Tesla is fast...

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
snip
But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

No it won\'t because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.
Getting the same battery warm again isn\'t using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn\'t the situation I was talking about

Tesla batteries do this all the time.

> > > Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes away.

If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.

The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn\'t. And this continues as you are driving.
Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.
The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn\'t big.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.
That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn\'t have anywhere to put it. I don\'t know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either misunderstood when you first heard, or now remembering incorrectly, but you\'ve clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won\'t ever be able to realise it.

Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 03/05/2022 15:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

I\'m congenitally leery of simple explanations -

It\'s like what people said about Saabs: Great car, between fires.

They were notable for being particularly good for driving on cobbled
streets. And the idiosyncratic can\'t take the key out of the ignition
until the vehicle is put into reverse gear with the parking brake on.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:47:19 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won\'t get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
I\'m glad I don\'t live in Canada.

Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It\'s nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it\'s mostly not really different from US driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can\'t drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that\'s not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it\'s not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It\'s no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is inconsequential.

I\'ve discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it\'s very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

I find it is the people who don\'t have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla\'s software factors that in. You can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

Another factor that I didn\'t mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla\'s battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.
Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I\'ve explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better attention in class.

You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn\'t stop at every charger along the route! In fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn\'t available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
I\'m not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don\'t know what he did and I don\'t care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I\'m not worried about some guy who can\'t provide his info.
The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
Yes, the key word there is \"extreme\".
Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can\'t you read?
But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I\'ve already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
No, that is right out of Tesla\'s operating manual.
Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.
https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/faq#:~:text=off%20the%20battery.-,What%20percentage%20should%20I%20charge%20the%20battery%20to%3F,from%20the%20charge%20settings%20menu.
Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.
Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other \"extreme\" cases do you wish to address?
What if your \"home\" is an apartment, dude?
So what other mistakes have you made?
None.
Other than the ones I\'ve caught you in.
That would be NONE!

The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that\'s some serious range degradation.
Oh, now it is 200 miles. I providede a reference that indicated the average distance is 150 miles (223 miles max). You have provided, as usual, NOTHING.

You provided nothing to prove your claims. As I have said, that report talked about the chargers he stopped at, not the many chargers he passed. Do you understand that? So it says NOTHING about how close the chargers are together.

Why can\'t you admit your errors?
I haven\'t made any - but you HAVE!

I\'ve now explained this to you twice. Can you acknowledge what I\'ve explained to you?

--

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
snip
But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

No it won\'t because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

Getting the same battery warm again isn\'t using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn\'t the situation I was talking about.

Tesla batteries do this all the time.

But the point I was making is that heating and cooling the battery without discharging it during the process doesn\'t make any difference to the energy available from the battery at any given temperature.

The fact that Tesla batteries can use their own stored energy to warm themselves happens to be irrelevant to the point I was making.

Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent), with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes away.

If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.

If that is what you are doing, this does use up some of the stored energy, but it wasn\'t what I was talking about.

The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn\'t. And this continues as you are driving.

Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn\'t big.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn\'t have anywhere to put it. I don\'t know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either misunderstood when you first heard it, or now remembering incorrectly, but you\'ve clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won\'t ever be able to realise it.

Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.

The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

That\'s why so many were manipulated by Trmp.
Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You\'re the touchy feely type that think it\'s ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

Lol. I guess that\'s why Trmp
Why would you shorten a 5 letter word to a 4 letter word?

I spell it as is appropriate.

How can trmp be appropriate whether you hate him or not?

> I suppose I could just say \"it\".

Stop embarrassing yourself by admitting you\'re a left wing thief. Robin Hood was not a good guy.

has to use rallies to rile up his voters, to appeal to their intellect with rational and thoughtful discussions like, \"Lock her up!\" LOL You are a trip. But this is getting old. Bill likes to let people wind themselves up, but it\'s not terribly entertaining for me. I was just wondering what ridiculous arguments you might come up with and they are doozies! They don\'t take much effort to swat down though, so not really entertaining other than in an AFV way.
Ah, so you\'re a left wing theiving liberal that thinks it\'s ok for my taxes to pay for your problems.

Yes, that\'s what it\'s all about. YOUR TAXES. Ok, fine. Let\'s abolish taxes, all taxes. How can you say some tax spending is justified, but not others that YOU don\'t like? Taxes are decided by the method we in the USA have selected as our form of government. Are you anti-government?

No tax is good. You spend your money on what you want to spend it on, not what others want.

The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
Repetition of the above ignored.

Exactly! You love proving me right, don\'t you?
Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you\'re saying the same thing twice, therefore there\'s no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

LOL Ok, I\'ll stop. A friend worked for a government contractor. Another worker was briefing an Admiral, one on one, and at a point the Admiral got up and said he was leaving, but the guy should complete the briefing. The guy continued the briefing until it was complete.

I\'m leaving now. Please complete the briefing.
Stop trying to sound smart, it doesn\'t befit you.

And don\'t reply to everything then leave, that\'s the ultimate in childish behaviour.

Ok, are you happy now?

I do not concern myself with your lies.

> You aren\'t actually discussing anything. At this point I can\'t distinguish you from some sort of strange bot. Why would I want to continue to discuss something with a bot?

Likewise, you\'re not coming close to a human. An American maybe.

> I actually got a spam call the other day where I was not sure if it was a bot or not? I guess at some point, the programs get so smart that they equal or surpass the apparent intelligence of the typical person who is hired to make such calls. They certainly have the language down better.

Why would you answer such a call? Your phone does display the caller ID right? Your phone allows you to block numbers right?

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
snip
But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

No it won\'t because they use energy from the battery to warm itself..

Getting the same battery warm again isn\'t using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn\'t the situation I was talking about.

Tesla batteries do this all the time.
But the point I was making is that heating and cooling the battery without discharging it during the process doesn\'t make any difference to the energy available from the battery at any given temperature.

The fact that Tesla batteries can use their own stored energy to warm themselves happens to be irrelevant to the point I was making.

Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent), with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes away.

If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.
If that is what you are doing, this does use up some of the stored energy, but it wasn\'t what I was talking about.
The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn\'t. And this continues as you are driving.

Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn\'t big.

Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn\'t have anywhere to put it. I don\'t know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either misunderstood when you first heard it, or now remembering incorrectly, but you\'ve clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won\'t ever be able to realise it.

Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.
The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can\'t really expect him to get the facts right.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

snip
The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can\'t really expect him to get the facts right.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

snip
The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can\'t really expect him to get the facts right.

And we can rely on Sloman for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can\'t be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn\'t know anything about).

As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

\"Lithium batteries don\'t perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). \"

where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn\'t, or at least not much)).

He still doesn\'t seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50% at -40C that he was claiming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection.
But there\'s a hundred of those protectors then.

It\'s also not temperature-range rated,

Yes, it sense temperature.

No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can\'t help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.

When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:41:34 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons.. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection.
But there\'s a hundred of those protectors then.

It\'s also not temperature-range rated,

Yes, it sense temperature.

No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can\'t help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve? Do you think this feature is free? Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car. That is why they aren\'t used.

--

Rick C.

---++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 11 May 2022 23:33:04 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:41:34 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

I\'d love to see that short out.

You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

The \'protection\' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
For a few hundred volts of car battery, that\'s not good protection.
But there\'s a hundred of those protectors then.

It\'s also not temperature-range rated,

Yes, it sense temperature.

No, they\'re electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can\'t help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?

The problem frequently in the news where people\'s houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees was once fired through someone\'s hands while typing on a laptop.

> Do you think this feature is free?

The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.

> Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.

Still comes to 10%.

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 13:41:34 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
....

In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

With the high current used during acceleration that would cause undesirable voltage drops as well as adding volume, cost and heat to the battery.

kw

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
....

Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
The problem frequently in the news where people\'s houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees was once fired through someone\'s hands while typing on a laptop.

I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.

The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.

kw

Do you think this feature is free?
The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.
Still comes to 10%.

10% of $10-20,000 is still $1000-2000. A significant amount when it doesn\'t add any significant value. It wouldn\'t protect against the thermal runaway issues that have occasionally affected lithium-ion batteries. There is already protection against over-current and failure in other parts of the system. That can more effectively be provided at the battery, rather than the cell level.

kw

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:34:30 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 13:41:34 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

With the high current used during acceleration that would cause undesirable voltage drops as well as adding volume, cost and heat to the battery.

I thought you could get those with high current capabilities. Had a very quick look and found 25A unprotected and 15A protected. I\'m sure there are others though.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
The problem frequently in the news where people\'s houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees was once fired through someone\'s hands while typing on a laptop.

I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.

Something hot and liquid came out.

> The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.

Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I\'ve even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These batteries are a piece of shit.

Do you think this feature is free?
The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.
Still comes to 10%.

10% of $10-20,000 is still $1000-2000.

My point is you don\'t get percentages. Changing a $1 item to $1.10 is the same as changing a $10,000 car to $11,000.

> A significant amount when it doesn\'t add any significant value. It wouldn\'t protect against the thermal runaway issues that have occasionally affected lithium-ion batteries.

Why on earth not?

> There is already protection against over-current and failure in other parts of the system. That can more effectively be provided at the battery, rather than the cell level.

Until you crash and something shorts inbetween cells.

Looks like the protection they have now isn\'t sufficient: https://youtu.be/-jiH3mE81zw?t=104

 

[Ed Lee]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
The problem frequently in the news where people\'s houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees was once fired through someone\'s hands while typing on a laptop.

I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
Something hot and liquid came out.
The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I\'ve even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These batteries are a piece of shit.
Do you think this feature is free?
The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.

I doubt it.

https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

Unprotected: $15
Protected: $25

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:31:06 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

snip
The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can\'t really expect him to get the facts right.

And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can\'t be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn\'t know anything about).

As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

\"Lithium batteries don\'t perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half.. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). \"

where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn\'t, or at least not much)).

He still doesn\'t seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50% at -40C that he was claiming.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

SNIPPERMAN provides exactly ZERO references for his pedantic ramblings - PAR FOR THE COURSE!

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
...
Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
The problem frequently in the news where people\'s houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees was once fired through someone\'s hands while typing on a laptop.

I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
Something hot and liquid came out.
The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I\'ve even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These batteries are a piece of shit.
Do you think this feature is free?
The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
I doubt it.

https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

Unprotected: $15
Protected: $25

The difference in retail price hasn\'t got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

The fact that a halfwit like Commander Kinsey is scared silly about the prospect of a lithium ion battery will catch on fire means that he will pay loads of money so that he can be less anxious about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:31:06 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

snip
The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn\'t a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don\'t know what you are talking about and are much too far gone ever to realise it.

Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can\'t really expect him to get the facts right.

And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can\'t be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn\'t know anything about).

As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

\"Lithium batteries don\'t perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). \"

where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn\'t, or at least not much)).

He still doesn\'t seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50% at -40C that he was claiming.

Sloman provides exactly ZERO references for his pedantic ramblings - PAR FOR THE COURSE!

None that Flyguy\'s decaying brain can recall. Here\'s one such reference from way back in thread.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=80512

and here\'s another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

Neither of them is all that specific. What Flyguy seems to need is a detailed course on the subject from the first principles (which he doesn\'t seem to know about) right through to the practical applications that he barely understands. Granting his rather selective comprehension of what he condescends to read, he probably didn\'t process either of them and has persuaded himself that he can blame me for that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney