The new Electric Cessna 172

[[email protected]]

Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
> brushless electric ring motors which
> I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
> static thrust.
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk
>
> --
> Mark

Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
can recharge.

[george152]

On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
> wrote:
>> Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
>> brushless electric ring motors which
>> I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
>> static thrust.
>>
>> http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>
> Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
> can recharge.
>
>
>
And lack of range

[[email protected]]

george152 > wrote:
> On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
>>> brushless electric ring motors which
>>> I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
>>> static thrust.
>>>
>>> http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark
>>
>> Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
>> can recharge.
>>
>>
>>
> And lack of range

The claimed endurance is 2 hours, which would be enough for most training,
which is usually about an hours worth, but is marginal at best for cross
country flights with a reserve.

And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.

[Andy Hawkins]

In article >,
> wrote:
> george152 > wrote:
>> On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
>>>> brushless electric ring motors which
>>>> I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
>>>> static thrust.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
>>> can recharge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And lack of range
>
> The claimed endurance is 2 hours, which would be enough for most training,
> which is usually about an hours worth, but is marginal at best for cross
> country flights with a reserve.
>
> And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
> hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.
>
>

[Vaughn]

On 12/22/2012 6:20 PM, wrote:
> And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
> hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.
If you keep the plane in a hanger, there is really little point to
having solar panels at all because the panels would rarely see
significant sunlight. (They won't do you much good for the relatively
brief periods the plane is actually flying. Their unreliable and
relatively meager output is unlikely to measurably increase range.)

Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 12/22/2012 6:20 PM, wrote:
>> And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
>> hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.
> If you keep the plane in a hanger, there is really little point to
> having solar panels at all because the panels would rarely see
> significant sunlight. (They won't do you much good for the relatively
> brief periods the plane is actually flying. Their unreliable and
> relatively meager output is unlikely to measurably increase range.)

If you look at the wing area of a 172 and calculate how much power you
can get, you find they aren't much good for charging the battery either
unless you go days between flights.

> Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
> would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.

Rooftop solar panels are mounted at the latitude of the location to
receive maximum power, so a hailstone will hit at an angle of about 30
to 45 degrees from most of the US and tend to glance off.

The solar panels on a wing are going to be horizontal and will take a
direct hit from a hailstone.

There are many places in the US where it is not unusual for hailstones
to dent the tops of cars.

[Frank Stutzman[_3_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote:

>> And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
>> hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.

In places with significant hail, its best to keep *any* plane hangared. I
remember seeing statics years ago stating that the largest category for
insurance payouts for aircraft not in motion was hail damage.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Vaughn]

On 12/30/2012 1:16 PM, wrote:
> If you look at the wing area of a 172 and calculate how much power you
> can get, you find they aren't much good for charging the battery either
> unless you go days between flights.

Agree. However, if someone wants to own a $200,000 plane and just wants
to fly it for an hour or so once a week it might work. Are there any
folks like that? Yes! But few of them would admit that to themselves
before buying a plane. It's a behavior they drift into later.

I can tell you that most of the non-FBO planes at my local airport
seldom fly. Even some of the FBO leasbacks sit unused for days at a time.

>
>> >Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
>> >would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.
> Rooftop solar panels are mounted at the latitude of the location to
> receive maximum power, so a hailstone will hit at an angle of about 30
> to 45 degrees from most of the US and tend to glance off.
>
> The solar panels on a wing are going to be horizontal and will take a
> direct hit from a hailstone.
>
> There are many places in the US where it is not unusual for hailstones
> to dent the tops of cars.

I have watched my share of hail, and seldom does it fall at a 90 degree
angle, so I doubt your theory. My home's panels are mounted at a less
than optimum angle because I am quite worried about hurricane winds and
not worried at all about hail, even though hail happens here.

Today's solar panels aren't glass and aren't terribly fragile. A
rooftop isn't a terribly friendly environment, yet panels last for
decades. I would judge that most PV panels are less prone to hail damage
than a typical aluminum wing skin, certainly no more.

Still, we agree that solar panels on a wing make little sense. They
would be costly, they would add little to the usefulness of the plane,
and they would add weight and complexity.

Also, nobody has remarked on those little wind turbines. Yes, I know
that they are an attempt to recover energy from the wingtip vortex, but
those things will add weight and drag. It would make far more sense to
reduce the vortex with winglets or a better wing design.

Further, adding blades to a prop is unlikely to improve its efficiency.

When you add the questionable solar panels, the questionable prop, and
the questionable wind turbines, I find myself thinking "vaporware".

Vaughn

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Vaughn > wrote:

> On 12/30/2012 1:16 PM, wrote:
> > If you look at the wing area of a 172 and calculate how much power you
> > can get, you find they aren't much good for charging the battery either
> > unless you go days between flights.
>
> Agree. However, if someone wants to own a $200,000 plane and just wants
> to fly it for an hour or so once a week it might work. Are there any
> folks like that? Yes! But few of them would admit that to themselves
> before buying a plane. It's a behavior they drift into later.
>
> I can tell you that most of the non-FBO planes at my local airport
> seldom fly. Even some of the FBO leasbacks sit unused for days at a time.
>
> >
> >> >Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
> >> >would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.
> > Rooftop solar panels are mounted at the latitude of the location to
> > receive maximum power, so a hailstone will hit at an angle of about 30
> > to 45 degrees from most of the US and tend to glance off.
> >
> > The solar panels on a wing are going to be horizontal and will take a
> > direct hit from a hailstone.
> >
> > There are many places in the US where it is not unusual for hailstones
> > to dent the tops of cars.
>
> I have watched my share of hail, and seldom does it fall at a 90 degree
> angle, so I doubt your theory. My home's panels are mounted at a less
> than optimum angle because I am quite worried about hurricane winds and
> not worried at all about hail, even though hail happens here.
>
> Today's solar panels aren't glass and aren't terribly fragile. A
> rooftop isn't a terribly friendly environment, yet panels last for
> decades. I would judge that most PV panels are less prone to hail damage
> than a typical aluminum wing skin, certainly no more.
>
> Still, we agree that solar panels on a wing make little sense. They
> would be costly, they would add little to the usefulness of the plane,
> and they would add weight and complexity.
>
> Also, nobody has remarked on those little wind turbines. Yes, I know
> that they are an attempt to recover energy from the wingtip vortex, but
> those things will add weight and drag. It would make far more sense to
> reduce the vortex with winglets or a better wing design.
>
> Further, adding blades to a prop is unlikely to improve its efficiency.
>
> When you add the questionable solar panels, the questionable prop, and
> the questionable wind turbines, I find myself thinking "vaporware".
>
> Vaughn

.... and balonium technology!

[a[_3_]]

On a straight economic matter, we'll be seeing battery improvements first in high demand areas like laptops and cell phones, and then cars. Only when those high volume needs are filled will rational people want to invest money in batteries as the prime energy source is airplanes.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
a > wrote:

> On a straight economic matter, we'll be seeing battery improvements first in
> high demand areas like laptops and cell phones, and then cars. Only when
> those high volume needs are filled will rational people want to invest money
> in batteries as the prime energy source is airplanes.

There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
> -- and cars.

Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
other vehicle.

But for aircraft, batteries are a long way off from being viable (well,
for aircraft bigger than radio controlled ones - all of my RC aircraft
are electric, including helicopters weighing almost 7kg)

[Vaughn]

On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
> -- and cars.

It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
stations are becoming a regular sight.

I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
in the marketplace.

In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
like "never" and "preclude".

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Vaughn > wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
> > issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
> > -- and cars.
>
> It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
> pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
> aircraft are on the consumer market today.
>
> Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
> week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
> stations are becoming a regular sight.
>
> I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
> the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
> about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
> built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
> technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
> Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
> in the marketplace.
>
> In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
> like "never" and "preclude".

All you have to do is run the engineering math. The "200 mile-range
electric car" is one of those "100 mpg economy run" type situations
where all systems are shut down, except the drive train; temperature is
optimum; no stops; -- in short, not applicable to the real world.

Practical range for electrics is on the order of 40-80 miles, with 4-8
hour recharging.

Since you are carrying ALL the energy needed to run, the weight climbs
out of sight (15:1 air:fuel ratio + storage medium).

In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

[Vaughn]

On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
> environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

No offense intended Orval, but...

In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
match the reality around you. ;-)


Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
>> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
>> -- and cars.
>
> Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
> range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
> more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
> since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
> other vehicle.

That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.

This makes them an expensive niche vehicle as is evindenced by their lack
of sales.


> But for aircraft, batteries are a long way off from being viable (well,
> for aircraft bigger than radio controlled ones - all of my RC aircraft
> are electric, including helicopters weighing almost 7kg)

Absent some earth shaking new physics, batteries will never be viable
for a general purpose aircraft; motor gliders maybe, but something
equivelant to a C-172, nope.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
>> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
>> -- and cars.
>
> It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
> pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
> aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Yeah, they are on the market by government mandate but not selling.

> Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
> week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
> stations are becoming a regular sight.

I live in California.

Charging stations are few and far between in the majority of areas.

Some cities thought they would be "green leaders" and installed charging
stations. Most of those stations are essentially unused.

Electric cars, other than hybrids, are a rare sight.

> I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
> the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
> about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
> built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
> technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
> Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
> in the marketplace.
>
> In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
> like "never" and "preclude".

Or someone that understands electrochemistry and physics.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
>> environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.
>
> No offense intended Orval, but...
>
> In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
> match the reality around you. ;-)
>
>
> Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
> can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
> yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
> 100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
> still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
> seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.
>
> Vaughn

The sales numbers for hybrids are decent, but pure electric cars are not
selling.

There is a BIG difference between a hybrid and a pure electric car.

As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Vaughn > wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
> > environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.
>
> No offense intended Orval, but...
>
> In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
> match the reality around you. ;-)
>
>
> Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
> can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
> yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
> 100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
> still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
> seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.
>
> Vaughn

No offense, but they are just a fad and are highly subsidized by our tax
money. As soon as operational reality sets in, they will disappear --
just as they did 100 + years ago. Their inherent weakness is energy
storage density.

Now, if someone comes along with something like the fictional "zero
point module" or "dilithium crystals," then it is a whole different
story.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
> >> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
> >> -- and cars.
> >
> > Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
> > range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
> > more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
> > since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
> > other vehicle.
>
> That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.

.... and in daylight and moderate temperatures. As soon as the mercury
drops into the 40s or below (Deg F), their ability to store and deliver
a charge goes into the tank. Add cabin heating, defrost, etc. and it
only gets worse.

>
> This makes them an expensive niche vehicle as is evindenced by their lack
> of sales.
>
>
> > But for aircraft, batteries are a long way off from being viable (well,
> > for aircraft bigger than radio controlled ones - all of my RC aircraft
> > are electric, including helicopters weighing almost 7kg)
>
> Absent some earth shaking new physics, batteries will never be viable
> for a general purpose aircraft; motor gliders maybe, but something
> equivelant to a C-172, nope.

For self-launching sailplanes, which don't need a big "fuel tank," --
yes.
>
>

[george152]

On 01/01/13 07:44, wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>> There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
>>> issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
>>> -- and cars.
>>
>> Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
>> range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
>> more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
>> since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
>> other vehicle.
>
> That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.
>
And in daylight and preferably no hills

[Vaughn]

On 12/31/2012 1:54 PM, wrote:
> As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.

How is their invention date relevant to this discussion?

Airplanes were invented in about that same time-frame, are you saying
that no significant changes have occurred in aviation since then?

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 1:54 PM, wrote:
>> As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.
>
> How is their invention date relevant to this discussion?
>
> Airplanes were invented in about that same time-frame, are you saying
> that no significant changes have occurred in aviation since then?
>
> Vaughn

Umm, no, what I am saying to people that use phrases like "emerging
technology" in the expectation that huge improvements are just around
the corner is that the technology has been around a LONG time and is
not "emerging"; the huge improvements happened long ago and all that
can be expected now is minor improvements.

An "emerging technology" where there could be huge improvements would be
something like someone inventing Star Trek technology, e.g. dilithum
power or impulse engines.

[Vaughn]

On 12/31/2012 6:50 PM, wrote:
> in the expectation that huge improvements are just around
> the corner is that the technology has been around a LONG time and is
> not "emerging"; the huge improvements happened long ago and all that
> can be expected now is minor improvements.


In a word, bull****.

There have been drastic improvements in lithium - ion battery technology
in recent years. That's why they have largely supplanted NIMH batteries
for new EV designs.

Will there be continuing significant improvement in coming years? I
imagine that my crystal ball is no better than yours, but my choice
would be to not put money against it.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 6:50 PM, wrote:
>> in the expectation that huge improvements are just around
>> the corner is that the technology has been around a LONG time and is
>> not "emerging"; the huge improvements happened long ago and all that
>> can be expected now is minor improvements.
>
>
> In a word, bull****.
>
> There have been drastic improvements in lithium - ion battery technology
> in recent years. That's why they have largely supplanted NIMH batteries
> for new EV designs.

Nope, the "drastic improvements" in lithium-ion batteries were about 30
years ago when it was figured out how to make them commercially practical.

Since then there have been increamental improvements, such as cathodes
containing polyanions in about 1990, cathodes of phospho-olivines about
2002, better doping materials about the same time, and adding iron
phosphate nano particales to increase energy density around 2004.

All the improvements in lithium-ion batteries have for the most part
since then been in better control of the manufacturing process.

> Will there be continuing significant improvement in coming years? I
> imagine that my crystal ball is no better than yours, but my choice
> would be to not put money against it.

It has already been about a decade since the last significant improvement.

There are some proposed manufacturing processes that could achieve 95%
of the theoretical maximum energy density, however currently they don't
work outside of a lab, i.e. in a factory.

There are numerous other battery chemistries that theoretically surpass
lithium-ion by a large margin, but again only in a lab.

If there are any drastic improvements in batteries, that is most likely
where it will be when some manufacturing engineer figures how to actually
make them in quantity.

[a[_3_]]

There was a contest recently where one had to demonstrate more than 200 passenger miles per gallon equivalent, and an engineering team from Penn State won it with a battery powered airplane.

See

http://live.psu.edu/story/55543

for details.




On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:02:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
>
> brushless electric ring motors which
>
> I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
>
> static thrust.
>
>
>
> http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 31, 2012 6:50:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Vaughn > wrote:
>
> > On 12/31/2012 1:54 PM, wrote:
>
> >> As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912..
>
> >
>
> > How is their invention date relevant to this discussion?
>
> >
>
> > Airplanes were invented in about that same time-frame, are you saying
>
> > that no significant changes have occurred in aviation since then?
>
> >
>
> > Vaughn
>
>
>
> Umm, no, what I am saying to people that use phrases like "emerging
>
> technology" in the expectation that huge improvements are just around
>
> the corner is that the technology has been around a LONG time and is
>
> not "emerging"; the huge improvements happened long ago and all that
>
> can be expected now is minor improvements.
>
>
>
> An "emerging technology" where there could be huge improvements would be
>
> something like someone inventing Star Trek technology, e.g. dilithum
>
> power or impulse engines.

Not trying to argue with you Jim.
But this is my field of research.
Also, when I talk "electric", no one
ever said exclusively batteries. The
advances in PEM fuel cell technology
is through the roof. These "range-
extenders" using ammonia borane,
and sodium silicide take electric
flight orders of magnitude beyone
the internal combustion engine, both
in torque, comfort, and sustainability.


http://www.chargedevs.com/content/features-inside/three-kind-polyplus-reaches-1500-whkg

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Better_batteries_that_recharge_in_15_minutes_999.h tml

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/11/batteries-energy-kung.html

http://www.worldofchemicals.com/media/academy/better-rechargeable-batteries-in-the-making/1721.html

http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/12/03/ev-range-jump-price-drop-possible-soon

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/battery-breakthrough-may-be-electric-car-game-changer

---
(sorry, was unable to transfer
the link for this)

Fuel Cells
Powerful Implications

Lt Col David P. Blanks, USAF
Editorial Abstract: Getting somewhere, sharing information, and producing things all require energy. However, our primary source of energy—oil—is nonrenewable and exhaustible. If we wish to advance, we must seek an alternative, such as hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. Fuel cells have the potential not only to transform the future energy needs of the United States and the US Air Force, but also to change how and why we fight.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:10:37 AM UTC-5, a wrote:
> There was a contest recently where one had to demonstrate more than 200 passenger miles per gallon equivalent, and an engineering team from Penn State won it with a battery powered airplane.
>
>
>
> See
>
>
>
> http://live.psu.edu/story/55543
>
>
>
> for details.


http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electric.html

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> There was a contest recently where one had to demonstrate more than
> 200 passenger miles per gallon equivalent, and an engineering team from
> Penn State won it with a battery powered airplane.
>
> See
>
> http://live.psu.edu/story/55543
>
> for details.


It is just a big motor glider.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electric.html
>
> --
> Mark

Practical, manufacturable high temperature superconductors would enable
a whole bunch of neat things and would be as spectacular as a cure for the
common cold, lasting peace in the Middle East, and controlled fusion, and
is just as likely to happen in the near future.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2012-12-31, > wrote:
>> Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
>> range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
>> more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
>> since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
>> other vehicle.
>
> That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.

The typical use pattern of a car is driving a few miles twice a day
and then sitting stationary for at least 14 hours in a driveway which
is more than enough hours to charge off a normal power socket. Even
with the windows down and the AC on full blast there's no issue with
range for the typical daily use of a car.

With most households owning two or more cars, the other car can be used
for any cross-country journeys.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> Since you are carrying ALL the energy needed to run, the weight climbs
> out of sight (15:1 air:fuel ratio + storage medium).

On a point of pedantry, the mix is not 15:1 oxidiser to fuel. 79% of
the air takes no part in the reaction, so it's more like a 3:1
ratio. Also, petrol (gasoline) engines are at best 30% efficient
at turning the energy released by the fuel into motion (before even
getting to the drive train), electric traction motors are on the order
of 90% efficient at turning electical energy into motion.

While there's a big gap between what battery storage can do (which does
make it impractical for a typical GA aircraft), the gap isn't nearly
as big as you think it is for road vehicles.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2012-12-31, > wrote:
>
> As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.

The lithium battery of 1912 shares nothing in common with the lithium-ion
battery of today apart from the use of lithium. That's like saying
the transistor was invented in 1947, so therefore semiconductors are
not going to change or improve.

The Li-Ion battery wasn't actually invented until 1979 and bears no
resemblence to the lithium-ion battery or lithium-polymer-ion battery
(indeed, the particular chemistry for Li-Ion wasn't discovered until
the 1970s). The term "lithium battery" refers to many different battery
chemistries which generally are not alike, except they use Li. Anode
and cathode technology is a hotbed of development, and when it comes
to energy density, the anode and cathode structure is enormously
important.

Li-Ion and Li-Poly has significantly improved just over the last few
years, since I started fiddling with RC helicopters 5 years ago, the
batteries have improved noticably, they've got a bit smaller, the "C"
ratings (the maximum discharge rate) has gone up significantly, and
also the maximum charge rate has significantly increased. And the cost
has gone down, too.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Dylan Smith >
wrote:

> On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > Since you are carrying ALL the energy needed to run, the weight climbs
> > out of sight (15:1 air:fuel ratio + storage medium).
>
> On a point of pedantry, the mix is not 15:1 oxidiser to fuel. 79% of
> the air takes no part in the reaction, so it's more like a 3:1
> ratio. Also, petrol (gasoline) engines are at best 30% efficient
> at turning the energy released by the fuel into motion (before even
> getting to the drive train), electric traction motors are on the order
> of 90% efficient at turning electical energy into motion.

The 15:1 ratio is working fluid, including oxidizer. With a battery, you
have to carry the whole mass with you.

>
> While there's a big gap between what battery storage can do (which does
> make it impractical for a typical GA aircraft), the gap isn't nearly
> as big as you think it is for road vehicles.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2012-12-31, > wrote:
>>> Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
>>> range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
>>> more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
>>> since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
>>> other vehicle.
>>
>> That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.
>
> The typical use pattern of a car is driving a few miles twice a day
> and then sitting stationary for at least 14 hours in a driveway which
> is more than enough hours to charge off a normal power socket. Even
> with the windows down and the AC on full blast there's no issue with
> range for the typical daily use of a car.

That isn't the typical pattern around here unless by "a few miles" you
mean 50 to 100 miles.

Perhaps you can point to a nation wide study that shows some national
average numbers?

> With most households owning two or more cars, the other car can be used
> for any cross-country journeys.

For most households, the second car is an old car or a utility vehicle
like a pickup.

Most people want to use the new car for trips.

The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling and likely will
not sell until the range goes up and the price comes down considerably.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2012-12-31, > wrote:
>>
>> As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.
>
> The lithium battery of 1912 shares nothing in common with the lithium-ion
> battery of today apart from the use of lithium. That's like saying
> the transistor was invented in 1947, so therefore semiconductors are
> not going to change or improve.
>
> The Li-Ion battery wasn't actually invented until 1979 and bears no
> resemblence to the lithium-ion battery or lithium-polymer-ion battery
> (indeed, the particular chemistry for Li-Ion wasn't discovered until
> the 1970s). The term "lithium battery" refers to many different battery
> chemistries which generally are not alike, except they use Li. Anode
> and cathode technology is a hotbed of development, and when it comes
> to energy density, the anode and cathode structure is enormously
> important.
>
> Li-Ion and Li-Poly has significantly improved just over the last few
> years, since I started fiddling with RC helicopters 5 years ago, the
> batteries have improved noticably, they've got a bit smaller, the "C"
> ratings (the maximum discharge rate) has gone up significantly, and
> also the maximum charge rate has significantly increased. And the cost
> has gone down, too.

If by "the last few years" you mean around 2004 when the last incremental,
not order of magnitude, improvement to lithium-ion batteries was made,
then I agree.

A couple of orders of magnitude of improvement are needed to make things
like general purpose, e.g. C-172 equivelant, electric airplanes practical.

As for the batteries for RC helicopters, this has more to do with the
market becoming significant than much of anything else.

[Vaughn]

On 1/2/2013 12:35 PM, wrote:
> The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling

Proof?

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 12:35 PM, wrote:
>> The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling
>
> Proof?
>
> Vaughn


http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Electric-car-sales-falling-short-of-goal-3954153.php

Electric car sales falling short of goal

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/21/business/la-fi-0721-autos-electric-vehicles-20120721

Plug-in hybrid sales soar; all-electric cars stay in low gear

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/business/global/electric-vehicles-a-low-priority-for-automakers.html?_r=0

Soft Sales Crimp Outlook for Electric Cars

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079543_september-plug-in-electric-car-sales-steady-as-tesla-sells-200-or-so

September Plug-In Electric Car Sales Surge, As Tesla Sells 200 (Or So)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0501/Electric-car-sales-fall-in-April

Electric-car sales fall in April

Want more?

[Vaughn]

On 1/2/2013 3:10 PM, wrote:
> Vaughn > wrote:
>> On 1/2/2013 12:35 PM, wrote:
>>> The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling
>>
>> Proof?
>>
Yes, but you seem to have ignored these...

Plug-in electric car sales triple in 2012
http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/plug-in-electric-car-sales-triple-in-2012-1.4318285

Electric car sales rising steadily
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Electric-cars-plug-in-hybrids-gain-sales-4143761.php

Hybrid, Electric Car Sales Projection May Be To Conservative
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=29410

Electric vehicles proving popular
http://www.newsherald.com/news/business/electric-vehicles-proving-popular-1.68215

Electric-drive Car Sales Record New High in November
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=29338

Hybrid, EV Sales ‘Up 73%’ in 2012, Mintel Says
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/12/19/hybrid-ev-sales-up-73-in-2012-mintel-says/

Sales of Alternative Fuel Vehicles on the Rise.
Will reach record high in 2012, says Mintel
http://www.cspnet.com/news/fuels/articles/sales-alternative-fuel-vehicles-rise

Electric Car Sales Hit Another Record. Electric car sales reached a
record in November for the fourth consecutive month
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/12/06/electric-car-sales-hit-another-record/

Sales of electric cars double as new models come online
http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2012-12-25&val=861103&cat=industrial

I could continue, but you get the idea.

[george152]

On 03/01/13 11:51, Vaughn wrote:

> I could continue, but you get the idea.

The day that electric cars (not Hybrids) take 50% of the western market
you'll be able to justly crow.
Even then electrics are short range, expensive (to buy and to replace
batteries), inconvenient overpriced toys.

[Vaughn]

On 1/2/2013 6:29 PM, george152 wrote:
> On 03/01/13 11:51, Vaughn wrote:
>
>> I could continue, but you get the idea.
>
> The day that electric cars (not Hybrids) take 50% of the western market
> you'll be able to justly crow.
> Even then electrics are short range, expensive (to buy and to replace
> batteries), inconvenient overpriced toys.

All beside the point, and not even disputed. I was simply reacting to
jimp's bare assertion that "The bottom line is that electric cars are
NOT selling."

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 3:10 PM, wrote:
>> Vaughn > wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2013 12:35 PM, wrote:
>>>> The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>>
> Yes, but you seem to have ignored these...
>
> Plug-in electric car sales triple in 2012
> http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/plug-in-electric-car-sales-triple-in-2012-1.4318285

Read it closely; most of the sales are hybrids and no numbers are given for
pure electrics.

> Electric car sales rising steadily
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Electric-cars-plug-in-hybrids-gain-sales-4143761.php

Again, read it closely; the sales of hybrids is increasing rapidly while
the pure electrics are next to nothing and basically flat.

> Hybrid, Electric Car Sales Projection May Be To Conservative
> http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=29410
>
> Electric vehicles proving popular
> http://www.newsherald.com/news/business/electric-vehicles-proving-popular-1.68215

Doesn't say a thing about sales numbers, just that most people who have
bought an electric car of some sort like them and hybrids outsell electrics.

> Electric-drive Car Sales Record New High in November
> http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=29338
>
> Hybrid, EV Sales ‘Up 73%’ in 2012, Mintel Says
> http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/12/19/hybrid-ev-sales-up-73-in-2012-mintel-says/

Says the sales of ALL types of electric cars are up and does not break it
down by hybrid versus electric. We allready know hybrid sales are up.

It also forcasts the TOTAL sales of all type might reach a whopping 5%
of the US market by 2017.

> Sales of Alternative Fuel Vehicles on the Rise.
> Will reach record high in 2012, says Mintel
> http://www.cspnet.com/news/fuels/articles/sales-alternative-fuel-vehicles-rise

This is a duplicate of the last link.

>
> Electric Car Sales Hit Another Record. Electric car sales reached a
> record in November for the fourth consecutive month
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/12/06/electric-car-sales-hit-another-record/

Again lumps hybrids and electrics together.


> Sales of electric cars double as new models come online
> http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2012-12-25&val=861103&cat=industrial

Again lumps hybrids and electrics together, but at least admits "electric
cars still account for a marginal proportion of the UK market" and is
about the UK.


> I could continue, but you get the idea.

Yeah, you don't bother to actually read any of the links you post.

You just read the headline and make assumptions.

The bottom line is sales of electric cars are trivial and basically flat
while the sales of hybrids are tiny and climbing and MAY make the 2 digit
percentage market in a decade or so.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 6:29 PM, george152 wrote:
>> On 03/01/13 11:51, Vaughn wrote:
>>
>>> I could continue, but you get the idea.
>>
>> The day that electric cars (not Hybrids) take 50% of the western market
>> you'll be able to justly crow.
>> Even then electrics are short range, expensive (to buy and to replace
>> batteries), inconvenient overpriced toys.
>
> All beside the point, and not even disputed. I was simply reacting to
> jimp's bare assertion that "The bottom line is that electric cars are
> NOT selling."

Most people would call sales that amount to less than 1% of the market
"not selling".

[Vaughn]

On 1/2/2013 7:23 PM, wrote:
> The bottom line is sales of electric cars are trivial and basically flat
> while the sales of hybrids are tiny and climbing and MAY make the 2 digit
> percentage market in a decade or so.

Your "BOTTOM LINE" seems to be a moving target. Your original statement
was "The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling." You haven't
proven that, and you can't prove that because it's simply wrong.

[Vaughn]

On 1/2/2013 7:31 PM, wrote:
> Most people would call sales that amount to less than 1% of the market
> "not selling".
>
Wrong again.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 7:31 PM, wrote:
>> Most people would call sales that amount to less than 1% of the market
>> "not selling".
>>
> Wrong again.

So what would you call sales that amount to less than 1% of the market;
bad, awful, deadful, rotten, terrible, poor, dire, abysmal, frightful,
sad, gloomy, dismal, depressing, discouraging, bleak, dreary, wretched,
or maybe sorrowful?

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 7:23 PM, wrote:
>> The bottom line is sales of electric cars are trivial and basically flat
>> while the sales of hybrids are tiny and climbing and MAY make the 2 digit
>> percentage market in a decade or so.
>
> Your "BOTTOM LINE" seems to be a moving target. Your original statement
> was "The bottom line is that electric cars are NOT selling." You haven't
> proven that, and you can't prove that because it's simply wrong.

Most people would interperate the phrase "not selling" to mean that there
are very few sales compared to the market, not that sales are nonexistent.

It is well established that there are very few, less than 1% of the market,
sales of electric cars.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-01-02, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> The 15:1 ratio is working fluid, including oxidizer. With a battery, you
> have to carry the whole mass with you.

Comparing what a battery needs to contain with "working fluid" is still
just not valid. To make a comparison between what a battery must store
vs fuel and oxidiser, only the fuel and oxidiser and the number of joules
you get out should be considered. You don't have to carry the "working
fluid" equivalent in a battery, only the equivalent energy, in other
words the equivalent of fuel+oxidiser.

The "active ingredients" that should be compared are just the oxidiser
and the fuel, not the nitrogen. An electric motor doesn't need it,
it only needs joules of electrical energy.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-01-02, > wrote:
> A couple of orders of magnitude of improvement are needed to make things
> like general purpose, e.g. C-172 equivelant, electric airplanes practical.

Oh, I completely agree with you on that point.

But I think that battery technology will in the not too distant future be
eminently practical for most of the world's use case for a car.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-01-02, > wrote:
> That isn't the typical pattern around here unless by "a few miles" you
> mean 50 to 100 miles.

Presumably "around here" means somewhere rural if your commute is 50
to 100 miles. This is extremly atypical. The average commute in the US
is only 16 miles each way. Much of that is stuck in traffic, where
gasoline cars idle but electric cars don't need to put any energy
into the motor.

[Vaughn]

On 1/3/2013 6:57 AM, Dylan Smith wrote:
> where
> gasoline cars idle but electric cars don't need to put any energy
> into the motor.

But to be fair, that electric car sitting in traffic still might need to
put considerable energy into climate control.

In my area, the typical commute is more like 10 miles. 20 years ago, I
know of no electric available that would make that round trip,
especially if you include climate control. Today, there are several
choices on on the market that would be excellent for that mission. Do
they make economic sense? That's the real question! For most of us,
the answer is "no" as long as gasoline is easily available and under
(say) $8.00/gallon.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2013-01-02, > wrote:
>> A couple of orders of magnitude of improvement are needed to make things
>> like general purpose, e.g. C-172 equivelant, electric airplanes practical.
>
> Oh, I completely agree with you on that point.
>
> But I think that battery technology will in the not too distant future be
> eminently practical for most of the world's use case for a car.

If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
maybe.

Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
the road.

Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
being the huge premium in cost.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
>
> maybe.
>
>
>
> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
>
> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
>
> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
>
> the road.
>
>
>
> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
>
> being the huge premium in cost.

When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an economical transportation.

When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does not think there was much of a market for personal computers.

When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so unreliable compared to the horse.

On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set up a permanent colony.

America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers. Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>
>>
>> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
>>
>> maybe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
>>
>> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
>>
>> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
>>
>> the road.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
>>
>> being the huge premium in cost.
>
> When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an
> economical transportation.

When airplanes were invented, the limitations were material technology,
not the basic physics of the power plant.

> When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does
> not think there was much of a market for personal computers.

When computers were invented they were the size of a small house, cost
millions of dollars, and a fortune in power and air conditioning to work.

It took improvements in the technology to eliminate all those problems,
not a basic break through in the physics and chemistry of any part.

> When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so
> unreliable compared to the horse.

When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
or chemistry.

> On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not
> work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set
> up a permanent colony.

We never went back because no one wantee to pay for it, much like no one
wants to pay a bunch of money for a niche vehicle.

> America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers.
> Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no
> guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.

Oh, we are "trying" allright and failure is guaranteed by basic physics
and chemistry until, if ever, there is an astounding breakthrough.

Millions in tax dollars are being poured into the electric car rat hole
in subsidies with no positive results.

What we have instead of results are sales that are almost nonexistant
and lawsuits like those in Arizona because electric car batteries react
to the heat just like anyone with any knowledge of battery chemistry
would expect them to; range nowhere near advertised and a very short life.

If the government were not forcing the manufacture of electric cars through
emission standards and subsidies there would be none manufactured

[Dave Doe]

In article >, ,
says...
>
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
> >>
> >> maybe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
> >>
> >> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
> >>
> >> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
> >>
> >> the road.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
> >>
> >> being the huge premium in cost.
> >
> > When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an
> > economical transportation.
>
> When airplanes were invented, the limitations were material technology,
> not the basic physics of the power plant.
>
> > When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does
> > not think there was much of a market for personal computers.
>
> When computers were invented they were the size of a small house, cost
> millions of dollars, and a fortune in power and air conditioning to work.
>
> It took improvements in the technology to eliminate all those problems,
> not a basic break through in the physics and chemistry of any part.
>
> > When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so
> > unreliable compared to the horse.
>
> When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
> city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
> the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
> or chemistry.
>
> > On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not
> > work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set
> > up a permanent colony.
>
> We never went back because no one wantee to pay for it, much like no one
> wants to pay a bunch of money for a niche vehicle.
>
> > America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers.
> > Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no
> > guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.
>
> Oh, we are "trying" allright and failure is guaranteed by basic physics
> and chemistry until, if ever, there is an astounding breakthrough.
>
> Millions in tax dollars are being poured into the electric car rat hole
> in subsidies with no positive results.
>
> What we have instead of results are sales that are almost nonexistant
> and lawsuits like those in Arizona because electric car batteries react
> to the heat just like anyone with any knowledge of battery chemistry
> would expect them to; range nowhere near advertised and a very short life.
>
> If the government were not forcing the manufacture of electric cars through
> emission standards and subsidies there would be none manufactured

Well I'm not sure if you have noticed the quantum mechanics revolution
that we're, I'd dare say, *in*, right now. Perhaps it's true to say
that our quantum mechanics knowledge hasn't changed *that* much in 50
years - but certainly, the theory is becoming reality.

These things all currently exist, albiet on small and experimental
levels, for now! ...
* Quantum cloaking and invisibility
* Carbon nanotubes - bridges into space
* unlimited cheap energy
* superconductivity at normal temperatures
* quantum entanglement - teleportation

I'll let you do your own research. :)

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >, ,
> says...
>>
>> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
>> >>
>> >> maybe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
>> >>
>> >> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
>> >>
>> >> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
>> >>
>> >> the road.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
>> >>
>> >> being the huge premium in cost.
>> >
>> > When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an
>> > economical transportation.
>>
>> When airplanes were invented, the limitations were material technology,
>> not the basic physics of the power plant.
>>
>> > When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does
>> > not think there was much of a market for personal computers.
>>
>> When computers were invented they were the size of a small house, cost
>> millions of dollars, and a fortune in power and air conditioning to work.
>>
>> It took improvements in the technology to eliminate all those problems,
>> not a basic break through in the physics and chemistry of any part.
>>
>> > When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so
>> > unreliable compared to the horse.
>>
>> When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
>> city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
>> the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
>> or chemistry.
>>
>> > On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not
>> > work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set
>> > up a permanent colony.
>>
>> We never went back because no one wantee to pay for it, much like no one
>> wants to pay a bunch of money for a niche vehicle.
>>
>> > America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers.
>> > Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no
>> > guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.
>>
>> Oh, we are "trying" allright and failure is guaranteed by basic physics
>> and chemistry until, if ever, there is an astounding breakthrough.
>>
>> Millions in tax dollars are being poured into the electric car rat hole
>> in subsidies with no positive results.
>>
>> What we have instead of results are sales that are almost nonexistant
>> and lawsuits like those in Arizona because electric car batteries react
>> to the heat just like anyone with any knowledge of battery chemistry
>> would expect them to; range nowhere near advertised and a very short life.
>>
>> If the government were not forcing the manufacture of electric cars through
>> emission standards and subsidies there would be none manufactured
>
> Well I'm not sure if you have noticed the quantum mechanics revolution
> that we're, I'd dare say, *in*, right now. Perhaps it's true to say
> that our quantum mechanics knowledge hasn't changed *that* much in 50
> years - but certainly, the theory is becoming reality.

QM is totally irrelevant to the discussion of battery chemistry and
physics.

Theory never becomes reality; theory is always theory.

Reality in this context is when a theory can be applied to produce something,
as in elecromagnetic theory being used to produce antennas for radios.

> These things all currently exist, albiet on small and experimental
> levels, for now! ...
> * Quantum cloaking and invisibility
> * Carbon nanotubes - bridges into space
> * unlimited cheap energy
> * superconductivity at normal temperatures
> * quantum entanglement - teleportation

All are pie in the sky speculation and other than carbon nanotubes do not
exist.

> I'll let you do your own research. :)

I already have but not by watching sifi movies.

[george152]

On 14/01/13 18:35, wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
>>>
>>> maybe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
>>>
>>> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
>>>
>>> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
>>>
>>> the road.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
>>>
>>> being the huge premium in cost.
>>
>> When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an
>> economical transportation.
>
> When airplanes were invented, the limitations were material technology,
> not the basic physics of the power plant.
>
>> When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does
>> not think there was much of a market for personal computers.
>
> When computers were invented they were the size of a small house, cost
> millions of dollars, and a fortune in power and air conditioning to work.
>
> It took improvements in the technology to eliminate all those problems,
> not a basic break through in the physics and chemistry of any part.
>
>> When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so
>> unreliable compared to the horse.
>
> When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
> city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
> the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
> or chemistry.
And the cruelty those horses underwent.
Treat a motor vehicle poorly and it'll quit on you

>> On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not
>> work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set
>> up a permanent colony.
>
> We never went back because no one wantee to pay for it, much like no one
> wants to pay a bunch of money for a niche vehicle.
>
>> America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers.
>> Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no
>> guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.
>
> Oh, we are "trying" allright and failure is guaranteed by basic physics
> and chemistry until, if ever, there is an astounding breakthrough.
>
> Millions in tax dollars are being poured into the electric car rat hole
> in subsidies with no positive results.
>
> What we have instead of results are sales that are almost nonexistant
> and lawsuits like those in Arizona because electric car batteries react
> to the heat just like anyone with any knowledge of battery chemistry
> would expect them to; range nowhere near advertised and a very short life.
>
> If the government were not forcing the manufacture of electric cars through
> emission standards and subsidies there would be none manufactured
>
>
>

It's all pie in the sky.
All the what ifs and maybes in the imagination are going to limit us
toearthbound, uneducated and short brutish savage lives.

[Dave Doe]

In article >, ,
says...
>
> Dave Doe > wrote:
> > In article >, ,
> > says...
> >>
> >> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If by "not too distant future" you mean 50 years, than I think a big
> >> >>
> >> >> maybe.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.
> >> >>
> >> >> all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all
> >> >>
> >> >> electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on
> >> >>
> >> >> the road.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle
> >> >>
> >> >> being the huge premium in cost.
> >> >
> >> > When airplanes were invented, many argued that it will never become an
> >> > economical transportation.
> >>
> >> When airplanes were invented, the limitations were material technology,
> >> not the basic physics of the power plant.
> >>
> >> > When computers were invented, even the president of IBM said he does
> >> > not think there was much of a market for personal computers.
> >>
> >> When computers were invented they were the size of a small house, cost
> >> millions of dollars, and a fortune in power and air conditioning to work.
> >>
> >> It took improvements in the technology to eliminate all those problems,
> >> not a basic break through in the physics and chemistry of any part.
> >>
> >> > When automobiles were invented, it was criticized for being so
> >> > unreliable compared to the horse.
> >>
> >> When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
> >> city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
> >> the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
> >> or chemistry.
> >>
> >> > On the other hand, there as just as many examples where things did not
> >> > work out. Like the space program. We never went back to the moon or set
> >> > up a permanent colony.
> >>
> >> We never went back because no one wantee to pay for it, much like no one
> >> wants to pay a bunch of money for a niche vehicle.
> >>
> >> > America enjoyed the prosperity from the automobile, airplane and computers.
> >> > Electric vehicles could just be the next big thing. While there is no
> >> > guarantee of success, failure is pretty much guaranteed if we don't try.
> >>
> >> Oh, we are "trying" allright and failure is guaranteed by basic physics
> >> and chemistry until, if ever, there is an astounding breakthrough.
> >>
> >> Millions in tax dollars are being poured into the electric car rat hole
> >> in subsidies with no positive results.
> >>
> >> What we have instead of results are sales that are almost nonexistant
> >> and lawsuits like those in Arizona because electric car batteries react
> >> to the heat just like anyone with any knowledge of battery chemistry
> >> would expect them to; range nowhere near advertised and a very short life.
> >>
> >> If the government were not forcing the manufacture of electric cars through
> >> emission standards and subsidies there would be none manufactured
> >
> > Well I'm not sure if you have noticed the quantum mechanics revolution
> > that we're, I'd dare say, *in*, right now. Perhaps it's true to say
> > that our quantum mechanics knowledge hasn't changed *that* much in 50
> > years - but certainly, the theory is becoming reality.
>
> QM is totally irrelevant to the discussion of battery chemistry and
> physics.

It most certainly is not. Indeed it's possible to explain anything in
the universe, ulimately, by quantum mechanics.

> Theory never becomes reality; theory is always theory.
>
> Reality in this context is when a theory can be applied to produce something,
> as in elecromagnetic theory being used to produce antennas for radios.
>
> > These things all currently exist, albiet on small and experimental
> > levels, for now! ...
> > * Quantum cloaking and invisibility
> > * Carbon nanotubes - bridges into space
> > * unlimited cheap energy
> > * superconductivity at normal temperatures
> > * quantum entanglement - teleportation
>
> All are pie in the sky speculation and other than carbon nanotubes do not
> exist.
>
> > I'll let you do your own research. :)
>
> I already have but not by watching sifi movies.

You clearly are not looking in the right places. Do you require some
proof? - I would prefer it if you found it yourself - it's the best way
to gain knowledge.

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >, ,

<snip old crap>


>> QM is totally irrelevant to the discussion of battery chemistry and
>> physics.
>
> It most certainly is not. Indeed it's possible to explain anything in
> the universe, ulimately, by quantum mechanics.

Just because you might, maybe, someday, be able to explain everything
related to current battery chemistry and physics does not mean you will
magically be able to come up with new battery chemistry and physics nor
does it mean you will actually be able to build said battery, or that
if you can build it, it will be of such cost to be practical.

We have known for a long time how to turn lead into gold, but the cost of
doing it far exceeds the value of the gold.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 1, 1:24*pm, wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electri...
>
> > --
> > Mark
>
> Practical, manufacturable high temperature superconductors would enable
> a whole bunch of neat things and would be as spectacular as a cure for the
> common cold, lasting peace in the Middle East, and controlled fusion, and
> is just as likely to happen in the near future.

I recently read up on some work being done with graphene
supercapacitors. I IRC, it was at Caltech. What was interesting is how
they performed at lower temperatures (e.g. room temp.). Also, charging
times were impressive. Still in the realm of research, so it wasn't
clear to me how well it would scale beyond smaller applications
(consumer electronics, for example.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:24Â*pm, wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electri...
>>
>> > --
>> > Mark
>>
>> Practical, manufacturable high temperature superconductors would enable
>> a whole bunch of neat things and would be as spectacular as a cure for the
>> common cold, lasting peace in the Middle East, and controlled fusion, and
>> is just as likely to happen in the near future.
>
> I recently read up on some work being done with graphene
> supercapacitors. I IRC, it was at Caltech. What was interesting is how
> they performed at lower temperatures (e.g. room temp.). Also, charging
> times were impressive. Still in the realm of research, so it wasn't
> clear to me how well it would scale beyond smaller applications
> (consumer electronics, for example.


Supercapacitors are great for things like keeping your clock from flashing
on every minor power failure, but not that great for real power application.

The basic physics of capacitors says the energy density can never be as
good as existing batteries. Graphene makes them better but it will take
yet to be invented materials to match batteries.

Capacitors are also a poor choice for running something like a motor because
of their discharge curve.

While a battery's discharge curve is basically flat until it gets close to
full discharge, then takes a big dive, a capacitor discharge curve is a
straight line between fully charged and zero.

Motors operate over a narrow voltage range. Electric motor speed control
is done by pulsing the motor voltage on and off, not by varying a constant
voltage.

Now it is possible to build a thing that will take in a lower voltage and
output some constant higher voltage to keep a motor happy.

The problem with that is it is more complexity subject to failure, not
good with airplanes, and it would require big, heavy, high current
transformers, which ups the weight a good bit.

My wild assed guess is that if electric airplanes ever become practical
without Star Trek technology, it will likely be through a fuel cell that
is yet to be invented.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 12:25*pm, wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 1:24*pm, wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electri....
>
> >> > --
> >> > Mark
>
> >> Practical, manufacturable high temperature superconductors would enable
> >> a whole bunch of neat things and would be as spectacular as a cure for the
> >> common cold, lasting peace in the Middle East, and controlled fusion, and
> >> is just as likely to happen in the near future.
>
> > I recently read up on some work being done with graphene
> > supercapacitors. I IRC, it was at Caltech. What was interesting is how
> > they performed at lower temperatures (e.g. room temp.). Also, charging
> > times were impressive. Still in the realm of research, so it wasn't
> > clear to me how well it would scale beyond smaller applications
> > (consumer electronics, for example.
>
> Supercapacitors are great for things like keeping your clock from flashing
> on every minor power failure, but not that great for real power application.
>
> The basic physics of capacitors says the energy density can never be as
> good as existing batteries. Graphene makes them better but it will take
> yet to be invented materials to match batteries.
>
> Capacitors are also a poor choice for running something like a motor because
> of their discharge curve.
>
> While a battery's discharge curve is basically flat until it gets close to
> full discharge, then takes a big dive, a capacitor discharge curve is a
> straight line between fully charged and zero.
>
> Motors operate over a narrow voltage range. Electric motor speed control
> is done by pulsing the motor voltage on and off, not by varying a constant
> voltage.
>
> Now it is possible to build a thing that will take in a lower voltage and
> output some constant higher voltage to keep a motor happy.
>
> The problem with that is it is more complexity subject to failure, not
> good with airplanes, and it would require big, heavy, high current
> transformers, which ups the weight a good bit.
>
> My wild assed guess is that if electric airplanes ever become practical
> without Star Trek technology, it will likely be through a fuel cell that
> is yet to be invented.

Most of what I was reading didn't seem to indicate that the goal is to
replace, but rather to compliment existing technologies, e.g. charging
applications.

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-sponge-like-graphene-supercapacitor-electrodes..html
- Graphene

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-energy-storage-device-recharge-electric.html
- SMC

I'm not saying it will (ever) power an airplane. Just looked
interesting and sometimes there are great discoveries that come out of
research, often in applications that were never part of the planned
research itself.

Peace.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

<snip old stuff>


> Most of what I was reading didn't seem to indicate that the goal is to
> replace, but rather to compliment existing technologies, e.g. charging
> applications.
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-10-sponge-like-graphene-supercapacitor-electrodes.html
> - Graphene
>
> http://phys.org/news/2011-08-energy-storage-device-recharge-electric.html
> - SMC

Lot's of little techical problems in both of those articles.

The biggest is talking about recharging in minutes.

It is a rather simple calculation to calculate the current requirments
to recharge a device (doesn't matter battery or capacitor) to the full
energy level in a few minutes.

When you do that you discover that the size of the cable required so that
it will not vaporize due to the current density is as big around as your
leg with matching connectors.

Energy sources are rated in KWh and is equivalent to 1000 x V x A x h.

A typical electric car battery is around 30 KWh and 100 volts and 6 minutes
is 0.1 hours so:

30,000 / (100 x .1) = 3,000 Amps

To put the wire required in perspective, those big heavy cables on an
arc welder are good for a current of around 100 Amps so your charging
cable would have to be about 30 times bigger than arc welder cables.

> I'm not saying it will (ever) power an airplane. Just looked
> interesting and sometimes there are great discoveries that come out of
> research, often in applications that were never part of the planned
> research itself.

Yeah, that is usually the case.


> Peace.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-02-01, > wrote:
> To put the wire required in perspective, those big heavy cables on an
> arc welder are good for a current of around 100 Amps so your charging
> cable would have to be about 30 times bigger than arc welder cables.

To be precise for an interconnect of 10m, two cables of 30mm diameter
would suffice. It would give the line boy a bit of a work out but isn't
impossible. Size-wise it's a bit like two fuel hoses but *considerably*
heavier.

However, the price and other installation details of getting the
300kW feed to the FBO is left as an exercise for the reader...

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2013-02-01, > wrote:
>> To put the wire required in perspective, those big heavy cables on an
>> arc welder are good for a current of around 100 Amps so your charging
>> cable would have to be about 30 times bigger than arc welder cables.
>
> To be precise for an interconnect of 10m, two cables of 30mm diameter
> would suffice. It would give the line boy a bit of a work out but isn't
> impossible. Size-wise it's a bit like two fuel hoses but *considerably*
> heavier.

I think you dropped a decimal point there.

4/0 AWG wire is about 12mm in diameter and rated for about 300 A.

Keep in mind any real world implementation would have to follow existing
regulations such as NEC and while a 30mm copper wire isn't going to
vaporize, it certainly isn't going to be cool.

Also there can be a great difference between "possible" and "practical".

> However, the price and other installation details of getting the
> 300kW feed to the FBO is left as an exercise for the reader...

And that is if you only do one at a time.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-02-04, > wrote:
>> To be precise for an interconnect of 10m, two cables of 30mm diameter
>> would suffice. It would give the line boy a bit of a work out but isn't
>> impossible. Size-wise it's a bit like two fuel hoses but *considerably*
>> heavier.
>
> I think you dropped a decimal point there.
>
> 4/0 AWG wire is about 12mm in diameter and rated for about 300 A.

No decimal point dropped.

Don't forget the DC current carrying capacity is not determined by
the radius, but the cross section area of the cable. So you wouldn't need
120mm dia. cable. A 12mm dia cable has an area of 113mm^2. Multiplying
by 10 we have a cable with a 1130mm^2 cross section, or a radius of
sqrt(1130/pi), or a 38mm diameter by just making it ten times larger
than a 300A cable (and not far off my initial guesstimate of 30mm dia).

That wire has about 1.5e-5 ohm resistance per meter (or 1.5e-4 ohm
for 10 meters). Applying V=IR to find the voltage drop, we have
V=3000*0.00015, or a 0.45v drop over this cable. So we'd have to
dissipate about 1.4kW of heat over this 10 meter length during the
charge. So yes, pretty toasty but it wouldn't melt the insulation.
It's the poor line boy who gets a bit of a work out though, he'd
have to drag about 200kg of cable out to the plane. Even lifting
the last 2m up off the ground to connect to the aircraft would be lifting
40kg of copper. The health and safety police certainly would frown on
that.

Note I'm not saying it's *practical*, where I live the final distribution
circuits are only 180kW or so, which is less than the power that this
thing would need to transfer, so the FBO which probably have just a pretty
standard commercial office type electricity supply would need upgrading
to something that could power a factory (in other words, eyewateringly
expensive given that most GA FBOs are marginally profitable and live
hand-to-mouth). I also suspect that 10m of 38mm dia cable will be a bit
expensive too and a prime target for copper thieves. So even before
we get as far as thinking "will a 38mm dia cable with a suitable
protection device meet regulations?" the whole thing would be stymied
by the astronomical cost of supplying such a large amount of power to
an operation that at the best of times can just about cover the wage bill.

[Vaughn]

On 2/4/2013 12:54 PM, wrote:
> would have to follow existing
> regulations such as NEC

You would be surprised at the places where the NEC doesn't apply, and I
wouldn't bet money that it would apply here. Still, the laws of physics
always apply and any such installation where people must handle
energized conductors would certainly need to be built to some stringent
safety standard.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, > wrote:
>>> To be precise for an interconnect of 10m, two cables of 30mm diameter
>>> would suffice. It would give the line boy a bit of a work out but isn't
>>> impossible. Size-wise it's a bit like two fuel hoses but *considerably*
>>> heavier.
>>
>> I think you dropped a decimal point there.
>>
>> 4/0 AWG wire is about 12mm in diameter and rated for about 300 A.
>
> No decimal point dropped.
>
> Don't forget the DC current carrying capacity is not determined by
> the radius, but the cross section area of the cable. So you wouldn't need
> 120mm dia. cable. A 12mm dia cable has an area of 113mm^2. Multiplying
> by 10 we have a cable with a 1130mm^2 cross section, or a radius of
> sqrt(1130/pi), or a 38mm diameter by just making it ten times larger
> than a 300A cable (and not far off my initial guesstimate of 30mm dia).

Sounds about right.

> That wire has about 1.5e-5 ohm resistance per meter (or 1.5e-4 ohm
> for 10 meters). Applying V=IR to find the voltage drop, we have
> V=3000*0.00015, or a 0.45v drop over this cable. So we'd have to
> dissipate about 1.4kW of heat over this 10 meter length during the
> charge. So yes, pretty toasty but it wouldn't melt the insulation.
> It's the poor line boy who gets a bit of a work out though, he'd
> have to drag about 200kg of cable out to the plane. Even lifting
> the last 2m up off the ground to connect to the aircraft would be lifting
> 40kg of copper. The health and safety police certainly would frown on
> that.

Minor nit:

There are two wires so shouldn't that be 2.8kW and 400 kg of cable?

> Note I'm not saying it's *practical*, where I live the final distribution
> circuits are only 180kW or so, which is less than the power that this
> thing would need to transfer, so the FBO which probably have just a pretty
> standard commercial office type electricity supply would need upgrading
> to something that could power a factory (in other words, eyewateringly
> expensive given that most GA FBOs are marginally profitable and live
> hand-to-mouth). I also suspect that 10m of 38mm dia cable will be a bit
> expensive too and a prime target for copper thieves. So even before
> we get as far as thinking "will a 38mm dia cable with a suitable
> protection device meet regulations?" the whole thing would be stymied
> by the astronomical cost of supplying such a large amount of power to
> an operation that at the best of times can just about cover the wage bill.

Totally agree here.

This is why no electric vehicle of any kind is ever going to "refuel" as
quickly as a gasoline vehicle no matter what the storage device other
than a fuel cell and for most people a refuel time of hours is not
acceptable.

One would think the research money for big electrical sources would be
better spent on fuel cells (not that they don't have problems of their
own like generating a lot of heat) than on batteries and capacitors.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 12:54 PM, wrote:
>> would have to follow existing
>> regulations such as NEC
>
> You would be surprised at the places where the NEC doesn't apply, and I
> wouldn't bet money that it would apply here. Still, the laws of physics
> always apply and any such installation where people must handle
> energized conductors would certainly need to be built to some stringent
> safety standard.

As a general rule of thumb, the NEC applies to things connected to the
electrical grid, so my guess is that it would apply.

Not that it matters in the slightest as this will never become reality.

[Vaughn]

On 2/5/2013 1:05 PM, wrote:

>
> One would think the research money for big electrical sources would be
> better spent on fuel cells (not that they don't have problems of their
> own like generating a lot of heat) than on batteries and capacitors.

Oh no! We can't have any machinery in a vehicle that generates lots of
heat!

I'm as discouraged about fuel cells as you are about batteries.

This fuel cell plane is distinctly unimpressive, I haven't heard any
recent news on it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/4257294

There's also not much recent news on the few fuel cell cars that Honda
was or is leasing in California. Plain Hydrogen has some real problems
as a mass fuel. I don't see fuel cells becoming popular until they
perfect reformers, which are the "Holy Grail" technology that will allow
them to use liquid fuels. So far, reformers work mostly only in the
lab, and are very sensitive to fuel impurities.

[[email protected]]

Vaughn > wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 1:05 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>> One would think the research money for big electrical sources would be
>> better spent on fuel cells (not that they don't have problems of their
>> own like generating a lot of heat) than on batteries and capacitors.
>
> Oh no! We can't have any machinery in a vehicle that generates lots of
> heat!
>
> I'm as discouraged about fuel cells as you are about batteries.
>
> This fuel cell plane is distinctly unimpressive, I haven't heard any
> recent news on it.
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/4257294
>
> There's also not much recent news on the few fuel cell cars that Honda
> was or is leasing in California. Plain Hydrogen has some real problems
> as a mass fuel. I don't see fuel cells becoming popular until they
> perfect reformers, which are the "Holy Grail" technology that will allow
> them to use liquid fuels. So far, reformers work mostly only in the
> lab, and are very sensitive to fuel impurities.

Problem is current fuel cells generate a LOT of heat and there are limits
to how much you can easily dump, especially for a car at a stop light.

I don't see fuel cells as becoming a mass anything until they run on
something the average idiot can handle at least as safely as gasoline,
and hydrogen has far too many issues to qualify.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-02-05, > wrote:
> There are two wires so shouldn't that be 2.8kW and 400 kg of cable?

The calculation was for two wires (out and return), and to be pedantic
we're actually trying to dissipate 1.4kW of heat over 20m of cable, but
the assumption is that the two cables will be tied together thus reducing
the surface area enough that you can't really allow for the full 20m of
cable for heat sinking purposes.