 |
 | 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 / July 2009Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power Plant In 14 Months
A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW mechanical energy/mile/lane. Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon: $2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) = $385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel. If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power plant/mile is $8 million. In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years. If you don't want to be a complete moron and assume crazy nonsense then assume the price of fuel will be $5/ gallon before anyone even has time to spread sheet the matter. Then the system pays for the power plant in 14 months. Before anyone even has time to set up a demo project the price of fuel will be $10/gallon and electrification will pay for the power plants in 7 months. But spread sheeting isn't necessary to compare costs because we know the cost of doing nothing is infinite. Inaction ain't an option. Bret Cahill On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > $385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel. You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long? > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > plant/mile is $8 million. > > In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the > capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years. What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.  SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it > sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete. Complete hell, it hasn't even started. Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't work which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is controlled. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:15:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is > controlled. You could probably do something with induction coils. Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will buy some innovation. SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:15:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You could probably do something with induction coils. Even more expensive, lossy, and would never get past the NIMBY's for general use. > Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more > efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will > buy some innovation. True, but electrical power has two very large problems for moving things that can't be ignored: It doesn't store well. It doesn't transport well absent wires. The only sort of electric transportation that works in the real world exposed to the elements is overhead wires. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't work > >> which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is > >> controlled. > > You could probably do something with induction coils. > Even more expensive, lossy, You know the efficiency of resonance indunction? > and would never get past the NIMBY's for general > use. Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields? > > Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more > > efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will > > buy some innovation. > > True, but electrical power has two very large problems for moving things > that can't be ignored: > It doesn't store well. Which is the _whole point_ of powering directly from the grid. > It doesn't transport well absent wires. OK, ok, now that you've twisted our arms (ouch), we'll use wires. > The only sort of electric transportation that works in the real world > exposed to the elements is overhead wires. OK, ok. We'll use overhead wires everywhere except maybe the desert. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't work >> >> which is why they are only used in situations where the environment is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You know the efficiency of resonance indunction? Yep, and for a system such as this, you are going to lose a LOT. Which, of course, has nothing to do with how outrageously expensive such a scheme would be. >> and would never get past the NIMBY's for general >> use. > > Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields? Yep. Just like there are a lot of wackos out there who think they can arm wave and a new transportation system will magically appear. >> > Electricity is cheap compared to gasoline, and electric motors are more >> > efficient than gasoline engines. In the world of trade offs, that will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > OK, ok. We'll use overhead wires everywhere except maybe the desert. OK, now that you have a base idea that isn't arm waving fantasy, estimate what it would cost to implement. And, BTW, it rains and snows in the desert, just not as much as other places. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> Are there a lot of wackos out there who fear B fields? > >Yep. There are a lot of whackos out there that believe in the tales of Tesla and don't believe in 1/r^2. Cahill is one of the leading loons. [snip] > You could probably do something with induction coils. Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do in order to get any useful amount of power into the vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be? Socks > [snip] >> You could probably do something with induction coils. > > Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long induction coils would > cost? Or what you'd have to do in order to get any useful amount of > power into the vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be? Socks Well, yes, that is what the nay sayers commonly say to piss on the idea. Toyota is looking at the concept, however. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1431/ SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. > > You could probably do something with induction coils. > > Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long > induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do > in order to get any useful amount of power into the > vehicle? Or what the loss to the coils would be? We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to recharge a bus). As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there is no danger to pedestrians. When yer talking trillion of dollars GUSHING out of the U. S. every year for oil it might be wise to think about doing a little spread sheeting. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to > recharge a bus). In your dreams. > As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there > is no danger to pedestrians. Urban area is where all the pedestrians are, that's one of the reasons they are called "urban". > When yer talking trillion of dollars GUSHING out of the U. S. every > year for oil it might be wise to think about doing a little spread > sheeting. Hysterical nonsense. Rational planning solves problems, not arm waving "spread sheeting". SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. > >> Um, what? Do you have any clue what many-km-long > >> induction coils would cost? Or what you'd have to do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In your dreams. If you are going to try to pretend you know something about technology it would behoove you to at least google the terms before you post. It's already clear you are incapable of the most rudimentary of calculations. A dunce on sci.electronics.basics, Terrel I believe, allowed himself to be set up like that 6 months ago. And then I pulled the plug. More than a few have been sitting around watching, waiting for me to pull the plug _again_ a _second_ time. > > As for the cost, it might best be limited to urban traffic where there > > is no danger to pedestrians. > Urban area is where all the pedestrians are, Which is why you use something safe like induction. > that's one of the reasons > they are called "urban". Yup, a dunce. Now get on Wiki and look up resonance inductive power transmission. And don't come back until you can tell us what the efficiency is. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you are going to try to pretend you know something about technology > it would behoove you to at least google the terms before you post. Some people get their education from sources other than Google. This was covered in engineering classes over 30 years ago. There is no magic to resonant induction. The implementation costs would be astronomical, the losses are still high, and the NIMBY's would be all over it. <snip remaining babble> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > >> In your dreams. > > If you are going to try to pretend you know something about technology > > it would behoove you to at least google the terms before you post. > Some people get their education from sources other than Google. Apparently your elementary school education didn't include the efficiency of resonant induction. > This was covered in engineering classes over 30 years ago. Then why didn't you cover the efficiency above? > There is no magic to resonant induction. But there is an efficiency. And you were too ignorant to know what it was. > The implementation costs would be astronomical, Again, where does "astronomical" appear in a spreadsheet? > the losses are still > high, Even 30% efficiency is cost competitive with batteries. > and the NIMBY's would be all over it. Not everyone is ignorant of the safety of inductive power transfer Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> > We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to >> >> > recharge a bus). 75% at less than a 100 W load a few feet away with non-moving coils. > Apparently your elementary school education didn't include the > efficiency of resonant induction. No, but the University education did. Most of what I've seen on the 'net about resonant induction is babbling nonsense from drooling Tesla kooks that seem to think that just because a transformer is resonant, it has some magical qualities that allow it to operate in violation of Maxwell, Gauss, et al. Hot flash; it is a near field effect. <snip nonsense> > Again, where does "astronomical" appear in a spreadsheet? Before one can use a spreadsheet, which you seem so obsessed with, you have to have relationships, and you have none. > Even 30% efficiency is cost competitive with batteries. Energy efficiency is essentially meaningless in the real world. The only thing that really counts is $/W-hr delivered, including capital and maintenance. > Not everyone is ignorant of the safety of inductive power transfer Irrelevant; all you have to say is "wireless power transfer" and the loud mouthed NIMBY's will have you tied up in court until your grandchildren are retired. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> >> > We already know the efficiency of resonance induction: 75% (to > >> >> > recharge a bus). > 75% at less than a 100 W load A 100 W bus? Do you even think about what you are typing? > a few feet away Four _inches_ away. > with non-moving coils. Can you think of any problems designing a moving version? You think the coils would have to move? > > Apparently your elementary school education didn't include the > > efficiency of resonant induction. > No, but the University education did. Did what? Tell you that the efficiency was 75%? > Most of what I've seen on the 'net about resonant induction is babbling > nonsense from drooling Tesla kooks Again, it would behoove you to look it up before you spout off at the mouth. You are really digging yourself into a hole on this one. I'll be blunt: You are now beyond the capability of any janitor to clean up the mess you are in now. You are now a confirmed dunce. > that seem to think that just because > a transformer is resonant, it has some magical qualities that allow it > to operate in violation of Maxwell, Gauss, et al. > Hot flash; it is a near field effect. Don't even think about dodging the efficiency issue. > > Again, where does "astronomical" appear in a spreadsheet? > Before one can use a spreadsheet, which you seem so obsessed with, Like every IEOR involved in every large project. It's clear you've never been involved in any design that required any sophistication. No one will think you know anything about tech if all you do it hype one factor and pretend that's the end of the discussion. > you have to have relationships, OK, where does "astronomical" fit into any of these relationships? That type of "cascaded dodge" doesn't work for the looneytarians either. > and you have none. Arm waving about "relationships" only highlights your lazy slopping thinking. Instead of numbers you use words like "huge" and "astronomical." The only cost we know for sure that is approaching infinity is the amount of money going overseas to buy oil. > > Even 30% efficiency is cost competitive with batteries. > Energy efficiency is essentially meaningless in the real world. Could you find _any_one who will agree with that statement? > The only thing that really counts is $/W-hr delivered, including capital > and maintenance. That's the argument for spreadsheeting electrification and other alternatives. > > Not everyone is ignorant of the safety of inductive power transfer > Irrelevant; all you have to say is "wireless power transfer" and the > loud mouthed NIMBY's will have you tied up in court until your > grandchildren are retired. That didn't happen to high voltage ac lines. A study in Sweden even found a some health correlation and eventually subsequent studies said there were no ill effects to living under transmission lines. It's only an issue today because of aesthetics. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > You could probably do something with induction coils. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do you even think about what you are typing? Yes, the conditions under which your "We already know" refernce achieved 75% efficiency. >> a few feet away > > Four _inches_ away. Nope, Intel got a couple of feet. >> with non-moving coils. > > Can you think of any problems designing a moving version? You think > the coils would have to move? If you mount a coil on a vehicle and the vehicle moves, the coil moves. That should be obvious. <snip long-winded, rambling nonsense> Read about a real inductivly powered project here: http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't > work which is why they are only used in situations where the environment > is controlled. Do you use salt over there to de-ice roads ? Could be interesting seeing the death toll. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notmail.com> wrote: >> Power conductors in the road exposed to weather (and people) won't >> work which is why they are only used in situations where the environment >> is controlled. > > Do you use salt over there to de-ice roads ? Could be interesting seeing the > death toll. No salt needed, just a good, steady rain. Of course, one presumes that all the breakers would blow before too many people got fried. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long? Come to think of it, solar does seem to provide the most power when most are on the road. > > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it > sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete. That's why DoE has grants for these studies. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Come to think of it, solar does seem to provide the most power when > most are on the road. Most of Southern California has been heavily overcast for about 2 weeks now. The peak in afternoon traffic is when the sun is so low there is very little solar "power" to be had and in the winter it is after sunset. The peak in morning traffic is when the sun is still so low there is very little solar "power" to be had. But don't let the real world intrude on your arm waving plans to save the world. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. > >> > Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for > >> > oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend fuel > >> > will stay at $2.50 gallon: > >> > $2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) = > >> > $385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel. > >> You're assuming a busy freeway all day and all night long? > > Come to think of it, solar does seem to provide the most power when > > most are on the road. > Most of Southern California has been heavily overcast for about 2 > weeks now. Smog coming from high temperature high pressure combustion of fuel on the freeways. That is something that will _not_ improve with bio fuels. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That is something that will _not_ improve with bio fuels. Babbling nonsense. It is a coastal marine layer, extends WAY out into the Pacific Ocean, and happens every year. It appears the real world is something totally foreign to you. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Come to think of it, solar does seem to provide the most power when > most are on the road. Solar provides bugger all power. Assume a vehicle 5m x 2m = 10 m2 area and 1kW/m2 peak insolation. Totally covered by modern solar panels it might generate as much as 1.5kW. That's ~ TWO horsepower. Walking would be faster. Actually, two hp probably wouldn't overcome frictional effects. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it > sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete. It might work in a small community. Zermatt in Switzerland banned internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution (important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets. Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries. It would be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly off the grid. >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly > off the grid. I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the advantage to the gasoline powered car. If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric cars would be the way to go. SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric > cars would be the way to go. If you had a dilithium matter-antimatter converter... If you had Mr. Fusion... If you had Tinkerbell's pixie dust... SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > >>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > If you had Tinkerbell's pixie dust... If Star Trek were true ! ;~) Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is > cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: > electric cars would be the way to go. What if you didn't have to buy the batteries? http://www.betterplace.com/ > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is > > cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What if you didn't have to buy the batteries? http://www.betterplace.com/ You expect someone to give them away and re-process them for free too ? Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is > > cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What if you didn't have to buy the batteries?http://www.betterplace.com/ You _always_ have to buy the batteries. Try getting a large number of cell phones for less than the battery cost. This is even more true for EVs where the electric motors, tires and other parts are valuable. Bret Cahill > > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because > > > electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You _always_ have to buy the batteries. Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live? Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan. They aren't hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology", they are fully in the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up. > > > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because > > > > electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live? Is it against the law to lease cars where you live? If not, then why are so few doing it? The reason is it's cheaper to get financing and _buy_ the car. Now how is a battery any different than any other part of a car or the whole car? > Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan. A business plan ain't going to reduce the 3X higher cost of motoring using battery only. > They aren't > hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology", Then it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed electrification. > they are fully in > the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two > countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up. If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another thread. Bret Cahill > > > > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because > > > > > electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The reason is it's cheaper to get financing and _buy_ the car. That depends on the initial cost of the car. Many high end cars *are* leased because it is cheaper to do that than get financing to buy them. Also leasers tend to accept that they will not be keeping the car for its entire life. Lot's of people lease their housing for the same reason. Using the Better Place business model, the car owner will only posses a particular battery for about a week out of its proposed 25 year life-span. At that turnover rate, it's silly to buy. > > Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed > electrification. I guess you will have to put me in the same camp as the rest of your detractors then. We are stuck with having to evolve from what we have to what we want. If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road. That can only be done with batteries on board. I expect that you might dispute my first step, if so, then what do you think the first step should be? > > they are fully in > > the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two > > countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up. > > If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another > thread. I think discussing "niche markets" is better than discussing non-markets, especially if whole countries are considered "niche". > > > > > > I once considered an electric car conversion, because > > > > > > electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Also leasers tend to accept that they will not be keeping the car for > its entire life. Lot's of people lease their housing for the same reason. The vast majority find it more economical to buy. You have yet to proffer any reasoning why batteries are fundamentally different than anything else that can be financed more cheaply than buying outright. > Using the Better Place business model, the car owner will only posses a > particular battery for about a week Does the charge last a week? How many kW-hrs is this battery? How much does the battery cost/kW-hr? How much does it weigh? Why only one week? How do you drive after you turn in the battery? Do you exchange the battery? And most important, what is the cost/kW-hr? If you can't give any basic thermo info, as I did with power plant capital and operating costs, then you ain't got no legitimate business. > out of its proposed 25 year > life-span. The battery doesn't even exist? > At that turnover rate, it's silly to buy. Depends on what you are charging and on what basis. If you had a serious business plan that would be the first thing you'ld mention. > > > Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan. > > A business plan ain't going to reduce the 3X higher cost of motoring > > using battery only. No answer? You have exactly 24 hours to come up with some kind of theory on what this will cost the _customer_ on a kW/hr basis. > > > They aren't > > > hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology", Then why is it a "proposed" battery? > > Then it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed > > electrification. > I guess you will have to put me in the same camp as the rest of your > detractors then. The sooner you quit using my name / threads for free advertising of your energy scam the better. > We are stuck with having to evolve from what we have to > what we want. And roadbed electrification is pay as you go with hybrid electric vehicles. > If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the > first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road. You have it backwards. The first step is to electrify the roadbed and then allow market forces to allow consumers choice in selecting their vehicle. They can buy a fuel-only drive train and spend $15/gallon in fuel. Or they can buy a hybrid or EV and recharge and motor for free on the freeway, at least for the first 20 years. If you can snooker someone to lease batteries when they can charge up their own on the freeway . . . > That can only be done with batteries on board. How does that preclude batteries that are bought outright? > I expect that you might dispute my first step, if so, then what do you > think the first step should be? Your first step needs to be able to explain why it's cheaper for _most_ to lease than to get financing and to buy. If you don't explain that in good time then everyone will think you are just another investment scam. > > > they are fully in > > > the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two > > > countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up. Let me guess, you have testimonials from "happy customers." > > If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another > > thread. > I think discussing "niche markets" is better than discussing > non-markets, especially if whole countries are considered "niche". Let me guess, your sales are top secret. I'll give you a tip about newsgroups. The dunce posters have no dough and the lurkers ain't going to give you jack. Bret Cahill > > If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the > > first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The first step is to electrify the roadbed and then allow market > forces to allow consumers choice in selecting their vehicle. I don't know enough about this subject to answer your questions, but I do know this. A company (Better Place) has signed contracts with several governments and an auto manufacturer to create electric cars and the infrastructure to make them a workable alternative. Shai Agassi plans on a system that works much like our current cell phone system. You buy the miles, and get the car as part of the contract. They have prototype vehicles, a prototype fully automated battery switching station and already have installed electric rechargers in real parking lots. When you get some government willing to sign a commitment to electrify all of their roadbeds, you let us know... Frankly, I hope you can do it; sounds like a great idea to me. I hazard to guess that half the roadbeds in America already have electric transmission lines running along side of them (either above ground or underground,) so it probably wouldn't even be that big of a deal. The cynic in me says that until someone finds a way to make a whole lot of money off of it, such a system isn't going to go anywhere. Mr. Agassi thinks he can make a lot of money off of selling EV miles instead of cars, and he has managed to convince a number of big money players that they can too. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting... > Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of them (either above ground or underground,) so it probably wouldn't > even be that big of a deal. It wouldn''t. But the main problem with that hair-brain idea is what called the brain-drain. As people with brains having been telling the internet Tesla- Wannabe cranks, and Physics idiots for even longer, is that after 100 years of repaving you get a whole bunch of politician idiots running everythiing, and the only thing they even know about engineering or science or electricity or machines at all is 60 Hz. So, that's why the people with the 21st Century Engineering and Technology Advancement Brains work on Cruise Missiles, AUVs, Drones, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Optical Computers, C++, Distributed Proceesing, Digital Fiber Optics Comms, Cell Phones, Satellites, GPS, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Light Sticks, MP3, MPEG, Flat-Screen HDTV Software Debuggers, Blue Ray, All-In-One Printers, XML, USB, Holograms and Holographics, Lasers, Masers, Microwave Ovens, Microwave Cooling, Thermoelectric Cooling, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, Biodiesel, Solar Energy, Pv Cell Energy, Neo Wind Energy, Self- Assembling Robots, Post Lead Batteries, and Self-Replicating Machines, and let the science w.nks worry of the Circa-1900 Coils. > The cynic in me says that until someone finds a way to make a whole lot > of money off of it, such a system isn't going to go anywhere. Mr. Agassi > thinks he can make a lot of money off of selling EV miles instead of > cars, and he has managed to convince a number of big money players that > they can too. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting... > > > If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the > > > first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a system that works much like our current cell phone system. You buy the > miles, and get the car as part of the contract. Isn't that what rental car companies do (at a much higher cost / mile than vehicle ownership)? > They have prototype > vehicles, a prototype fully automated battery switching station and > already have installed electric rechargers in real parking lots. > When you get some government willing to sign a commitment to electrify > all of their roadbeds, you let us know... No one was suggesting every dirt road be electrified, just busy freeways. > Frankly, I hope you can do it; > sounds like a great idea to me. I hazard to guess that half the roadbeds > in America already have electric transmission lines running along side > of them 1. most don't have parallel lines 2. that isn't always necessary 3. the lines that do exist are probably not enough > (either above ground or underground,) Underground high voltage lines? > so it probably wouldn't > even be that big of a deal. > The cynic in me says that until someone finds a way to make a whole lot > of money off of it, such a system isn't going to go anywhere. Like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System? > Mr. Agassi > thinks he can make a lot of money off of selling EV miles instead of > cars, Why not just call it an "Rental Car Company" that focuses on electric cars? The more I hear that there's some novel trade or novel financial arrangement involved the more I think it's a scam. > and he has managed to convince a number of big money players that > they can too. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting... Is this business plan patented? If not Avis and Hertz will move in. Bret Cahill > >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric > cars would be the way to go. I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. For some reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, which is understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals, but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation. Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC model. Think about it. -tg I > -- > Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to > tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent > question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:45:49 -0700, tgdenning wrote: > I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try > with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the > lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. For some > reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, which is > understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals, but > not for people who claim to be interested in innovation. Drive trains consume a lot of energy by friction. They exist because when cars were first developed, complex electrical control systems didn't exist, and gasoline was cheap so no one cared. First thing to go with electric cars is that transmission, as electric motors don't have the torque problem of gasoline engines. That saves a lot of energy. I am sure that various design alternatives can be worked and the traditional drive train would be ruled out. > Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and brakes, > and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by standardization [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. > > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the > lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries. There's a minor issue about sprung weight but in general, all the significant waste of energy has been eliminated. Tweaking 3% here and 2% there won't save the day when oil is going up 100% a year. Sooner or later transportation will power off the grid, either with some kind of energy storage or directly. > For some > reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain, Retooling an auto line costs billions. That's why it is often easier to prototype a new ship engine than a vehicle engine. Ship engines are all custom made anyway. > which is > understandable for the auto companies and their profitability goals, > but not for people who claim to be interested in innovation. > Battery cost can be offset e.g. by eliminating transmission and > brakes, and various maintenance costs. It can also be offset by > standardization and commodification of parts, as happened with the PC > model. In ten years you'll be able to go to a junk yard and get a perfectly good traction motor or 10 kW generator for $100. Bret Cahill > > > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > > > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Retooling an auto line costs billions. Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software. -tg > That's why it is often easier to prototype a new ship engine than a > vehicle engine. Ship engines are all custom made anyway. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bret Cahill >> > > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power >> > > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors >that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software. See: "unsprung weight" > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:32:15 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > See: "unsprung weight" Why does the weight have to be unsprung? And what kind of roads are we talking about? People tend to raise this objection with no follow-through; if you are a suspension engineer please elaborate. It is not my expertise but I am pretty sure this is not a deal-breaker---you can certainly decouple some of the mass. And I thought we were over the fantasy of needing an SUV to go 'off-road' into the mall parking lot? -tg > Why does the weight have to be unsprung? Some want wheels to be as light as possible to improve performance [reduce momentum and angular momentum], "mag" wheels, etc. > And what kind of roads are we > talking about? In Germany you can cycle over a repaired pothole with 1" tires and not feel a thing. That's how VW could build that high tech clown car that gets 300 mpg. > People tend to raise this objection with no follow-through; if you are > a suspension engineer please elaborate. Force = mass X acceleration If you want the forces to be small and you have no control over the acceleration then your only option is to reduce mass. > It is not my expertise but I > am pretty sure this is not a deal-breaker--- I agree. I only give a rat's behind about wheel weight when I'm cycling. I have 2 tubular tire wheels that weigh a total of 3 lbs. > you can certainly decouple > some of the mass. And I thought we were over the fantasy of needing an > SUV to go 'off-road' into the mall parking lot? The mall parking lot has potholes. A few weeks ago Repugs were making it sound like filling potholes with publicly funded "shovel ready" projects was communism. The looneytarian mentality, along with the RRR has appeared only in the past few decades, since the civil rights movement. Racists don't want blacks to benefit equally with white. Before the civil rights movement white America was much more "collective" as blacks wouldn't get any public benefits anyway. Bret Cahill >> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:32:15 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >Why does the weight have to be unsprung? And what kind of roads are we >talking about? "Anyone can make _wheelmotors_" (emphasis on wheelmotors mine) Wheel motors are, by their nature, unsprung weight. >People tend to raise this objection with no follow-through; if you are >a suspension engineer please elaborate. It is not my expertise but I >am pretty sure this is not a deal-breaker---you can certainly decouple >some of the mass. And I thought we were over the fantasy of needing an >SUV to go 'off-road' into the mall parking lot? > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:32:27 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Wheel motors are, by their nature, unsprung weight. No. Four wheels driven by four independent motors. The coupling between the motor and the wheel is not necessarily fixed and rigid, and so the entire mass of the assembly is not necessarily unsprung. -tg > >People tend to raise this objection with no follow-through; if you are > >a suspension engineer please elaborate. It is not my expertise but I > >am pretty sure this is not a deal-breaker---you can certainly decouple > >some of the mass. And I thought we were over the fantasy of needing an > >SUV to go 'off-road' into the mall parking lot? >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:32:27 -0700 (PDT), tgdenn...@earthlink.net >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >No. Four wheels driven by four independent motors. No matter. >The coupling >between the motor and the wheel is not necessarily fixed and rigid, >and so the entire mass of the assembly is not necessarily unsprung. Then it's not a "wheelmotor". There is a transmission inbetween sucking up power. Get your terminology straight if you want to communicate. > Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit > model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors > that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software. > > -tg Really? Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the control software you wrote. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > > Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit > > model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors > > that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software. I still don't understand what this has to do with soaring ground transportation energy costs. > � �Really? �Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the > control software you wrote. > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! Speaking of jokes, how's that defamation lawsuit coming? You remember, the one where you became so vexed at being exposed as a self deceiving nobody - dunce you made idle threats to sue me for defamation? Welching out of that defamation lawsuit can be taken as a tacit admission that everything I said about you was true. Bret Cahill On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Really? Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the > control software you wrote. Not up on the concept of metaphor? By 'anyone', I mean that people who make electric motors can make electric motors to meet generic specifications/standards, just like 'anyone' can make graphic cards for computers even if they don't make motherboards or assembled machines. Think about the price of computers and their capabilities over the last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh. -tg > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem > of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh. In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that you do. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 2, 2:34 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that > you do. I know that people who know things aren't afraid to have concrete technical discussions, and don't resort to personal insults. If you or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying. -tg > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! I > > > > > Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit > > > > > model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I know that people who know things aren't afraid to have concrete > technical discussions, and don't resort to personal insults. Hey, don't complain about my dunce! He's a lot of fun when he gets mad and threatens to sue for defamation. > �If you > or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why > don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying. He has no EE degree from any accredited university. He has never held a design job. He has never done anything noteworthy in tech or anywhere else and has a low self esteem. For awhile he may have scrapped by "repairing computers" but, as one of the other dunce / rightards unwittingly pointed out, there hasn't been any money in that for over a decade. He can never address any tech issue because he's ignorant. So he does the only thing he can do: He project. Now back to the batteries: They already have high volume battery production and the cost or performance of the battery is resistant to further improvements. Using batteries to store grid energy is still twice the cost of the grid electricity that will ever flow through the battery. A businessman or a business plan ain't going to change the basic economics of energy technology. You'll need a materials or transport breakthrough for that. Now, to be sure, batteries would probably eventually improve enough so that EVs will become practical to many people _if_ we had time. But we don't have time. Bret Cahill > On Jun 2, 2:34 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > or the other guy have something to contribute to the actual topic, why > don't you explain what is wrong with what I am saying. YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by 'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post links to the designs you want to discus, but that have to have real numbers, not something you pull out of bret's a.s. I know you can't do this, so you'll continue with more ignorant hand waving, like that inbred little idiot, cahil. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 3, 12:47 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post > links to the designs you want to discus, 'Design' of what? I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more interchangeable than ICE and transmissions? I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some specific vehicle. I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors, and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no magic in the technology; all the components are there already. Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by- wire airplanes? -tg > but that have to have real > numbers, not something you pull out of bret's a.s. I know you can't do > this, so you'll continue with more ignorant hand waving, like that > inbred little idiot, cahil. > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > > YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by > > 'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post > > links to the designs you want to discus, > > 'Design' of what? Sigh. Do you always start arguments without any clues? > I have no clue what you are disagreeing with. Is it that there are > more manufacturers of electric motors than of automotive internal > combustion engines, and lower entry costs for getting into the > business? Is it that electric motors and controls are far more > interchangeable than ICE and transmissions? really? They why are their thousands of different electric motors, and only dozens of different types of internal combustion engine. You can't just grab any electric motor and any controller and make it work. > I'm talking about a business model for the entire industry, not some > specific vehicle. How can you do that without solid business model, which requires hard numbers? > I know that one company has claimed to retrofit a Mini with wheelmotors, > and to have a viable control system, but the point is that there is no > magic in the technology; all the components are there already. You've heard, but have no details? Big deal. I've heard that there are honest politicians, but I'm not holding my breath till I find one. If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy rich building your wet dream on wheels? > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered vehicles, and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by wire has absolutely no connection to reality. Aren't you late for your 'Tesla is god' fan club meeting? SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy > rich building your wet dream on wheels? Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a silly question. > > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? > > What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the > roadways? All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered > vehicles, Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know what you are talking about. All wheel drive has everything to do with electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the wheelmotor configuration. > and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by > wire has absolutely no connection to reality. Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what fly-by-wire means either. -tg > Aren't you late for your 'Tesla is god' fan club meeting? > > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > > > > � �YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! �You are just claiming it can be done by > > > > 'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. �If you want a real discussion post [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Because gas is still cheap? � No, because batteries are still expensive. TN Val Auth will sell locals 6 GW for 70 cents/gal equivalent if they charge up at night. Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv. That's the _big_ cost. The battery. It cannot be eliminated but we can reduce it greatly with electrification. > Because it isn't in the economic interest > of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? � Because there is no infrastructure to cheaply provide electricity to the motor. Any street mohead can drop an electric motor into a conventional drive train chasis and drive for 70 cents/gal equiv in the TVA area _if_ he could get grid electricity to the wheels. People generally prefer tippy toe changes. Look at the Model T body. It really does look like a horse drawn carriage. There was no reason to make it look like a horse drawn carriage other than Ford was focused on getting something out the door. Ford got the first thing he could find with wheels on it and put a motor in it. Many want to replace gas stations with battery charging stations. Instead of fueling up you swap out the battery. No one needs to drastically change his habits or thinking. It's a tippy toe change. Sometimes the tippy toe change ain't the way to go. Taking off in a plane for example. You aren't going to tippy toe off the runway. > What a > silly question. > > > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? > > > � �What do either have to do with idiot cahil's fantasy to electrify the > > roadways? �All wheel drive has nothing to do with electric powered > > vehicles, > Ah, I see why you avoid specifics as long as possible---you don't know > what you are talking about. � He has nothing to contribute and feels left out. > All wheel drive has everything to do with > electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the > wheelmotor configuration. The real problem is getting grid electricity to the four motors or two motors or one motor. Having four electric motors in the wheels or tires will still cost 70 cents/gal equiv. > > and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by > > wire has absolutely no connection to reality. > Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient > background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what > fly-by-wire means either. Any engineer or physicist can ask him a few questions where the answer requires some actual numbers or equations or insights and he's lost. That's how anyone can tell he ain't no EE. Bret Cahill > > > > > YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING! You are just claiming it can be done by > > > > > 'ANYBODY" but you don't have a clue. If you want a real discussion post [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the > electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv. Except that I will be saving (more than) the cost of the battery by eliminating the transmission and the brakes and the lifetime maintenance of the all the fluids and so on. I can build a *more capable* car for half the money, excluding the battery, because the motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying that 70 cents per gal equivalent. Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime, which will be greatly extended. -tg > That's the _big_ cost. The battery. > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Bret Cahill > > > > If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy > > > > rich building your wet dream on wheels? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > eliminating the transmission and the brakes and the lifetime > maintenance of the all the fluids and so on. These are not significant _operating_ costs. They don't cost anything on a _per mile_ basis. The battery, while it is part of the initial cost, is also part of the operating cost because it must be replaced every few years. This isn't true for a transmission. > I can build a *more > capable* car for half the money, excluding the battery, But the 800 lb gorilla cost is the operating cost of the battery. > because the > motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying > that 70 cents per gal equivalent. If you are charging and discharging a battery, you will always be paying at least $2.70/gallon. The $10,000 battery needs to be replaced several times over the cars lifetime. Now, if you want, you can calculate battery cost as part of the initial cost. Just pay for all the necessary batteries up front and your $20,000 EV will cost $60,000. So no matter how you try to calculate it, the battery cost is the killer. > Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the > car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime, > which will be greatly extended. Any street mohead can convert any old pu or SUV to an EV for less than what anyone could sell a new EV. Why isn't this more common? Because of the battery cost. Bret Cahill > > > > > If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy > > > > > rich building your wet dream on wheels? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > initial cost. Just pay for all the necessary batteries up front and > your $20,000 EV will cost $60,000. Which is fine with me, since the electric motors will last forever. Say you replace a battery every 10 years. My initial cost without the battery will be 15K for a very nice vehicle. I run the car for 30 years, so my cost is 1.5K per year. And I pay that .70 per gallon for fuel. The problem with your plan, Bret, is not 'baby steps' as you suggest, but chicken and egg. You don't build the electrified highway until there are 60 million EV's on the road, so first you have to give people better cars at lower prices. Check out that 600 hp F-150: http://www.hipadrive.com/Documents/new%20york%20times%20sema%20article.pdf When those are all over the trailer park, the congressman won't be taking his life into his hands as an unamericun muslim commie when he suggests the third rail on the interstate. > So no matter how you try to calculate it, the battery cost is the > killer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any street mohead can convert any old pu or SUV to an EV for less than > what anyone could sell a new EV. Only in Cuba. They put old Soviet military truck drivetrains into 1957 Impalas, so they could probably do this without even a screwdriver. -tg > Why isn't this more common? Because of the battery cost. > > Bret Cahill >> The $10,000 battery needs to be replaced several times over the cars >> lifetime. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which is fine with me, since the electric motors will last forever. Only if forever is something like 8,000 working hours. > > > > > > If all the components are there, why isn't someone becoming filthy > > > > > > rich building your wet dream on wheels? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Which is fine with me, Maybe _you_ can afford $40,000 worth of batteries but it won't be fine with the _majority_ of motorists who don't have $60,000 to pay for a motor vehicle. You wanted to know why there aren't any EVs. Well that's one reason. The batteries make it more expensive than $3 gallon fuel. The other reason is convenience, or at least imagined convenience. The oil companies have everyone assuming all kinds of unlikely situations, i.e., you return from work and absolutely must drive coast to coast in 3 days on a moment's notice. It's one of those Big Lies that fly under radar but I'm not going to fight it. It's easier to just make it possible for EVs to have the same capability. > since the electric motors will last forever. Windshields can last forever too but that doesn't wipe out the $40 K you _must_ spend on batteries. > Say you replace a battery every 10 years. A pipe dream. That might not be possible even if you're not driving the car very much. Maybe granny can use an EV to drive to church every Sunday but it's not going to satisfy most motorists. In the desert SW a lead acid battery lasts 3 years even if you aren't using it much. > My initial cost without the > battery will be 15K for a very nice vehicle. I run the car for 30 > years, so my cost is 1.5K per year. And I pay that .70 per gallon for > fuel. You don't seem to understand. A battery isn't like a watch spring. Batteries only take a limited number of charges, ~ 1000 for Li - Ion. It's like getting into a taxi. You aren't paying just by time but by the mile, at least $2/gallon equiv for the battery and about $1.50/ gallon equiv for the electricity in most places. The 70 /gallon equiv figure is only in the TVA area and parts of Canada. > The problem with your plan, Bret, is not 'baby steps' as you suggest, > but chicken and egg. You don't build the electrified highway until > there are 60 million EV's on the road, Maybe a few Hollywood types will buy an EV that costs $60,000 over it's lifetime. Only government can really get things going for the general public. That is best done with roadbed electrification. > first you have to give > people better cars at lower prices. That would require a lower priced battery which does not exist. There are two choices: Government pays every motorist $40,000 for batteries and does nothing to help motorists drive non stop coast to coast. Cost: $4 trillion. (Reaganitics have political weapon: gummint giving out welfare battery vouchers.) Government pays to electrify 100,000 miles of freeway at a cost of $10 million/mile. Convenient grid powered coast to coast travel becomes possible. Cost: $1 trillion (Reaganitics fume but cannot say anything as it's just highway construction.) Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > Government pays to electrify 100,000 miles of freeway at a cost of $10 > million/mile. Convenient grid powered coast to coast travel becomes > possible. As there are roughly 210,000 lane miles of freeway in the US, what about the other half? $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. I suppose all the electification equipment capital and installation costs are free? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Government pays to electrify 100,000 miles of freeway at a cost of $10 > > million/mile. �Convenient grid powered coast to coast travel becomes > > possible. > > As there are roughly 210,000 lane miles of freeway in the US, what about > the other half? The #1 and 2 lanes are for those who have already charged up in the #3 and # 4 lanes. They are also for motorcyclists who don't want their tires to get trapped in the slot, high mpg "clown cars" and rich folk who can afford $25/gallon fuel. > $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. Is that $10 million per mile or mile lane? > I suppose all the electification equipment capital and installation costs > are free? By your numbers rebuilding the entire Eisenhower system would be 2.1 trillion. We spend that every 4 years on foreign fuel. At $3/gallon fuel By 2012 the payback time will be one year. Now, maybe you have liver cancer or some other short life terminal disease and gummint spending for something that has a 1 year payback time is of no benefit to you. You've already cashed out your 401 K. In that case, we understand. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > Government pays to electrify 100,000 miles of freeway at a cost of $10 >> > million/mile. �Convenient grid powered coast to coast travel becomes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The #1 and 2 lanes are for those who have already charged up in the #3 > and # 4 lanes. The majority of the freeway lane miles are 2 lanes once you are outside the urban areas. > They are also for motorcyclists who don't want their tires to get > trapped in the slot We've beaten this to death. Conductors in the road won't work in the real world weather. Overhead conductors won't work with the vehicle mix. The only way to electrify existing roads and still carry the existing traffic is to use induction. >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > By your numbers rebuilding the entire Eisenhower system would be 2.1 > trillion. Probably about right in 2009 dollars. > We spend that every 4 years on foreign fuel. Irrelevant. We spend about the same every 4 years on welfare too. Neither is relevant to the cost of rebuilding the highway system. <snip childish insult attempts to divert the topic> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. > > Is that $10 million per mile or mile lane? No answer? > >> I suppose all the electification equipment capital and installation costs > >> are free? > > By your numbers rebuilding the entire Eisenhower system would be 2.1 > > trillion. > Probably about right in 2009 dollars. > > We spend that every 4 years on foreign fuel. > Irrelevant. You think the U. S. would continue to import a half trillion dollars a year in oil when motorists could be powered from the grid? If so then why wouldn't this be an argument against battery-only EVs? > We spend about the same every 4 years on welfare too. Actually AFDC has been reduced from it's Reagan era high of 0.5% of the budget and Social Security programs are over a trillion. Anyway no one believes it is possible to eliminate that cost by electrifying freeways. And no one except you believes that we'ld continue to spend trillions on over seas oil over the next 10 years when we didn't have to. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. > >> > Is that $10 million per mile or mile lane? > > No answer? Here's a clue for you: Adding one lane to the 57 Freeway for about 5 miles is estimated to cost $140 million. You do the math. > You think the U. S. would continue to import a half trillion dollars a > year in oil when motorists could be powered from the grid? If it is cheaper in the long run, yes. > And no one except you believes that we'ld continue to spend trillions > on over seas oil over the next 10 years when we didn't have to. No matter what you do today, we will still have to for at least 10 years. Even if the entire highway system were somehow magically electrified by tomorrow morning, it would take about 10 years before the majority of existing vehicles were replaced. And you still have to be able to get out of your garage and to the freeway, assuming you are going to use the freeway at all. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Adding one lane to the 57 Freeway for about 5 miles is estimated to cost > $140 million. That only highlights some the cost advantages of electrification over new highway construction: EVs and hybrids can charge up where ever the road bed is electrified, that is, where ever it was cost effective to electrify, and then run off the battery if a 5 mile stretch is prohibitively expensive to electrify. 100% coverage isn't necessay for a motorist to be able to fuellessly access 100% of a region. Ramps might not be cost effective either. This isn't true for conventional new highway construction where they don't have the option to "merely omit" ramps and new lanes which require condemning / buying expensive land downtown. But we keep overlooking the real advantage of electrification: convenience. Battery only EV travel will soon be competitive with liquid fuel on an overall [capital + operating] _per mile_ basis when fuel reaches something like $6 - $8 gallon. The problem is even then electric only travel still won't be _convenient_. You charge up at home and if you go more than a few dozen miles your EV is either stuck or your hybrid is right back to liquid fuel. Everyone within 40 miles of an electrified freeway however -- about 99.99% of the population -- could charge his Volt at home, drive 40 miles to the freeway, recharge as he goes down the freeway, and then drive another 40 miles without ever using any liquid fuel. . . . > > You think the U. S. would continue to import a half trillion dollars a > > year in oil when motorists could be powered from the grid? > > If it is cheaper in the long run, yes. Very very iffy at best considering the supply is diminishing and global demand is increasing. No one believes we'll be paying a half trillion in 2012. It'll be more like $2 trillion / year. If we are lucky. As T. Boone Pickens pointed out, it's the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of civilization. > > And no one except you believes that we'ld continue to spend trillions > > on over seas oil over the next 10 years when we didn't have to. > No matter what you do today, we will still have to for at least 10 years. I don't deny that it may already be too late for many people to survive soaring oil prices But this is no reason not to al least try. > Even if the entire highway system were somehow magically electrified > by tomorrow morning, it would take about 10 years before the majority > of existing vehicles were replaced. We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road immediately. With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil shock. It's critical that all new vehicles be series hybrids ASAP or we really will be up the creek. > And you still have to be able to get out of your garage and to the > freeway, assuming you are going to use the freeway at all. That's why the Volt has a 40 mile battery - only range. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That only highlights some the cost advantages of electrification over > new highway construction: No, it highlights the fact that road construction and maintenance is extremely expensive these days. It is no longer 1957. There are a myrid of things that make todays roads expensive to build and maintain. <snip long winded babble that totally misses the point> > We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road > immediately. It doesn't matter what you think we need. The reality is the median age of a car in the US is 9.4 years and climbing. > With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil > shock. Not unless: A) Any changes to roads are 100% compatible with all existing vehicles. B) All new vehicles have the same capabilities as existing vehicles. That means "we" would have to electrify all 210,000 lane miles of highway first, then about 10 years after that is done about half of the cars on the road would be able to use the electricity provided. You have yet to provide a viable scheme to achieve that. You have yet to provide a rough cost to achieve that. I have no interest in hearing any childish babble about spreadsheets. The people here built a demo system without spreadsheets: http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf How much to put such a system on 210,000 lane miles of highway? I assume you can come up with a pencil and an old envelope, which is all you need to do the calculations. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, Merely denying a post and snipping the content is called "dodging the issue." Here, we'll try again: EVs and hybrids can charge up where ever the road bed is electrified, that is, where ever it was cost effective to electrify, and then run off the battery if a 5 mile stretch is prohibitively expensive to electrify. 100% coverage isn't necessay for a motorist to be able to fuellessly access 100% of a region. Ramps might not be cost effective either. This isn't true for conventional new highway construction where they don't have the option to "merely omit" ramps and new lanes which require condemning / buying expensive land downtown. But we keep overlooking the real advantage of electrification: convenience. Battery only EV travel will soon be competitive with liquid fuel on an overall [capital + operating] _per mile_ basis when fuel reaches something like $6 - $8 gallon. The problem is even then electric only travel still won't be _convenient_. You charge up at home and if you go more than a few dozen miles your EV is either stuck or your hybrid is right back to liquid fuel. Everyone within 40 miles of an electrified freeway however -- about 99.99% of the population -- could charge his Volt at home, drive 40 miles to the freeway, recharge as he goes down the freeway, and then drive another 40 miles without ever using any liquid fuel. Try to address the issues. . . . > It is no longer 1957. True. Construction techniques have improved and since no land will need to be acquired it can be expected to be an even smaller % of the federal budget as the original highway system. But most important of all, back then the cost of oil imports wasn't expected to soar past 20% of GDP for decades. . . . > > We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road > > immediately. > It doesn't matter what you think we need. As far a public spending is concerned it matters what the _majority_ thinks. The majority want to get off oil. > The reality is the median age of a car in the US is 9.4 years and > climbing. That'll drop if roadbed power is unmetered for the first 10 - 20 years. I believe in choice. You will have two choices at the beginning of the electrification program. You can drive your old SUV and pay $15/gallon. Or you can buy a new EV or hybrid and have your tires as your only operating cost. > > With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil > > shock. > Not unless: > A) Any changes to roads are 100% compatible with all existing vehicles. How would electrification _not_ be compatible? Do you think conventional drive trains blow up nead a B field? Maybe the gasoline would short out the wires and cause a fuel - air explosion just like in an excitin' Hollywood action movie? This is why we need to have electrified roadbed races on a regular basis. To educate the general public as much as to discover real issues. > B) All new vehicles have the same capabilities as existing vehicles. Why would anyone want that? Americans want things to get better and better. A motorist will soon be able to drive coast to coast and never stop to refuel or switch out batteries. A Tesla with fewer batteries will be able to go from zero to 60 in 3 seconds instead of 4 seconds. > That means "we" would have to electrify all 210,000 lane miles of > highway first, Is there some theory where one road cannot be electrified unless _all_ roads are electrified? If so, please don't tell anyone. Email me so _we_ can take out some patents. As with any other construction project we could just tippy toe in with I-40 and CA99 and learn as we go. Adapt hybrid electric Peterbilts for dedicated runs from warehouses in the Central Valley to distribution centers in NC on I-95. Conventional vehicles could also use the roads and fueling stations would remain in place. If it turns out that no one on the planet wants the remaining oil except Americans and the price of oil drops to $2/barrel, then nothing is wasted. The electrified road bed can electric tractors can still operate independently of the rest of the system. If it turns out that China, India, Europe and the rest of the planet are willing to pay $400 / barrel for the oil, then we do I-95, I-10 and I-5. And when the price of a gallon of diesel soars past $20/gallon we electrify the rest of the system. The oil companies will have made so much money by then they won't even want to rip off the public anymore. > then about 10 years after that is done about half > of the cars on the road would be able to use the electricity provided. That should give us some time to beef up the grid! It looks like everything can work out after all! . . . > The people here built a demo system without spreadsheets: > http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf They were certainly thinking about optimization. They looked at "tradeoffs", i.e., the "overall cost" might be lower by reducing efficiency to reduce construction costs. Whenever you hear the key words, "tradeoff" and "overall cost" you know they are about to click on Excel. > How much to put such a system on 210,000 lane miles of highway? As the Berkeley researchers pointed out, it's difficult to project costs on new technology. That's why we need to start off with a few hundred miles. The selection should include different climates and have a lot of distribution centers at each end. > I assume you can come up with a pencil and an old envelope, which is > all you need to do the calculations. Months ago, working alone, I posted a similar conclusion as the Berkeley researchers with my own back of envelope calculations. It's cost effective to shift to lower efficiency. I told you once and I'll tell you again. Do _not_ post links on prior art to invention threads. It prejudices any inventor - lurkers who may be here. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> $10 million/mile doesn't buy much more than paving these days. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Merely denying a post and snipping the content is called "dodging the > issue." <snip long winded babble> > Try to address the issues. The issue was construction and maintenance costs, not the convienience of electric cars. >> It is no longer 1957. > > True. Construction techniques have improved and since no land will > need to be acquired it can be expected to be an even smaller % of the > federal budget as the original highway system. Construction techniques haven't changed since the bulldozer was invented. What has changed is things like Environmental Impact Reports, seismic standards and requirements, general requirements on roads, etc. > But most important of all, back then the cost of oil imports wasn't > expected to soar past 20% of GDP for decades. The cost of oil at any time is irrelevant to the maintenance and construction costs other than the fuel to run the bulldozers, and that is a small fraction of the costs. >> > We don't need every last fuel powered vehicle off the road >> > immediately. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The majority want to get off oil. Maybe. >> The reality is the median age of a car in the US is 9.4 years and >> climbing. > > That'll drop if roadbed power is unmetered for the first 10 - 20 > years. Only if the cost of ownership is lower. > I believe in choice. You will have two choices at the beginning of > the electrification program. > > You can drive your old SUV and pay $15/gallon. Not going to happen. > Or you can buy a new EV or hybrid and have your tires as your only > operating cost. Plus total battery replacement every 3-5 years. >> > With hybrids we can phase it in gradually thereby lessening the oil >> > shock. Hybrids have nothing to do with electifying the highways unless they already have the equipement installed to charge off of an electrified highway. Cars with equipment to charge off of a highway won't appear until the majority of the highway is electified. >> Not unless: > >> A) Any changes to roads are 100% compatible with all existing vehicles. > > How would electrification _not_ be compatible? With any scheme other than inductive charging. <snip babble> >> B) All new vehicles have the same capabilities as existing vehicles. > > Why would anyone want that? > > Americans want things to get better and better. OK, same or better. > A motorist will soon be able to drive coast to coast and never stop to > refuel or switch out batteries. Irrelevant; the range of most people's bladders is less than that of the car. > A Tesla with fewer batteries will be able to go from zero to 60 in 3 > seconds instead of 4 seconds. Irrelevant babble. >> That means "we" would have to electrify all 210,000 lane miles of >> highway first, > > Is there some theory where one road cannot be electrified unless _all_ > roads are electrified? If so, please don't tell anyone. Email me so > _we_ can take out some patents. I didn't say "all" roads, I said the highway system. Learn to read. > As with any other construction project we could just tippy toe in with > I-40 and CA99 and learn as we go. That isn't the way it works these days. You haven't a clue how much planning goes into something as seemingly simple as restripping a road. <snip long winded irrelevant babble> >> The people here built a demo system without spreadsheets: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > words, "tradeoff" and "overall cost" you know they are about to click > on Excel. Maybe for you, but not for most people. > > How much to put such a system on 210,000 lane miles of highway? > > As the Berkeley researchers pointed out, it's difficult to project > costs on new technology. Since it has been done, it is no longer new. > That's why we need to start off with a few hundred miles. The > selection should include different climates and have a lot of > distribution centers at each end. Childish nonsense. If you want to electrify highways, YOU need to do a cost estimate to implement. I assume you can come up with a pencil and an old envelope, which is all you need to do the calculations. > Months ago, working alone, I posted a similar conclusion as the > Berkeley researchers with my own back of envelope calculations. Where's the test data? > It's cost effective to shift to lower efficiency. Maybe. > I told you once and I'll tell you again. Do _not_ post links on prior > art to invention threads. f.ck off and die. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > Government pays to electrify 100,000 miles of freeway at a cost of $10 > > > million/mile. Convenient grid powered coast to coast travel becomes [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > We spend that every 4 years on foreign fuel. The idiots don't know anything about that, Since the only thing the idiots even know about it is the Suez Canal. Which is why the people with post 19th Century brains build GPS, Cruise Missiles, AUVs, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, On-line Publishing, Biodiesel, and Gas Turbine Engines rather than train stations for the idiots anyway. > At $3/gallon fuel > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bret Cahill On 6/3/09 10:29 AM, in article 8ac333b5-c882-4d32-a4e0-2ef713745a47@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, >> Replacing the battery will, however, costs 3X more than the >> electricity so you'll be paying $2.70/gal equiv. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > motive system will become commodified. So now I am back to paying > that 70 cents per gal equivalent. This link shows one of my cars. It was originally an electric car. Now it has a 165HP aircooled gasoline engine. Batteries then (seventies) were way too much of a hassle, and expensive. One nice thing was that I could eliminate the transmission. I still have it. Recent snapshot: http://www.digoliardi.net/images/002.jpg > Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the > car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime, > which will be greatly extended. Batteries are still rather expensive. Heck, they charge $5 to throw one away here! > On 6/3/09 10:29 AM, in article > 8ac333b5-c882-4d32-a4e0-2ef713745...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I still have it. Recent snapshot:http://www.digoliardi.net/images/002.jpg Sweet. -tg > > Why should I care if the battery is a big part of the cost of the > > car---I'm only interested in the total cost over the car's lifetime, > > which will be greatly extended. > > Batteries are still rather expensive. Heck, they charge $5 to throw one away > here! > On Jun 3, 7:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a > silly question. What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add capacity. An all electric transportation system would make that a drop in the money pit. You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done any research. > > > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > electric vehicles, since it is one of the major advantages of the > wheelmotor configuration. Sigh. All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel drive. You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is, or the problems it causes. Your group also decries transmissions, yet they are used in machine tools with big electric motors because the electric motors have a different power curve than Internal combustion engines. This are large three phase motors, run off variable frequency drives, just like you need for an electric powered vehicle. > > and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by > > wire has absolutely no connection to reality. > > Yes, I think maybe Bret is right that you don't have sufficient > background to discuss these things---you apparently don't know what > fly-by-wire means either. 'Fly By Wire' replaced mechanical linkages in aircraft with electronics and servo motors. Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 3, 2:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > in the money pit. You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done > any research. Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. If you insist on endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you. > > > > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sigh. All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel > drive. You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD. Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the concept. > You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is, Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably don't understand those either. I've answered that poster; if you disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard. > or the problems > it causes. Your group also decries transmissions, yet they are used in > machine tools with big electric motors because the electric motors have > a different power curve than Internal combustion engines. This are > large three phase motors, run off variable frequency drives, just like > you need for an electric powered vehicle. I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4 small motors, that may weigh only 50-75 lbs each. The motor will not be a proprietary part of the vehicle, but as with my example of graphics cards in computers, manufacturers can compete to supply different quality and functionality. You can swap them out yourself if you decide to upgrade. And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power curves? Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors. What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I think. > > > and unless you plan to put wings on an electric car, fly by > > > wire has absolutely no connection to reality. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'Fly By Wire' replaced mechanical linkages in aircraft with > electronics and servo motors. Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo- steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother. If you had reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though. > Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics. Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes. -tg > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > On Jun 3, 2:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. If you insist on > endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you. bret sh.ts on his floor, too. Big deal. He hasn't got a clue about the real reasons there are so few electric powered cars, and the price of oil isn't it. > > > > > Have you not heard of all-wheel-drive and fly-by-wire airplanes? > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the > concept. And you know nothing of the real world, just like your lover, bret. > > You still don't know what 'Unsprung Weight' is, > > Ah, you are now picking up terms from other posters, and you probably > don't understand those either. I've answered that poster; if you > disagree with what I said give your specific objection---maybe you > actually know more than he does; it wouldn't be hard. Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis. The more unsprung weight, the more stress on the vehicle suspension, which affects the handling and stability in a turn, or on a rough road. That is another advantage of a conventional drive train. > I don't know what is going to be the ultimate best motor type, but you > are still thinking conventional drivetrain. The point is to have 4 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > different quality and functionality. You can swap them out yourself > if you decide to upgrade. Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, and on the existing mounts. How do you upgrade, with those limitations? How many horsepower do you think you'll get from a motor that size and weight? How long do you think they will last, inside a hot tire & rim? You idiots have no clues about the design requirements for a production vehicle that will pass te required safety tests in the US. As far as swapping them out yourself? Have fun. You will be doing it quite often. > And what are you talking about with machine tools and ICE's and power > curves? Machine tools have gearing to change speeds, because it has > traditionally been difficult to change the speed of electric motors. > What machine tools use ICE? Not a good idea on the factory floor I > think. Sigh. Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from the ceilings. Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at each machine. A wire brush company in Cleveland, Ohio still has them, but stopped using them long ago. The old machines were modified to a motor per machine cofigurations, and all new machines were built that way, from the ground, up. The owner posts on rec.crafts.metalworking, but don't start any crap there. They will ream you a new a.shole as they tell you why your ideas are useless, and they aren't polite with morons. > Very good, and do you see that if you have wheelmotors doing the > driving and braking, that is the same thing? I don't suggest servo- > steering--- it could be done I suppose, but why bother. If you had > reversible motors, you could turn in place like a tank, though. It would play hell with your tires if you did. So you want to eliminate the steering mechanism, as well. I hope you get to drive that abomination some day, on a bad road. Like the two lane between Fairbanks and Delta Junction, Alaska. You would never suggest it again. In fact, you would likely drive off the road, and down the mountainside where many have died while driving much safer vehicles. Also, I would never drive any vehicle without real brakes. Your idea is suicide when you have a motor or controller failure, which would be quite common with millions of poorly designed crap vehicles (That you and bret are insisting are the best design) on the road. You spit out a load of ignorant crap, and have no clue about the engineering required to produce a safe and efficient vehicle that will survive wrecks, severe weather, and last long enough for a decent ROI. Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have. > > Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics. > > Which makes him an expert at something, and quite amusing sometimes. Only if you find idiots amuzing. BTW, 'Fly by Night' is a theif. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis. Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when you go out, right? Yup, you're a real technology guy. > The more > unsprung weight, the more stress on the vehicle suspension, which [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along, since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis. >and on the existing > mounts. Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something? How would they be unsprung then? > How do you upgrade, with those limitations? How many > horsepower do you think you'll get from a motor that size and weight? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the ceilings. Heavy leather belts ran to a flat pulley / flywheel at > each machine. Yes I'm familiar with that. But then they've also been run by windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it have to do with transmissions and power curves? >A wire brush company in Cleveland, Ohio still has them, > but stopped using them long ago. The old machines were modified to a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have. Well yes, but I don't think that makes me more or less qualified to evaluate auto designs. I've also spent a bunch of hours using bobcats and tracked excavators, and while it is fun to spin them around on the flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench. Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible response I will deal with it. -tg > > > Bret is an expert at 'Fly By Night' tactics. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > > Unsprung means that it is detached from the chassis. > > Wow. Then how is it a problem? It will just sit in the driveway when > you go out, right? Your ignorance is depressing. Have you ever designed anything mechanical in your sorry life? > Yup, you're a real technology guy. Yes, i am. I built Telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry. You, on the other hand, couldn't buy a clue if they were but a penny. > > Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, > > Huh? Who says? But what I really don't understand is how, if the motor > is going to be unattached to the chassis, the car can roll along, > since then the wheels would have to be unattached to the chassis. If it isn't inside the wheel, additional load is applied to the motor bearings. Of course if you knew anything about Physics, you wouldn't make so many ignorant statements. > >and on the existing > > mounts. > > Wouldn't mounts have to be mounted to something? How would they be > unsprung then? Sigh. Did you fail third grade science class? You still can't grasp what 'unsprung' means. Heaven forbid you actually crack a book, and try to learn something. Have you ever heard of intetia? Do you have any idea why you want to keep most of the vehicle's mass moving in one plane? I guess the sring inside your nearly empty head has snapped, at last. > > Sigh. Before electicity was availible in some factories they ran > > Steam or Internal Combustion engines to drive driveshafts suspended from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > windmills and waterwheels and horses and oxen and humans. What does it > have to do with transmissions and power curves? I gess that you're too stupid to live. If you weren't, you would know the answers. > > Have you ever seen a real US military tank up close? I have. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > flat, the main lesson I learned was to wear a hardhat and don't try > that maneuver in a narrow foundation trench. So, you're a dangerous fool, too. That is no surprise. > Your replies are getting more incoherent as you go along. Look up my > reply on unsprung weight in this thread, and if you have a sensible > response I will deal with it. Incohernt? That's a laugh. You know as little about physics as your butt buddy, bret. > -tg Does this mean your some kind of cross dresser or drag queen? I know you aren't a dairy in Florida. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! On Jun 4, 1:43 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Your ignorance is depressing. Have you ever designed anything > mechanical in your sorry life? A *sensible* response would involve you explaining how parts that are "detached from the chassis" have any function at all. > > Yup, you're a real technology guy. > > Yes, i am. I built Telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry. > You, on the other hand, couldn't buy a clue if they were but a penny. Now I remember---you are the guy who put the screws into the cover of the equipment and polished up the case. We thank you for your service. People who know stuff like physics tend to talk about problems in concrete terms---they would be interested in showing me why my idea doesn't work, and they wouldn't be afraid to describe things in detail. You are obviously bluffing. -tg > > > Right. The motor has to fit inside the wheel, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > -- > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! Unsprung weight in an automobile (motorcycle, bicycle, etc.) typically is in the wheels before the suspension and is a concern largely for high performance and ordinary performance on imperfect roads. There are vehicles with the motor(s) in the hubs of the wheels. Conventional affordable electric engines tend to be quite heavy (emphasis on economical because if you wish to spend enough, this weight can be dramatically reduced.) The proposal for electrified roads suggests that these roads could be made quite smooth and turns radiused and possibly banked to reduce the need for less unsprung weight. It's all a trade-off. I am particularly interested in carbon-fiber wheels but they are not DOT approved for road use and regardless, changing the tires is very difficult to do without damaging the rims. Oh, check this out: http://www.pmlflightlink.com/news.html The article in that link is problematic in one regard, "Torque Ripple" is actually beneficial to traction as evinced in such applications as "big bang" engines which are either engines with, for example, two cylinders firing in 45 degree or less (Suziki, Harley-Davidson, Honda's V4 modified to two oval cylinders and four connecting rods) and an exotic 16 cylinder engine that fires four cylinders at once. The same 'ripple' or pulsed power effect is what makes anti-lock brakes more effective than conventional. > Unsprung weight in an automobile (motorcycle, bicycle, etc.) typically > is in the wheels before the suspension and is a concern largely for high [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > economical because if you wish to spend enough, this weight can be > dramatically reduced.) He wants to know why heavy wheels were ever an issue in the first place. Check out how I set up the equation of motion for vehicle suspension. To keep things easy I replaced the seemingly passive pot hole forcing function with an active forcing function that was proportional to the weight of the wheels. > The proposal for electrified roads suggests that these roads could be > made quite smooth and turns radiused and possibly banked to reduce the > need for less unsprung weight. It's all a trade-off. Smoother roads would nice but the typical freeway surface may be good enough. One issue is the truck lane which generally is in pretty sorry shape. > I am particularly interested in carbon-fiber wheels but they are not DOT > approved for road use and regardless, changing the tires is very [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The same 'ripple' or pulsed power effect is what makes anti-lock brakes > more effective than conventional. We need to figure out a way to get cheap energy to the vehicle. Otherwise I'll start advocating spray painting "Bicycle Only" on every other road like they do in platinum rated bicycle friendly cities. Bret Cahill > Unsprung weight in an automobile (motorcycle, bicycle, etc.) typically > is in the wheels before the suspension and is a concern largely for high [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Oh, check this out:http://www.pmlflightlink.com/news.html Thanks. These are the people involved in this: http://www.hipadrive.com/Documents/new%20york%20times%20sema%20article.pdf I should point out, however, that in-the-hub isn't a *requirement* to benefit from wheelmotors. Nice, but not necessary. -tg > The article in that link is problematic in one regard, "Torque Ripple" > is actually beneficial to traction as evinced in such applications as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The same 'ripple' or pulsed power effect is what makes anti-lock brakes > more effective than conventional. On 6/4/09 3:09 PM, in article abd30048-e9e0-40f4-9978-796ba4411318@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, >> Oh, check this out:http://www.pmlflightlink.com/news.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I should point out, however, that in-the-hub isn't a *requirement* to > benefit from wheelmotors. Nice, but not necessary. Can you point me to a wheelmotor that is not in the hub? > On 6/4/09 3:09 PM, in article > abd30048-e9e0-40f4-9978-796ba4411...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Can you point me to a wheelmotor that is not in the hub? You know, I am posting from a philosophy group, and this kind of definition thing is always lots of trouble. The people in the reference make flat motors, and so it is in their interest to think in- the-hub. If you mount four electric motors to the chassis, and have some kind of universal-joint stub connected to the wheel, what do you call that other than a wheelmotor? What I'm pushing in these posts is the idea of multiple companies making motors with whatever innovative de-coupling of the mass of the electric motor from the 'sprung' mass of the 'wheel' they can come up with. The chassis has some mounting points, but the rest of it is subject to the creativity or stupidity of the motor people. Yeah, I know, I'm a crazy free-market optimist. If you have the chops to put together those cars, why don't you try it yourself? -tg >> Can you point me to a wheelmotor that is not in the hub? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some kind of universal-joint stub connected to the wheel, what do you > call that other than a wheelmotor? No. That's just another inboard motor arrangement. You see, in the case you described the motors would be above the suspension. > What I'm pushing in these posts is the idea of multiple companies > making motors with whatever innovative de-coupling of the mass of the > electric motor from the 'sprung' mass of the 'wheel' they can come up > with. It is very simple. Think of motors in a wheel bouncing down the road. Heavy is not good because too much energy is fed right back to them because the suspension cannot transfer it quickly enough to some putative absorber in the chassis. However, if one distributes the total desired power among four wheels, then each will be lighter and life is good again. My friend, I have been building race setups for forty years. I know this sh.t. > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> Can you point me to a wheelmotor that is not in the hub? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > My friend, I have been building race setups for forty years. I know this > sh.t. Glad to hear it. I like to talk to people who know what they are talking about. However, my point does not change---the benefit of 4 electric motors is pretty much the same even if they are 'mounted inboard'. I am not interested in worrying about what you call them. You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor lifetime. Where do you get that figure? And what is the failure mode? -tg -tg >> >> It is very simple. Think of motors in a wheel bouncing down the road. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > electric motors is pretty much the same even if they are 'mounted > inboard'. I am not interested in worrying about what you call them. Never seen "inboard" mounted wheels on an autombile. What would they look like? Regardless, more motors means more likelihood of failure of one and compounded loss of reliability/efficiency for all of them. It's a trade off: with four in-hub motors you can have four weaker, lighter wheel motors rather than one big motor in the chassis. > You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor > lifetime. Where do you get that figure? And what is the failure mode? That was probably wrong. I built a couple in-hub brushed electric bicycles (front hub) and 8,000 hours was the figure for them. (The brushes lasted longer than the motors. Real crap that those motors were.) It depends upon the motor and operation, of course. I can't even guess what an arbitrarily chosen in-hub motor for an automobile would get and I'm about to leave for the day job so I don't have time to research it. Regarding mode, a catastrophic failure (sudden, all at once) can occur in a brushed engine, or through bearing failures of any. We don't have air bearings for large engines yet. However, electric engine performance usually (depending upon type) diminishes long before failure so you have to look to the reliability as performance figures rather than MTBF. > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Never seen "inboard" mounted wheels on an autombile. What would they > look like? http://teslamotorsclub.com/technical/303-hub-motors-dual-motors.html Scroll down to number 8 I think. I would dispense with disc brakes on the wheel and put some very simple parking-brake device on the inboard side as a 'final ultimate' emergency stopping option, relying on electric braking. > Regardless, more motors means more likelihood of failure of one and > compounded loss of reliability/efficiency for all of them. It's a trade > off: with four in-hub motors you can have four weaker, lighter wheel > motors rather than one big motor in the chassis. I think reliability has to be thought of differently from the simple formula. You could argue that a car with 4 tires is more likely to have a flat than a motorcycle with two, but that doesn't make me feel that motorcycles are safer than cars. The idea, which I've repeated many times now, is that the market will yield better motors if there are 40 million sold in the US every year rather than 10 million. And a motor that weighs 75 lbs is easy to swap out; I think electric motors can be rebuilt a couple of times at least---and much easier than rebuilding an ICE or a transmission. > > You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor > > lifetime. Where do you get that figure? And what is the failure mode? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get and I'm about to leave for the day job so I don't have time to > research it. I'm pretty sure lifetimes are rated much higher for brushless electric motors. But just think--- if you average 40mph, 8,000 hours would get you 320,000 miles. And if you have to replace brushes, so what? As I said before, I don't know what the best type of electric motor will end up being used---maybe different for different applications. -tg > Regarding mode, a catastrophic failure (sudden, all at once) can occur > in a brushed engine, or through bearing failures of any. We don't have > air bearings for large engines yet. However, electric engine > performance usually (depending upon type) diminishes long before failure > so you have to look to the reliability as performance figures rather > than MTBF. On 6/5/09 7:52 AM, in article a187370d-0d8a-4565-8cb8-407364942aba@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://teslamotorsclub.com/technical/303-hub-motors-dual-motors.html That is not an inboard hub motor. It is not a hub motor at all. It is a perfectly conventional motor. A hub motor is inside the wheel, not just something that drives the hub. There are no motors or engines that drive the wheel anywhere but to the hub. None drive at the rim of the wheel (except for a couple exotic show motorcycles that are impractical. Citations available.) If I were home I'd shoot some pics of the Porsche's IRS and you would see it's connected to the transmission just like that illustration done by the would-be impressionistic, unlearned contributor to the site in question. So, let's stick to real-world terms. I would not use the post in question as a source of any authority. > Scroll down to number 8 I think. I would dispense with disc brakes on > the wheel and put some very simple parking-brake device on the inboard > side as a 'final ultimate' emergency stopping option, relying on > electric braking. Old hat. We have been mounting disc brakes on drive shafts for many years. I think Lotus does it. I have done it. You can't turn a disc brake into a generator. Its lack of a flywheel effect and radius make it impractical, and also consider that all electric motors are also generators, but not particularly powerful. > [...] > The idea, which I've repeated many times now, is that the market will > yield better motors if there are 40 million sold in the US every year > rather than 10 million. And a motor that weighs 75 lbs is easy to > swap out; I think electric motors can be rebuilt a couple of times at > least---and much easier than rebuilding an ICE or a transmission. Yup, rather like the original Jeep - lots of 'em, bolt access outside of the obstructions, all that. >> > You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor >> > lifetime. Where do you get that figure? And what is the failure mode? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > motors. But just think--- if you average 40mph, 8,000 hours would get > you 320,000 miles. And if you have to replace brushes, so what? I don't know if brushless motors would work with a purely electric (non-hybrid) car. They have to be nudged into motion before the fields engage. Brushes are necessary to move off a dead stop (or the hybrid motor has to nudge it.) Remember, too, these are probably three-phase motors. Three phase motor fields must be kept synchronized in each motor or they become quite inefficient. FWIW, I know a fellow in France who has a Tesla. He's a bit unhappy about the recall. I'm looking forward to his driving impression. > On 6/5/09 7:52 AM, in article > a187370d-0d8a-4565-8cb8-407364942...@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > for a couple exotic show motorcycles that are impractical. Citations > available.) You lost me there---I'm in favor of using perfectly conventional motors if that works. > If I were home I'd shoot some pics of the Porsche's IRS and you would see > it's connected to the transmission just like that illustration done by the > would-be impressionistic, unlearned contributor to the site in question. The picture is just so people can visualize the possible configuration. I don't see anything wrong with it. > So, let's stick to real-world terms. I would not use the post in question as > a source of any authority. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > also consider that all electric motors are also generators, but not > particularly powerful. Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I said. Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking period you are recovering the kinetic energy, which is why it is called regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have no disc brakes at all. If you need further explanation please let me know. -tg > > [...] > > The idea, which I've repeated many times now, is that the market will [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > FWIW, I know a fellow in France who has a Tesla. He's a bit unhappy about > the recall. I'm looking forward to his driving impression. On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: >> On 6/5/09 7:52 AM, in article >> a187370d-0d8a-4565-8cb8-407364942...@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have no disc > brakes at all. If you need further explanation please let me know. Motor/generators are transducers, not brakes. That means you can only slow down, not come to a complete stop. If the electronic controller failed, you couldn't even slow down. How big a market do you expect for cars without brakes? Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have to do it. snip> > On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have to > do it. Don't know much about stepper motors, do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper_motor However, any vehicle would have brakes for parking if nothing else. >> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Don't know much about stepper motors, do you? Well, I've designed control systems and drivers for them, but I haven't ever seen one used for vehicle propulsion or regeneration. Please tell us more about that. An example or app note would be nice. I could think of several uses for a nice four quadrant stepper system. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper_motor > > However, any vehicle would have brakes for parking if nothing else. The question was about the size of the market. I'd want disk brakes, or equivalent, capable of several reliable maximum emergency stops, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Call me old fashioned... >>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > ever seen one used for vehicle propulsion or regeneration. Please tell > us more about that. An example or app note would be nice. Just because you've never seen it doesn't make it a negative requirement, the wheel is redesigned for every new model of car. ICEs are redesigned and improved constantly, why not electric motors? What's wrong with a bicycle wheel with alternate permanent magnets around the rim and a horseshoe stator with a single coil to drive them, fitted like a caliper brake? http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jh15/bikes/images/stdreach.jpg Speed control is merely frequency control, you can get the magnets by recycling old hard drives, the magnets in those are very strong. Embed the magnets in a solid tyre or fit them to the spokes. Cheap and super simple, easy to fit, no problem with torque. > I could think > of several uses for a nice four quadrant stepper system. Such as regenerative braking, perhaps? Oh wait, you are against that idea, right? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper_motor >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equivalent, capable of several reliable maximum emergency stops, and I > don't think I'm alone in that. Call me old fashioned... Nothing wrong with belt and suspenders or wearing a parachute if you plan on strapping a military jet to your arse and jumping up the air. But the real solution is rail; the infrastructure is mostly in place, its cheaper than road beds, easily electrified and vehicles can be individually controlled and navigated by computer, eliminating the train. You load your vegetables on a truck and send it direct to destination, at night, phasing out 18 wheelers. Who needs truck drivers anyway? Re-employ them as maintenance crews. If you want to go somewhere you call a rail taxi, board it and the computer takes you to your destination. Or you buy your own computerized rail vehicle. Leave the freeways for those that want to kill themselves with ICEs. Size of market? The whole damn world. Can it be done? Cities had trams, computers are cheap, cell phones... of course it can. Breakdown? push the vehicle off the main rails into a siding and send a repair crew with a tow truck. >>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > Embed the magnets in a solid tyre or fit them to the spokes. > Cheap and super simple, easy to fit, no problem with torque. How is that different from a multipole PM motor? Once you learn some physics, you may be able to put your imagination to practical use. Until then, it appears it will mostly provide entertainment. >> I could think of several uses for a nice four quadrant stepper system. > > Such as regenerative braking, perhaps? Oh wait, you are against that > idea, right? Not at all. I'm just waiting for you to explain how to do it with a stepper motor. I don't think it's in the wiki, so you may have to actually think realistically about the problem. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper_motor >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nothing wrong with belt and suspenders or wearing a parachute if you > plan on strapping a military jet to your arse and jumping up the air. Or driving at 80 on the freeway. You do know, don't you, that nearly all vehicle hydraulic brake systems are actually two redundant systems? Most people consider brake reliability important. > But the real solution is rail; the infrastructure is mostly in place, > its cheaper [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vegetables on a truck and send it direct to destination, at night, > phasing out 18 wheelers. It sounds easy, until you start to understand some of what's involved. But dream on, you'll never be the one actually expected to do it. > Who needs truck drivers anyway? Re-employ them as maintenance crews. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the vehicle off the main rails into a siding > and send a repair crew with a tow truck. Using the rails? Or do you plan to still have roads for when you really need something to work? >>>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:48:31 -0700, tgdenning wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > physics, you may be able to put your imagination to practical use. Until > then, it appears it will mostly provide entertainment. Bwhahahahahaha! Pissed off because you've never been practical, huh? >>> I could think of several uses for a nice four quadrant stepper system. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > vehicle hydraulic brake systems are actually two redundant systems? Most > people consider brake reliability important. You do know, don't you, that nearly all aircraft hydraulic systems are actually never used for brakes? Should you ever learn engineering you may never be able to put your pathetic lack of imagination to practical use. It appears it will mostly provide mild amusement. >> But the real solution is rail; the infrastructure is mostly in place, >> its cheaper [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It sounds easy, until you start to understand some of what's involved. > But dream on, you'll never be the one actually expected to do it. Rail was always easier than road, that's why it was built first. It's easier today, we are not limited to grossly underpowered steam locomotives that can't climb hills so we wouldn't need the tunnels and bridges the Victorians built. Why, I've even heard of ships that are nuclear powered, unlike the coal-fired Titanic of your non-existent old-fashioned imagination. But you carry on living in the 20th century with your electric motors that are also generators, but not particularly powerful like this: http://www.railwayclassics.com/images/acl01/ACL501%20color.jpg >> Who needs truck drivers anyway? Re-employ them as maintenance crews. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Using the rails? Or do you plan to still have roads for when you really > need something to work? No, and I also plan to dump you for the miserable and highly limited unimaginative old-fashioned fuckhead you really are. On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d@giganews.com, >> Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I said. >> Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking period [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > failed, you couldn't even slow down. How big a market do you expect for > cars without brakes? True. Thanks for the affirmation, Bill. > Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have to > do it. Speaking of offloading wheel weight, this is an inboard disk brake setup that moves the brake load closer to the pivot on the tranny or differential which helps lower unsprung weight. http://www.1-18scalecars.com/Lotus/Lotus_72D_Fittipaldi_engine.jpg It's a model car but shows the scheme. (credit: www.1-18scalecars.com/) The idea goes way back: http://www.car-restoration.com/images/photos/peter02.jpg (credit: Peter Bruin of www.car-restoration.com/.../peter_bruin/51.html) > On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > True. Thanks for the affirmation, Bill. But motors can be reversed, and so you can certainly come to a complete stop using only the motors. However, as I said, there can be a simple type of brake, since you need something for parking. But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You *don't* need high-quality disc brakes---you could have a drum operated by cable. I certainly understand that many of us would be nervous about driving the first generation of completely brake-free cars, but then people got used to flying fly-by-wire airplanes, which seems just as scary to me. Remember, hydraulic brakes fail sometimes too, so you would have to establish that one was more reliable than the other. -tg > > Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have to > > do it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The idea goes way back:http://www.car-restoration.com/images/photos/peter02.jpg > (credit: Peter Bruin ofwww.car-restoration.com/.../peter_bruin/51.html) Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the Civil War? Well, very soon we'll be similarly situated. When fuel is $15/gallon a sled will be considered a nice ride. We need to get back to reality: I don't care if the vehicle has square wheels that don't turn we need to focus on getting some kind of energy to the vehicle. Bret Cahill "My kingdom for a horse." In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the > Civil War? > > Well, very soon we'll be similarly situated. > > When fuel is $15/gallon a sled will be considered a nice ride. Oil and tar sand recovery from domestic sources would be economical at a far less price. For that matter, LPG (also lots of domestic sources) would be economical at a far less price. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the > Civil War? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't care if the vehicle has square wheels that don't turn we need > to focus on getting some kind of energy to the vehicle. I'd like to know how you manage to feed and breathe - like you got a job? I ask because we have a lot of intellectually handicapped people who could probably take your day job - and not pester the rest of us on usenet with such friggin idiocy. >> Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the >> Civil War? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I'd like to know how you manage to feed and breathe - like you got a >job? --- Yeah, he does. He's some kind of a court reporter or legal assistant sissy or something like that, and has delusions of adequacy which led him to start posting his sh.t to sci.electronics.design, where he's been shot down so often he might as well be a Zero. --- >I ask because we have a lot of intellectually handicapped people >who could probably take your day job - and not pester the rest of us on >usenet with such friggin idiocy. --- Too late, the guy's a remora... JF >>> Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the >>> Civil War? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > his sh.t to sci.electronics.design, where he's been shot down so often > he might as well be a Zero. Well them it is good that he's a zero - can't multiply. >Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the >Civil War? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >We need to get back to reality: --- But Rhett was fantasy. The reality is that if fuel goes to $15 per gallon there'll be an awful lot of us working from home. Haven't you heard of the Internet? --- >I don't care if the vehicle has square wheels that don't turn we need >to focus on getting some kind of energy to the vehicle. --- Why? If the wheels are square and won't turn, then putting energy into the vehicle is just wasting energy, which is what you're saying should be avoided. Just another blunder on the uphill road leading to your becoming, at best, inadequate, I suppose... --- >Bret Cahill > >"My kingdom for a horse." --- Your "kingdom" isn't worth a horse. JF >> Remember where Rhett manages to steal an old nag toward the end of the >> Civil War? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The reality is that if fuel goes to $15 per gallon there'll be an awful > lot of us working from home. And people who have to "be there" on the job, for example construction workers (there will be construction) to plumbers and medics will be making more money than egg heads. > > The reality is that if fuel goes to $15 per gallon there'll be an awful > > lot of us working from home. John Fields can provide the on line entertainment by claiming circular furrows are impossible, that adiabatic engine systems might not scale up . . . > And people who have to "be there" on the job, If they want to get there they'll soon have to motor off the grid as fuel costs have been increasing by 10% _a month_. > for example construction > workers (there will be construction) We can only hope some will be working on getting energy to vehicles. > to plumbers and medics will be > making more money than egg heads. Number crunching is so so so . . . gauche!. Bret Cahill >> > The reality is that if fuel goes to $15 per gallon there'll be an awful >> > lot of us working from home. > >John Fields can provide the on line entertainment by claiming circular >furrows are impossible, that adiabatic engine systems might not scale >up . . . --- And by shooting you down with incontrovertible logic and watching you crash and burn with no way of getting out of your plight. --- >> And people who have to "be there" on the job, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Number crunching is so so so . . . gauche!. --- If all you know how to do is run a spreadsheet, perhaps. JF >> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > complete stop using only the motors. However, as I said, there can be > a simple type of brake, since you need something for parking. No they cannot! Not in real world applications! Try it! Try using only engine braking. Engine braking has far more stopping potential than an electric motor. But it still is far from enough! > But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you > get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You > *don't* need high-quality disc brakes---you could have a drum operated > by cable. You are wrong, and now I understand that your automotive engineering knowledge is just sheer impressionism. Oh, and cables stretch which is why Volkswagen abandoned cable-actuated brakes in 1953. Catch up. > I certainly understand that many of us would be nervous about driving > the first generation of completely brake-free cars, Corvettes, and my builds, use fly-by-wire for throttle. No problem. Catch up. > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > engine braking. Engine braking has far more stopping potential than an > electric motor. But it still is far from enough! I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential. > > But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you > > get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are wrong, and now I understand that your automotive engineering > knowledge is just sheer impressionism. No, I'm not wrong. Regenerative braking is a real effect, and with a smart controller you will avoid losing traction. I'm not saying it is a trivial matter to set up such a system but there's nothing that prohibits it. >Oh, and cables stretch which is > why Volkswagen abandoned cable-actuated brakes in 1953. Catch up. There are cables and there are cables. And we are not exerting tons of force in this application. -tg > > I certainly understand that many of us would be nervous about driving > > the first generation of completely brake-free cars, > > Corvettes, and my builds, use fly-by-wire for throttle. No problem. > Catch up. >> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have > as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential. But they do not. >>> But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you >>> get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, I'm not wrong. Regenerative braking is a real effect, and with a > smart controller you will avoid losing traction. You won't need a controller at all because at full-null input it still will not have enough drag to cause the wheels to lock up. > I'm not saying it is a trivial matter to set up such a system but > there's nothing that prohibits it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There are cables and there are cables. And we are not exerting tons of > force in this application. Oh yes you are. Consider the diameter of the cable and the task it has to perform. Same as the old VW Bugs which were still light. >>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article o6idnVqzaun2_rTXnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4...@giganews.com, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >But they do not. --- I'm not well versed in this field, so I'm asking: If the input to a DC motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop it than to run it up using a voltage source with a higher impedance than the brake? --- >>>> But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you >>>> get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Oh yes you are. Consider the diameter of the cable and the task it has >to perform. Same as the old VW Bugs which were still light. JF >>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the brake? > --- Huh? If you short any motor, AC or DC, it will stop faster than you can finish the word "stop". >>>>> But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you >>>>> get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>to perform. Same as the old VW Bugs which were still light. > JF > > I'm not well versed in this field, so I'm asking: If the input to a DC > > motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Huh? That what I said when he said circular furrows were impossible. > If you short any motor, AC or DC, �it will stop faster than you can finish > the word "stop". John Fields has an IQ of 14. His case worker keeps him posting here to keep him off the street. Bret Cahill > > I'm not well versed in this field, so I'm asking: If the input to a DC > > motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Huh? That what I said when he said circular furrows were impossible. > If you short any motor, AC or DC, ?it will stop faster than you can finish > the word "stop". John Fields has an IQ of 14. His case worker keeps him posting here to keep him off the street. Bret Cahill Well, he did say he was asking and said he wasn't versed, so I went gentle . >> > I'm not well versed in this field, so I'm asking: If the input to a DC >> > motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >John Fields has an IQ of 14. --- Considering the number of times I've skewered you, then, that puts you at about a solid 4, yes? JF >>>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >If you short any motor, AC or DC, it will stop faster than you can finish >the word "stop". --- My point exactly, which was directed at the "But they do not." [have as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential] comment. JF >>>>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > comment. Let us assume we apply a low voltage to an unloaded DC motor and it takes 10 seconds to accelerate to 1000 RPM, overcoming inertia (or we could just load it with a heavy flywheel or propel a train). Force = mass * acceleration. With a higher voltage we can reach 1000 RPM in 5 seconds, we've increased the force so we increase the acceleration. Now we disconnect the supply and short the terminals on the motor. It grunts and stops in a few milliseconds no matter what voltage we used to accelerate it. All the kinetic energy of the flywheel or train is dissipated in the windings which heat up rapidly. deceleration = -Force/mass. Therefore they have MORE stopping potential than starting potential. Incidentally, I've actually done this with a tapping machine that was snapping taps as it cut threads and bottomed in a blind hole. The usual solution is to break torque mechanically, but I tripped the breaker on increased current as the motor slowed and shorted the motor with normally closed contacts on the breaker. That was many years ago. >>>>>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >the motor with normally closed contacts on the breaker. >That was many years ago. --- I've done the same thing on an orbital welder in order to make sure the weld head is indexed properly at the end of a weld, but let's go back and review what's going on here. Somebody wrote: "I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential." That, to me, means that they can be stopped in _at least_ as much time as it took to get them up to speed. Then someone else wrote: "But they do not." That, to me, means that the poster thought a motor can't be stopped in the time it took to run it up, and it would always have to take more time. Not believing the second poster, since I've plugged a few motors in my time, I asked why it would take longer to stop the motor than to start it. Interestingly, you took exception to my position even though you agree with it! What's up with that? JF >>>>>>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > What's up with that? You asked: "If the input to a DC motor is shorted, once it's running, why would it take longer to stop it ... yada yada yada (impedance)" That, to me, means that you thought a motor can't be stopped in less time than it took to run it up. I said "Huh?" because it will NOT take longer to stop it. What's up with that? >>>>>>>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/09 1:26 PM, in article [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > What's up with that? Some of the confusion may be due to the original claim of regenerative braking. If you actively reverse current to the motors, you should produce the same torque either direction, but at the cost of consuming battery power. Recovery of the decel energy requires some non-trivial impedance matching to put it back into the battery, and would decrease in efficiency as the velocity decreased, I would think. At zero, there would be no retarding force. IMHO, regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the electronic controller. Initial brake pedal force should invoke regeneration, but should be backed up by reliable hydraulic brakes past a threshold force indicating driver dissatisfaction with current stopping performance. > IMHO, regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough > to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the > electronic controller. The is how Americans stop trains: http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml#DynamicBrakes Typically American, the energy as wasted as heat. This is a British train: http://ro.altermedia.info/images/eurostar-chunnel-train-4.jpg Overhead is a catenary. It has a high voltage. IYHO, regenerative braking is a good idea. It's not your idea though. What do you not think stops the Eurostar? Your opinion, however honest it may be, is about as useful as a tit on a bull. >> IMHO, regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough >> to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Your opinion, however honest it may be, is about as useful as a tit on > a bull. Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a point. But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right through your dishonest tactic. I won't even bother to repost, I'll just mention that the original subject was regenerative braking on automobiles, and I was clearing up some confusion on the issue. Trains were not at issue. You are a disgrace to the good name of J. K. Rowling. Shame. >>> IMHO, regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough >>> to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You are a disgrace to the good name of J. K. Rowling. Shame. Billowbwap: are you now bothering people in newsgroups other than alt.global-warming after we successfully scared you away? Hint: Bill needs the treatment, I mean THE treatment, where you confront him with the facts. Q SignatureUltimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles in orbit that remain help to combat global warming. >>> IMHO, regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough >>> to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > mention that the original subject was regenerative braking on > automobiles, and I was clearing up some confusion on the issue. Actually the original subject was Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification, I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion. > Trains were not at issue. > > You are a disgrace to the good name of J. K. Rowling. Shame. What do you not think stops the Eurostar? (Ward's answer is a blank stare, not even a dropped jaw) f.ck off, your miserable opinion is about as useful as a pitot tube on a snail. > > Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a > > point. �But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Electrification, > �I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion. That's nothing. One poster has been insisting for over a week that the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification. It makes you wonder why he even clicked on this thread in the first place. Is some virus going around that compromises their basic reasoning ability? Are these people really this dumb/irrational in person and if so, how do I manage to avoid meeting them on the street? Maybe their case workers have them all posting here to _keep_ them off the street. If that's true then it's a good thing. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a >> > point. �But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's nothing. One poster has been insisting for over a week that > the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification. Other than the fuel cost to run the construction equipment, the cost of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification. <snip babble> The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system, not BUILDING it. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a > >> > point. But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> Electrification, > >> I'm so glad you've cleared up that confusion. > > That's nothing. �One poster has been insisting for over a week that > > the soaring cost of oil is irrelevant to the cost of electrification. > Other than the fuel cost to run the construction equipment, Now that's a critical issue too. The longer we wait before we start electrification the higher the cost to electrify because construction, like most everything else, is so highly dependent on affordable fuel. There may very well be some point of no return where we end up with neither oil nor any other means of transportation. Then we are just screwed. > the cost > of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification. Why would the electorate want to pay for the cost for electrification, which everyone agrees will be significant, if they didn't think the price of oil would soar? To be sure there are quite a few folk greenwashing themselves. They like to talk up a storm about clean air and polar bears but this ain't got the political umph as $15/gallon fuel. For example, last year Republicans were hoping to make an issue out of $5/gallon fuel prices. Their talking point "soution" was drilling off shore. Even though every economist would agree that no effect whatsoever on global market prices -- and prices at the pump --, it must have been gaining traction with voters as the Democrats were about to cave. > The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system, > not BUILDING it. You think we are going to go back to oil fired power plants? Now you have to play janitor to your own mess, a mess _no one_ can clean up. Your only option now is to dissemble, dodge re explain, and generally look disreputable. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > Too bad you are so pathetic you need to snip context to appear to have a >> >> > point. But I'll give you a sorely needed clue - most people see right [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Now that's a critical issue too. And the ONLY thing the cost of oil has to do with the construction cost of electrification. <snip arm waving babble> >> of oil IS irrelevant to the construction cost of electrification. > > Why would the electorate want to pay for the cost for electrification, > which everyone agrees will be significant, if they didn't think the > price of oil would soar? They wouldn't and they don't. No one, and especially you, has come up with even a wild guess on the cost to implement and the cost that doesn't exist hasn't been presented to "the electorate" for an opinion. <snip off topic, irrelevant babble> >> The cost of oil is relevant to RUNNING an electrified highway system, >> not BUILDING it. > > You think we are going to go back to oil fired power plants? Babbling nonsense that has nothing to do with the statement. <snip remaining babble> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > The is how Americans stop trains: > �http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml#DynamicBrakes > Typically American, the energy as wasted as heat. That's nothing. You ought to see them water the banks of the freeway in the middle of a "state of emergency" drought. We might not have water to flush the toilet but, by golly, we're going to look at something greener than brittle bush when we drive to work. Bret Cahill > The is how Americans stop trains: > ?http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml#DynamicBrakes > Typically American, the energy as wasted as heat. That's nothing. You ought to see them water the banks of the freeway in the middle of a "state of emergency" drought. We might not have water to flush the toilet but, by golly, we're going to look at something greener than brittle bush when we drive to work. Bret Cahill ========================================== Well, to be fair, American rail is not extensively electrified as it is here so the energy has to be dumped somehow, but that's no excuse for Ward's ignorant bigotry. That he imagines he can limit the debate on energy efficiency referred to in the thread title to road vehicles demonstrates the very narrow-mindedness he accuses others of. He claims to have designed control systems and drivers for stepper motors but hasn't ever seen one used for vehicle propulsion or regeneration, and also claims "regenerative braking is a good idea, but it's not reliable enough to be the primary braking system, because of its dependence on the electronic controller." If he really was as capable as he boasts he'd design a controller for a car. The guy is not even a decent devil's advocate pointing out what the problems might be, he's an opinionated fuckwit still living in the 20th century. In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> The is how Americans stop trains: >> �http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml#DynamicBrakes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You ought to see them water the banks of the freeway in the middle of > a "state of emergency" drought. In most places that is non-potable grey water from waste water with the nasty stuff removed. By using it to irrigate, it trickles down to the water table getting cleaned by nature for free on the way. You really don't know how much of anything in the real world works, do you? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > >> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But they do not. Now you are being silly. Do you understand what reversing the motor means? -tg > >>> But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you > >>> get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Oh yes you are. Consider the diameter of the cable and the task it has > to perform. Same as the old VW Bugs which were still light. >>> I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I >>> said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have >>> as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential. >> But they do not. > > Now you are being silly. Do you understand what reversing the motor > means? "as much stopping potential as starting potential" is incorrect. It is not proportionate. The stopping potential depends upon the electrical load of the system. More 'need for juice' == greater stopping power. Using the electric motor as a brake in an automobile requires a load on the electrical system. Granted, such is usually the case, for example when the battery is not fully charged and an appliance or the lights are on. Regardless, super capacitors can add to the necessary load. But it's not proportionate. Not really. Aside: the lights and accessories of the conventional car draw extra horsepower than if they were off. It's related to the load on the alternator/generator. So driving with everything on causes a minor loss in mileage. Oh, and your alternator does not recharge the conventional car system when you take your foot off the gas at speed because it's engineered (using a diode) to direct the juice one-way. Removing that diode will raise hell. A funny and pathetic aside - At one time Volkswagen used the generator warning light bulb (a tiny thing in the speedometer) to first energize the alternator's field so that it would generate electricity. If that stupid bulb burned out, then after you stopped the engine and started it again, you just drew from the battery because the alternator was not energized, was not charging. Lesson: if it did not come on don't just think "aw it's just an affirmation bulb" and drive away - your battery will discharge eventually and turn you into a pedestrian. (problem solved with tiny resistor in circuit.) > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > >>> I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > But it's not proportionate. Not really. Ok, now I can see that you actually don't get what I am saying. By reverse, I don't mean "reverse the function so the motor becomes a generator". I mean "reverse the direction that the motor is trying to turn", which will actually *use* battery juice that is already stored. Remember, the original question was whether you can bring the car to a complete stop using only electricity and no mechanical brakes. The answer is yes. You are correct that it is not a simple 1:1 relationship in a practical sense to stop the car with the generator effect. The most obvious reason is that you usually would like to stop faster than you have accelerated to the current speed, and you may be going downhill as well. This means that even if you 'short' the motor<>generator as someone suggested, the kinetic energy of the car will be have to be dissipated as heat at a rate that will prevent damage to the motor. I am suggesting that there will be a combination of effects used to provide the system load, and that over time, it will develop into a mostly electric system which gives ABS, and mechanical brakes will be a back-up component and for parking. Right now, it isn't even legal to have a car without mechanical brakes, no matter how reliable electric braking could be made, so the argument is purely academic. -tg > Aside: the lights and accessories of the conventional car draw extra > horsepower than if they were off. It's related to the load on the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will discharge eventually and turn you into a pedestrian. (problem > solved with tiny resistor in circuit.) >> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: >>>>> I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > generator". I mean "reverse the direction that the motor is trying to > turn", which will actually *use* battery juice that is already stored. But that is not regenerative, which I presumed we were talking about; in fact, what you propose wastes battery power in the form of heat - one of the things we are trying to avoid with an electric or hybrid. > Remember, the original question was whether you can bring the car to a > complete stop using only electricity and no mechanical brakes. The > answer is yes. Remember, we already settled the fact that conventional braking is still required, so the point is academic as you point to below. > [... you seem to affirm my points ...] > I am suggesting that there will be a combination of effects used to > provide the system load, and that over time, it will develop into a > mostly electric system which gives ABS, and mechanical brakes will be > a back-up component and for parking. ABS today is hydraulic/mechanical with electricity only providing control of the hydraulic valves and timing of the same. I know electrical brakes and so far the hydraulic brake is so effective I've never considered a fully electric alternative. I'll keep an eye out for them. > Right now, it isn't even legal to > have a car without mechanical brakes, no matter how reliable electric > braking could be made, so the argument is purely academic. OTOH, electric brakes are quite common in small (car sized) trailers. If I lost power to mine, they would go into default behavior of a modest amount of mechanical brake without controls for more or less; if they were to fail, I'd just crank the brakes out to disable them (providing I stopped under control). Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity so regenerative braking from 65 mph to 25 mph recoups up to 85% of the energy that would otherwise be lost with friction braking. There just isn't much energy to recoup at low speeds so friction brakes are green at these speeds. Regenerative braking is particularly valuable with heavy trucks on long mountain grades. A one ton li-ion battery can get a 40 ton truck up a 6,000 verticle ft climb and then be recharged on the descent. A 80,000 lb truck going 45 mph down a 6% grade without compression or regenerative braking must dissipate over a MW of heat in eight 50 lb friction brake drums. Each drum is being heated 120 BTUs/sec but the drum only has a total heat capacity of 5 BTUs/ degree F. The temperature is increasing 25 degrees F every second. After a few seconds the drums are red hot and the diameter increases by an eighth of an inch and the brake pads no longer engage the drum. The rabbits are all waiting at the bottom of the canyon hoping it's a lettuce truck. Bret Cahill > Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity so regenerative > braking from 65 mph to 25 mph recoups up to 85% of the energy that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Bret Cahill Ok Bret. So tell me why I don't want 4 small motors recharging 4 battery modules, on this truck, rather than a big honking motor and battery pile that will need water cooling to deal with delta-T. Surface area---another point for the modular side. -tg On Jun 6, 9:47 am, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But it's not proportionate. Not really. Ok, now I can see that you actually don't get what I am saying. By reverse, I don't mean "reverse the function so the motor becomes a generator". I mean "reverse the direction that the motor is trying to turn", which will actually *use* battery juice that is already stored. Remember, the original question was whether you can bring the car to a complete stop using only electricity and no mechanical brakes. The answer is yes. You are correct that it is not a simple 1:1 relationship in a practical sense to stop the car with the generator effect. The most obvious reason is that you usually would like to stop faster than you have accelerated to the current speed, and you may be going downhill as well. This means that even if you 'short' the motor<>generator as someone suggested, the kinetic energy of the car will be have to be dissipated as heat at a rate that will prevent damage to the motor. I am suggesting that there will be a combination of effects used to provide the system load, and that over time, it will develop into a mostly electric system which gives ABS, and mechanical brakes will be a back-up component and for parking. Right now, it isn't even legal to have a car without mechanical brakes, no matter how reliable electric braking could be made, so the argument is purely academic. -tg 'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken > Aside: the lights and accessories of the conventional car draw extra > horsepower than if they were off. It's related to the load on the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will discharge eventually and turn you into a pedestrian. (problem > solved with tiny resistor in circuit.) On Jun 5, 7:28 pm, john joseph <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote: > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Jun 5, 3:02 pm, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > engine braking. Engine braking has far more stopping potential than an > electric motor. But it still is far from enough! I think maybe you are not reading carefully and just overreacting. I said that electric motors can be reversed, which means that they have as much 'stopping potential' as they have starting potential. ============================================ Yep, if you can spin the wheels at start up then you can apply the same torque stopping them. However, braking does a better job in an emergency because most brakes can lock the wheels even when the motive power is insufficient to spin the wheels at startup. > > But the advantage of regenerative braking with four motors is that you > > get smooth ABS when it matters----going from fast to very slow. You [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are wrong, and now I understand that your automotive engineering > knowledge is just sheer impressionism. No, I'm not wrong. Regenerative braking is a real effect, and with a smart controller you will avoid losing traction. I'm not saying it is a trivial matter to set up such a system but there's nothing that prohibits it. ============================================ It's as simple as it can be, actually. The back-emf that the motor generates limits the current and if you drive the motor faster through the shaft the current reverses, which is exactly what you want to recharge a battery. You do not need to reverse the direction of the motor. For a vehicle the energy losses are overcoming air resistance and bearing/gearbox friction. Any braking is an additional loss as heat which cannot be recovered. >Oh, and cables stretch which is > why Volkswagen abandoned cable-actuated brakes in 1953. Catch up. There are cables and there are cables. And we are not exerting tons of force in this application. -tg =============================================== You seem to be trying to educate a complete idiot. Good luck! > > I certainly understand that many of us would be nervous about driving > > the first generation of completely brake-free cars, > > Corvettes, and my builds, use fly-by-wire for throttle. No problem. > Catch up. > > Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I said. > > Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking period > > you are recovering the kinetic energy, which is why it is called > > regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have no disc > > brakes at all. �If you need further explanation please let me know. > Motor/generators are transducers, not brakes. That means you can only > slow down, not come to a complete stop. � It's a good thing we have alert readers here to debunk regenerative braking! > If the electronic controller > failed, you couldn't even slow down. � I feel like I just missed a mountain curve, went over the guard rail and I'm now free falling into the canyon. Which religion should I convert to before I hit a rock? > How big a market do you expect for > cars without brakes? Chrysler did pretty well with their Voyager. When the ABS went out, there was no backup. When I first saw it I didn't believe it. I turned to an old used car salesman who was pretty knowledgeable. I said, "Well it can't be! It must be some other thing going on here. _No one_ would design an ABS system without backup!" The old used car salesman remained silent. > Remember, everything looks easy to the guy who doesn't actually have to > do it. That's why we pay the guy who actually does it. Next issue? Bret Cahill >>> Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I said. >>> Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking period [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's a good thing we have alert readers here to debunk regenerative > braking! Regenerative braking can help if it is geared. Now go read up and come back later, way later. >> How big a market do you expect for >> cars without brakes? > > Chrysler did pretty well with their Voyager. When the ABS went out, > there was no backup. Bullshit. ABS works as a normal brake when the solenoid motor fails. Learn or die. > >>> Again you've lost me---you are obviously misinterpreting what I said. > >>> Braking is done by the electric motor; for most of the braking period > >>> you are recovering the kinetic energy, which is why it is called > >>> regenerative braking. The ultimate implementation would have no disc > >>> brakes at all. If you need further explanation please let me know. > >> Motor/generators are transducers, not brakes. That means you can only > >> slow down, not come to a complete stop. > > It's a good thing we have alert readers here to debunk regenerative > > braking! > Regenerative braking can help if it is geared. Now go read up and come > back later, way later. I was being funny. I don't use emocons. > >> How big a market do you expect for > >> cars without brakes? > > Chrysler did pretty well with their Voyager. �When the ABS went out, > > there was no backup. . . . > ABS works as a normal brake when the solenoid motor fails. Not the Dodge minivan ABS system. I actually rode around [in the desert w/ an excellent driver] in one where the brakes were 99% gone. In fact there is/was a 800 number somewhere where you could force any Chrysler dealer anywhere to fix it for free. They even had back up numbers in case the dealer didn't provide satisfaction. I was astounded that, 1. something that moronic could happen, and, 2. my used used car dealer acquaintence knew something that moronic could happen. How did he know? Bret Cahill The reliability of modern electric motors beats just about everything, maybe even gas turbines. There is no debate on that issue. The cost/watt of a volume production motor is just a couple of cents, the same as ICE. Hybrid and EV advocates properly tout these advantages until they are blue in the face. Bret Cahill > Regardless, more motors means more likelihood of failure of one and > compounded loss of reliability/efficiency for all of them. � But it vastly increases reliability. You can always limp around on 3 motors. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> Regardless, more motors means more likelihood of failure of one and >> compounded loss of reliability/efficiency for all of them. � > > But it vastly increases reliability. > > You can always limp around on 3 motors. Not allways; it depends on the failure mode. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 5, 11:30�am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not allways; it depends on the failure mode. The issue was motor failure. Not battery failure. Not wiring failure. Not controller failure. Not driver failure. If one motor fails you _always_ have backup. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 11:30�am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If one motor fails you _always_ have backup. Have you ever heard of bearings? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor > lifetime. Where do you get that figure? Do the numbers. That's half a million miles or one year 24/7/52 at freeway speeds. > And what is the failure mode? The same as for ICE: Driving into the surf. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> You also posted something about 8,000 hours for an electric motor >> lifetime. Where do you get that figure? > > Do the numbers. That's half a million miles or one year 24/7/52 at > freeway speeds. No real vehicle comes anywhere near averaging freeway speeds over it's life. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > However, if one distributes the total desired power among four wheels, > then each will be lighter and life is good again. Well it's certainly better than two really heavy wheels and two normal weight wheels but it really doesn't completely end run the unsprung weight issue. Not that that matters on this thread or elsewhere. Soaring oil prices will cause everyone to rethink what they consider important and a nice smooth safe pre peak oil consumer society ride probably will be pretty low on everyone's list. Most Americans would rather risk driving their SUVs through live downed primary lines than give up their over size vehicles. Most Americans would rather eat fried concrete than take the bus. Most Americans would rather drive to the gym than cycle on a nice day. What am I saying? Just yesterday I realized I was too lazy to swim to the other side of a nearly empty 50 m pool when I still had 3/4 mile left to go! Bret Cahill "Vanity is to our emotions what our skin is to our internal organs." -- Nietzsche > My friend, I have been building race setups for forty years. I know this > sh.t. OK, take the batteries out of a Tesla and put it on a slot car track and it would go from 0 - 60 in 3.x seconds. What is x? (Assume the batteries are 1/3rd the weight of the EV.) Racing is always a good clean fun way to demonstrate / promote any technology. Maybe it would be useful for DoE to first build a track and then work from there. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > Maybe it would be useful for DoE to first build a track and then work > from there. A track that works in real weather and is compatible with existing roads and existing vehicles has already been built. You can read about it here: http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/94/PRR-94-07.pdf SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Which has nothing to do with using wheelmotors. Wheelmotors, however fascinating, have nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is storing and distributing energy to motor vehicles. > �If you insist on > endless dodges, then you are making it easy for Bret to dump on you. He is easy to dump on when he manages to stay on topic. That's why he trys to get off topic. . . . > > � �Sigh. �All wheel drive is no different than existing four wheel > > drive. > You must be living in some strange corner of the planet---AWD has been > around for a while and is more sophisticated than the classic 4WD. > Using pure electrical control is the optimal implementation of the > concept. Maybe so. Perhaps you should start a thread on it. But it is irrelevant to this thread which is about the cost of getting energy to the motors in the first place. Bret Cahill Nothing is free. Entropy shall not be denied. The electricity must come from somewhere. If carbon-sources are out of the picture, then has anyone calculated how much raw nuclear power is available to the planet? If anyone ever doubted this guy was a dunce . . . > > Because gas is still cheap? �Because it isn't in the economic interest > > of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? �What a > > silly question. > � �What a stupid statement. �The first problem is the existing power > grid. �I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add > capacity. � We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks. > An all electric transportation system would make that a drop > in the money pit. � We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes into the spread sheet. This is the most elementary of calculations: 1. the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel (yesterday's price in LA) is 13 kW-hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr = $1.3 million dollars 2. a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so to run a 13 kW electric motor over the next 50 years would cost $26,000 - $53,000. Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in fuel costs. The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a factor of 20 - 50 times over. There is only one word to describe some moron who talks off the top of his head without doing any calculations: a dunce. A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 - $800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period. There is only one word to describe someone pretending to know something about electronics who cannot even do the most elementary of power calculations: a dunce. Anyway, back to the issue: If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13 kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million. It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon. Only a dunce thinks fuel will remain at $3/gallon so batteries will eventually be competitive with oil. But nothing is cheaper than roadbed electrification. > You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done > any research. Anytime you want to sue in small claims court to recover any tuition you may have paid to some scam electronics trade school, I'll be glad to testify on your behalf. Bret Cahill > � �In other words you don't know anything, but want people to think that > you do. Yer projecting again. That sounds a lot like what disinterested third parties are saying about you and the other sci.electronics.basics dunces: "You are nobody in real life so you try to be somebody here." > You can't have a sense of humor, Speaking of humor, how's that defamation lawsuit coming? Now _that_ was funny! A self deceiving loser making idle threats about lawsuits! > if you have no sense! And you also have no sense trying to post on a tech chat group when you have no tech background. But you are good for a laugh! Bret Cahill > > > Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit > > > model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > last couple of decades, and apply the same model to autos. The problem > of battery cost goes away pretty quickly eh. There's nothing like Moore's law in energy, or rather, we have the inverse of Moore's Law. Economics is the happy science. Thermo is the dismal science. Bret Cahill > > > > Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit > > > > model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There's nothing like Moore's law in energy, or rather, we have the > inverse of Moore's Law. It isn't about Moore's Law. Imagine that we still had multiple companies making proprietary computers with proprietary hardware and operating systems. The arc of history would have been quite different. -tg > Economics is the happy science. > > Thermo is the dismal science. > > Bret Cahill > It isn't about Moore's Law. Imagine that we still had multiple > companies making proprietary computers with proprietary hardware and > operating systems. The arc of history would have been quite different. So, you have no clue about how proprietary laptops, and and Sony Vaio, shuttle and several other computers are, or the numerous operating systems that Intel or AMD processors will run. No surprise, though. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > � �So, you have no clue A sci.electronics.basics dunce post is easy to predict: No matter what the previous or OP poster says, the dunce posts start off: "You have no clue . . ." The dunce then tosses in some brand names he saw at Best Buy. Then the dunce types "LOL!" Bret Cahill In sci.physics Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > no batteries at all and run everything directly > off the grid. And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. > >> > In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the > >> > capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years. > >> What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all > >> cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful. Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a controlled environment. We only need to look at subways and toys to know it works. The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over. These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt. A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different environments and situations around the country in locations where it was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales. If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread sheet. And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars going to oil rich despotisms. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power >> >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > controlled environment. We only need to look at subways and toys to > know it works. Toys? > The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a > problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles > and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over. May be a problem? News flash; water is conductive and causes all sorts of problems for electrical systems. > These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very > low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt. The problem has already been identified at zero cost; water is conductive. > A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different > environments and situations around the country in locations where it > was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales. Or one could take high school science and know water is conductive. > If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then > the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread > sheet. Drainage is irrelevant. During a steady rain all surfaces get coated with water. Have you never seen rain? <snip nonsense about oil> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > >> >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > The problem has already been identified at zero cost; water is conductive. Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of the country? Do you know how quickly a relay could shut the power off? Do you know how quickly an EV could switch over to battery power? Even our sci.electronics.basics dunces don't dare say any of the above would be difficult. Try to remember every road does not need to be electrified 100% of the time to save trillions in fuel every year. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of > the country? The percentage is irrelevant if it is anything more than zero. And just in case you don't get out much, the percentage is pretty high everywhere in the US other than the South West. Even in the South West, a rain storm can last for weeks. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of > the country? Just for giggles I looked it up. Some representative cities and average annual day of measurable preciptation: HUNTSVILLE, AL 117 MONTGOMERY, AL 108 TUCSON, AZ 53 LOS ANGELES C.O., CA 35 SAN FRANCISCO C.O., CA 67 DENVER, CO 89 WASHINGTON NAT'L AP, D.C. 112 DAYTONA BEACH, FL 114 MIAMI, FL 129 ATLANTA, GA 115 CHICAGO,IL 126 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 126 LEXINGTON, KY 130 BALTIMORE, MD 113 DETROIT, MI 136 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL, MN 115 ST. LOUIS, MO 111 LAS VEGAS, NV 26 NEWARK, NJ 122 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 61 SYRACUSE, NY 171 COLUMBUS, OH 137 PORTLAND, OR 151 PITTSBURGH, PA 153 NASHVILLE, TN 119 HOUSTON, TX 106 NORFOLK, VA 115 SEATTLE SEA-TAC AP, WA 154 So it looks like for most of the country about 30%. Does the word "winter" mean anything to you? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of > > the country? > Just for giggles I looked it up. > Some representative cities and average annual day of measurable preciptation: 1. That's not the % of time it's raining, which is far less. 2. Even a 60% reduction in transportation fuel comes out to be $300 billion a year at $5/gallon. > HUNTSVILLE, AL 117 > MONTGOMERY, AL 108 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Does the word "winter" mean anything to you? Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you? Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> > Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of >> > the country? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1. That's not the % of time it's raining, which is far less. It represents the number of days which an electrified roadbed would be useless. > 2. Even a 60% reduction in transportation fuel comes out to be $300 > billion a year at $5/gallon. Irrelevant to not working in wet weather. >> HUNTSVILLE, AL 117 >> MONTGOMERY, AL 108 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you? How do you plow water? Do the phrases "short circuit" and "electrolysis corrosion" mean anything to you? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: <snip> >>> Does the word "winter" mean anything to you? >> >> Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you? > >How do you plow water? The twit obviously hasn't even seen a snow plow. >Do the phrases "short circuit" and "electrolysis corrosion" mean anything >to you? Not to worry, though. With all the losses, snow won't stay around long. > >In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Not to worry, though. With all the losses, snow won't stay around > long. Too bad the idiot troll doesn't leave, too. :( SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! > > Not to worry, though. �With all the losses, snow won't stay around > > long. As usual, no numbers. > � �Too bad the idiot troll doesn't leave, too. :( > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!- Speaking of jokes, how's that defamation lawsuit coming? You know what happens when you make idle threats about suing for defamation and then chicken out? Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars > going to oil rich despotisms. Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years. In 2008, oil was at it's higest price and averaged a bit under $100/bbl for the year. That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions. Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico. "trillions of dollars going to oil rich despotisms" is babbling nonsense. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars > > going to oil rich despotisms. > Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years. > In 2008, oil was at it's higest price Which will seem like the good ol' days in a couple of years. > and averaged a bit under $100/bbl > for the year. > That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions. 0.5 trillion / year or 3 - 5 trillion by the time electrification is "shovel ready." But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon. If we sit back and do nothing the U. S. will, before Obama even leaves office, be paying trillions a year to import oil. > Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico. It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded at world market prices. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> > And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars >> > going to oil rich despotisms. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon. Oil isn't sold by the gallon. But wait, there's more. About 68% of oil is used for transportation, the rest goes for other things, mostly industrial use. Even if you assume 60% is for road use, which is probably high, that means $0.3 trillion a year goes to road use. That means oil would have to average about $670/bbl to get to "trillions". <snip political nonsense> >> Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico. > > It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded at > world market prices. I though your big concern was oil from "oil rich despotisms". Are you changing your mind? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars > >> > going to oil rich despotisms. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Oil isn't sold by the gallon. When did you make _that_ earth shaking discovery? > But wait, there's more. > About 68% of oil is used for transportation, the rest goes for other > things, mostly industrial use. You've managed to whittle down by 32% a commodity that often fluctuates in price over 200% a year? Are you being funny or _what_? > Even if you assume 60% is for road use, which is probably high, that > means $0.3 trillion a year goes to road use. Maybe you can get the sci.electronics.basics dunces to say $300 billion is chump change. Everyone else will think you're my sock puppet, deliberately tossing me the easiest lobs for me to put away. > That means oil would have to average about $670/bbl to get to "trillions". You ain't too fast but you'll figger it out with a couple more years of diminishing supply and increasing demand. > >> Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico. > > It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded at > > world market prices. > I though your big concern was oil from "oil rich despotisms". Well there's your problem: You don't unnerstand macro supply and demand. Here, I'll chop it up micro size so even idiots can unnerstand. 1. Tankers can move oil around the world at a few dollars/barrel. 2. A tanker picks the oil in Venezuela and returns to SE Texas and a U. S. broker pays Chavez. The mideast despotisms hear about Chevez getting all this money and know that _they_ can charge Chinese, Indians and Europeans more for _their_ oil. The Iranians then use the money from the oil that was _inflated in price by the U. S. oil company buying from Chavez_ to build nuke bombs. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> > But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon. >> >> Oil isn't sold by the gallon. > > When did you make _that_ earth shaking discovery? Grade school. If you know oil isn't sold by the gallon, why did you say "oil will stay at or below $5/gallon"? >> About 68% of oil is used for transportation, the rest goes for other >> things, mostly industrial use. > > You've managed to whittle down by 32% a commodity that often > fluctuates in price over 200% a year? Babble. The fact that 68% of oil is used for transportation has nothing to do with the price. <snip remaining babble> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On May 31, 10:49 am, Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles > and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over. Jim P. mentioned winter in another post. Snow would naturally fill the grooves cut into the roadway for the conductors due to the wind. That snow would turn to ice eventually. Road crews would also push snow into the grooves as they cleaned the road. Then there are the chemicals they apply to help keep the highways from freezing. They also use sand and gravel on the roads in places to help traction. Guess where that would end up. Ice storms would create another problem. The storms could take down the power lines supplying the roadway conductors. The electrically powered traffic would stop. Most of the U.S. is probably subject to freezing rain and snow at times. > These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very > low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bret Cahill I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything. SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. >I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, >and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world >it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything. I see you've not studied science either. >>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, >>and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world >>it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything. > > I see you've not studied science either. I see you're wrong. My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as if it was a law of physics. Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads impossible. I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so superior. Enough! SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. > >>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, > >>and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so > superior. Those are powered by overhead canenary lines, not high voltage rails embedded into the roadway. Don't go a way mad. Oh, too late, here they are with your straight jacket. Just go away, and don't bother to write.. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! >> >>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an >> >>idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Those are powered by overhead canenary lines, not high voltage rails > embedded into the roadway. The goal was to run electric cars without batteries. It's been done with electric buses, electric trains and subways for a century. It is amazing to find so many people think it is impossible. > Don't go a way mad. Oh, too late, here they are with your straight > jacket. Just go away, and don't bother to write.. Which proves that you're just another damaged ego on the usenet, looking to validate your worthless life by proving your superiority by flaming people. I came here to look for people for my website, and came for the same reason I go to the zoo and watch the monkeys. They're so... almost human like. SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >>> >>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an >>> >>idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > electric buses, electric trains and subways for a century. It is amazing > to find so many people think it is impossible. Nope, that was never in this thread. It was about electrified major roads and batteries otherwise. Electric vehicles work in the real world in one of two ways: Through overhead wires where they are open to the elements. Through rails where the rails aren't exposed to the elements. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Electric vehicles work in the real world in one of two ways: > > Through overhead wires where they are open to the elements. The wires wouldn't have to be overhead exactly though... I'm thinking of a system where the "wire", rather more like a skid plate, is along one side of interstate highways (say the right side for sake of example.) Cars in the right hand lane could hook up to the grid while in motion, cars in the left lane would run on battery power. If there is any speed restriction due to the physical connection, that would be handled naturally since the right lane is the "slow" lane anyway. Cars that are off the interstate system would use their batteries and plug in when parked. There are plenty of technical issues that would still need to be overcome, (including installing trolly poles on a 4,000 kg vehicle without destabilizing it,) but if electric cars were ubiquitous, there would be plenty of incentive to overcome them. I think Bret's idea has some merit, but starting with the most experimental part of the system is a recipe for failure IMHO. First get us in a situation where every town is swarming with electric cars that want to travel longer distances... > > Electric vehicles work in the real world in one of two ways: > > Through overhead wires where they are open to the elements. > The wires wouldn't have to be overhead exactly though... > I'm thinking of a system where the "wire", rather more like a skid > plate, is along one side of interstate highways (say the right side for > sake of example.) It would have to be high enough not to fry DWIs. The height is what makes overhead line electrification so ugly. Take a gander at the electric train lines in the NE. Nowdays aesthetes even whine about windmills! Back in Netherlands windmills are a _tourist_ attraction. Why not suspend the wire inside of a well drained pipe _under_ the road? That would have all the advantages of overhead wires yet it wouldn't be a uggy as Marcus Hook. > Cars in the right hand lane could hook up to the grid And charge up. > while in motion, cars in the left lane would run on battery power. And charge down. A Feb. patent application is based on periodic charging from the roadbed. > If there is any speed restriction due to the physical connection, that > would be handled naturally since the right lane is the "slow" lane > anyway. Cars that are off the interstate system would use their > batteries and plug in when parked. Hybrid electric is the way to go. The goal isn't elimination of all liquid fuel, just reducing it drastically enough so bio diesel can take over. > There are plenty of technical issues that would still need to be > overcome, (including installing trolly poles on a 4,000 kg vehicle > without destabilizing it,) but if electric cars were ubiquitous, there > would be plenty of incentive to overcome them. Trillions is available for innovation. > I think Bret's idea has some merit, but starting with the most > experimental part of the system is a recipe for failure IMHO. First get > us in a situation where every town is swarming with electric cars that > want to travel longer distances... Few will buy a car that won't go longer distances. To get started gummint needs to first electrify some well selected freeways and then offer unmetered electric power for non commercial vehicles, at least for the first 2 decades.. Any mohead can drop an electric motor into any chassis and drive for free. The auto companies can focus on the chassis, suspension, steering and upholstery but they need to KTFWF the drive train. Bret Cahill > >> >>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an > >> >>idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > electric buses, electric trains and subways for a century. It is amazing > to find so many people think it is impossible. That's nothing. One dunce on sci.electronics.basics was adamant that circular furrows were impossible. That one was so jaw dropping moronic you wonder, "where did he get _that_ prejudice from?" He recanted when circular farming was in fact a common practice only to blunder on thinking the word "huge" would fit somewhere in a spreadsheet. Then he suggested adiabatic engine systems might have difficulty scaling up, thereby revealing he was 100% clueless about thermo, a subject that is required for EE at every accredited university. Finally the dunce claimed he had a "money making patent" probably the dumbest bluster possible, although he might surprise everyone and come up with something to make himself look even more moronic. That dunce posts under the name "John Fields." > > � �Don't go a way mad. �Oh, too late, here they are with your straight > > jacket. �Just go away, and don't bother to write.. How's that defamation suit coming? I'll pay court costs if ya want. You know how it works. If you make idle threats about defamation suits and then don't follow through with a _real_ legal action, then everyone will know you are a fraud. > Which proves that you're just another damaged ego on the usenet, looking > to validate your worthless life by proving your superiority by flaming > people. An acquaintence of mine without my permission or any prior knowledge googled my name and saw the sci.electronics.basics dunces in action. He said they were "nobodies trying to be somebody." > I came here to look for people for my website, and came for the same > reason I go to the zoo and watch the monkeys. They're so... almost human > like. Zoo monkeys are are little brighter than our dunces. Bret Cahill >>>I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, >>>and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I see you're wrong. No, you've demonstrated that you've never touched a science book. >My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to >insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as if >it was a law of physics. ...nor psychology. >Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads >impossible. As comrade Cahill proposed, certainly. >I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets >when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the >objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to >them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so >superior. Busses <> cars. >Enough! Ok, you've yelled "uncle". You can leave now. > >I see you're wrong. > No, you've demonstrated that you've never touched a science book. Try not to spree, but if you must spree, keep your carbon footprint down. Just spree local like that fundy in Kansas. Bret Cahill > I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea, > and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world > it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything. Why did you say this after the D.H. post? He's the most respectful sincere poster here. If you are _that_ thin skinned you need to mover to another . . . another universe. If an idea is good and merits attention, it will get attention. A confederacy of dunces will immediatly form to oppose you. If an idea isn't any good then it won't go anywhere. Bret Cahill "The errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little men." -- Nietzsche > > > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > > > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > eventually. � � Road crews would also push snow into the grooves as > they cleaned the road. � A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go. Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be difficult to short out during a roll over accident. > Then there are the chemicals they apply to > help keep the highways from freezing. � They also use �sand and gravel > on the roads in places to help traction. � Guess where that would end > up. DoT can always use some of the hundreds of billions a year in fuel savings to buy a sweeper or vac truck. > � � Ice storms would create another problem. � The storms could take > down the power lines supplying the roadway conductors. � �The > electrically powered traffic would stop. � � The series or "true" hybrid-electric vehicle is the best way to go. Now that we own GM it's critical that we all write our congress critters and tell them it's critical for GM to shift all resources to the Volt. Even those who don't support electrification need to go hybrid. > Most of the U.S. is > probably subject to freezing rain and > snow at times. That's the argument against CA 99 - I 80. It might be better to start off with CA 58 - I 40. > > These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very > > low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt. > > A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different > > environments and situations around the country in locations where it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars > > going to oil rich despotisms. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > > An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go. > Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the > road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be > difficult to short out during a roll over accident. How do you plow water? Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing systems. Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range. There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements, which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels or elevated to keep them out of the water. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels > or elevated to keep them out of the water. Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels. I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and don't really care. I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for elecric/hybrid vehicles. -tg > -- > Jim Pennino > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote: > On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've > apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels. Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads. How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road? Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes, what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated rail at 65 MPH? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated > rail at 65 MPH? Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense? :-) Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing out that something *could* be done along those lines. You could also use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes. You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then go back to the regular traffic. There wouldn't be a 'start' of the third rail to run into. -tg > -- > Jim Pennino > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote: > On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > go back to the regular traffic. There wouldn't be a 'start' of the > third rail to run into. It seems we are going around in circles. If the third rail isn't elevated, how do you keep it out of the water? If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: > > On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it? OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,) Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low, you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal, with lane changes and exits and so on. What's the problem? -tg > -- > Jim Pennino > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote: > On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > What's the problem? In the real world, so many I don't know where to start... In a fantasy world, Tinker Bell's pixie dust is a more elegant solution. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> >> > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > In the real world, so many I don't know where to start... You need to become a can do _problem solver_. Americans don't like nattering naybobs of negativism. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> In the real world, so many I don't know where to start... > > You need to become a can do _problem solver_. I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science and real engineering for about 40 years now. I have little patience for kooks who think arm waving and babble will solve anything. Hell, you can't even define the problem without drooling nonsense, much less solve it. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -- You appear to be overly sensitive and insecure. *My* reply was to your question about roadway electrification in wet conditions. Since this is all fantasy speculation, it constitutes a perfectly reasonable response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun. -tg > Jim Pennino > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote: > On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving > problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun. If you look at the headers, my reply above was not to you. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > On Jun 2, 1:15 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > response to your objection. If you can't take other people solving > problems that stump you, those 40 years couldn't have been much fun. You are as ignorant as cahil SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! (A discussion thread for people with a clue.) A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power electric vehicles in a freeway lane. There have been a few schemes to do this inductively. CALTRANS once fielded a test bus in Berkeley which recharged using a split transformer at each bus stop. It worked, but wasn't that successful. The precision required of the driver in stopping in the right place was inconvenient, and there were concerns about the rather large stray magnetic fields. This was about twenty years ago, though; we might be able to do a bit better now. There's a GE patent on a system with a long split transformer under the entire length of a lane. This would probably work, but miles of transformer would be expensive. Road lanes with this would probably cost like maglev track. (Which is why nobody builds maglevs that go very far.) Conductive schemes are possible. The safety problem is hard, but not insoluble. Lille, France has some in-city trams that are powered from a third rail. The third rail is sectioned, and only the section entirely under the tram is "hot". The relays for each section ground all the sections that aren't live. There's a backup system which monitors each section, and will cut off an entire group of sections if anything shows a voltage that shouldn't. The trams have some battery backup, so they can continue over failed sections of track. A conductive scheme for roads might work. But it's tough. Trams are long enough that sections about 10m long will work. For cars, 2m is probably a maximum. So you need 5x as much switchgear. Pickups are a problem, but not an insoluble one. Vehicles would need automatic lateral guidance, so that once near the lane center, they'd automatically align properly. Then the contact pickups can be lowered to the in-ground power rails, which are just railroad-type rails embedded in the pavement about two feet apart, sectioned every 1.5m or so into a separately switched section. The brushes transmit a signal into the rails which tells the rail section to switch on. That's also how the ID for billing (it's not going to be free) is sent. The rail sections should only be energized for vehicles moving above some minimum freeway speed, so that the system is never "hot" when vehicles are just creeping along or stopped, and someone might get out. This doesn't require a dedicated lane; vehicles that don't use the system can share the lane. For this to be really useful, it has to be able to deliver enough power to power heavy trucks up hills. This runs up the switchgear and transmission costs. But the payoff is that truckers will use the system to cut costs, so there's an initial customer base. There are lots of problems, all of which are familiar from electric railroads. Dragging objects. Road debris. Sparks igniting vehicle cargoes. Rain and snow. All of those can be overcome, as they have been for third-rail electric railroads in harsh climates. But they're worse for cars, partly because cars are so much closer to the ground. When you have third rail problems with trains, there's more space for arcs to dissipate. And rail cars are solidly grounded through steel wheels and rails. Cars are not. A GFCI won't help much; there's going to be enough leakage in wet weather to trip any useful GFCI. So it's technically possible to do this, but probably not economic until gas hits $10-$15/gal. It's only necessary if the battery cost problem isn't solved. Electric cars work fine now if you can afford the battery. John Nagle In sci.physics John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> wrote: > (A discussion thread for people with a clue.) > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > John Nagle Nice arm waving. Any electrification of the roadway will have to be compatible with existing roads and existing vehicles or it will never be built. Propose an in the road system of any kind that is compatible with existing vehicles and roads that won't be rendered useless by precipitation. Third rail railroad technology is not compatible with existing vehicles and roads and neither are overhead wires. Detecting vehicle speeds under about 25 MPH is highly problematic with most existing equipment. The majority of Caltrans sensors, for example, are inductive loops spaced about 1 to 2 miles apart. The ability to sense speeds below about 25 MPH is dismal. If a working system were ever to be developed, the mechanics of charging for it are trivial. You put a tamper proof power meter into the vehicle and hook it to the same RFID technology used for toll roads. Whether the system is prepaid or billed once a month I leave to the bean counters. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > (A discussion thread for people with a clue.) > > A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up > some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power > electric vehicles in a freeway lane. What on earth for when rail already exists? Get a clue. > (A discussion thread for people with a clue.) > > A few years ago, I took a look at this problem, and wrote up > some design documents for a "Power Lane" concept, a way to power > electric vehicles in a freeway lane. [snip crap] Give a cost estimate for electrifying one commuter lane from Corona, CA to Los Angeles and the number of kilowatt-hrs/day to be fed into that single lane of 50-mile traffic jam twice/day. From where will the electricity originate? Gonna use extension cords? Inductive coupling? A third rail? Gonna bill for energy used plus the $billions to construct, plus interest on the bonds? idiot SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > So it's technically possible to do this, but probably not economic > until gas hits $10-$15/gal. It's only necessary if the battery cost > problem isn't solved. Electric cars work fine now if you can > afford the battery. I think that the population might resist, because who wants to drive a slot car? People like to choose their own path, be it right or wrong. ;-) Cheers! Rich > >> In the real world, so many I don't know where to start... > > > You need to become a can do _problem solver_. > > I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science > and real engineering for about 40 years now. You have exactly 24 hours to start bragging about some of them here or everyone here will know you are indulging in self deception -- you ain't foolin' anyone else --, just like the sci.electronics.basics dunces making idle threats to sue for defamation. If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. Since your only public record appears to be lots of Internet babble, I guess you haven't done anything. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > >> If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. > >Since your only public record appears to be lots of Internet babble, >I guess you haven't done anything. Nah, he'll now show you that he's a legal assistant with a court case under his belt. His "public record" crap is his MO. Ignore Cahill. Everyone else, including his mommy, does. > >In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > under his belt. His "public record" crap is his MO. Ignore Cahill. > Everyone else, including his mommy, does. He's the new 'Rodney Dangerfield'. :( SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! It's astounding -- and funny -- how often our dunces will shoot each other in the foot: > > >> If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > � �He's the new 'Rodney Dangerfield'. :( Dangerfield is 1. in the public record. 2. wealthy. Neither is true for our sci.electronics.basics dunce Terrel. > You can't have a sense of humor, Speaking of humor, hows that defamation suit coming along? You know . . . the one where I said your "computer repair" business was as worthless as Al Gore in a dust devil and you got your panties all wet. > if you have no sense! You certainly have no sense if you keep coming back for more ridicule. Everyone is laughing at you. Bret Cahill >It's astounding -- and funny -- how often our dunces will shoot each >other in the foot: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >1. in the public record. So what! You are a total moron, Cahill. >2. wealthy. Whoopie. He's also dead, so he is not #2, idiot. >Neither is true for our sci.electronics.basics dunce Terrel. Again, whoopie! >> You can't have a sense of humor, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >You certainly have no sense if you keep coming back for more ridicule. Cahill is the epitome of senseless. >Everyone is laughing at you. No, Comrade Cahill. That's a mirror you're looking gazing into. On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:15:06 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > >> If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. > > Since your only public record appears to be lots of Internet babble, I > guess you haven't done anything. I donno. Mr Cahill seems to avoid the technical merits of people's arguments and asks them to make an appeal to authority fallacy, or his "public" standard and all that... yet as you say, he has little to show himself. He's a real conservation kill, that Mr. Cahill. SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. > >> If you aren't in the public record, you haven't done anything. > > Since your only public record appears to be lots of Internet babble, I > > guess you haven't done anything. > I donno. Mr Cahill seems to avoid the technical merits of people's > arguments Telling everyone to read a "pop book" ain't no technical argument. > d asks them to make an appeal to authority fallacy, _You_ are the one giving out reading lists. Bret Cahill > OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of > the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What's the problem? How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway? SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of >> the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway? Other than they run costs way up, slow down traffic, and tend to be dangerous, how about them? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Other than they run costs way up, slow down traffic, and tend to be > dangerous, how about them? They do exist. In some instances, a left exit is the only way it can be built. With signs starting two miles from the exit, warning that it is to the left it is as safe as any other. It does require a slightly longer exit lane for the traffic to slow down. I an thinking of one of I-4 near Orlando's International Drive, a very busy international tourist area. SignatureYou can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense! In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I-4 near Orlando's International Drive, a very busy international > tourist area. Yeah, sure they exist, I never said they didn't, but these days only if there is no other alternative for the reasons stated above. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've > apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels. Very bumpy when you switch lanes. > I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and > don't really care. > I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for > elecric/hybrid vehicles. Way out of what? Bret Cahill > > > > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Way out of what? Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries. You're not the only one, of course, but easy to pick on... -tg > Bret Cahill > > > > > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries. Where does the electricity come from for the wheelmotors? Bret Cahill > > > > > > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bret Cahill Batteries. But since the cost of the entire car over lifetime is much lower, the cost of the batteries is absorbed. Of course it will put conventional car companies out of business faster than credit default swaps. -tg > > > Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries. All potential EV customers are whining about batteries. > > Where does the electricity come from for the wheelmotors? > Batteries. But since the cost of the entire car over lifetime is much > lower, the cost of the batteries is absorbed. It's good to lower initial vehicle cost but that doesn't address the subject of this thread: operational cost issue: Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the grid. Now, as fuel soars past $5, $8, $12/gallon, then battery costs may increase too but maybe not quite as fast. In that case non plug in hybrid owners will want to pay top dollar for the most efficient battery available. But they could get about the same carbon footprint / mpg with a diesel rabbit. The hard fact of life that no one wants to face is most Americans won't be able to go for a Sunday drive when fuel is $25/gallon, whether they are using wheelmotors non plug in hybrids. Bret Cahill Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the > grid. Unless you electrify every highway, road, alley, and driveway all the way up to the parking spot, you need something other than the "grid". SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the > > grid. > > Unless you electrify every highway, road, alley, and driveway all > the way up to the parking spot, you need something other than the > "grid". Don't be a "magic bullet" fundy. The goal isn't to eliminate 100% of all liquid fuel. The goal isn't to eliminate all battery use. The goal is to reduce battery cycling as much as possible and to _drastically reduce_ consumption of liquid fuel. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the >> > grid. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Don't be a "magic bullet" fundy. Babble. I was stating a very simple and very obvious fact. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly off the > >> > grid. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I was stating a very simple and very obvious fact. What makes you think I was talking to you? No one will deny that one technology will often dominate or completely eliminate everything else in an application or field, as ICE has land sea and air transportation. If nothing else can compete then nothing else can compete and unless you just want gratuitous technology there's no reason to promote a "mix" -- the word DoE uses for the growing diversity of energy solutions. But no one will deny there are far too many people waiting for a super battery or a super algae breakthrough. Too many want to replace oil BTU for BTU. Energy _solutions_ generaly aren't going to work like that. The average farm -- what am I saying? -- the typical household is run with more sophistication than that. All the problems with roadbed electrification are so mundane- pedestrian that no brilliant engineering breakthroughs are necessary. The solutions may be clever but they will not appear in _Nature Physics_. When someone appears at the construction site he'll ask, "what's that thing for?" and the answer will be something like, "well this was grandfathered in in Phoenix and they didn't need blah blah or they wanted to compromise with the European version so both systems could be compatible blah blah blah, and once the pickup coil technology was developed is was cheaper to change the Ways and Means Chairman felt like he needed to run I-40 through every congressional district in Texas . . ." Bret Cahill "Those who have am implicit faith in transportation solutions and sausages should not watch them being made." -- Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: > > >> > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly > off the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What makes you think I was talking to you? By the headers and the threading; do you not know how to use a news reader? <snip rambling nonsense> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > > >> > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly > > off the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > By the headers and the threading; do you not know how to use a news > reader? My primary audience isn't necessarily in the header. The following should clear up this matter, however, for most doubting Thomases: No one will deny that one technology will often dominate or completely eliminate everything else in an application or field, as ICE has land sea and air transportation. If nothing else can compete then nothing else can compete and unless you just want gratuitous technology there's no reason to promote a "mix" -- the word DoE uses for the growing diversity of energy solutions. But no one will deny there are far too many people waiting for a super battery or a super algae breakthrough. Too many want to replace oil BTU for BTU. Energy _solutions_ generaly aren't going to work like that. The average farm -- what am I saying? -- the typical household is run with more sophistication than that. All the problems with roadbed electrification are so mundane- pedestrian that no brilliant engineering breakthroughs are necessary. The solutions may be clever but they will not appear in _Nature Physics_. When someone appears at the construction site he'll ask, "what's that thing for?" and the answer will be something like, "well this was grandfathered in in Phoenix and they didn't need blah blah or they wanted to compromise with the European version so both systems could be compatible blah blah blah, and once the pickup coil technology was developed is was cheaper to change the blah blah . . . the Ways and Means Chairman felt like he needed to run I-40 through every congressional district in Texas . . ." Bret Cahill "Those who have an implicit faith in elegant transportation solutions and sausages should not watch them being made." -- Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > > >> > Using batteries is 3X more expensive than motoring directly >> > off the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > My primary audience isn't necessarily in the header. Kook babble; learn to use USENET. <snip long-winded rambling> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > > An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go. > > Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the > > road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be > > difficult to short out during a roll over accident. > How do you plow water? The issue was snow. > Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing > systems. Actually that would prejudice the inventors here. Do _not_ post any prior art to my threads. > Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range. > There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements, > which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels > or elevated to keep them out of the water. As they say at HP: Invent. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: >> > A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The issue was snow. The issue was NEVER snow. The issue was, and is, moisture of any kind shorting out a kilovolt system. <snip nonsense> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all > cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with > electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it > sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete. Don't expect a sensible answer from Brett. He has no scientific knowledge. > Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to > tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent > question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. Too true. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address >> What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work >> all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't expect a sensible answer from Brett. He has no scientific > knowledge. I'm not at all down on electric cars. I tried to make it work for me, and it just wasn't practical. If you could dispose of the battery issue, electric cars would be great. Perhaps an induction system where magnetic coils are implanted into the road bed or something. Those overhead wires used on electric buses are right out for freeway use; they don't work at 60+ MPH. Perhaps something similar to an electric train, where you drive your gas car onto a flat-bed rail car/engine. I don't know. It is fun to consider the alternatives. >> Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have >> to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Graham SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >>> What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work >>> all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Perhaps something similar to an electric train, where you drive your gas > car onto a flat-bed rail car/engine. The embarkation/debarkation time and hassle would be a killer for anything but long trips. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The embarkation/debarkation time and hassle would be a killer for anything > but long trips. Almost every example of the above has died a death. It's expensive and slow. The only uses I still know of are for overnight travel when you can sleep on the train and genuinely save travelling time after a fashion. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:23:14 -0700, Bret_E_Cahill wrote: > > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it > sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete. The analysis doesn't have to be complete, since it never will. But the maintainence cost saving alone with electric vehilces over gasoline alone, is enough to do it. So that's why so many work on fiber optics, holographics, Solar Energy, Pv Cells, Cell Phones, Optical Computers, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, Self-Assembling Robots, Self-Replicating Machines, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, and Post idiot grease anyway. Rather than bothering with the parital analysis cranks anyway. > -- > Flamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to > tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent > question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for > the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years. Maybe. Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers. A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage. Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify roadways? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the > average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage. Not if you are trying to spread sheet the /mile costs. And what is daily vehicle milage? > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > roadways? The answer to that will require some funding. It's like that old biker bumper sticker / T shirt: Gas, grass or electricity. No one gets answers for free. Bret Cahill > > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > > roadways? > > The answer to that will require some funding. No, it's readily estimable and totally stupid, like you. Go back to your toy race cars. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address >> > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify >> > roadways? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Graham Let's not flame! SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. > >> > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > >> > roadways? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Let's not flame! I'm being very factual. The cost of laying new ultra-flat load bed with embedded coils can easily be estimated. Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so the idea is stillborn. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address >> >> > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify >> >> > roadways? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm being very factual. The cost of laying new ultra-flat load bed with > embedded coils can easily be estimated. Worst case, you can build it like electric subway cars. > Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so > the idea is stillborn. Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes. Replace "big rigs" with rail. The governments build roads for cars and trucks, but not rails. Big trucks get a subsidy; low cost roads. As was pointed out by one of my engineering profs, roads last just about forever with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well? SignatureFlamer & Trolls happily killfiled, as they should. No one should have to tolerate their abuse. If a flamer should get luck and ask an intelligent question and you want it answered, repeat it for them. In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >>> >> > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify >>> >> > roadways? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to > use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well? Any idea how much tax trucks pay? Do you like to eat? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so > > the idea is stillborn. > > Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes. So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the places that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ? Graham due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote: >> > Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so >> > the idea is stillborn. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So how are you goinf to get your produce from A to B given that the places > that need them don't have yards or probably aren't even on a rail line ? Yep, rail works great for bulk, non-perishables like coal and ore from the mines to steel yards. It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from a bizillion farms to the supermarket. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from > a bizillion farms to the supermarket. Oh, you can put refrigerated trucks on the road but not on rail? If you can build tramlines in a city then you can distribute on tramlines, and tramlines are rail, a whole lot cheaper than road surfaces or they wouldn't be hundreds of years old. Ever heard of computers? They can control switches and direct individual self-propelled cars from anywhere to anywhere, at night, no driver needed, no train needed, ideal for getting lettuce and tomatoes from a bizillion farms in California to the supermarket in New York. 'Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.' - Howard Aiken 'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > > In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@notcoldmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Oh, you can put refrigerated trucks on the road but not on rail? Rail doesn't go most places. Forget it. The cost of putting rail into most small places would be insane. Rail is only good for regular high volume traffic to / from large hubs. Graham due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > >> > Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so > >> > the idea is stillborn. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It doesn't work worth a a crap for getting lettuce and tomatoes from > a bizillion farms to the supermarket. Precisely. And for non-bulk loads, trucks work out cheaper ( less energy intensive ) too. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address On May 30, 6:15 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@notcoldmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Jim Pennino Nor does it work that well for getting grain to market. I live in southeast Nebraska. Many of the small towns have lost their rail service. The rail lines have been pulled up. Some of the right of ways have been converted to hiking/biking trails. The railroads want unit trains for the grain shipments. I think that's a minimum of 54 cars. A lot of the local elevators don't have rail service to their grain storage facilities partly because of that. > > Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so > > the idea is stillborn. > Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes. That's half the petroleum being consumed on the freeways. > Replace "big rigs" with rail. Replace fresh lettuce with wilted lettuce. Ever notice the "We Deliver" UP slogan doesn't make any claims about being on time.? > The governments build roads for cars and > trucks, but not rails. Big trucks get a subsidy; low cost roads. As was > pointed out by one of my engineering profs, roads last just about forever > with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to > use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well? Pay to electrify the railroads. Everyone agrees that's possible. Better still, reinforce the freeways with something like main line RR rail and use a steering / tracking full service "cruise control" to position trucks right on top of the rails. This would greatly alleviate the maintenance problem in either conventional or electrified roadbeds. Bret Cahill > > > Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > > > roadways? > > The answer to that will require some funding. > > No, it's readily estimable Which is work that requires funding. . . . > Go back to your toy > race cars. No one sells slot cars for toys anymore. They only use RC battery EVs for the infinitely greater freedom. The only place where roadbed electrification makes sense is on a real life freeway. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Not if you are trying to spread sheet the /mile costs. Somehow I knew you wouldn't understand. Divide the total vehicle miles for a given road by the average MPG for the vehicles and you get total fuel usage for the road. Divide the total fuel usage for the road by the length of the road and you get fuel/mile usage. > And what is daily vehicle milage? Irrelevant. >> Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify >> roadways? > > The answer to that will require some funding. Nope, all it requires is a little knowledge of the real world to come up with a ROM cost. But, since you don't even have a rough design for a system that would work, that is impossible. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. > >> > Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for > >> > oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend > >> > fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon: > >> > $2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) = > >> > $385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel. > >> > If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power > >> > plant/mile is $8 million. > >> > In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for > >> > the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years. > >> Maybe. A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/ gallon before this is shovel ready. > >> Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers. Contractors generally bid on projects based on miles. > >> A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the > >> average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage. . . . > > And what is daily vehicle milage? > Irrelevant. Then why did you mention it? > >> Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > >> roadways? > > The answer to that will require some funding. > Nope Sorry. Gas grass or electricity. No one gets answers for free. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/ > gallon before this is shovel ready. Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants. <snip babbling nonsense> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > >> >> Maybe. > > A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/ > > gallon before this is shovel ready. > > Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure > and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants. If you knew the cost of the power plants isn't all that important, then why did _you_ raise the issue? Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs? If you aren't this stoopid face to face, then don't be stoopid here. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If you knew the cost of the power plants isn't all that important, > then why did _you_ raise the issue? It isn't that much by comparison to the cost of building and maintaining the roadway infrastructure, but it is still a huge cost. I'm happy that you have finally realized that simple fact. <snip childish name calling> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. I'm still having trouble figgering out where the word "huge" goes in Excel. Could someone contact Microsoft and find out? > >> >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It isn't that much by comparison to the cost of building and maintaining > the roadway infrastructure, No one said anything about rebuilding the entire Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, although, if that became necessary, it would certainly be more cost effective than paying $15/gallon for fuel. Just cut out some concrete and insert the conductor. It could be done from a truck. > but it is still a huge cost. But, as was clearly shown above, electrification pays for the "huge cost" of building power plants in a matter of months in fuel savings. You suggested that this was the killer cost of electrification by hyping it in another thread. Why did you hype something that bolstered _my_ case? Are you this dumb in real life? If not then don't be that dumb here. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm still having trouble figgering out where the word "huge" goes in > Excel. You seem to be obsessed by spreadsheets. <snip babble> > No one said anything about rebuilding the entire Eisenhower Interstate > Highway System, although, if that became necessary, it would certainly > be more cost effective than paying $15/gallon for fuel. Yes, you are, you just don't seem to be able to understand that. > Just cut out some concrete and insert the conductor. It could be done > from a truck. No, it can't, and it is childish to think it could be, but irrelevant since such a system won't work in anything but dry weather. <snip nonsense> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Where does the term "far more" go into the spread sheet? > >> >> > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> >> > mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure > and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants. You have a number for "far more?" Maybe you meant an "order of magnitude more." Bret Cahill "But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." -- Paine In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: > Where does the term "far more" go into the spread sheet? You certainly are obsessed with spreadsheets. You do realize you need to enter formulas into a spreadsheet before they do anything. <snip babble> >> Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure >> and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants. > > You have a number for "far more?" > > Maybe you meant an "order of magnitude more." If you think it is otherwise, let's see some numbers. You are the one with the proposal, so the burden is on you. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers. Yes. He's comparing the one-time capital cost of an electric plant to an ongoing gasoline fuel cost. Do electric plants get their fuel for free? I agree with the part about being a "complete moron." >A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the >average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage. > >Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify >roadways? That, too. We could use overhead metal sheets, like the bumper cars at the beach. And what do you do when you exit the freeway for the street? Coast into a parking lot and call a taxi? John > >> A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > >> mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > an ongoing gasoline fuel cost. Do electric plants get their fuel for > free? Jimmy Carter got the grid off of liquid fuel decades ago. That's the _whole point_ of electrification. Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel. Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs? . . . > >A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the > >average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage. > >Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify > >roadways? > That, too. Sounds like you want to be on the committee that sets up the spread sheet. > We could use overhead metal sheets, like the bumper cars at > the beach. Then thangs are ugly at the beach and would be even uglier on the freeway. > And what do you do when you exit the freeway for the street? That's when you use the battery which has just been fully charged up from the freeway. Or you could use bio fuel in your plug in hybrid's tank. The single magic bullet solution folk need to be lined up and . . . Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> >> mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jimmy Carter got the grid off of liquid fuel decades ago. Irrelevant. > That's the _whole point_ of electrification. Irrelevant. > Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel. Irrelevant. > Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs? Are you talking to yourself? <snip bumper car and spreadsheet babble> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >> >> A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW >> >> mechanical energy/mile/lane. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel. Until you try to get it, on the fly, into a car that's going 85 MPH. >Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs? If your ideas make economic sense, they'll happen. Let's wait and see. >. . . > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >That's when you use the battery which has just been fully charged up >from the freeway. OK, just never drive more than 40 miles from a freeway. >Or you could use bio fuel in your plug in hybrid's tank. Hey, we could have biofuel reloading facilities near every freeway! We could call them something catchy like "filling stations" maybe. Maybe have statues of Al Gore out front. >The single magic bullet solution folk need to be lined up and . . . made to push their dead, heavy electric cars off the roadway. John > >Or you could use bio fuel in your plug in hybrid's tank. > > Hey, we could have biofuel reloading facilities near every freeway! We > could call them something catchy like "filling stations" maybe. Maybe > have statues of Al Gore out front. Preferably showing him being hung by the neck. That man's a creep out to get even richer by frightening people into doing what he says by using LIES whilst flagrantly ignoring his own advice as regards his personal energy use. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > The single magic bullet solution folk need to be lined up and . . . The only magic bullet needed here is the one required to terminate what must be loosely called your 'brain'. You're daft beyond belief. Graham due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > mechanical energy/mile/lane. Calculations please ? Graham LOL @ dissipates ! There's nothing like someone who's an expert. ;~) > > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > > mechanical energy/mile/lane. > > Calculations please ? Absence of reply noted. Any idiot can make stupid claims. Graham -- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address > A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW > mechanical energy/mile/lane. > > Now let's be complete morons [snip rest of crap] Sufficient unto the day. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.