The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 8 Aug 2007 09:31 On Aug 7, 9:43 pm, Don Lancaster <d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > > It is the energy per pound not the energy per unit volume that > > matters. > > >http://www.theaircar.com/ > > Not even wrong. I've seen you use that line 3 times before. In each case it introduced an incorrect, rambling in illogical argument. Lets see how you do this time. > Energy per pound is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS for terrestrial vehicle apps. Wrong here. One of the problems with lead acid batteries in electric cars is their weight. >> Seehttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/energyfun.pdffor a detailed analysis and > explanation. > > Short form: tripling the mass density of gasoline would do jackshit for > tranaportation. Possibly lightening a vehicle by 26 pounds. > > Conversely, finding a way to contain 13 pounds of hydrogen in a 26 pound > container flat out ain't gonna happen. All of the above is nothing to do with compressed air so I wonder why you included it. > Volume density is crucial. > Mass density is useless. This is simply wrong. I guess using your "not even wrong" as an indicator that you are about to make a foolish and incorrect argument is a workable system.
From: MooseFET on 8 Aug 2007 09:39 On Aug 7, 11:30 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > Don Lancaster <d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > > > MooseFET wrote: > > > > > I think compressed air is a better way to go. > > > > Go for what? > > > > The energy density of compressed air is ludicrously low. > > > Typically one sixth of lead acid or worse. 15 wh/l is hard to acheive. > > > It is the energy per pound > > kilograms please. Pounds are used only in Myanmar (Burma), Liberia and oh yes, > the USA. They are used in the US. That is all that matters :) > > > not the energy per unit volume that matters. Others have seen that it is a > > good light way to store energy > > and get the power out quickly when needed. > > You can't say that in isolation. I didn't I said it in California. > If the volume becomes excessive (which it does > with compressed air) it's equally impractical. The new carbon fiber pressure tanks are very light and extremely strong. The amount of energy you have to store is less than enough to make even a fraction of the whole trip. The range is determined by the size of the gas tank. >And don't forget the weight of > the containment either (also a big problem - one of many - for hydrogen). > Hydrogen is a bad idea for many ideas. It tends to walk right through the walls of the tank. We have no source of it that is better than burning gas. The fuel cells are messy to manage over temperature. The whole system ends up weighing a lot. > Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2007 09:51 MooseFET wrote: > The new carbon fiber pressure tanks are very light and extremely > strong. Blah blah blah blah blah. Another stupid American Do your schools teach intentional stupidity ? Graham
From: Gary Tait on 8 Aug 2007 10:37 Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in news:W8GdnQS9I_ZqOSXbRVn_vw(a)giganews.com: > You will never see pneumatics in a bulldozer, and you will > never see hydraulics in a machine that puts CDs into CD > cases. Having worked as a design engineer for both Parker > Hydraulics and SMC Pnuematics, I don't see either of them > cutting into the other's business. > FWIW, I have seens both pnuematics and hyraulics on the same systems before. Pnuematics used for quick low power actuating (guiding product); the plumbing and controls are a bit simpler, hydraulics for the bull work; orbit motors and a hydraulic lift.
From: John Larkin on 8 Aug 2007 11:33
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:26:07 -0700, MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On Aug 7, 8:10 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:11:15 -0700, Jim Thompson >> >> >> >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:36:32 -0700, James Arthur >> ><dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>On Aug 1, 6:11 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 31, 9:38 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>> > MooseFET kensm...(a)rahul.net posted to sci.electronics.design: >> >> >>> > > 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... >> >> >><snip> >> >> >>> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >>> > Not necessarily. My first new car got about 22 mpg at 55 mph and >> >>> > about 26 mpg at 70 mph. Back then i had plenty of documentation to >> >>> > back it up. Kinda funny, 70 mph occurred right the rmp torque >> >>> > peak. It couldn't be a coincidence could it? >> >> >>> It was likely a combination of coincidence and something very wrong >> >>> with the car. 22MPG at 55MPH is a horrid milage. This is very like >> >>> the leaky fuel line case. >> >> >>FWIW, I've always gotten about 20% better than EPA-rated fuel economy, >> >>by carefully optimizing my driving. >> >> >>I had been driving 55 mph, then even 50 mph in an attempt to improve >> >>my Acura's mpg. Careful cross-country measurements show optimum fuel >> >>economy to be 41mpg, which applies from 85 down to 65 mph. Going >> >>slower reduces mpg. >> >> >>A gearhead pal offered a decent explanation of how providing the >> >>engine with optimum load and RPM by going faster makes my particular >> >>engine more efficient, making up for the windage loss... up to a >> >>point, of course. >> >> >>Cheers, >> >>James Arthur >> >> >I'm getting 19MPG at 85MPH in my Q45 ;-) >> >> > ...Jim Thompson >> >> I'm getting 18 MPG in my 5-cylinder Rabbit, driving to/from work on >> the hills of San Francisco. I average about 4000 miles per year. > >That would also be a hard environment for a non-special purpose >electric car. The very low speeds and a lot of starting on upgrades >etc would make for a low range in an electric. Since your trip is to >work and back, you can't be going far so an electric car would work >for you. We have a friend with a new Toyota hybrid, and she gets about the same mileage that I do. Hauling all those batteries up and down the hills isn't efficient. > >Far better would be to extend the cable car system. It takes a quite >low energy input per person moved. The cable cars are great fun, but they're slow and not very reliable. I think the entire system is run by a single 500 HP electric motor. > >It may be best if the Muni system was removed. From what I read in >the news, it kills more people than it takes safely to their >destination. > Some of Muni is great. It moves about 700K people per day, about equal to the population. Most downtown workers, including over half of my employees, take Muni to work. The best part is the underground Metro lines, the electric busses, and the F line, the antique streetcars on Market Street and the Embarcadero. The worst part is the diesel busses that pollute and congest. http://s2.supload.com/free/StreetCars.jpg/view/ http://s2.supload.com/free/30thStreet.jpg/view/ John |