 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / August 2008300 kW EV Tractor vs 400 hp Diesel
The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of 200 kW. A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic IEOR calculations. Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel. Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel. In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a year, that cost will be $150,000/yr. In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars. And that's just for one field. Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas -- include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be $350,000/field in 6 years. The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself. Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. conspiracy and post there. Bret Cahill > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > 200 kW. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. > conspiracy and post there. Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about $1.60/gallon. http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming operations. It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the required farming operation. I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There are many farming operations requiring different implements at different times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others where very little needs to be (or can be) done. The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor. The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250 kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes. Then it would need to be recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes. So you would need to run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the battery pack. That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times bigger than the Tesla's. I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude reality check. Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic alternatives that will work. Paul > > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > > 200 kW. > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would > > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which > > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary > > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic > > IEOR calculations. > > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph > > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. > > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel. > > Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel. > > In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a > > year, that cost will be $150,000/yr. > > In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars. > > And that's just for one field. > > Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas -- > > include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be > > $350,000/field in 6 years. > > The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and > > even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the > > batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself. > > Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt. > > conspiracy and post there. > Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn > farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about > $1.60/gallon. > http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf > It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming > operations. My numbers were based on what a too-clever-by-half moron posted. He was claiming that there was a farm operation that it would take an hour to go half a mile for a 400 hp tractor running wide open. While that situation is probably very rare if it ever exists, even if it is common it does _not_ change the argument for battery-electric tractors. The moron was simply too stupid to figure out that the more electrical energy that the he claims the electric tractor will need, the more the diesel is going to cost to do the same operation and the stronger the argument for battery electric tractors. > It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since > then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to > spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough > methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the > required farming operation. > I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see > how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others > where very little needs to be (or can be) done. > The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor. > The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250 > kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes. About the time a 400 hp tractor running wide open will need between passes for most real life farming operations. Need 12 minutes @ 400 hp? Spend a few thousand from the EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in fuel savings to double the size of the battery pack. Need 60 minutes for the hypothetical 0.5 mph scenario? Then it's _still_ cheaper to 10X the battery pack. What am I saying? That's where the greatest savings are! > Then it would need to be > recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged > efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes. Go window shopping at the Home Depot. Makita sells an 18 volt Li Ion battery pack that recharges in 10 minutes. No one in the industry or in tech will deny that recharge times will continue to decrease. It'll be five minutes before the first prototype E tractor can be built. It'll be 2 minutes before E tractors are in full production. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. They know that the smaller the cells, the faster the charging time. Guess what they'll do? They'll make smaller cells. > So you would need to > run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the > battery pack. Just wire 4X more batteries in parallel. We're talking $150,000 in fuel savings in 2 years for _one_ square. > That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a > day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times > bigger than the Tesla's. > I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one > way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude > reality check. > Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic > alternatives that will work. There is no question that all kinds of custom tailored electric systems will appear and work for almost all farmers. There's no question the diesel thingy is over. To speed things up I've proven a much bolder claim than that: In a few short years the _least_ cost effective electric tractor system is or will soon be wildly more cost effective than any diesel in _any_ situation, _long_ before many E tractors are in production. And this is with off the shelf technology. Someone in the field should have said something before now. I've upstaged everyone so now I should be able to request what is really needed now: A tractor pull. Bret Cahill BretCahill wrote: > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > 200 kW. For short periods of time. > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) Would be a failure as a tractor. One to two hours working time followed by several hours of recharge time? The Tesla is probably more at than 8 hours of recharge time. > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would > take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour (about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW.. Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that would usually be done that slow, but there are crops I know little about, like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20 cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different machinery. Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23853730-3102,00.html Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200 acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?  SignaturePhil Hays > > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of > > 200 kW. > For short periods of time. The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a field back to the recharger. > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) > Would be a failure as a tractor. Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well. > One to two hours working time Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel. At today's prices. In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time. In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr. Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson: Everytime you start talkin' energy, I'm gonna pop you on your fanny with the diesel equivalent. You'll then need to show how the batteries are _more_ expensive. This, of course, ain't gonna happen. > followed > by several hours of recharge time? You need to get out sometime. If you cannot afford gas try cycling to the Home Depot. Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 minutes. There isn't a soul in the industry or academia who will deny that this time will drop. > The Tesla is probably more at than 8 > hours of recharge time. At the typical 10 kW household current. Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple of minutes with off the shelf technology. > > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would > > take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day. > Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour > (about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW.. I guess we can forget about paying all that money for a lot of extra batteries. Hey, wait! That's an argument _for_ battery tractors. You could knock me over with a feather! > Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that > would usually be done that slow, Hey, it might become necessary someday! There's all kinds of situations! Maybe they'll eventually try to clear Joshua Tree for farming! The sooner they do _something_ with that hideous place the better. But yea, I agree. It ain't an everyday operation. Some too-clever-by- half moron came up with that nonsense hoping it was an argument against battery tractors. It wasn't > but there are crops I know little about, > like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and > that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20 > cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different > machinery. > Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in > the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that? CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas. If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately! Bret Cahill BretCahill wrote: > Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well. Show me. Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery replacement costs and such what costs. Build a recharger, and find out what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but And don't forget: The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels. > In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr. So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run? SignaturePhil Hays > > Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel > > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well. > Show me. Buy two Teslas for $100K each then scrap them for the motors and batteries. Already you've saved money compared to the diesel, maybe even in initial cost alone! > Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery > replacement costs and such what costs. Every cost is _already_ well known and can be easily calculated by any IEOR. > Build a recharger, What next? Reinvent the wheel? > and find out > what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but > And don't forget: > The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels. And you're whining about about battery technology being unproven? ? ? ? We _know_ everything about the batteries. They already exist. We only have _claims_ for the algae. > > In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr. > So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run? Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2 mile of fire tubing. What's wrong with burning bio at a utility power plant set up to burn bio? A pizzeria is set up to make pizza. A farm is set up to cultivate fields with grid power. And a stationary power plant is set up to make power from bio. Read the _Republic_ where each person does a specific task. Bret Cahill > Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping > the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2 > mile of fire tubing. There's nowhere close to that much tubing. And all of that stuff would be burnt off at the operating temperature. You originally tried to dismiss the steam tractor with the spectre of boiler explosions, which are a non-issue for firetube boilers. When that failed, you retreated to this equally bogus argument. You don't know the facts, and try to dismiss what you don't know with hand-waving. Steam has been practical for powering tractors in the past, and with modern materials it could be even more competitive. Best of all, it is the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle, because the fuel doesn't need to burn at a precise rate under confinement. It doesn't even need to be a liquid. It could even be coal (our most abundant fuel), or wood (our most abundant renewable fuel). It's far more practical than hauling 10 tons of batteries around. It's also more efficient because it only converts chemical energy into mechanical work. The battery-powered tractor requires converting chemical energy into mechanical work (at the power plant), converting mechanical work into electricity (at the power plant), transmission line losses, converting electricity into chemical energy (charging the tractor's battery), converting chemical energy into electricity (discharging the battery), and converting electricity into mechanical work. You lose energy at every conversion step. Game over. Not practical. > > Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping > > the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2 > > mile of fire tubing. > There's nowhere close to that much tubing. Then it ain't 400 hp. > And all of that stuff would be burnt off > at the operating temperature. That's a pipe dream. . . . > It's far more practical than hauling 10 tons > of batteries around. That's the point of the trolly wire. The size of the battery can be reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass. A Tesla equivalent battery will work in most applications, very light for a tractor. The capital cost would in the long run be even lower. > It's also more efficient > because it only converts chemical energy into > mechanical work. � Not nearly as efficient as a real power plant burning bio. Bret Cahill > That's the point of the trolly wire. The size of the battery can be > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass. Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no wider than 440 feet. Is that a reasonable assumption ? If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ? Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need). Rob > > That's the point of the trolly wire. �The size of the battery can be > > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, > > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass. > Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, Some moron put the 0.5 mph figure. According to some government or industry site posted here, for almost all operations, the tractor is moving 6 - 10 mph. > and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no > wider than 440 feet. > Is that a reasonable assumption ? > If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ? > > Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need). The cheapest system is a 1/2 mile long wire and a Tesla sized battery. Bret Cahill > > That's the point of the trolly wire. �The size of the battery can be > > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, > > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass. > Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no > wider than 440 feet. > Is that a reasonable assumption ? No. As one poster citing government and industry material pointed out, tractors generally go much faster. > If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ? Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire? > Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need). Losses aren't an issue. Bret Cahill .. > > If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ? > > Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire? More like two winches with 1 mile wire each (connected in series). One winch unrolls along the side of the field, The other unrolls over the field towards the tractor. Just need a system to make sure the field wire stays high above the tractor (so it does not accidentally get cut). > > Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need). > > Losses aren't an issue. As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) 11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles of cable. Rob > As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) 11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles of > cable. You're thinking of using 11kV flexible cable (what happens to 'erosion' of the insulation btw ?) miles long in junction with agricultural equipment designed to cut through anything like that. You're certifiably mad. Graham >> As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) 11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles >> of >> cable. > > You're thinking of using 11kV flexible cable (what happens to 'erosion' of the insulation btw ?) miles long in junction with > agricultural equipment designed to cut through anything like that. Yes. > You're certifiably mad. Hardly ever mad. Crazy sometimes, but only for fun. Flexible high-voltage cables.... Do you want me to select one for you from a catalog ? http://www.thomasnet.com/products/cable-assemblies-coaxial-high-voltage-9634304- 1.html > Graham > > Rob Dekker wrote: > > > >> As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) > >>11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles > >> of cable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Do you want me to select one for you from a catalog ? > http://www.thomasnet.com/products/cable-assemblies-coaxial-high-voltage-9634304- 1.html In ardous duty rough terrain whilst being regularly flexed ? I suggest you look up the specs. Hey, I'll give you 'neat idea' tick bit I cannot for the life of me ever see it being engineeringly practical (not to mention killing thousands of farm workers every year too). Graham > Hey, I'll give you 'neat idea' tick bit I cannot for the life of me ever see it being engineeringly practical (not to mention killing > thousands of farm workers every year too). something much worse. Ever been down an underground mine with electrically operated shuttle cars. ""Make sure that when ever you have to cross a shuttle car cable that you step onto the cable and not over it" Why? "You don't want to know" >Losses aren't an issue. --- So, you don't know anything about electrical power distribution either? Buffoon, losses are_always_ an issue. Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages to move electricity around? JF > >Losses aren't an issue. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages > to move electricity around? It's just for fun isn't it John ? Those HV guys love having a giggle. ;~) Graham > >Losses aren't an issue. . . . > Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages > to move electricity around? Because they are long haul, over a hundred miles in many cases. The quarter square tractor trolly line only needs to go half a mile. Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? Bret Cahill >> >Losses aren't an issue. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Because they are long haul, over a hundred miles in many cases. The >quarter square tractor trolly line only needs to go half a mile. Half a mile from where? An electrical outlet conveniently located in the middle of 800 acres of corn field? >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? Please refresh us on your background in electrical engineering, and in farming. John > Losses aren't an issue. I just love the stuff you come up with ! Graham On 7/25/08 10:18 AM, in article 488A0AD7.E569296@hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Losses aren't an issue. > > I just love the stuff you come up with ! > > Graham I'd like to know what he thinks losses are. > On 7/25/08 10:18 AM, in article 488A0AD7.E569296@hotmail.com, "Eeyore" > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'd like to know what he thinks losses are. Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For something like 90 HP, or 66 kW, a three phase 480 VAC supply at 80 amps per phase could use #2 portable cordage. A 250 foot length is $14.49/ft, so you are looking at a capital outlay of $3600 to allow the tractor to traverse a circular field of 200,000 square feet, or about 5 acres. It would need to be stowed on the tractor on a reel, and supported to its central connection point on a pivot arm. This #2 cable has a resistance of 156 uOhms per foot, so at 80 amps it will drop 3.12 volts out of 277, or roughly 1% loss. Even a 1000 ft cable would still have acceptable losses, compared to efficiency of the electric motor and distribution transformer at the central supply point. For higher HP ratings, multiple cables could be used, but I think a 90 HP electric tractor is probably equivalent to a a 150 HP diesel, and you just need to look at actual needs of torque and speed, which determine the HP required. There will probably be more losses with a hybrid system that uses 8000 batteries or the equivalent in battery packs. A mostly grid-powered system is feasible using current technology, and should reap almost immediate cost savings, or ROI within a few years. But every objection to a proposed improvement is just an engineering challenge that promotes thought and new ideas that can be shown to address the problems and provide a workable solution. Almost every new technology seems to be impractical or awkward in its infancy, but innovation prevails, and changing economic realities make the future a different place. Yet I can see that much of this discussion has degraded to a battle among several narrow-minded viewpoints, and that will serve no useful purpose. Paul Paul > Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered > system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For > something like 90 HP, or 66 kW, a three phase 480 VAC supply at 80 amps per > phase could use #2 portable cordage. OK, but how long will that cable last being dragged around a field with sharp stones, even if one of the tractor attachments doesn't sever it just for good measure ? Arken Sparken time ! Sorry, but it sounds like one of the most utterly insane ideas ever from basic principles. Graham >> Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered >> system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stones, even if one of the tractor attachments doesn't sever it just for good > measure ? Arken Sparken time ! Yes. That would be crazy. > Sorry, but it sounds like one of the most utterly insane ideas ever from basic > principles. Basic principles ? > Graham >>> Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well engineered >>> system might be rather efficient even using "low voltage" cable. For [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Basic principles ? --- Sticks and stones may break my ohms... JF >>>> Losses are always part of the equation, but a reasonably well >>>> engineered [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > --- > Sticks and stones may break my ohms... But words never Hertz me... The cable needs to be rolled and unrolled on the center pivot beam, so it never even touches the ground. The tractor can support part of the beam and can pivot at various angles so it can traverse the field with some freedom of motion, but its best path will be concentric circles. It will be some tricky engineering to allow the tractor to pass the other support/drive wheels for the beam, but challenges like that are what make engineering fun. Paul > "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > wheels for the beam, but challenges like that are what make engineering > fun. Sharp intake of breath. But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable require ? And concentric circles IS NOT how farmers like to work fields for what I hope are obvious reasons. How about the getting into the 'corners' ? Graham > But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable require Stuff would already exist in the mining industry. The farmer would just need a crane to connect and disconnect it. It is the rotating multipole connector that has me intrigued > ? And concentric circles IS NOT how farmers like to work fields for what I hope > are obvious reasons. How about the getting into the 'corners' ? He is avoiding all those problems by talking about mythical flat land where you do not have corners in irrigation bays, etc. > > But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable require > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He is avoiding all those problems by talking about mythical flat land > where you do not have corners in irrigation bays, etc. Guys, show a little bit of imagination and engineering inginuity please. After all, we wanted to get rid of the battery idea (gaining efficiency, and most of all difficult recharges). The cable can be suspended far over ground close to the tractor (away from the moving parts), maybe even all the way across the field using a system of overhead arms or small computer-controlled robot 'cable-suspension' cars. A rotating multipole connecter should not be needed : a 1/2 mile cable can handle a few 180's. Also, the time is here that plowing (or seeding or so) no nonger needs a human on the tractor. Much is being computerized, running the tractor on pre-programmed patterns using GPS and such, so that effiency is maximized. Even work at night is then possiible (which also reduces the machinery deficit that seems to plague harvest time). So, you can simply program the pattern so that 'twisting' the wire is not an issue. Rob > > > But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable > require [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > A rotating multipole connecter should not be needed : a 1/2 mile cable can > handle a few 180's. Even high tension towers are only spaced 1/4 mile apart. I use them to triangulate my distance cycling. On a battery basis, 1/2 a mile is a short distance. On a cable basis it's a long distance. > Also, the time is here that plowing (or seeding or so) no nonger needs a > human on the tractor. Much is being computerized, running the tractor on > pre-programmed patterns using GPS and such, so that effiency is maximized. > Even work at night is then possiible (which also reduces the machinery > deficit that seems to plague harvest time). So, you can simply program the > pattern so that 'twisting' the wire is not an issue. The fastest cheapest easiest _prototype_ to get your foot into the door would be the battery-trolly line. If a cheap battery didn't appear in time, then the system would be abandoned at the state U's extension research farm. After that then maybe it will be possible to talk farmers into screwing around with a lot of wires and Rube Goldberg kinematics. Bret Cahill >> > But not always possible. I mean what grade of sheath wouls such a cable > require [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Guys, show a little bit of imagination and engineering inginuity please. The problem here is far too much imagination and far too little perspiration. If you want people with the ability to provide the perspiration, then you need to show a) that you are willing to listen b) you have enough education to justify people making the effort of pointing out the flaws. > The cable can be suspended far over ground close to the tractor (away Oh look, magical sky hooks. When I was young, fit and stupid and could lift 20' of 2' greentree trunks, I struggled to lift the electrical power cable for a continous miner to waist height. It was typically a job for three strong men. Do you begin to comprehend why those of us with a clue are ROTFL? > A rotating multipole connecter should not be needed : a 1/2 mile cable > can handle a few 180's. Lol. damm, snipped the "software solution to a techncal problem". That attitude is what is fscking linux. > > Sticks and stones may break my ohms... > > But words never Hertz me... We need an archive of great quotes for such gems. Graham > The cable needs to be rolled and unrolled on the center pivot beam, so it > never even touches the ground. Strip mine excavators roll a 6" thick insulated cable on the ground from a spool mounted on the excavator. The excavator moves very slowly and only makes one pass or so over the ground, however. > The tractor can support part of the beam and > can pivot at various angles so it can traverse the field with some freedom > of motion, but its best path will be concentric circles. It will be some > tricky engineering to allow the tractor to pass the other support/drive > wheels for the beam, but challenges like that are what make engineering > fun. The fastest cheapest easiest _prototype_ to get your foot into the door would be the battery-trolly line. If a cheap battery didn't appear in time, then the system would be abandoned at the state U's extension research farm. After that then maybe it will be possible to talk farmers into screwing around with a lot of wires and Rube Goldberg kinematics. Bret Cahill On 7/25/08 12:44 PM, in article 488a2d8e$0$19691$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net, >> On 7/25/08 10:18 AM, in article 488A0AD7.E569296@hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> I'd like to know what he thinks losses are. (snip) Should I assume you posting to tell me what HIS concept of losses is? > >>> Losses aren't an issue. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > seems to be impractical or awkward in its infancy, but innovation prevails, > and changing economic realities make the future a different place. Well we know oil is spiraling and we know and PV is going down in cost. We also know that batteries are continually improving. If not now then well before the first prototype electric field tractor ever appears it will _already_ be cost effective in most regions. Having a source of power that is always very close to a moving electric motor means even low power density storage devices such as compressed air, flywheels or capacitors might be considered within reach. This is the real advantage of electric tractors over hybrid road vehicles. > Yet I can see that much of this discussion has degraded to a battle among > several narrow-minded viewpoints, and that will serve no useful purpose. The real problems to be solved are either identical to the hybrid or EV, i. e., cheap good battery, a materials problem, or unique to argicultural operations, i. e., electric power is always within a relatively short distance of the tractor or some combination those two. Everything else is white noise. Bret Cahill >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Losses aren't an issue. --- Ah, you finally took enough rope... :-) JF >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Losses aren't an issue. --- Really? Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%. That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be: Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73% One horsepower is equal to 746 watts, so our 400HP converts to: 746W * HP 746W * 400HP P = ----------- = -------------- = 298 400W ~ 300 000 watts, HP HP which is 300 kilowatts. Now, since the efficiency is running at 73% we'll need to put in: Pout 300kW Pin = ------ = ------- ~ 411 kilowatts, E 0.73 which means we've wasted 111 kilowatts to get 300. But wait... It gets worse. Let's say the battery charger is 90% efficient and the transformer feeding it from the HV transmission lines is also 90% efficient. as before: Et = E1E2 = 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81 = 81%, so to get 411 kilowatts out of the charger we have to put: Pout 411kW Pin = ------ = ------- ~ 507 kilowatts E 0.81 into the transformer primary. Using the 17kV lines someone earlier posted were standard, the current in the primary and the HV lines will be: P 5.07E5W I = --- = --------- = 29.82A ~ 30A E 1.7E4V Now, just for grins, let's say that the battery charges for a minute and that on that charge the tractor runs for six minutes (your numbers, as I recall) and then recharges and discharges again, ad infinitum. Under that kind of duty cycle the current on the HV side will have to increase by a factor of six in order to fully charge the battery in the tome allotted. That means that the primary current must rise to: Ip = 30A * 6 = 180 amperes. Here's the best part... Let's say that we have 10 miles of #0 AWG wire strung from the substation to our transformer. #0 AWG wire has a resistance of about 0.52 ohms per mile, so that 10 mile stretch will have a resistance of: R * Dt 0.52R * 20mi Rt = -------- = -------------- = 10.4 ohms, D 1mi will drop: E = IR = 180A * 10.4R = 1872 volts, and will dissipate: P = IE = 18A * 1872V = 33 696W ~ 33.7kW. Our total losses, then will be P = Pin - Pout = (507kW + 33.7kW) - 300kW = 240.7kW ~ 241kW So, for 300kW out we've had to put in 541kW, which is an efficiency of: Pout *100 3E5W * 100 E = ----------- = ----------- ~ 55.5% Pin 5.41E5W Which translates into that for every dollar you're paying for energy you're throwing away about 45 cents. Losses aren't an issue, huh? JF > >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be > >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > � � �Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73% Not that your numbers are any good -- electric motors are 95% efficient and don't need to "idle" at the end of the field for 15 minutes while the farmer gets ready for the next pass -- but what is the conclusion when the cost of diesel goes up 30% a year, more than enough to wipe out the 27% loss? Are you suggesting we should wait another year before designing the system? Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? Bret Cahill >> >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be >> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >the conclusion when the cost of diesel goes up 30% a year, more than >enough to wipe out the 27% loss? --- I've given you the method which will allow you to figure it out for yourself, so plug your numbers into it and figure it out and stop asking stupid questions. Plus, you have no idea where diesel will go or if it'll be replaced by other liquid fuels, so all you're doing is pissing in the wind, pretending to know what you're talking about. --- >Are you suggesting we should wait another year before designing the >system? --- I'm suggesting nothing but that your system is flawed. --- >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? --- Hmm... That's not much of a mantra. JF > >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be > >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > � � �Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73% Why doesn't this apply to hybrid road motor vehicles? You keep dodging that issue and you expect to get better results. If you are incapable of reasoning and facing the reality that hybrids exist, then all the "calculations" in the world are useless. You were doing just as good using the word "huge." Are you just acting stupid or are you really this dumb in real life? Bret Cahill >> >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be >> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Why doesn't this apply to hybrid road motor vehicles? --- What makes you think it doesn't? --- >You keep dodging that issue and you expect to get better results. --- LOL, I'm not the one who keeps changing the subject. --- >If you are incapable of reasoning and facing the reality that hybrids >exist, then all the "calculations" in the world are useless. --- What makes you think that I think that hybrids don't exist? --- >You were doing just as good using the word "huge." --- Just as _well_, and the way I used it was appropriate in the context in which it was being used. You, of course railed against it just to buy some time and to throw a little more sh.t into the game. --- >Are you just acting stupid or are you really this dumb in real life? --- Neither, of course, which escapes you because you're obviously afflicted with the latter. JF > So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run? Plant alternate rows with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_antisyphilitica and the steam tractor could harvest its fuel as it performs its function. Candelilla burns quite well because of its high wax content. In Mexico, peasants harvest wild candelilla and boil it to extract the wax. The leftover stalks are then burnt as fuel for boiling more candelilla. >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 >minutes. --- So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field? I think even you can figure out the answer to that one, LOL! --- >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 >> hours of recharge time. > >At the typical 10 kW household current. --- 10kW is power, not current. --- >Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple >of minutes with off the shelf technology. --- Woulda, coulda, shoulda... Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.) JF > >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 > >minutes. > So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is > acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field? Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour day to go through customs at the border. Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the field instead? After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator. Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page -- anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue to drop. . . . > >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 > >> hours of recharge time. > >At the typical 10 kW household current. > 10kW is power, not current. Who suggested it was? Anyway you dodged the issue. The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or farm application. > >Out in a field the 1 MW �line would charge up the tractor in a couple > >of minutes with off the shelf technology. > Woulda, coulda, shoulda... > Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.) Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive. Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? Bret Cahill >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 >> >minutes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a >12 hour day to go through customs at the border. --- That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck, and isn't the point, the point being that if 5 hours loss of productivity is due to having to wait for batteries to charge up, Then the cost per hour for the machine gets to be about 1.7 times what it would be if it were running continuously. --- >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the >field instead? --- Why not just admit that your pipe dream is fatally flawed and stop trying to wriggle off the hook? You're well and firmly hooked you know, and so does everybody else, --- >After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two >years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator. --- Yeah, if your scheme was viable, but it isn't. --- >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page -- >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue >to drop. --- Meaningless prattle since there's no doubt that charging times will drop if demand so dictates. The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires huge currents. That makes your device impractical. --- >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 >> >> hours of recharge time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Who suggested it was? ^ --- | Short attention span? You did----- --- >Anyway you dodged the issue. --- What issue? --- >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or >farm application. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive. --- Apples and oranges. --- >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? --- Neither. You, however, seem to get yourself into these little messes where you have to squirm and slide in order to try to slime yourself out of them. Kind of like watching someone who's been sh.tting into a cesspool for years falling in and realizing there's no ladder. JF > >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 > >> >minutes. > >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is > >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field? > >Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a > >12 hour day to go through customs at the border. > That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck, Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time. . . . > >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the > >field instead? > Why not just admit that That you are dodgin' 'n dodgin'? OK, now that you twisted my are, I admit it. You are dodgin' 'n dodgin'. . . . > >After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two > >years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator. > Yeah, if your scheme was viable, Is there any reason to believe it isn't? . . . > >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page -- > >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue > >to drop. . . . > there's no doubt that charging times will > drop if demand so dictates. Then we'll need to start building prototypes as soon as possible to accomodate the new batteries. > The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to > charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires > huge currents. � "Huge?" Science has been quantitative since Galileo Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric locomotive. . . . > >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 > >> >> hours of recharge time. > >> >At the typical 10 kW household current. . . . > >Anyway you dodged the issue. > What issue? The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or farm application. > >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or > >farm application. Notice the dodge? > >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple > >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology. > >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda... > >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.) > >Never heard of electrified rail? �Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp > >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive. > Apples and oranges. Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference? > >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? > Neither. Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you were wrong. Bret Cahill Bret, You know that I appreciate your input in this newsgroup, but there is something that I think you should take to heart : You postulate an idea here on sci.energy, with the (probable) reason to get comments and feedback from fellow newsgroup visitors. When these people give you feedback or stipulate possible inefficiencies and problems with your idea, there is no need to attempt to prove them wrong or offend them if they simply slightly disagree with your exact thought process. In fact, it starts to look like you simply are looking for conflict, which eventually destroys some of the good parts in your ideas. If you cannot handle any criticism at all, maybe it is better if you just start a company that implements your idea, rather than bother sci.energy visitors with it. Then you can prove everyone wrong. Rob The Russians use some conflict oriented approach to problem solving but that's generally not my first choice. I welcome critical feedback for several reasons: 1. I'm better prepared when I approach someone who might be interested in actually doing something. Often you only get one chance. 2. I often overlook real concerns that can be corrected. 3. Others can often help me work around my concerns, i. e., your mentioning the high cycling battery. 4. I don't suffer from an idea block so there's no reason for me to persue something that won't work. But when the responses are utterly useless as feedback, i. e., a huge current or battery is impossible or a loose wire could be a danger to life and limb, and, even worse, the disreputable issue dodging -- I have yet to get any reasoning on how the grid-battery tractor would be fundamentally different than the Volt or any other series hybrid or EV -- then there's no reason not to call a spade a spade. The reality is there is no polite response to the suggestion that furrows cannot be circular. Everyone in every industrial country with photo magazines knows about terraced agriculture or contour plowing because of their appeal to photographers. How dumb does a poster have to be to _not_ understand that the curved furrows could continue to curve into a circle? In those cases you just call the moron a moron. Eventually I get bored with the white noise but as a populist I must at least initially encourage everyone to participate. Bret Cahill On 7/25/08 9:35 AM, in article e7aba415-7d84-4f0a-985c-79fd99f99b85@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: > The Russians use some conflict oriented approach to problem solving > but that's generally not my first choice. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 4. I don't suffer from an idea block so there's no reason for me to > persue something that won't work. Do you mean to say "pursue" or "peruse" or something different? > But when the responses are utterly useless as feedback, i. e., a huge > current or battery is impossible or a loose wire could be a danger to > life and limb, and, even worse, the disreputable issue dodging -- I > have yet to get any reasoning on how the grid-battery tractor would be > fundamentally different than the Volt or any other series hybrid or EV > -- then there's no reason not to call a spade a spade. Actually, several people have commented correctly on battery issues of importance, which you choose to naysay. You would have people believe you are very intelligent, but you aren't; you're narrow minded, refusing to do any real study/research. From these threads and others I researched, I perceive you to view yourself as an "idea man." I see much flim flam in your actions. > The reality is there is no polite response to the suggestion that > furrows cannot be circular. Everyone in every industrial country with > photo magazines knows about terraced agriculture or contour plowing > because of their appeal to photographers. How dumb does a poster have > to be to _not_ understand that the curved furrows could continue to > curve into a circle? I doubt anyone would fail to see it, but you created a "you vs. them" issue of it anyhow. Typical flim flam. The *real* question, the one you don't like, is - Is it practical to farm in circles even when fields are extremely large rectangles. With no research you have answered "yes," because a "no" answer could be anathema to your project. I imagine a farmer working his fields, including some hilly ridges, even plowed a few circles. Some farmers are artistic and enjoy a bit of fun, and have been known to create some clever patterns. And none of this has anything to do with supporting your plans for circular fields. Do it or don't but this still isn't the newsgroup to argue the non-issue. > In those cases you just call the moron a moron. Ok. Your a moron. Feel better now? > Eventually I get bored with the white noise but as a populist I must > at least initially encourage everyone to participate. It has been obvious that you think yourself to be above the "common folk." Adopting the populist title certifies it. What is also clear is that you do not wish to do any of your own study of the elements involved in your Grand Plan, so you blunder along hoping everything will fall into place. It rarely works. > Bret Cahill >> >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 >> >> >minutes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time. --- If all that results in a net gain for the farmer, then it's hardly wasted. --- >> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the >> >field instead? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You are dodgin' 'n dodgin'. --- Seems to me that you're the one doing all the clipping so you don't have to deal with the issue then inserting some inane comment in order to muddy the water. --- >> >After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two >> >years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator. > >> Yeah, if your scheme was viable, > >Is there any reason to believe it isn't? --- Many, as I've pointed out earlier, and more than once. --- >> >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page -- >> >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Then we'll need to start building prototypes as soon as possible to >accomodate the new batteries. --- "We"???? If you're so sure it'll work get off your lazy a.s and do it. --- >> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to >> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires >> huge currents. ? > >"Huge?" --- Yes, and the more quickly you want to charge the battery the larger that current becomes. --- >Science has been quantitative since Galileo --- Red herring --- >Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric >locomotive. --- Ignoratio elenchi --- >. . . > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Notice the dodge? --- Yes. you refused to address the issue, which was that you don't know the difference between current and power, and changed the subject in order to divert, --- >> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple >> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference? --- It's Ignoratio elenchi --- >> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? > >> Neither. > >Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you >were wrong. --- You can't even refute the arguments I made, mathematically, which proved the folly of your position, nor can you refute, logically, any statements I've made, so you resort to your little bob and weave routine in order to attempt to impugn my veracity. I think most everyone is on to you and your chicanery by now, but carry on if you must, chimps can often be entertaining. JF > >> >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 > >> >> >minutes. > >> >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is > >> >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field? > >> >Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a > >> >12 hour day to go through customs at the border. > >> That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck, > >Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time. > If all that results in a net gain for the farmer, then it's hardly > wasted. So you are now arguing _for_ farm electrification? > >> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the > >> >field instead? > >> Why not just admit that Still dodging? Here, we'll try again: Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the field instead? > >> >After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two > >> >years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator. . . . > >> >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page -- > >> >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue > >> >to drop. > >. . . > >> there's no doubt that charging times will > >> drop if demand so dictates. Then what was all the whining about wasting time recharging out in the field? . . . > >> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to > >> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires > >> huge currents. ? > >"Huge?" > Yes, and the more quickly you want to charge the battery the larger > that current becomes. That's your "mathematical" argument? It's "huge?" > >Science has been quantitative since Galileo > Red herring You don't even know what "quantitative" means. Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? > >Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric > >locomotive. > Ignoratio elenchi Here, we'll try again. Those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric locomotive. This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'. . . . > >> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 > >> >> >> hours of recharge time. > > >> >> >At the typical 10 kW household current. > >. . . > >> >Anyway you dodged the issue. > >> What issue? > >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or > >farm application. Notice the dodge? Here we'll try again: The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or farm application. > >> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or > >> >farm application. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- > Yes. you refused to address the issue, The issue was the Tesla charger is for household wiring. You tried to dodge it. . . . > >> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple > >> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology. > >> >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda... > >> >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.) > >> >Never heard of electrified rail? ?Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp > >> >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive. > >> Apples and oranges. > >Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference? Notice the dodge? Here we'll try again: Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference? > --- > It's Ignoratio elenchi > >> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? > >> Neither. > >Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you > >were wrong. > You can't even refute the arguments I made, mathematically, A "huge" current is a mathematical argument? Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? Bret Cahill On 7/25/08 10:06 AM, in article db4fae41-e50a-4396-9693-6df62596f314@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com, "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: (snip) >>> Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric >>> locomotive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'. Same back to you...... No dodging. You raised the electric locomotive variable, so tell us: When that (diesel) electric locomotive is towing a train, how many horsepower is it generating? And tell us how many cars are in the train, and is it on the flat or is there some grade. Then we can consider the 1/30th as HP > . . . > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>>>>> Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple >>>>>>> of minutes with off the shelf technology. Only specifics are useable. What is the charging voltage AND current. Is the charge taking place via a cable or by the Tesla (inductive coupled) charger? (snip) >> >> >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10 >> >> >> >minutes. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >So you are now arguing _for_ farm electrification? --- Nope, I'm saying that your argument is specious. --- >> >> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the >> >> >field instead? > >> >> Why not just admit that > >Still dodging? --- Never have been; are you still trying to obfuscate the issue by clipping? --- >Here, we'll try again: > >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the >field instead? --- You really are thick, aren't you? You don't save money by having the tractor idle while the battery's charging, you're still paying for the tractor, the fuel that's being used while the battery's being charged, the operator's salary, and the loss of revenue from whatever work that should have been done but wasn't because the battery was being charged. --- >> >> there's no doubt that charging times will >> >> drop if demand so dictates. > >Then what was all the whining about wasting time recharging out in the >field? --- ISTM that you're the one who's doing the whining; I just stated a fact which is pertinent at the present time, not one which will have any consequence when superconducting batteries will be able to charge instantaneously at infinite current. --- >> >> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to >> >> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That's your "mathematical" argument? --- Nope the argument I'm referring to, (as you're well aware, you phony) was the one where I showed you that current required to charge a battery to C varies inversely with the charge time, and then some. --- >It's "huge?" --- Sure. --- >> >Science has been quantitative since Galileo > >> Red herring > >You don't even know what "quantitative" means. --- Sure I do. --- >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Here, we'll try again. Those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an >electric locomotive. --- Really? At what current and voltage do externally powered locomotives run? --- >> >> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8 >> >> >> >> hours of recharge time. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >You tried to dodge it. --- On the contrary, I replied that it doesn't make any difference because in order to charge a battery you still have to fill it up with electrons, (you know, those teeny little bits that whiz around the nucleus of an atom) and if you want to fill it up twice as fast you have to use twice the current. Or words to that effect, anyway. Now you may have been thinking I was trying to dodge the issue because you couldn't understand what I was talking about, but then that's a failing on your end, not mine, wouldn't you agree? --- >> >> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple >> >> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Notice the dodge? --- Yes, you dodged by not even attempting to refute my irrefutable "apples and oranges" critique but by changing the subject. --- >Here we'll try again: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >A "huge" current is a mathematical argument? --- It can be, if "huge" is quantified and used in an expression, but you know very well, you phony, that wasn't the context in which it was used. --- >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life? --- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tawdry JF On 7/23/08 9:57 PM, in article 0ca72681-b687-47b9-9ff2-a5dd20e3de0b@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com, > CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas. > > If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately! > > Bret Cahill IMO You have been less than ethical in your posts. Why would anyone care if CBS beat you to something/ This thread is about electric v diesel tractors. If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread. Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well. Bret Cahill On 7/24/08 11:57 AM, in article 630f9eaa-b166-4df4-8174-57faad6fa78e@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com, > This thread is about electric v diesel tractors. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bret Cahill Take your topic to an appropriate newsgroup and quit spamming this one with your nonsense. It appears to me from a brief search that this trashing is something you do often. > > This thread is about electric v diesel tractors. > > If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret > > Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread. > > Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well. > Take your topic to an appropriate newsgroup That explains why you can't do basic electronics calculations. Bret Cahill >> > This thread is about electric v diesel tractors. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That explains why you can't do basic electronics calculations. --- Non-sequitur and, LOL, PKB? JF >This thread is about electric v diesel tractors. > >If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret >Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread. --- If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors and you object to off-topic posting, like why another thread should be started if it's about your posting style, then you should have started another thread in which to post that comment. --- >Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well. --- Since you can't seem to find your own a.s with both hands, I don't see why anyone would consider that much of a danger. Also... |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message