The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 11 Aug 2007 23:44 Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > RichD wrote: > >> On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure >> > > > >EVs have too many limitations. >> > >> > > > If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would >> > > > burn out >> > >> > > What about these? >> > >http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html >> > >> > Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. >> > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html >> >> Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the >> ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre. >> What are you, a greedy Republican? >> >> Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's >> why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men >> not afraid to take on the special interests, leading >> by example. > > LOL ! > > Al Gore is going to look such an idiot in a couple of years. > > Graham What? He looks like an idiot and hypocrite now! Zillions of gallons of jet fuel and thst Jumbo SUV.
From: JosephKK on 11 Aug 2007 23:46 RichD r_delaney2001(a)yahoo.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Aug 8, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote: >> > Al Gore is going to look such an idiot in a couple of years. >> >> And in that time he'll make tons of money from his >> investments in carbon-credit brokerage firms. He's not >> stupid; he's evil. > > He's a career pol, with limitless power lust, > as do they all. Does that necessarily equate > to evil? > > -- > Rich I thought limitless power lust was part of the definition of evil.
From: JosephKK on 12 Aug 2007 00:39 Richard Henry pomerado(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Aug 1, 11:01 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Richard Henry pomer...(a)hotmail.com posted to >> sci.electronics.design: >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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... >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> 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? >> >> > Documentation? >> >> > The first question would be: How did you measure it? >> >> Quite simply, miles traveled divided by fuel to top up again. >> With trip the odometer it was very easy. > > So you drove 70 mph between fillups? Pretty much, it was a sweet spot in the feel of the car at the time.
From: JosephKK on 12 Aug 2007 04:59 Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > James Arthur wrote: > >> b) Remember that measurement system you left here a few centuries >> ago? > > "a few centuries ago" > > It seems that Americans are incapable of moving on. > > Graham And you are trying to hold up the UK as an example of moving on?? How about you learn to drive on the "right" side of the road. How about you really go metric?
From: JosephKK on 12 Aug 2007 05:07
MooseFET kensmith(a)rahul.net posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Aug 8, 7:37 am, Gary Tait <classic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote >> innews: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. > > It is a question of storing energy that was at issue not of taking > it from place to place. In a car the tranfer of power is well > handled by the mechanical transmission. > > For energy storage in a hydraulic system, hydro-pneumatic > accumulators > are the most commonly used accumulators. The energy is stored by > compressing the gas in the accumulator. This is the path the US > EPA took on this: > > http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04019.pdf The elastic bag in hydro-pneumatic accumulators accounts for about half of the stored energy. Surprised me when i did the calcs. |