The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Nobody on 2 Aug 2007 10:39 On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:41:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> On the highway, the engine gets connected directly to the wheels. >> This takes the sosses of the electric machines out of the picture. > > What losses ? Electric motors are highly efficient. Any motor inefficiencies are doubled (the generator likely has similar losses to the motor), and added to any losses in the power electronics (which may increase when running at full power continuously; e.g. a MOSFET's R[DS(on)] increases with temperature). >> It also allows the engine and both motors to be used for passing power. > > At the cost and complexity of requiring a transmission. I just don't see any sense in it. Mechanical transmission is what they're familiar with. Current hybrids largely try to tweak existing technology rather than starting with a clean slate.
From: Nobody on 2 Aug 2007 10:43 On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:18:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > I drove a Peugeot 1.9 turbo diesel as long ago as 1988. It was pretty brisk. Performance seem to > be less of an issue with diesels these days although they don't rev as fast. They do take a bit of getting used to. If you're used to petrol, it takes quite a while to get into the habit of changing up earlier (when your subconscious is convinced that the engine would splutter).
From: default on 2 Aug 2007 11:40 On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:34:42 +1000, "Phil Allison" <philallison(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > >"default" > >>>Is it not about time that we saw more hi spec electric cars on our >>>roads. I saw the Tesla Roadster and it outperforms a Ferarri on >>>acceleration but what of teh charging time. Can we now re-charge in >>>say 10 mins? The overnight charge is impractable unless the car is to >>>be used for short distances from home. >> >> Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles and recharge time of 12 hours. >> That is more than ample for most commutes. > > >** The Roadster has a recharge time ( from dead flat ) of 3.5 hours - >according to the makers. > >Only thing is, owners need to have a dedicated, 3 phase power outlet >available at home with a capacity of 15 kW - then it will costs about >$10 or so in electricity for a full recharge. > > >However .............. > >- just load the boot (ie trunk in the USA) with a bunch of these babies >and get it done in only 1 minute !!!!! > >http://www.dcviews.com/press/Toshiba-One-minute.htm > > >All you need is ** 3 megawatts ** capacity in the garage !!!!! > >Circa 4500 amps per phase . > > > > >....... Phil > Most of us don't have three phase outlets and it is expensive to get. The twelve hours is from a source you'd have at home. Cross country would be a problem - long extension cords and very accommodating motel owners. One alternative to a different class of electrical service might be super caps or storage batteries that could sip electricity all day long then pass it to the car in one big gulp. -- ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Eeyore on 2 Aug 2007 11:52 Nobody wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:41:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > > >> On the highway, the engine gets connected directly to the wheels. > >> This takes the sosses of the electric machines out of the picture. > > > > What losses ? Electric motors are highly efficient. > > Any motor inefficiencies are doubled (the generator likely has similar > losses to the motor), and added to any losses in the power electronics > (which may increase when running at full power continuously; e.g. > a MOSFET's R[DS(on)] increases with temperature). It seems to just argued against using any electric motors at all. > >> It also allows the engine and both motors to be used for passing power. > > > > At the cost and complexity of requiring a transmission. I just don't see any sense in it. > > Mechanical transmission is what they're familiar with. Current hybrids > largely try to tweak existing technology rather than starting with a > clean slate. Which is why the advantage they offer is so poor. Do wake up. Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Aug 2007 11:52
Nobody wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > I drove a Peugeot 1.9 turbo diesel as long ago as 1988. It was pretty brisk. Performance seem to > > be less of an issue with diesels these days although they don't rev as fast. > > They do take a bit of getting used to. If you're used to petrol, it takes > quite a while to get into the habit of changing up earlier (when your > subconscious is convinced that the engine would splutter). It took no 'getting used to' at all. Graham |