it rusted away fast, and it was
impossible to change one particular sparkplug without lifting the
engine. Now, that's thinking!

 

[Jack]

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

 

[John J]

tg wrote:

The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

Or are they just bad petrol cars?

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Optimal? The article says 'four hours of power' then it reverts to
petrol behavior. What they do not mention is the performance for the
petrol mode. They call it 'normal mode', a fudging of terms. What's it
really mean? Can I drive from Paris to Madrid at 'normal' (nominal) speeds?

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be anything else
since car companies will never build one voluntarily.

It will be expensive. I know a chap in CH who bought a Tesla, and at
$100KUSD, it's cheap.

 

[tg]

On Jan 6, 3:01 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it
today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine
runs about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60%
is a figure that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines
approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite
cheap. No doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems
to be at least a potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested
already in ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then
lots of technologies must be considered.

The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be anything else
since car companies will never build one voluntarily.

-tg

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher
fuel price. It's the only way to inform people of what they
right decision will  be.

Rob

--
Les Cargill

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

That's a co-gen one too. �Not very portable either, kinda big too.

At 100 tons maybe on a ship but not for yer pickup or SUV.

Whoops I meant to say Combined Cycle, not cogen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

basically it's a steam engine downstream of the gas turbine

sure, if you want heat, collect all you want from the tailpipe

MAN and Warsila-Sulzer do better than that. The heat collected from the
exhaust generates steam which runs turbines that can produce MORE
electricity. Then the remaining 'waste heat' can be put to good use.

If anyone was serious about energy efficiency this would be used in district
heating schemes. They do it in parts of Scandinavia. It's proven technology.

We got more than a heat engine efficiency problem. We got a _no_
energy problem.

Don't be silly. With that level of efficiency, existing oil reserves at least can
be extended to hundreds of years. Plenty of time to work out Plan B.

That's why we need to go electric.

Where's the electricity going to come from ?????

Graham

 

[tg]

On Jan 6, 9:30 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

tg wrote:
The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

Or are they just bad petrol cars?

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Optimal? The article says 'four hours of power' then it reverts to
petrol behavior. What they do not mention is the performance for the
petrol mode. They call it 'normal mode', a fudging of terms. What's it
really mean? Can I drive from Paris to Madrid at 'normal' (nominal) speeds?

Petrol mode just means that there is a generator supplying
electricity, which is the case in series hybrids of all kinds.

My statement "The wheelmotor platform is the optimal implementation of
the electric car" has nothing to do with whether this particular thing
works well or not, and it doesn't mean that developing better
batteries isn't necessary. Think in terms of trading their sports car
performance (or Tesla's) for a bit more mileage though.

If you have the control systems and software they describe, and it is
possible to get maximal regenerative braking with supercapacitor
storage, you maximize the amount of energy from the energy source that
gets converted into *motion*, which is the whole point eh.

There are lots of other advantages besides eliminating transmission
losses, like the weight that goes with all the mechanical parts, and
the fluids as well. You will have nice handling and stability, and if
you have an 'engine problem', you will be able to swap it out like
changing a tire. Well, if you are pretty strong of course, but you get
the idea.

But my point is that there is no incentive for any auto company to
build something along these lines because it cuts into their profit
system, and dealer repair business and so on, and so some entity---
maybe a DARPA or maybe Bill Gates or some consortium---has to create a
new 'car company' to develop and market based on this concept.

-tg

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be anything else
since car companies will never build one voluntarily.

It will be expensive. I know a chap in CH who bought a Tesla, and at
$100KUSD, it's cheap.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jan 6, 10:19 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jan 6, 9:30 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:





tg wrote:
The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

Or are they just bad petrol cars?

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Optimal? The article says 'four hours of power' then it reverts to
petrol behavior. What they do not mention is the performance for the
petrol mode. They call it 'normal mode', a fudging of terms. What's it
really mean? Can I drive from Paris to Madrid at 'normal' (nominal) speeds?

Petrol mode just means that there is a generator supplying
electricity, which is the case in series hybrids of all kinds.

My statement "The wheelmotor platform is the optimal implementation of
the electric car" has nothing to do with whether this particular thing
works well or not, and it doesn't mean that developing better
batteries isn't necessary. Think in terms of trading their sports car
performance (or Tesla's)  for a bit more mileage though.

If you have the control systems and software they describe, and it is
possible to get maximal regenerative braking with supercapacitor
storage, you maximize the amount of energy from the energy source that
gets converted into *motion*,  which is the whole point eh.

There are lots of other advantages besides eliminating transmission
losses, like the weight that goes with all the mechanical parts, and
the fluids as well.  You will have nice handling and stability, and if
you have an 'engine problem', you will be able to swap it out like
changing a tire. Well, if you are pretty strong of course, but you get
the idea.

But my point is that there is no incentive for any auto company to
build something along these lines because it cuts into their profit
system, and dealer repair business and so on,  and so some entity---
maybe a DARPA or maybe Bill Gates or some consortium---has to create a
new 'car company' to develop and market based on this concept.

Well, Darpa certainly isn't going to do it. Since they work with
battlefield technology.
Which is mostly why the people with ground transportation brains
invented
the concept of Post GM Robotics, rather than robotics.
Since the only thing Bill Gates is going to do is sign a contract
with Boeing.

 -tg



Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be anything else
since car companies will never build one voluntarily.

It will be expensive. I know a chap in CH who bought a Tesla, and at
$100KUSD, it's cheap.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[ZerkonXXXX]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:22:58 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000 lb
gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

The real gorilla is the real cost of oil.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgfurg@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

John

 

[tg]

On Jan 6, 11:42 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com
wrote:



Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

Uh huh. And an unregulated financial market poses no risks to the
economy.

sigh....

-tg



> John

 

[John J]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:re27m4pe6ddjt8mmcrq35l2oeqddcmffum@4ax.com...

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgfurg@yahoo.com
wrote:


Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

"I think there is a world market for about five computers" IBM Chairman,
1958

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:01:18 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a
few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.


Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..


Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.


Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies must
be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will be.

Yup. You place a large excise tax on oil and redistribute the proceeds
as a an egalitarian citizen's dividend or a bottom weighted quarterly
"stimulus" like the one we had in 2008. You let the market decide what
technologies and innovations are best within this macro level tax and
stimulus operation.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:22:58 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies
must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will
�be.

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000 lb
gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important as
the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by batteries or
road electrification.


Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas then
the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be insanely
profitable. And this does not require a total destruction of the American
way of life or the centralized big brother crap associated with
everything needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a way to
move toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is where you are
going.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jan 6, 12:50 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

news:re27m4pe6ddjt8mmcrq35l2oeqddcmffum@4ax.com...

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

"I think there is a world market for about five computers" IBM Chairman,
1958

Well, but that's very true. When the only thing you even know
about computers
is the The New York Times, Rather than Integrated Circuits,
Radiation Hardening,
piezoelectric, Pv Cells, RISC, Parallel Processing, lasers, laser
disks, microwaves,
post Ford batteries, thermocouples, mini harddisks, dsp, cd, dvd,
hdtv, fiber optics,
holograms, gps, drones, cruise missiles, phalanx, auv's, C++,
SGML, HTML, XML, USB,
E-Books, E-Libraries, E-Publishing, On-Line Poblishing, On-Line
Banking,
digital-terrain mapping, and post GM Robotics. Which is the only
thing IBM knows about computers.

 

[Eeyore]

rc wrote:

The automakers are victims of circumstances.

You mean US automakers. And the failure to innovate isn't 'circumstances'.

Graham

 

[BradGuth]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill

This topic is going to get you into nothing but serious trouble with
the fossil fuel Mafia cabals and cartels.

Don't forget about green/renewable energy that's making affordable H2
and h2o2, not to mention helping to create nifty synfuels (including
out of CO2). There's also thorium reactors that'll give us clean and
failsafe energy at 10% the birth-to-grave cost of conventional nuclear
energy.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

 

[Rob Dekker]

<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message news:e89201a5-2382-4891-88cd-bdfa5b2a364f@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 10:19 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jan 6, 9:30 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:





tg wrote:
The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

Or are they just bad petrol cars?

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Optimal? The article says 'four hours of power' then it reverts to
petrol behavior. What they do not mention is the performance for the
petrol mode. They call it 'normal mode', a fudging of terms. What's it
really mean? Can I drive from Paris to Madrid at 'normal' (nominal) speeds?

Petrol mode just means that there is a generator supplying
electricity, which is the case in series hybrids of all kinds.

My statement "The wheelmotor platform is the optimal implementation of
the electric car" has nothing to do with whether this particular thing
works well or not, and it doesn't mean that developing better
batteries isn't necessary. Think in terms of trading their sports car
performance (or Tesla's) for a bit more mileage though.

If you have the control systems and software they describe, and it is
possible to get maximal regenerative braking with supercapacitor
storage, you maximize the amount of energy from the energy source that
gets converted into *motion*, which is the whole point eh.

There are lots of other advantages besides eliminating transmission
losses, like the weight that goes with all the mechanical parts, and
the fluids as well. You will have nice handling and stability, and if
you have an 'engine problem', you will be able to swap it out like
changing a tire. Well, if you are pretty strong of course, but you get
the idea.

But my point is that there is no incentive for any auto company to
build something along these lines because it cuts into their profit
system, and dealer repair business and so on, and so some entity---
maybe a DARPA or maybe Bill Gates or some consortium---has to create a
new 'car company' to develop and market based on this concept.

Well, Darpa certainly isn't going to do it. Since they work with
battlefield technology.

It seems that the military is actually a leader in adopting electric propulsion and hybrid electric vehicles :
http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/oakland/index.ssf/2008/07/vehicle_projects_grow_supplier.html

Rob