The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 10 Oct 2007 10:00 On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:20:28 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gisin(a)uniserve.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:jhfog3lpkgkoemjhqc3ptu7lsfnhqoj2su(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:41 -0700, Rock Brentwood >> <markwh04(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Toyota is coming out with a Lithium-based car in the near future. >>> >>>I think the first car to ever hit 100 MPH was electric. >>> >Doubtful with lead-acid cells. > >>>There was a news segment done recently on an electric cycle, the >>>machine gets up to 150 MPH and does 0-60 in 1 second. That's pretty >>>violent acceleration, on par with fighter jets and rockets. >> >> Roughly 3G. Must be hard on tires. >> >Above 1G any RWD vehicle will lift the front. 2G would be suicide. Don't fuel dragsters break 1G? This site claims 3.3: http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/misc/speed-acceleration.html and they are definitely rear-wheel drive. John
From: bill on 10 Oct 2007 10:06 On Oct 10, 10:00 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:20:28 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...(a)uniserve.com> > wrote: > > > > >"John Larkin" <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > >news:jhfog3lpkgkoemjhqc3ptu7lsfnhqoj2su(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:41 -0700, Rock Brentwood > >> <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>Toyota is coming out with a Lithium-based car in the near future. > > >>>I think the first car to ever hit 100 MPH was electric. > > >Doubtful with lead-acid cells. > > >>>There was a news segment done recently on an electric cycle, the > >>>machine gets up to 150 MPH and does 0-60 in 1 second. That's pretty > >>>violent acceleration, on par with fighter jets and rockets. > > >> Roughly 3G. Must be hard on tires. > > >Above 1G any RWD vehicle will lift the front. 2G would be suicide. > > Don't fuel dragsters break 1G? > > This site claims 3.3: > > http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/misc/speed-acceleration.html > > and they are definitely rear-wheel drive. > > John There ARE ways now I am thinking about it. dragsters have a weighted front end on a long arm and a LOW center of mass. so I stand corrected.
From: John Larkin on 10 Oct 2007 10:07 On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:48:41 -0700, bill <ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 9, 10:52 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:59:41 -0700, Rock Brentwood >> >> <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 5, 3:47 pm, "zzbun...(a)netscape.net" <zzbun...(a)netscape.net> >> >wrote: >> >> The main problem with batteries, is just simply people >> >> who don't know how to drive, or know anything about aerodynamics, >> >> Since electric starters where only even invented, orignally, >> >> for people who just can't function without automatic transmissions. >> >> >Toyota is coming out with a Lithium-based car in the near future. >> >> >I think the first car to ever hit 100 MPH was electric. >> >> >There was a news segment done recently on an electric cycle, the >> >machine gets up to 150 MPH and does 0-60 in 1 second. That's pretty >> >violent acceleration, on par with fighter jets and rockets. >> >> Roughly 3G. Must be hard on tires. >> >> John > >don 't think it can be done. that's a friction coefficient of *3* >that's just a little better than velcro!?! Dragsters exceed 3G's. They melt the tires, at which point the coupling is viscous, not frictional, so the ground contact is no longer the coupling limit. There was a rocket, the Sprint I think, that hit mach 10 in 5 seconds. The Hibex rocket hit about 400Gs. John
From: krw on 11 Oct 2007 19:27 In article <1191802916.724019.180100(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, pomerado(a)hotmail.com says... > On Oct 7, 3:23 pm, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > While its true megawatts will be direct connected at some point, the > > order of battle must take into account economies of scale as well as > > diseconomies of scale. And when that happens you find you need about > > $2 billion for your first solar panel plant to get the $0.07 per peak > > watt. At that point you need something that can throw off $2 billion > > profit today and absorb your entire output for a while. And one thing > > that does that is a coal liquefaction plant that strands coal to about > > 4 GW of coal fired capacity and and then converts the stranded coal to > > gasoline. That's what I'm doing. I don't even have to sell one solar > > panel. > > > > Once the factory is up and running, and fulfilling demand for panels > > at company owned fuel facilities, I can begin supplying direct connect > > systems where most appropriate. > > You spend too much time posting to this group to be doing anything > profitable. I wonder the same about many of the posters here. ;-) I'm about a week behind in my Usenet reading and I've cut the number of read groups back by about 3/4. This work stuff is for the birds! ;-) -- Keith
From: krw on 11 Oct 2007 19:27
In article <1191876058.378998.61730(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, bradguth(a)gmail.com says... > On Oct 8, 12:05 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:33:46 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sep 29, 2:14 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:52:25 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > >> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:28:41 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>On Sep 28, 2:46 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > > >> >>> Well I guess you could go for a rotary engine as well. Or anything you > > >> >>> wanted if you design it yourself. > > >> >>> The nice thing is, that the fuel system, is the simplest part. When a > > >> >>> bigcarcompany like GM sets out to make a conceptcar, they spend > > >> >>> millions. With HHO or whatever water system you can invent, it costs > > >> >>> little to make the thing. > > >> >>> So then you just put it in a nicecar. > > > > >> >>> These guys here send acarbuilder to your house, and help you build a > > >> >>>car, in less than 7 days,http://www.lonestarclassics.com/index.cfm > > > > >> >>> Here is a conceptcar, that someone is building from scratch as a > > >> >>> hobby.http://www.baileyspeed.com/ > > >> >>>http://www.kitcarsforum.com/b1-concept-kit-project-t8766.0.html > > > > >> >>Actually any old existingcarwill do just fine and dandy with myh2o2/ > > >> >>c12h26 IC engine. I could get a 1956 Buick or even a Ford Edsel up to > > >> >>100+ empg without hardly trying, and at zero NOx to boot. > > > > >> > "Could"? Then why don't you do it? > > > > >> He probably wants to scare up some "funding" first. ;-) > > > > >I certainly love getting my hands on just 10% of what similar R&D > > >efforts get. > > > > Have your pal Warren write you a check. > > Might have to do just that, as obviously this is all far too complex > for your pro big-energy and otherwise pro big-government head to deal > with, much less constructively contribute squat. At least Warren > Buffett knows a good future worthy investment when he sees one. Wait just a minute! Aren't you a "big energy" wannabe? Do you hate yourself too? I understand why, but am a bit surprised you admit it in public. -- Keith |