The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Allison on 31 Jul 2007 04:00 "Glenn Gundlach" > The amount of kinetic energy is related to the speed, not the > acceleration. ** Correct. > If you accelerate more rapidly, that extra energy is > not recoverable. ** Shame how that flatly contradicts your first statement. Fact is, there is no extra energy input. Simply a larger power input applied for shorter time. > Modest acceleration is less wasteful. ** Maybe so, in practice, with typical internal combustion engines - but not for any simple physics reason. ....... Phil
From: John Larkin on 31 Jul 2007 09:48 On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:31:20 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 30, 8:25 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> In article <1185850948.051175.139...(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> pomer...(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >> > Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry >> >> > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >> > > >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > > >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" >> >> > > >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are >> > > >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term >> > > >> >solution on this overpopulated planet >> >> > > >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some >> > > >> kind of idiot. >> >> > > >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally >> > > >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's >> > > >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. >> >> > > I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist >> > > weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) >> >> > > And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT >> > > my children and grandchildren ;-) >> >> > OOHH!. Think of the children... >> >> > You sound like a leftist weenie. >> >> Not at all. Not "the" children. *HIS* children. There is a >> difference. >> >> > Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. >> >> It's entirely possible as was explained at the time. >> >It was bs then and it's bs now. All fancy gearing and ignition tricks >will be overcome by the inevitability of the non-linearity of increase >of air resistance with speed. > > The air resistance is highly nonlinear, cubic power:speed roughly, whereas other losses are essentially independent of speed. Every car will have an optimum speed for miles/gallon, and it won't be zero. John
From: MooseFET on 31 Jul 2007 10:07 On Jul 31, 6:48 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:31:20 -0700, Richard Henry > > > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 30, 8:25 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> In article <1185850948.051175.139...(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > >> pomer...(a)hotmail.com says... > > >> > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > >> > Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry > > >> > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > >> > > >Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> > > >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" > > >> > > >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are > >> > > >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term > >> > > >> >solution on this overpopulated planet > > >> > > >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some > >> > > >> kind of idiot. > > >> > > >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally > >> > > >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's > >> > > >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. > > >> > > I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist > >> > > weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) > > >> > > And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT > >> > > my children and grandchildren ;-) > > >> > OOHH!. Think of the children... > > >> > You sound like a leftist weenie. > > >> Not at all. Not "the" children. *HIS* children. There is a > >> difference. > > >> > Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. > > >> It's entirely possible as was explained at the time. > > >It was bs then and it's bs now. All fancy gearing and ignition tricks > >will be overcome by the inevitability of the non-linearity of increase > >of air resistance with speed. > > The air resistance is highly nonlinear, cubic power:speed roughly, > whereas other losses are essentially independent of speed. Every car > will have an optimum speed for miles/gallon, and it won't be zero. It also won't be much over about 50MPH. It takes about 15 HP to push a modest sized car at 50MPH. The windage losses per mile run as just about the square of the speed.
From: Jim Thompson on 31 Jul 2007 10:21 On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:02:28 -0700, Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry >> >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >> >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" >> >> >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much unless cars are >> >> >much lighter, but even radically lighter vehicles are no long-term >> >> >solution on this overpopulated planet >> >> >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at me like I'm some >> >> kind of idiot. >> >> >You have also told us how you like to drive your big import illegally >> >fast and tried to rationalize it by claiming that among the vehicle's >> >luxury features is that it runs more efficiently at high speed. >> >> I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that leftist >> weenies should be taxed more heavily to support my excesses ;-) >> >> And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin can, just NOT >> my children and grandchildren ;-) > >OOHH!. Think of the children... > >You sound like a leftist weenie. > >Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. > I don't ever recall saying "more-efficient-at-higher-speed". But I guess it WOULD depend on your definition. The engine is optimized right around 3000RPM (85MPH), but external drag is higher. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
From: Jim Thompson on 31 Jul 2007 10:22
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:26:02 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:02:28 -0700, Richard Henry ><pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] >> >>Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed feature. >> > >If your time is worth a few hundred bucks an hour, it's inefficient to >drive slow. > >John There ya go ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave |