Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

[Dave[_5_]]

Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson

[[email protected]]

On Nov 13, 9:07 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>
> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
> technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
> used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
> idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
> vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
> tanks - found everywhere.
>
> Comments?
>
> David Johnson

Yeah, I can't decide whether the idea of a compressed air vehicle
blows or suck... hmmm, definitely blows. Yet, it also sucks.
Blows. Sucks. Blows. Sucks. Either way, it's an air headed idea.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
Dave > wrote:
The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
> tanks - found everywhere.
>
> Comments?

More drain on the world's supply of both balonium and unobtainium.

You can't store enough compressed air to make it practical -- perhaps
they use a very long air hose?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 14 Nov 2007 03:59:17 GMT, James Robinson > wrote:

>Dave > wrote:
>
>> Comments?
>
>- Both the compression of air and the use of air motors are extremely
>inefficient, with the compression/expansion cycle perhaps only 1/2 the
>efficiency of a typical gasoline engine. The effect of that on nationwide
>energy consumption should be obvious.
>
>- Air compressors that work above about 200 psi are very expensive.
>
>- You can't store enough energy in a reasonably-sized tank to be effective.
>For example, if you assume a 15 gallon tank, with 200 psi air pressure, you
>can accelerate a medium-sized car to about 25 mph, once. Yes, if you use a
>higher pressure you will get more work, but you have a long way to go to
>get the equivalent energy stored in a tank of gasoline.

Or even approach the energy stored in the electric car's battery.

Roger (K8RI)

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Nov 13, 10:07 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>

Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception. The
Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far less
efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the near
future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
weights.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Others were quick to mention the horrible thermodynamic efficiency of
compressed air energy storage, but the company that is promoting the Aircar
concept is looking more and more interesting. They seem to have learned a lot
from folks like our Bede and Moller. They have been around for (I believe)
around 15 years but have yet to even make a prototype available for independent
testing.

If you go back in time 10 years, you will find them claiming firm deals on
production factories and that the streets will soon be dark with their vehicles.
There were ripe opportunities for dealerships and other investment opportunities
in their company. Today, little seems to have changed. Are you starting to get
the picture?

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:07:50 -0000, Dave > wrote in
. com>:

>Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars.

At least the OP of that message thread had the courtesy to mark it
Off-Topic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:07:50 -0000, Dave > wrote in
> . com>:
>
>>Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars.
>
> At least the OP of that message thread had the courtesy to mark it
> Off-Topic.
>

Your a real litttle net-nancy ainthca, Larry?


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:02:33 -0000, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote in
om>:

>It is not unfeasible in the near
>future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
>with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
>weights.


Thank you for the information.

From the research below, it does indeed seem that the lithium-oxygen
battery offers the highest energy density that the laws of physics
permit.



http://www.polyplus.com/technology/laircell.htm
The high specific energy of the Li-Air couple is close to that of
liquid hydrocarbons such as gasoline, and much higher than that of
methanol.



http://www.excellatron.com/technology.htm
The performance of conventional lithium battery systems is limited
by the fundamental capacities of both the cathode and anode used
in these batteries. The best cathode materials in lithium ion
batteries have a specific capacity of less than 200mAh/g. The
most widely used anode material, graphitic or soft carbon, has a
specific capacity of 372mAh/g. Metal/air batteries have a much
larger specific energy than most of the available primary and
rechargeable batteries. These batteries are unique in that the
active cathode material (oxygen) is not stored in the battery.
Oxygen from the environment is reduced at a catalytic air
electrode surface forming either an oxide or peroxide ion that
then reacts with cationic species in the electrolyte.Among various
metal/oxygen batteries, Li/O2 couple is especially attractive
because it has the potential of the highest specific energy
(5,200Wh/kg) among all the known electrochemical couples. The
specific energy of lithium air batteries is expected to be an
order of magnitude larger than that achievable using conventional
lithium or lithium ion batteries. Excellatron has expanded its
technology base to lithium air batteries. Until now,
commercialization of these batteries has been hindered by several
problems such as corrosion and low capacity. The unique
technology developed by Excellatron has overcome these problems
and pushed Li/Air batteries closer to practical applications.
Recently, we have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a
rechargeable lithium/oxygen battery, and Li/Air demonstration
samples have been successfully delivered to a customer.



http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm
Although practical Lithium-air batteries are not yet available
from which to obtain data, the estimated value shown above, of
25% of the theoretical value, was selected. With technological
improvements, one wonders if practical densities over 1000 Wh/kg
are unreasonable to expect.

using a lithium anode with an air cathode to supply the oxygen (as
is commonly done with the very popular Zinc-air hearing aid
batteries) may result in the highest practical energy density
possible in a metal-based battery which has an abundant air
supply, environmental friendliness, and reasonable safety. Since
the anode is lithium metal which reacts aggressively with water,
a nonaqueous electrolyte is used with an organic polymer film
separator to facilitate the supply of oxygen from the air. The
cathode consists of a metal current collector surrounded by a
layer of carbon which provides the platform for combining the
oxygen with the lithium ion which moves from the electrolyte to
form lithium peroxide or lithium oxide. Electrolytes can either be
non-aqueous liquid or polymer electrolyte.

Reversability of the reaction to allow electrical recharge of
Lithium-air is possible. Despite classifying the Lithium-air cell
as a primary battery, the literature does include data on the
performance of a rechargeable form, researched by Abraham, et. al.

As noted in the Zinc-air experience, a virtually unlimited amount
of ambient air can be used to supply the oxygen, but as a result,
it also adds the limitation of convenience limiting the operating
life of about two weeks after exposing the cathode material to the
air. Unlike Alkalines, which just ‘sit there’ when not used for
days weeks or years, the Lithium-air battery cannot be put into a
standby mode conveniently. The solution here is to choose the
application which properly suits the continuous period after
activation.


Very low power density is another constraint of the Lithium-air
battery. Unlike the high power providers of chemistries such as
Lead-acid, current densities of Lithium-air can be as much as
1,000 times lower in order to extract the maximum amount of
energy. Low current may not be a problem if the application is
tailored to the capability, but one does not look upon Lithium-air
as a replacement car starting battery.

The problem of temperature range must be considered again because
the performance of Lithium-air varies by a factor of 5 over the
-20 0C to +40 0C range. It is important to note that the battery
must be tuned to the application because Lithium-air batteries are
not going to start Minnesota autos in January.

But the Army realizes that major obstacles exist for Lithium-air,
especially in the area of temperature range. The present study
looks at liquid electrolyte and the carbon black coated anode
current collector. Over temperature ranges from -30 0C to +40 0C,
the cells were discharged at constant currents from 0.05 to 0.5
mA/cm2. Cells operated at +40 0C gave nominally 10 times more
specific capacity than those at -30 0C.



http://www.freshpatents.com/x1429144000psbc.php
patent applications listed are from June 2005 to current and
include Date, Patent Application Number, Patent Title, Patent
Abstract summary and are linked to the corresponding patent
application page.




http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/electricity/batteries/metalair.html
Figure 1 shows a rope battery, which is a type of aluminum/air
battery. At its tip is the aluminum anode, followed by the
separator, oxygen cathode, and protective outer layer.



http://www.batteriesdigest.com/metal_air.htm
High Energy density Lithium-Air... with No Self-Discharge (Session
8.2) Polyplus has approached the challenge of the Lithium metal
electrode with a coating of a glass-ceramic membrane, sealing the
Lithium from an aqueous catholyte. The resultant structure
exhibits very small self discharge, ordinarily a large contributor
to cell failure. Test cells have produced 0.5 mAh/cm2 for 230
hours exhibiting approximately 100% Coulombic efficiency.


A production oriented cell construction with double sided lithium
anode, solid electrolyte and double sided air/cathode is
anticipated to have 600 to 1000 Wh/kg energy density.


To reduce fears of mechanical safety hazards, the cells have been
subjected to crush tests which have fractured the glass-ceramic
membrane with only a 2-30 C temperature rise, followed by a
gradual decline in open circuit potential over several hours. An
operational sample of the water-activated cell was shown at the
conference.




http://www.michigansmalltech.com/PressReleases/detail.asp?ContentId=5A0B9DBD-1352-4B04-B13E-1741B7A8EC46
Oxazogen obtains $100,000 grant for lithium air battery research
May 9, 2007

“The lithium air battery is seen by many in the field as the
ultimate battery, so improving it is something that could affect
our very way of life,” Sarkar said.

“Lithium air batteries show great promise in terms of energy and
power density,” he said. “Their market potential is in the
billions of dollars. If our approach is successful, the membrane
that we’re developing could help make the lithium air battery a
marketable success.”

[Jay Honeck]

> From the research below, it does indeed seem that the lithium-oxygen
> battery offers the highest energy density that the laws of physics
> permit.

<Big snip of fascinating stuff>

Thanks for posting that, Larry.

> The problem of temperature range must be considered again because
> the performance of Lithium-air varies by a factor of 5 over the
> -20 0C to +40 0C range. It is important to note that the battery
> must be tuned to the application because Lithium-air batteries are
> not going to start Minnesota autos in January.

That's the kiss of death, I'm afraid. Perhaps a mix of lithium-air
with lithium-ion batteries would work, but the climate in the US is
too widely variable to rely on a power supply that is so temperature-
sensitive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Allen[_1_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>
> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
> http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
> technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
> used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
> idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
> vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
> tanks - found everywhere.
>
> Comments?
>
> David Johnson
>

Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[[email protected]]

Allen > wrote:


> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> > summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> > technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> > an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> > package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> > joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
> >
> > Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> > vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
> > http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
> > technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
> > used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
> > idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
> > vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
> > for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
> > pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
> > place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
> > when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
> > compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
> > to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
> > OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
> > tanks - found everywhere.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > David Johnson
> >

> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
> vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
> if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Bean burritos?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Allen > wrote:
>
>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
>> > summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
>> > technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
>> > an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
>> > package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
>> > joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>> >
>> > Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
>> > vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
>> > http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
>> > technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
>> > used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
>> > idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
>> > vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
>> > for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
>> > pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
>> > place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
>> > when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
>> > compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
>> > to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
>> > OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
>> > tanks - found everywhere.
>> >
>> > Comments?
>> >
>> > David Johnson
>> >
>
>> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
>> water;
>> vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
>> pressure
>> if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.
>
> Bean burritos?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>

There you go, think outside the box! I was thinking about some substance
that could be used that a small amount of matter when reacted would produce
a large amount of "controllable" gas. Forget about plugging it in each
night, just drop in a cartridge or something. (Hey I'm just an idea man -
you work out the details)

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-14 09:20:45 -0800, "Allen" > said:

>
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
>> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
>> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
>> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
>> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
>> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>>
>> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
>> vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
>> http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
>> technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
>> used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
>> idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
>> vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
>> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
>> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
>> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
>> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
>> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
>> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
>> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
>> tanks - found everywhere.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> David Johnson
>>
>
> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
> vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
> if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Sure, if you don't mind the carbon dioxide in the bubbles and have a
good idea of what to do with the used up chemicals.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave > said:

> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>
> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> vehicle on compressed air.

Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some large
animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If the
animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable source of
energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,' for
'horsepower.'

>


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Allen[_1_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007111410422875249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-11-14 09:20:45 -0800, "Allen" > said:
>
>>
>>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
>>> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
>>> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
>>> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
>>> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
>>> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>>>
>>> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
>>> vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
>>> http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
>>> technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
>>> used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
>>> idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
>>> vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
>>> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
>>> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
>>> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
>>> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
>>> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
>>> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
>>> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
>>> tanks - found everywhere.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> David Johnson
>>>
>>
>> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
>> water;
>> vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
>> pressure
>> if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.
>
> Sure, if you don't mind the carbon dioxide in the bubbles and have a good
> idea of what to do with the used up chemicals.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

I don't think all chemical reactions produce carbon dioxide (some actually
produce oxygen) and some would leave no residue. Just throwing out ideas,
don't be so negative :)

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
> large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
> the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
> source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
> for 'horsepower.'

Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
footprint of livestock.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-14 11:16:45 -0800, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>
>> Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
>> large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
>> the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
>> source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
>> for 'horsepower.'
>
> Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
> footprint of livestock.

Which, I guess, is the point. No matter what you do, those guys will
complain. So why bother to do anything at all to address their
complaints?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 1:29 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-11-14 11:16:45 -0800, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>
> > C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >> Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
> >> large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
> >> the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
> >> source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
> >> for 'horsepower.'
>
> > Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
> > footprint of livestock.
>
> Which, I guess, is the point. No matter what you do, those guys will
> complain. So why bother to do anything at all to address their
> complaints?
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

The best way is to shoot each and every person who compains about your
carbon footprint, and bury them 6 feet under. That way, you are
reducing their carbon footprint by 100%, and you can claim that you
are indeed actually doing something to help the environment... :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:45:59 -0800, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>> From the research below, it does indeed seem that the lithium-oxygen
>> battery offers the highest energy density that the laws of physics
>> permit.
>
><Big snip of fascinating stuff>
>
>Thanks for posting that, Larry.

I'm happy you found it interesting.

>
>> The problem of temperature range must be considered again because
>> the performance of Lithium-air varies by a factor of 5 over the
>> -20 0C to +40 0C range. It is important to note that the battery
>> must be tuned to the application because Lithium-air batteries are
>> not going to start Minnesota autos in January.
>
>That's the kiss of death, I'm afraid.

That's what I thought at first too. But I would expect the battery to
warm when it is in use, so the it may not be the low end of the useful
temperature range that is limiting.

>Perhaps a mix of lithium-air
>with lithium-ion batteries would work, but the climate in the US is
>too widely variable to rely on a power supply that is so temperature-
>sensitive.

It seems that lithium-oxygen technology is still firmly in the
development stage. We'll have to see how it matures before reaching
any firm conclusions about its feasibility for aviation uses. At
least it seem promising.

[Eduardo K.]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> The problem of temperature range must be considered again because
>> the performance of Lithium-air varies by a factor of 5 over the
>> -20 0C to +40 0C range. It is important to note that the battery
>> must be tuned to the application because Lithium-air batteries are
>> not going to start Minnesota autos in January.
>
>That's the kiss of death, I'm afraid. Perhaps a mix of lithium-air
>with lithium-ion batteries would work, but the climate in the US is
>too widely variable to rely on a power supply that is so temperature-
>sensitive.
>

not really a problem. a very small heater can keep it from freezing
without much energy loss..




--
Eduardo K. | Some say it's forgive and forget.
http://www.carfun.cl | I say forget about forgiving just accept.
http://ev.nn.cl | And get the hell out of town.
| Minnie Driver, Grosse Point Blank

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:

>
> The best way is to shoot each and every person who compains about your
> carbon footprint, and bury them 6 feet under. That way, you are
> reducing their carbon footprint by 100%, and you can claim that you
> are indeed actually doing something to help the environment... :-)

There's an enviromental policy I could support.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Allen" > wrote in message
t...
>
>
<...>
> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
> water; vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
> pressure if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.


Vernors works better than Coke with Mentos - more carbonation.

Diet is better than "regular" - not as sticky.

The best (most practical) way to supply the pressure from a chemical
reaction is to mix air with gasoline or diesel fuel...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:Nc2dnbZF9cgkFKbanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>>
> <...>
>> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
>> water; vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
>> pressure if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.
>
>
> Vernors works better than Coke with Mentos - more carbonation.
>
> Diet is better than "regular" - not as sticky.
>
> The best (most practical) way to supply the pressure from a chemical
> reaction is to mix air with gasoline or diesel fuel...
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Yes, but that is so un-"green". And it smells bad too.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-14 15:50:26 -0800, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at
wow way d0t com> said:

> "Allen" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>>
> <...>
>> Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
>> water; vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
>> pressure if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.
>
>
> Vernors works better than Coke with Mentos - more carbonation.
>
> Diet is better than "regular" - not as sticky.
>

Besides, Mentos and Coke is not a chemical reaction. It is a physical
one. It so happens that Mentos have a large surface area that is
exactly the right texture to allow CO2 bubbles to form on it. You could
make a ceramic Mento that would have exactly the same effect as long as
the surface was the same texture as the real Mento. A ceramic Mento
could be used over and over.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave > said:

>
> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> vehicle on compressed air.

Compressed air engines are really just variants on steam engines.
Anybody remember the Freon based solar powered steam car? The idea was
that Freon would be stored in a tank in the car and cycled up to the
roof where it would be heated into steam for powering the car. The
steam would go to the engine and from there the now cooled liquid Freon
would go back to the tank.

There were some guys who took this a step further. They would heat the
Freon with a small burner when the sun was not enough. One guy built an
MG to run this way. He also was working on a 1966 Cadillac which
weighed 5000 lbs. He was going to use an 80 hp diesel to compress Freon
and run the car. He chose Freon over compressed air because it is a
lubricant, which would save wear and tear on moving parts, and the
contracting/expanding cycle of Freon kept you from losing so much heat
energy.

William Lear had a bus and a Monte Carlo powered by a closed circuit
steam turbine engine back in the '70s. However, he never put it into
production because (he claimed) adding expected features like air
conditioning and power windows was extremely complex and more than he
wanted to deal with at the time. The real reason it was never put into
production, of course, was that it used a turbine. The fluid was
something called "Learium," which was really just Freon. It ended in
bankruptcy, but it is claimed that someone bought the hardware and
built a water steam race car with it, proving that although the concept
worked well enough to set some land speed records for steam cars,
Learium was a total fraud and turbine engines were too inefficient for
use in automobiles. Sure, the turbine works great for land speed
records, but the engine only has to run for 10 minutes, so it is easy
to carry enough water to get that much time out of it. Most people want
a car that runs longer than that.

There is supposed to be an article on a Lear designed steam piston
engine in Car & Driver in 1969. It was said to have six cylinders,
twelve pistons, and generate 500 hp at 1000 psi. Trouble is, it was
Lear who made these claims and he never allowed anyone to take a close
look at the engine.

Back in the 1940s people were experimenting with hydrogen peroxide over
a catalyst bed, sometimes injecting kerosene and water to generate even
more steam. Might be a tad dangerous for use in the family car, though,
and I would bet that the pollutants would be a serious problem.

Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-14 13:02:21 -0800, said:

> On Nov 14, 1:29 pm, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>> On 2007-11-14 11:16:45 -0800, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>> Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
>>>> large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
>>>> the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
>>>> source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
>>>> for 'horsepower.'
>>
>>> Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
>>> footprint of livestock.
>>
>> Which, I guess, is the point. No matter what you do, those guys will
>> complain. So why bother to do anything at all to address their
>> complaints?
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> The best way is to shoot each and every person who compains about your
> carbon footprint, and bury them 6 feet under.

Except for the lawyers. Them you bury 24 feet under, because deep down
they are really nice people.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Gatt]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
-

> You can't store enough compressed air to make it practical -- perhaps
> they use a very long air hose?

No... it has an optional gas-powered kicker motor that also recompresses
the carbon-fiber air tanks. Just caught something about it on television
the other day. Plus, it's loud as hell; sounds like somebody's driving an
air compressor.

-c

[Dave[_5_]]

> More drain on the world's supply of both balonium and unobtainium.
>
> You can't store enough compressed air to make it practical -- perhaps
> they use a very long air hose?

The claimed range was (IIRC) something on the order of 40 miles - and
they said it would do 70 Mph. To me that makes for a practical urban
vehicle, whereas most of the electrics are not.
As others have said, what is needed is a thorough test by the
automotive Press. We'll see.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

> Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
> lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception. The
> Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far less
> efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the near
> future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
> with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
> weights.


I'm all for electric vehicles - but feel that there needs to be an
order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance to make them
practical. There have been claims of "revolutionary battery
technologies" for years - but they never seem to pan out. It seems
that there is always a catch. Still. I have faith in technology, and
expect that one day a breakthrough will occur.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

> There you go, think outside the box! I was thinking about some substance
> that could be used that a small amount of matter when reacted would produce
> a large amount of "controllable" gas. Forget about plugging it in each
> night, just drop in a cartridge or something. (Hey I'm just an idea man -
> you work out the details)

Carbide (like was formerly used in miner's headlamps)?

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

>
> No. it has an optional gas-powered kicker motor that also recompresses
> the carbon-fiber air tanks. Just caught something about it on television
> the other day. Plus, it's loud as hell; sounds like somebody's driving an
> air compressor.
>
Noisy they are. I have been around air tuggers (large winches) in
marine operations, and also air starters for diesels. Deafening.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> compressed air.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

David Johnson

[[email protected]]

Dave > wrote:
> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> > easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> > compressed air.
> > --
> > Waddling Eagle
> > World Famous Flight Instructor

> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
tender.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in news:085e256a-0987-4249-b920-
:

>
>> Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
>> lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception. The
>> Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far less
>> efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the near
>> future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
>> with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
>> weights.
>
>
> I'm all for electric vehicles - but feel that there needs to be an
> order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance to make them
> practical. There have been claims of "revolutionary battery
> technologies" for years - but they never seem to pan out.

There has been.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in
:

>
>> There you go, think outside the box! I was thinking about some
>> substance that could be used that a small amount of matter when
>> reacted would produce a large amount of "controllable" gas. Forget
>> about plugging it in each night, just drop in a cartridge or
>> something. (Hey I'm just an idea man - you work out the details)
>
> Carbide (like was formerly used in miner's headlamps)?
>


Carbide produced Acetylene.

I wouldn;'t care to try and run a IC engine on acetylene!

I have used it in lamps however and the light they produce is brilliant!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

>> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
>> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
>> compressed air.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
(I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Dave > wrote:
>> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
>> > easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
>> > compressed air.
>> > --
>> > Waddling Eagle
>> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
>> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
>> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
>
> Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
> relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
> they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
> tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas fuels.
A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen one running,
and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction steamers from
around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers and liquid fuels.
>
> The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
> they're also proven technology.
>

But the navy stil uses steam.



Bertie

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
>,
Dave > wrote:

> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> > easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> > compressed air.
> > --
> > Waddling Eagle
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
>
> David Johnson

Poor energy efficiency. Steam partitions the power generation from the
heat source -- you lose energy in the transformation processes.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dave > wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
> :
>
> >> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> >> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> >> compressed air.
> >> --
> >> Waddling Eagle
> >> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> > No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> > despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> > of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
>
> It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
> last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
> went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
> had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
> recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
> stanleys were pretty daunting)
> The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
> Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
> them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
> the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
> almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
> (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
> steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.
>
> Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..
>
> Bertie

Here is some steam power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphQNGOz7v8

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dave > wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
>> :
>>
>> >> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
>> >> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
>> >> compressed air.
>> >> --
>> >> Waddling Eagle
>> >> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>> > No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
>> > despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
>> > source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
>> > initial cost?
>>
>> It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of
>> the last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes
>> before you went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no
>> condensers and you had to top them up with water after about 30 miles
>> and the cars that recycled like the White were extremely complex to
>> operate (even the stanleys were pretty daunting)
>> The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost
>> silent. Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that
>> was taken off them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end
>> the convienience of the IC engine won out after they were simplified
>> enough to be easy for almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about
>> 1930 for at least one make (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at
>> least through the first war with steam (they still exist , of course)
>> and Stanley into the 20s I believe.
>>
>> Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Here is some steam power for you:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphQNGOz7v8



mmm, kay.

I almost forgot, there was one steam powered airplane. It was built
around '29 and was really just meant to show off the inventors' very
efficient steam engine. It was called the Besler engine and they put it
on either a Waco9 or Travel Air 2000. I read my first account of it
years ago in Flying, I think. It worked quite well but was never
intended as serious replacement for IC.

It's party trick was it's ability to run backwards, though it took a
little while to stop and then reverse the prop.whoever flew it did it on
flight and apparently it was fairly spectacular to watch. It also made
landings incredibly short and the airplae could be reversed on the
ground which must have been interesting on an airplane with a tailskid.

I've got an article on it somewhere, but I can't find much on the net
about it.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:orfairbairn-
:

> In article
> >,
> Dave > wrote:
>
>> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
>> > easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
>> > compressed air.
>> > --
>> > Waddling Eagle
>> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
>> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
>> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
>>
>> David Johnson
>
> Poor energy efficiency. Steam partitions the power generation from the
> heat source -- you lose energy in the transformation processes.
>

Lots of good low speed torque, though.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wow! Found a film of the Besler here! Later than I thought. The airplane is
a relatively early Travel Air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEv_M7p4fA


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

And another one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8&feature=related


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Dave > wrote:
> >> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> >> > easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> >> > compressed air.
> >> > --
> >> > Waddling Eagle
> >> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> >
> >> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> >> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> >> of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
> >
> > Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
> > relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
> > they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
> > tender.


> Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas fuels.
> A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen one running,
> and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction steamers from
> around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers and liquid fuels.
> >
> > The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
> > they're also proven technology.
> >

> But the navy stil uses steam.

Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Dave > wrote:
>> >> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
>> >> > much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than
>> >> > with compressed air.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Waddling Eagle
>> >> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>> >
>> >> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
>> >> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
>> >> source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
>> >> initial cost?
>> >
>> > Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
>> > relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
>> > dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
>> > have a coal tender.
>
>
>> Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas
>> fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen
>> one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction
>> steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers
>> and liquid fuels.
>> >
>> > The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
>> > they're also proven technology.
>> >
>
>> But the navy stil uses steam.
>
> Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium

And, for catapults, of course.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote

> The claimed range was (IIRC) something on the order of 40 miles - and
> they said it would do 70 Mph. To me that makes for a practical urban
> vehicle, whereas most of the electrics are not.
> As others have said, what is needed is a thorough test by the
> automotive Press. We'll see.

We'll see, indeed. The tank must be the size of an eighteen wheeler.

They should also publish how much energy it takes to pump up the tank. I
would expect to see unbelievably high numbers, if they are being honest.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Dave > wrote:
> >> >> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
> >> >> > much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than
> >> >> > with compressed air.
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Waddling Eagle
> >> >> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> >> >
> >> >> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> >> >> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
> >> >> source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
> >> >> initial cost?
> >> >
> >> > Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
> >> > relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
> >> > dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
> >> > have a coal tender.
> >
> >
> >> Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas
> >> fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen
> >> one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction
> >> steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers
> >> and liquid fuels.
> >> >
> >> > The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
> >> > they're also proven technology.
> >> >
> >
> >> But the navy stil uses steam.
> >
> > Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

> Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium

> And, for catapults, of course.

I should have seen that non sequitur coming...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:u3lv05-qsh.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Dave > wrote:
>> >> >> > Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
>> >> >> > much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam
than
>> >> >> > with compressed air.
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Waddling Eagle
>> >> >> > World Famous Flight Instructor
>> >> >
>> >> >> No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
>> >> >> despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
>> >> >> source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
>> >> >> initial cost?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
>> >> > relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
>> >> > dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
>> >> > have a coal tender.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran
gas
>> >> fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever
seen
>> >> one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th
eproduction
>> >> steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube
boilers
>> >> and liquid fuels.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either
and
>> >> > they're also proven technology.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> But the navy stil uses steam.
>> >
>> > Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?
>
>> Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium
>
>> And, for catapults, of course.
>
> I should have seen that non sequitur coming...


Uh yeh.

Bertie

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 15, 11:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dave > wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
> :
>
> >> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> >> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> >> compressed air.
> >> --
> >> Waddling Eagle
> >> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> > No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> > despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> > of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
>
> It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
> last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
> went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
> had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
> recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
> stanleys were pretty daunting)
> The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
> Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
> them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
> the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
> almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
> (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
> steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.
>
> Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..
>
> Bertie

I would think that many of the drawbacks could be overcome with modern
control systems. From what I have read the Doble did solve most of the
problems of previous attempts. However, it was more expensive to build
and overcome by the cheapness and convenience of gasolne engines. The
ability to burn any available fuel could make a difference in the
future.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 15, 10:45 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave > said:
>
>
>
> > Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> > vehicle on compressed air.
>
> Compressed air engines are really just variants on steam engines.
> Anybody remember the Freon based solar powered steam car? The idea was
> that Freon would be stored in a tank in the car and cycled up to the
> roof where it would be heated into steam for powering the car. The
> steam would go to the engine and from there the now cooled liquid Freon
> would go back to the tank.
>
> There were some guys who took this a step further. They would heat the
> Freon with a small burner when the sun was not enough. One guy built an
> MG to run this way. He also was working on a 1966 Cadillac which
> weighed 5000 lbs. He was going to use an 80 hp diesel to compress Freon
> and run the car. He chose Freon over compressed air because it is a
> lubricant, which would save wear and tear on moving parts, and the
> contracting/expanding cycle of Freon kept you from losing so much heat
> energy.
>
> William Lear had a bus and a Monte Carlo powered by a closed circuit
> steam turbine engine back in the '70s. However, he never put it into
> production because (he claimed) adding expected features like air
> conditioning and power windows was extremely complex and more than he
> wanted to deal with at the time. The real reason it was never put into
> production, of course, was that it used a turbine. The fluid was
> something called "Learium," which was really just Freon. It ended in
> bankruptcy, but it is claimed that someone bought the hardware and
> built a water steam race car with it, proving that although the concept
> worked well enough to set some land speed records for steam cars,
> Learium was a total fraud and turbine engines were too inefficient for
> use in automobiles. Sure, the turbine works great for land speed
> records, but the engine only has to run for 10 minutes, so it is easy
> to carry enough water to get that much time out of it. Most people want
> a car that runs longer than that.
>
> There is supposed to be an article on a Lear designed steam piston
> engine in Car & Driver in 1969. It was said to have six cylinders,
> twelve pistons, and generate 500 hp at 1000 psi. Trouble is, it was
> Lear who made these claims and he never allowed anyone to take a close
> look at the engine.
>
> Back in the 1940s people were experimenting with hydrogen peroxide over
> a catalyst bed, sometimes injecting kerosene and water to generate even
> more steam. Might be a tad dangerous for use in the family car, though,
> and I would bet that the pollutants would be a serious problem.
>
> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> compressed air.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

David Johnson

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 15, 10:45 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>> On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave > said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
>> > vehicle on compressed air.
>>
>> Compressed air engines are really just variants on steam engines.
>> Anybody remember the Freon based solar powered steam car? The idea was
>> that Freon would be stored in a tank in the car and cycled up to the
>> roof where it would be heated into steam for powering the car. The
>> steam would go to the engine and from there the now cooled liquid Freon
>> would go back to the tank.
>>
>> There were some guys who took this a step further. They would heat the
>> Freon with a small burner when the sun was not enough. One guy built an
>> MG to run this way. He also was working on a 1966 Cadillac which
>> weighed 5000 lbs. He was going to use an 80 hp diesel to compress Freon
>> and run the car. He chose Freon over compressed air because it is a
>> lubricant, which would save wear and tear on moving parts, and the
>> contracting/expanding cycle of Freon kept you from losing so much heat
>> energy.
>>
>> William Lear had a bus and a Monte Carlo powered by a closed circuit
>> steam turbine engine back in the '70s. However, he never put it into
>> production because (he claimed) adding expected features like air
>> conditioning and power windows was extremely complex and more than he
>> wanted to deal with at the time. The real reason it was never put into
>> production, of course, was that it used a turbine. The fluid was
>> something called "Learium," which was really just Freon. It ended in
>> bankruptcy, but it is claimed that someone bought the hardware and
>> built a water steam race car with it, proving that although the concept
>> worked well enough to set some land speed records for steam cars,
>> Learium was a total fraud and turbine engines were too inefficient for
>> use in automobiles. Sure, the turbine works great for land speed
>> records, but the engine only has to run for 10 minutes, so it is easy
>> to carry enough water to get that much time out of it. Most people want
>> a car that runs longer than that.
>>
>> There is supposed to be an article on a Lear designed steam piston
>> engine in Car & Driver in 1969. It was said to have six cylinders,
>> twelve pistons, and generate 500 hp at 1000 psi. Trouble is, it was
>> Lear who made these claims and he never allowed anyone to take a close
>> look at the engine.
>>
>> Back in the 1940s people were experimenting with hydrogen peroxide over
>> a catalyst bed, sometimes injecting kerosene and water to generate even
>> more steam. Might be a tad dangerous for use in the family car, though,
>> and I would bet that the pollutants would be a serious problem.
>>
>> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
>> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
>> compressed air.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
> tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
> refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
> cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
> wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
> Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
> problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
> have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
> interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
> will pan out.
>
> David Johnson

I don't know the specifics, but Bill Lear tried a steam car back in the
sixties. He was going to sell it to the highway patrol. He built a track and
some cars that were 4 wheel drive. I think he had problems with cylinders
blowing.

Al G

[[email protected]]

Dave > wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Dave > wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
> > :
> >
> > >> Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
> > >> easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
> > >> compressed air.
> > >> --
> > >> Waddling Eagle
> > >> World Famous Flight Instructor
> >
> > > No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
> > > despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
> > > of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?
> >
> > It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
> > last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
> > went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
> > had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
> > recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
> > stanleys were pretty daunting)
> > The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
> > Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
> > them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
> > the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
> > almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
> > (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
> > steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.
> >
> > Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..
> >
> > Bertie

> I would think that many of the drawbacks could be overcome with modern
> control systems. From what I have read the Doble did solve most of the
> problems of previous attempts. However, it was more expensive to build
> and overcome by the cheapness and convenience of gasolne engines. The
> ability to burn any available fuel could make a difference in the
> future.

If by any fuel, you mean coal, wood, or cow chips, yeah it might
make a difference if there were no liquid or gas fuels to run in a
normal IC engine whatsoever.

That isn't going to happen.

Steam engines are horribly inefficient compared to an IC engine and
unless you have some sophisticated scrubbers on the smoke stack of
your "any available fuel" burner, polluting as hell; real pollution,
not the CO2 boogy man pollution.

Trains, boats, and big electric generators are the best use of a
steam engine.

Notice none of those have used steam engines for a long time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Dave > wrote:


> I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
> tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
> refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
> cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
> wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
> Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
> problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
> have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
> interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
> will pan out.

It won't.

Have you ever used air tools?

Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
tool?

Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?

That's wasted energy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 16, 12:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> And another one!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8&feature=related
>
> Bertie

I wonder how much the powerplant weighed. I also wonder why they moved
the condensor from under the fuselage (as shown in the drawing) to the
top - where it appeared to do a good job of blocking the pilot's view
ahead.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 15, 10:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dave > wrote in news:085e256a-0987-4249-b920-
> :
>
>
>
> >> Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
> >> lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception. The
> >> Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far less
> >> efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the near
> >> future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
> >> with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
> >> weights.
>
> > I'm all for electric vehicles - but feel that there needs to be an
> > order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance to make them
> > practical. There have been claims of "revolutionary battery
> > technologies" for years - but they never seem to pan out.
>
> There has been.
>
> Bertie

If that is so, why can't I buy a viable electric vehicle now? In
related matters, probably the nearest thing to a practical vehicle
that runs on battery power (around town, at least) is a "Pluggable
Hybrid" Many experimenters have been working on modifying hyprid cars
(such as the Toyota Prius) to run on battery power alone in urban use.
The primary change is to install a larger
battery, and to modify the control circuits appropriately. There is at
least one commercial conversion that you can buy today. The auto
manufacturers are "looking into it", but have nothing
for sale as of yet. You can read about it here: http://www.calcars.org/

David Johnson

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:24:47 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
in
>:

>If that is so, why can't I buy a viable electric vehicle now?


Well, you can, but you won't receive it for a while:

TESLA MOTORS NEWSLETTER
November 2007

WAIT LIST OPENED FOR 2009 MODEL YEAR TESLA ROADSTER
Tesla Motors has closed reservations for the 2008 model year Tesla
Roadster. We have logged more than 600 reservations on the books
and filled capacity for our first-year production run. Interest in
the Roadster remains high, and we appreciate all the enthusiasm
and support.

For those who would still like to purchase a Roadster, we have
opened a wait list for 2009 model year cars. Here's how it works:
Simply visit the Tesla Motors website and complete our wait list
form. A refundable $5,000 will hold your place in line. You may
pay with Master Card, Visa, Discovery, American Express, check, or
wire transfer.

Please keep in mind that we have not yet announced pricing for the
2009 model year car. We expect to be able to update you on
pricing, exterior colors, options, and accessories next year. Join
the wait list now at
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TeslaMotors/5271259c4d/9c57105e55/d5bef8ed4d.


CUSTOMER DRIVES
Our customer drive program continues -- nearly 90 customers have
now claimed some drive time in one of the prototype Roadsters.
Several customers, including Michael "Flea" Balzary of the Red Hot
Chili Peppers, have documented the drives on our blogs.

Find Michael's blog along with submissions from our other
customers on the customer blog page at

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TeslaMotors/5271259c4d/9c57105e55/2a824529d0/p=57.

LOS ANGELES AUTO SHOW, NOV. 16 TO 25
Tesla Motors will head out to Los Angeles for the annual LA Auto
Show on November 16 to 25. We'll have one of our second-generation
prototypes on display at the Yokohama booth, and we invite you to
stop by and see us.

It's a great opportunity to see the car up close and chat with
Tesla Motors employees. We hope to see you there.

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 16, 9:11 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:24:47 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
> in
> >:
>
> >If that is so, why can't I buy a viable electric vehicle now?
>
> Well, you can, but you won't receive it for a while:
>
> TESLA MOTORS NEWSLETTER
> November 2007
>
> WAIT LIST OPENED FOR 2009 MODEL YEAR TESLA ROADSTER
> Tesla Motors has closed reservations for the 2008 model year Tesla
> Roadster. We have logged more than 600 reservations on the books
> and filled capacity for our first-year production run. Interest in
> the Roadster remains high, and we appreciate all the enthusiasm
> and support.
>
> For those who would still like to purchase a Roadster, we have
> opened a wait list for 2009 model year cars. Here's how it works:
> Simply visit the Tesla Motors website and complete our wait list
> form. A refundable $5,000 will hold your place in line. You may
> pay with Master Card, Visa, Discovery, American Express, check, or
> wire transfer.
>
> Please keep in mind that we have not yet announced pricing for the
> 2009 model year car. We expect to be able to update you on
> pricing, exterior colors, options, and accessories next year. Join
> the wait list now at
> http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TeslaMotors/5271259c4d/9c57105e55/d5bef8ed4d.
>
> CUSTOMER DRIVES
> Our customer drive program continues -- nearly 90 customers have
> now claimed some drive time in one of the prototype Roadsters.
> Several customers, including Michael "Flea" Balzary of the Red Hot
> Chili Peppers, have documented the drives on our blogs.
>
> Find Michael's blog along with submissions from our other
> customers on the customer blog page at
>
> http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TeslaMotors/5271259c4d/9c57105e55/2a824529d0/....
>
> LOS ANGELES AUTO SHOW, NOV. 16 TO 25
> Tesla Motors will head out to Los Angeles for the annual LA Auto
> Show on November 16 to 25. We'll have one of our second-generation
> prototypes on display at the Yokohama booth, and we invite you to
> stop by and see us.
>
> It's a great opportunity to see the car up close and chat with
> Tesla Motors employees. We hope to see you there.

The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well. I even saw a commercial about
it on TV the other night. AFAIK they aren't taking orders yet. Like
all the other "Revolutionary Vehicles" we'll see.
However, I won't hold my breath.

David Johnson

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote

> I for one will be
> interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
> will pan out.

Have no fear; they will not.

The physics do not allow the claims to be met.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Have you ever used air tools?
>
> Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
> tool?

And how quickly a tank full of air can be used up, without the compressor
motor running. Very quickly.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well. I even saw a commercial about
> it on TV the other night. AFAIK they aren't taking orders yet. Like
> all the other "Revolutionary Vehicles" we'll see.
> However, I won't hold my breath.

Around 1930 the US had a car called the Cord. In the works is an
electric version. The extension cord.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:35:46 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
in
>:

>The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well.

Can you test drive it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in
:


>
> I would think that many of the drawbacks could be overcome with modern
> control systems. From what I have read the Doble did solve most of the
> problems of previous attempts. However, it was more expensive to build
> and overcome by the cheapness and convenience of gasolne engines. The
> ability to burn any available fuel could make a difference in the
> future.


Yes, absolutely. Could happen!

I've always found it an extremely attractive form of engineering. Almost
magical in the way it works.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in
:

> On Nov 16, 12:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> And another
>> one!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8&feature=related
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I wonder how much the powerplant weighed. I also wonder why they moved
> the condensor from under the fuselage (as shown in the drawing) to the
> top - where it appeared to do a good job of blocking the pilot's view
> ahead.


Looks to me like that were two different rads. Probably one was a condenser
and one an water-oil seperator. I know this was one of the big problem with
recovery, getting the oil out of it.
Blocked pilot's vision was no big deal in those days. Lots of Hisso and OX-
5 powered airplanes had rads in front of the cockpit. It was just a fact of
life. It was alwasy better to have the rad high if you could in case it
leaked. If all the plumbing was below the engine, you had an empty engine
in seconds if something broke. if all the tubes were up, at least you had
something to keep it cool while you got it down.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in news:2f905138-4135-4312-a93a-250eb1623342
@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 15, 10:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dave > wrote in news:085e256a-0987-4249-b920-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
>> >> lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception.
The
>> >> Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far
less
>> >> efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the
near
>> >> future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA
aircraft
>> >> with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
>> >> weights.
>>
>> > I'm all for electric vehicles - but feel that there needs to be an
>> > order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance to make them
>> > practical. There have been claims of "revolutionary battery
>> > technologies" for years - but they never seem to pan out.
>>
>> There has been.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If that is so, why can't I buy a viable electric vehicle now?


Well, there are some out ther, OK, but you're not going to do route 66
in them.

In
> related matters, probably the nearest thing to a practical vehicle
> that runs on battery power (around town, at least) is a "Pluggable
> Hybrid" Many experimenters have been working on modifying hyprid cars
> (such as the Toyota Prius) to run on battery power alone in urban use.
> The primary change is to install a larger
> battery, and to modify the control circuits appropriately. There is at
> least one commercial conversion that you can buy today. The auto
> manufacturers are "looking into it", but have nothing
> for sale as of yet. You can read about it here:
http://www.calcars.org/


Well, i's down to definition. I used to hav an electric car and it did
work OK, bt it was a pretty old one...
You have to admit, the Li-Po bateries and new motors are a big
imprvement on the stuff around just a few years ago.
The momentum that is gathering with regard to electric vehicles of al
sorts will surely result in something of interst in our lifetimes, at
least.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jose > wrote in news:W0v%i.22020$lD6.14259
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

>> The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well. I even saw a commercial about
>> it on TV the other night. AFAIK they aren't taking orders yet. Like
>> all the other "Revolutionary Vehicles" we'll see.
>> However, I won't hold my breath.
>
> Around 1930 the US had a car called the Cord. In the works is an
> electric version. The extension cord.
>

Oh dear oh dear.


Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-16 16:55:03 -0800, said:

> Dave > wrote:
>
>
>> I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
>> tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
>> refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
>> cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
>> wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
>> Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
>> problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
>> have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
>> interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
>> will pan out.
>
> It won't.
>
> Have you ever used air tools?
>
> Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
> tool?
>
> Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?
>
> That's wasted energy.

What we need is a car powered by hot air from Usenet. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[William Hung]

On Nov 13, 10:07 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Re: The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
> summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
> technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
> an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
> package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
> joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.
>
> Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
> vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
> technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
> used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
> idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
> vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
> for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
> pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
> place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
> when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
> compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
> to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
> OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
> tanks - found everywhere.
>
> Comments?
>
> David Johnson

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

Wil

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 17, 4:18 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:35:46 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
> in
> >:
> >The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well.
>
> Can you test drive it?

Not yet, but you can read about it here: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/the-chevrolet-v.html

David Johnson

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:35:16 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
in >:

>On Nov 17, 4:18 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:35:46 -0800 (PST), Dave > wrote
>> in
>> >:
>> >The Chevrolet Volt is "coming" as well.
>>
>> Can you test drive it?
>
>Not yet, but you can read about it here: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/the-chevrolet-v.html
>
>David Johnson

Thank you for the informative link.


The Chevrolet Volt:
Not all is rosy at GM: the striking styling of the Volt concept
car has officially been nixed due to a poor coefficient of drag.

... an “aggressive” target production date, according to Bob Lutz,
of November 2010.

Three years! A lot of advances in battery technology can happen in
that time.


http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/volt1.png
120 kW (160+ HP) electric motor, 53 kW (71+ HP) 3-cylinder
(1-liter) genset, 16 kWh Li-ion battery pack. (1 horsepower =
745.7 watts)

The company settled on a 40-mile all-electric range because it
would cover daily driving of 78% of Americans, according to US
Department of Transportation figures.

Comparing the fuel costs between old and new methods of
propulsion, GM estimated that driving costs in EV mode would be 2
cents per mile&mash;or 1 cent per mile if charged
off-peak—compared to about 12 cents per mile per gallon of
gasoline for a typical car today.

The company hopes to sell the first-generation Volt for around
US$30,000, putting it within the high range of compact cars.


Tesla Motors:
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php
Current reservation holders for 2008 model year Tesla Roadsters
have each already received an estimated delivery date in 2008.
Wait list customers who are offered a 2008 car can expect to take
delivery in the fourth quarter of 2008.


Ford:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/ford_announces_.html
Ford Announces Hydrogen-Electric Plug-in Hybrid Drive and
Airstream Concept

The HySeries drive in the AirStream Concept combines a lithium-ion
battery pack with a compact fuel cell system as a range
extender—the fuel cell’s sole function is to recharge the
lithium-ion battery pack as needed.

The new fuel cell, supplied by Ford partner Ballard, operates in a
steady state, allowing a reduction in the size, weight, cost and
complexity of a conventional fuel cell system by more than 50%.
This approach also promises to more than double the lifetime of
the fuel cell stack, according to Ford.

The Ford Airstream Concept can travel 25 miles in battery
mode—depleting the battery’s state of charge to about 40%—before
the fuel cell begins operating to recharge the vehicle’s 336-volt
lithium-ion battery pack.

With the hydrogen-powered fuel cell, the range increases another
280 miles for a total of 305 miles.

The Ford Airstream Concept can travel at speeds of up to 85 mph.
An on-board charger (110/220 VAC) can refresh the battery pack
when a standard home outlet is available

The concept uses 4.5 kg of hydrogen stored in a 350-bar hydrogen
tank. The HySeries Drive delivers the combined city/highway
equivalent fuel economy of 41 miles per gallon.



http://www.greencarcongress.com/fuel_cells/index.html
Fuel Cells

[Denny]

40 miles a day is cutting it too close, people are going to wind up
stranded away from home... On weekends I average about 70 per day...

Given 40 mile batteries, a gas engine driving an onboard high
efficiency generator is what they will settle on for the commuter car,
allowing for the 70 mile days with minimal gas costs and a deep
recharge from the electric grid after arriving home...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:01:54 -0800 (PST), Denny >
wrote in
>:

>40 miles a day is cutting it too close, people are going to wind up
>stranded away from home...

No they're not. You're overlooking the on-board genset.

>On weekends I average about 70 per day...
>
>Given 40 mile batteries, a gas engine driving an onboard high
>efficiency generator is what they will settle on for the commuter car,
>allowing for the 70 mile days with minimal gas costs and a deep
>recharge from the electric grid after arriving home...
>
>denny

You need to look at the information on the link Dave provided:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/the-chevrolet-v.html

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Nov 2007 23:06:57 GMT, James Robinson > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/volt1.png
>>
>> Comparing the fuel costs between old and new methods of
>> propulsion, GM estimated that driving costs in EV mode would be 2
>> cents per mile, or 1 cent per mile if charged
>> off-peak-compared to about 12 cents per mile per gallon of
>> gasoline for a typical car today.
>
>Just for fun, let's see how those numbers survive a sniff test.
>
>Gasoline: 12 cents a mile with $3 gasoline works out to 25 miles per
>gallon. A bit on the high side for an average, but close enough.
>
>Residential electricity sells for about ten cents a kWh, on average,
>including transmission charges. That means the electric car would use
>about 200 watt-hours per mile.
>
>To compare the two, first by converting watt-hours to BTU:
>
>200 watt-hours = 682 BTU. Since there are about 115,000 BTU in a
>gallon of gasoline, that implies that the electric car would get the
>equivalent of 168 miles per gallon, ignoring efficiency differences.

Ignoring the efficiency differences between a vehicle powered by a
gasoline powered IC engine and an electric motor is useless. Consider
the IC engine converts about 25% of the energy in it's fuel into
useful power. I don't know the efficiency of the Volt electrical
power system, but it could be as high as 95%. Add to that the energy
recovered by regenerative braking...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
> 40 miles a day is cutting it too close, people are going to wind up
> stranded away from home... On weekends I average about 70 per day...
>
> Given 40 mile batteries, a gas engine driving an onboard high
> efficiency generator is what they will settle on for the commuter car,
> allowing for the 70 mile days with minimal gas costs and a deep
> recharge from the electric grid after arriving home...

Not sure of what you are saying, but the GM answer is a gas driven
generator, to kick in after the batteries are close to drained, so after 40
miles, you run a small gas motor for the last 30, giving you gas mileage of
around 150 MPG. Of course, you still have to pay for the recharge on your
electric bill, or leave the engine running to recharge from the generator.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

More vaporware.

I particularly got a big kick out of the part where the hybrid gasoline air
power car could drive coast to coast of the US on one tank full of petrol.

How dumb do they think we are?

I would be ashamed to be lumped into the masses of people that think it
would be possible, even for a second.

Either that, or it is a VERY big tank full of petrol.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> >200 watt-hours = 682 BTU. Since there are about 115,000 BTU in a
> >gallon of gasoline, that implies that the electric car would get the
> >equivalent of 168 miles per gallon, ignoring efficiency differences.
>
> Ignoring the efficiency differences between a vehicle powered by a
> gasoline powered IC engine and an electric motor is useless. Consider
> the IC engine converts about 25% of the energy in it's fuel into
> useful power. I don't know the efficiency of the Volt electrical
> power system, but it could be as high as 95%. Add to that the energy
> recovered by regenerative braking...

Regenerative braking is a fantasy! Batteries are not set up to take
high-wattage charging, which is what regenerative braking really is. In
addition, the assumption of RB is that braking is a slow process; in
reality, it is a rather fast process, where the energy of motion is
converted to heat, through the brakes.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" <> wrote

> Regenerative braking is a fantasy! Batteries are not set up to take
> high-wattage charging, which is what regenerative braking really is.

When you are talking about battery packs with the capacity of "all electric"
cars, I'm not sure (but have a definite opinion) about how true that is.
When you have a 200 amp pack, and you can safely charge at up to 10 C, that
would be a 2,000 amp charge capacity! That is a hell of a lot of juice. I
can't imagine anything but an emergency braking exceeding that!

> In
> addition, the assumption of RB is that braking is a slow process; in
> reality, it is a rather fast process, where the energy of motion is
> converted to heat, through the brakes.

I don't disagree that regenerative braking is not much of a factor, but in
another line of reasoning. There just is not that much energy to be gained
from braking, compared to the energy to make you go.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" <> wrote
>
>> Regenerative braking is a fantasy! Batteries are not set up to take
>> high-wattage charging, which is what regenerative braking really is.
>
> When you are talking about battery packs with the capacity of "all
> electric" cars, I'm not sure (but have a definite opinion) about how
> true that is. When you have a 200 amp pack, and you can safely charge
> at up to 10 C, that would be a 2,000 amp charge capacity! That is a
> hell of a lot of juice. I can't imagine anything but an emergency
> braking exceeding that!
>
>> In
>> addition, the assumption of RB is that braking is a slow process; in
>> reality, it is a rather fast process, where the energy of motion is
>> converted to heat, through the brakes.
>
> I don't disagree that regenerative braking is not much of a factor,
> but in another line of reasoning. There just is not that much energy
> to be gained from braking, compared to the energy to make you go.

It's more a case of just not throwing away any energy that doesn;t have
to be. Braking, over the course of a journey, wouldn't toss away
anything like as much energy as drag and friction, but still, it's there
for the taking and it costs next to nothing to recover.

It's not anything like a new idea, either. My 1899 Sperry had it (same
Sperry, BTW) and Ferry Porsche used it in an electric around the same
time. That one also had four wheel drive with the stators in the wheels
and the dished wheels forming the rotors.

Nothing new under the sun, really.


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:50:07 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-11-16 16:55:03 -0800, said:
>
>> Dave > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
>>> tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
>>> refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
>>> cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
>>> wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
>>> Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
>>> problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
>>> have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
>>> interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
>>> will pan out.
>>
>> It won't.
>>
>> Have you ever used air tools?
>>
>> Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
>> tool?
>>
>> Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?
>>
>> That's wasted energy.
>
>What we need is a car powered by hot air from Usenet. :-)

Good Lord CJ, Do you realize what you are proposing? At first glance
it sounds like a plentiful supply of high powered energy, but I see a
number of problems.

First the sheer power itself. You'd probably never be able to keep
the car under the speed limit or even under control. Then think of
all the pollution coming out the exhaust. You'd never be able to run
it in California and as soon as it hit the roads other states would
bring on legislation as well. I'd probably even bring tickets for
littering. Then there is the fuel. At the minimum you'd need a
license for hauling toxic waste in every state you'd drive in,
probably one from the feds as well, and then environmental impact
statements to each state's Department of Natural Resources, and who
knows how many federal agencies. Then you'd be expected to pay into
the fund for toxic waste clean up and provide bonded companies to
dispose of the waste. True the fuel available would be free and
probably power most of the cars on the road, but the permits
would make the price of gas and it's emissions look great.

Roger (K8RI)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> Good Lord CJ, Do you realize what you are proposing? At first glance
> it sounds like a plentiful supply of high powered energy, but I see a
> number of problems.
>
> First the sheer power itself. You'd probably never be able to keep
> the car under the speed limit or even under control. Then think of
> all the pollution coming out the exhaust.

Let alone the fact that all of the open flame would be igniting fires
everywhere you go. Cars next to you bursting into flame, catching grass and
trees on fire along the road.

There might even be potential to start the asphalt the road is made of on
fire, with some of the flame fests that get started.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:51:55 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>> >200 watt-hours = 682 BTU. Since there are about 115,000 BTU in a
>> >gallon of gasoline, that implies that the electric car would get the
>> >equivalent of 168 miles per gallon, ignoring efficiency differences.
>>
>> Ignoring the efficiency differences between a vehicle powered by a
>> gasoline powered IC engine and an electric motor is useless. Consider
>> the IC engine converts about 25% of the energy in it's fuel into
>> useful power. I don't know the efficiency of the Volt electrical
>> power system, but it could be as high as 95%. Add to that the energy
>> recovered by regenerative braking...
>
>Regenerative braking is a fantasy! Batteries are not set up to take
>high-wattage charging, which is what regenerative braking really is. In
>addition, the assumption of RB is that braking is a slow process; in
>reality, it is a rather fast process, where the energy of motion is
>converted to heat, through the brakes.

You are correct to suspect the physics of regenerative braking, but
that doesn't mean it can't be done. The electricity generated by the
motor when the brakes are applied is stored in a low impedance
capacitor. There's some information about the technique used on an
electrically powered vehicle that has no brakes here:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
Another of the tricks employed by PML is the use of a 350V, 11
Farad ultracapacitor. Capacitors are used to store electrical
energy and can release/absorb their energy 10 times faster than a
battery. Using an ultracapacitor means that acceleration or power
boost at higher speeds can get energy twice as fast at peak draw,
offering “nitro-like performance.”

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

I know I used to buy home heating oil that was 'dyed #2 diesel fuel'. I
wonder if they'll start selling different colored elecricity to homes and
auto charging stations?

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..

> There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned. There is no
> tax in the electricity rate to cover highway maintenance or
> construction. If electric vehicles really do become that popular,
> then something equivalent to the 50 cents a gallon now charged on
> gasoline will have to be applied to the electricity used by electric
> vehicles. That would add something like 2 to 4 cents a mile to the
> electric vehicle cost, to keep the state and federal highway funds
> solvent.

[Larry Dighera]

On 20 Nov 2007 14:03:46 GMT, James Robinson > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>>
>>> Regenerative braking is a fantasy! Batteries are not set up to take
>>> high-wattage charging, which is what regenerative braking really is.
>>> In addition, the assumption of RB is that braking is a slow process;
>>> in reality, it is a rather fast process, where the energy of motion
>>> is converted to heat, through the brakes.
>>
>> You are correct to suspect the physics of regenerative braking, but
>> that doesn't mean it can't be done. The electricity generated by the
>> motor when the brakes are applied is stored in a low impedance
>> capacitor. There's some information about the technique used on an
>> electrically powered vehicle that has no brakes here:
>>
>> http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
>> Another of the tricks employed by PML is the use of a 350V, 11
>> Farad ultracapacitor. Capacitors are used to store electrical
>> energy and can release/absorb their energy 10 times faster than a
>> battery. Using an ultracapacitor means that acceleration or power
>> boost at higher speeds can get energy twice as fast at peak draw,
>> offering “nitro-like performance.”
>
>Let's see. An fully-charged 11 farad capacitor at 350 volts can provide
>about 15 horsepower for 10 seconds. Not exactly a huge amount of power
>storage, but it is something.

I would be better persuaded by your assertion if you provided the
calculations you used to arrive at your conclusion or an objective,
credible source that supports it.

>The capacitor would also weigh about 75 lb., so you would have to take
>into account the energy cost of accelerating and hauling the extra weight
>as a discount against the saving from recovering braking energy.

See above.

>A quick calculation suggests that the extra weight hauled for 10 miles
>would consume the same amount of energy as one charge cycle of the
>capacitor. Accelerating that weight would use about 10% of the useful
>charge of the capacitor. Thus, the capacitor has to be fully charged at
>least every 9 miles, on average, to simply break even. That might give
>some benefit in city driving, but would likely be a cost on a highway.

See above.

>Yes, energy recovery from regenerative braking is a reality, but it is
>more hype than anything else.

See above.

>In the first place, you only get energy recovery when the brakes are
>applied. With highway driving, braking is not that common, so the amount
>of energy recovered is vanishingly small, and there might be a cost in
>hauling the extra weight of the storage medium around.

In my experience, the freeway congestion within 100 miles of Los
Angeles provides ample opportunity for braking.

>Second, even when the brakes are applied, you have a couple of issues:
>The amount of energy recovered will only be a fraction of the energy
>available from braking because of the losses in the charge/discharge
>cycle.

What would you expect the efficiency of the Supercapacitor
charge/discharge cycle to be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracapacitor
Other advantages of supercapacitors compared with rechargeable
batteries are extremely low internal resistance or ESR, high
efficiency (up to 97-98%), high output power, extremely low
heating levels, and improved safety. According to ITS (Institute
of Transportation Studies, Davis, CA) test results, the specific
power of supercapacitors can exceed 6 kW/kg at 95% efficiency

>With batteries, it might be less than 50 percent given the
>efficiency losses at high charge rates.

Please provide the data upon which your conclusion above is based.

>There is also an economic consideration. The motor and control system
>has to be sized to handle the peak power flow,

While that may be a consideration for the control system, I would
expect it to be a non-issue for the motor and the conductors used in
the connecting the battery and the motor, because the time durations
involved should be brief, so any heating due to the overload would not
have sufficient time to cause harm. (Hey, I can guess too.)

>and in heavy braking it
>might be 10 times that required for acceleration. Consider that an
>energy-efficient car might do zero to 60 in say 20 seconds, but is able
>to stop from 60 mph in less than two seconds.

The prototype electric Mini Cooper and Tesla Roadster mentioned in
these links seem to do 0 to 60 mph in ~4 seconds:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
The Tesla Roadster’s specs illustrate what it does (0 to 60 mph in
under 4 seconds)...

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
In the MINI QED, this package offers a 0-60mph time of 3.7 seconds
and a 150mph top speed ...

I'd say that five fold error casts some doubt on your other
unsubstantiated conclusions.

>The designer of a vehicle knows that the cost of the motor and control
>system varies in about direct proportion to the power to be handled. He
>would have to determine whether it would be economically reasonable to
>provide a motor that is ten times the size and cost needed for
>acceleration just to capture all of the small amount of braking energy
>available.

That statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. While it may
be true that the active semiconductors may need to be sized for the
peak current, that reasoning is inappropriate for the motor and
conductors.

>For a real-world example, look at the current hybrids. They use friction
>brakes at highway speeds, and do not recover braking energy
>regeneratively,

Where did you get that idea?

http://www.toyota.com/prius/specs.html
Brakes Power-assisted ventilated front disc/rear drum with
Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) and integrated regenerative braking

>so you can see the designers did not figure it was worth
>it to capture all of the braking energy. The same principle would likely
>apply to all-electric vehicles.

With all due respect, you talk as though you have all the answers, but
fail to provide a shred of hard evidence, let alone credible sources,
to support your assertions. Lacking that, I am unconvinced of your
arguments.

[Scott[_5_]]

On 20 Nov 2007 14:03:46 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting, James Robinson
> wrote:

>charge of the capacitor. Thus, the capacitor has to be fully charged at
>least every 9 miles, on average, to simply break even. That might give
>some benefit in city driving, but would likely be a cost on a highway.

You keep saying "highway". Most if not all of the pure EVs I know of are
pretty well targeted for city driving; short hauls, relatively low speeds,
and frequent stops.

-Scott

[Denny]

> There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned. There is no
> tax in the electricity rate to cover highway maintenance or
> construction. If electric vehicles really do become that popular,
> then something equivalent to the 50 cents a gallon now charged on
> gasoline will have to be applied to the electricity used by electric
> vehicles. That would add something like 2 to 4 cents a mile to the
> electric vehicle cost, to keep the state and federal highway funds
> solvent.

ehhh heh heh, I see in the future the public treated like farmers are
with fuels. Where they have to pay a road tax on every KWH they use
from the power company then file for a refund for the KWH use din the
home and not for charging their car.... Should be a hoot to watch...

[Denny]

>
> When you are talking about battery packs with the capacity of "all electric"
> cars, I'm not sure (but have a definite opinion) about how true that is.
> When you have a 200 amp pack, and you can safely charge at up to 10 C, that
> would be a 2,000 amp charge capacity! That is a hell of a lot of juice. I
> can't imagine anything but an emergency braking exceeding that!
>
To handle braking loads, perhaps we can dump the braking energy into
a super capacitor bank and then use that to invertor charge the
battery at a normal rate...

[Larry Dighera]

On 20 Nov 2007 19:35:03 GMT, James Robinson > wrote in
>:

>Yes, electrics tend to operate at relatively low speeds, with stops, but
>low speed stops generate very little energy to be captured.

If I monitor the instantaneous Miles Per Gallon readout in my car,
it's clear that a lot of fuel is used to accelerate the vehicle to
highway speeds. Intuitively, it would seem that the potential energy
recovery would equal the energy expended to accelerate the car, less
efficiency losses such as drag, friction, and electrical system
inefficiencies. Are you saying that's incorrect?

>If you
>captured all of the energy available from a stop from say 30 mph, with no
>efficiency loss, that energy might propel the car an additional 250 feet
>at 30 mph. Maybe say 150 feet additional per stop to account for
>efficiency loss.

Of course, the energy recovery doesn't solely occur when the vehicle
stops, but during all deceleration.

http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2006/winter/4wdi.html
How it works
The key 4WD-i components are the Motor Generator Rear sensors or
"MGR" and electronic control units. ... The MGR also captures
kinetic energy upon braking, deceleration, or coasting and uses it
to charge the hybrid battery pack.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

James Robinson wrote:
>
> It seems the state revenuers are on the case, but trying to
> differentiate where you got electricity to charge your vehicle is
> going to be a real challenge, as you can't dye electrons.

It seems the easiest would be to do what most states already do which is
record your odometer reading each year at registration renewal and have you
pay on a cost per mile basis.

[Larry Dighera]

On 20 Nov 2007 21:27:32 GMT, James Robinson > wrote in
>:

>I know of a person who owns a Mercedes diesel who was pulled over by a
>revenue officer to check that he wasn't using dyed fuel in his car. The
>officer got a sample of fuel, and put a test chemical in that enhances
>the dye as a check. When he confirmed the fuel was legal, he sent my
>friend on his way. It shows they do check in some states.

It also proves that, without probable cause nor a warrant, the LEOs is
some states have no issue violating the fourth Constitutional
amendment guaranteeing against unreasonable search.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

James Robinson wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems the state revenuers are on the case, but trying to
>>> differentiate where you got electricity to charge your vehicle is
>>> going to be a real challenge, as you can't dye electrons.
>>
>> It seems the easiest would be to do what most states already do which
>> is record your odometer reading each year at registration renewal and
>> have you pay on a cost per mile basis.
>
> The problem is that paying once a year might mean people get a big
> surprise. In the Oregon experiment, where they are charging by the
> mile, the odometer is read when the car fills its tank, and the tax is
> automatically charged to a credit card based on the difference from
> the previous reading. At least that way, a person pays smaller
> amounts more frequently, and shouldn't get an annual shock, and the
> state would lose less money if a person couldn't pay.

Well you could pay a monthly or quarterly amount in arears. Say it is a
$0.10 a mile and this year I drive 10K miles. I then have to may a montly
tax of $83.33 per month the next year.

Remember if we are all electric there won't be a time where you have to go
somewhere and fill up.

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>It seems the easiest would be to do what most states already do which is
>record your odometer reading each year at registration renewal and have you
>pay on a cost per mile basis.
>

half of this country's cars would go all year with the speedometer sensor
disconnected...


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | I'm white and nerdy
http://ev.nn.cl | Weird Al
|

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Eduardo K." > wrote

> half of this country's cars would go all year with the speedometer sensor
> disconnected...
>
Of course, there are a few in the US that would do that; possibly more than
a few. <g>

Where you at, Eduardo?
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:11:53 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Denny" > wrote in message
...
>> 40 miles a day is cutting it too close, people are going to wind up
>> stranded away from home... On weekends I average about 70 per day...
>>
>> Given 40 mile batteries, a gas engine driving an onboard high
>> efficiency generator is what they will settle on for the commuter car,
>> allowing for the 70 mile days with minimal gas costs and a deep
>> recharge from the electric grid after arriving home...
>
>Not sure of what you are saying, but the GM answer is a gas driven
>generator, to kick in after the batteries are close to drained, so after 40

The generator would need to kick in a lot sooner than that, or you'd
see greatly reduced battery life.

>miles, you run a small gas motor for the last 30, giving you gas mileage of
>around 150 MPG. Of course, you still have to pay for the recharge on your
>electric bill, or leave the engine running to recharge from the generator.

The Toyota Prius has the capability of running all electric in Europe.
There's a big button on the dash to put it in the all electric mode.
That makes them capable of over 100 MPG. Without it we seem to be
averaging a tad over 47. That option is not available in the states
so they could push the warranty up on the battery. In town and out in
the hills it's possible to get much better than the rated 50 MPG, BUT
to use the driving techniques required to get that kind of mileage
would make you the target of everyone else on the road<:-))

As has been publicized, we don't have the grid capacity to support
much in the way of all electric cars. The same is true for Hydrogen.
It's either produced from fossil fuels with a lot of polluting
byproducts or takes a whale of a lot of electrical energy to produce
from water.

Alcohol is an interim solution with the hybrid being by far the most
economical and quickest to implement of the interim solutions.

As for grid capacity we are rapidly coming to the point of real time
usage monitoring with remote setback of heating and air conditioning.
Here with peak rates of about 10 cents per KWH we wouldn't see the
savings of those fortunate souls paying 38 cents during peak demand
out in the Republik of Kalafornia.

OTOH solar panels don't do us much good either.

Roger (K8RI)

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
Morgans > wrote:
>
>Where you at, Eduardo?
>

Santiago, Chile.


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | I'm white and nerdy
http://ev.nn.cl | Weird Al
|

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 20 Nov 2007 19:35:03 GMT, James Robinson > wrote:

(Scott) wrote:
>>
>> James Robinson > wrote:
>>>
My wife has a Prius which is a bit over a year old. I remember the
sticker EPA estimate was 50 mpg in town. I don't remember what it was
for highway but it was something like 5 % or so less.

The car actually does get 47point something on average around town.
Highway is a bit less and on the order of 5 or 6%. Surprisingly the
mileage computer in the car is just about dead on for integrated
mileage per tank. We always end up with in a couple tenths of what the
computer says.
That and the 120 to 175 mile trip every couple of weeks is small
compared to the rest of the tank so it has only about a MPG difference
if that on the overall mileage for a tank full.

However the computer does have the advantage in you can see what you
are doing and become conscious of getting good mileage. IF traffic
conditions let me drive to get the best mileage (they don't) from what
I've seen so far I could do better than 60 MPG easily, BUT I'd need
body guards and have to put armor plating on the Prius as driving for
mileage would make me one of the most unpopular drivers on the road.

Knowing we should accelerate easily and like flying, think ahead so we
don't have to brake hard or barely at all is one thing, but when you
can see it in action you quickly learn what to do when, IF you can.
Taking the off ramp from the expressway when traffic is light is an
example. If you have your foot completely off the gas prior to
entering the off ramp AND it's a long ramp you still need to use the
brakes coming up to the stop sign at the cross road. Letting the car
slow going up hills and accelerate going down also makes a big
difference.

My only complaint is the car is built like a beer can, or airplane if
you will <:-)) It's also susceptible to winds. The effect of a 25 MPH
wind off the nose on the express way is immediately shown on the
computer and it's not trivial. OTOH if you can arrange for a tail
wind...<:-))

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:27 -0800 (PST), Denny >
wrote:

>
>> There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned. There is no
>> tax in the electricity rate to cover highway maintenance or
>> construction. If electric vehicles really do become that popular,
>> then something equivalent to the 50 cents a gallon now charged on
>> gasoline will have to be applied to the electricity used by electric
>> vehicles. That would add something like 2 to 4 cents a mile to the
>> electric vehicle cost, to keep the state and federal highway funds
>> solvent.
>
>ehhh heh heh, I see in the future the public treated like farmers are
>with fuels. Where they have to pay a road tax on every KWH they use
>from the power company then file for a refund for the KWH use din the
>home and not for charging their car.... Should be a hoot to watch...
They'll probably do it like they do here with my shop. Put in separate
meters with a minimum charge. With graduated rates it's probably be
cheaper to pay the taxes rather than put the house into a higher rate
due to usage.

OTOH the researchers are saying that probably won't be a problem as we
don't have enough grid capacity even in off peak hours to charge up
much of an electric fleet. Besides they figure that the overall
pollution from electric cars would be as bad or even worse than our
present fleet. The general consensus is the electric car is not the
way to go unless you live in the SW where a bank of solar panels can
do the charging.

The electricity has to come from some where and about 2/3rds to 3/4
comes from coal fired plants. These plants put huge amounts of CO2,
Mercury, and Sulphur into the air along with lots of particulate
matter. That means the so called clean electric car would probably
cause far more pollution than what's on the road now.

Both Hydrogen and Electric cars which are touted as being so clean
only move the source of pollution from the vehicle to the power
generation plant. Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce so it is
even less efficient.

In the end they are saying the small hybrids are the best interim
solution until alternative, clean energy sources become available. IOW
conservation is by far the best all around route both short and long
term.

Even with real time metering and load control if something like 20%of
our fleet went electric we'd almost have to double the size of the
electric grid. We'd end up like China who plans on adding one new
power generation plant _per_week_ for the next 10 years (or is it 20?)
Roger (K8RI)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
> The Toyota Prius has the capability of running all electric in Europe.
> There's a big button on the dash to put it in the all electric mode.
> That makes them capable of over 100 MPG. Without it we seem to be
> averaging a tad over 47. That option is not available in the states
> so they could push the warranty up on the battery. In town and out in
> the hills it's possible to get much better than the rated 50 MPG, BUT
> to use the driving techniques required to get that kind of mileage
> would make you the target of everyone else on the road<:-))


Not to be a smart ass but wouldn't putting it into all electrice mode make
the car go INFINITY mpg?

[James Robinson]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> My wife has a Prius which is a bit over a year old. I remember the
> sticker EPA estimate was 50 mpg in town. I don't remember what it was
> for highway but it was something like 5 % or so less.

The old EPA numbers for the Prius were 60 city, 51 highway, with the
combined at 55 mpg.

The EPA has revised how they calculate the numbers for the 2008 model
year:

48 City, 45 highway, 46 combined.

> The car actually does get 47point something on average around town.
> Highway is a bit less and on the order of 5 or 6%.

So it appears that the new numbers are quite realistic in your case.

I have seen people quote average mileage numbers as low as 25 mpg in very
cold or hot climates, to over 55 mpg under ideal conditions. Some quote
consistent numbers of 35 mpg. So it seems that people can experience a
great spread of fuel economy with the car.

> My only complaint is the car is built like a beer can, or airplane if
> you will <:-)) It's also susceptible to winds. The effect of a 25 MPH
> wind off the nose on the express way is immediately shown on the
> computer and it's not trivial. OTOH if you can arrange for a tail
> wind...<:-))

I read an analysis somewhere once where they showed that between an 8 mph
quartering wind and an 8 mph tail wind, the fuel economy would vary by
about 15 mpg.

The obvious answer to the problem, just like with flying, is to always
ensure there is a tail wind.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> I have seen people quote average mileage numbers as low as 25 mpg in very
> cold or hot climates, to over 55 mpg under ideal conditions. Some quote
> consistent numbers of 35 mpg. So it seems that people can experience a
> great spread of fuel economy with the car.

Some things that adversely impact the per mile fuel economy of my hybrid:

1) ethanol in the fuel
2) New England winters (the engine runs much more often to stay warm)
3) short trips

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Not to be a smart ass but wouldn't putting it into all electrice mode make
> the car go INFINITY mpg?
>

Division by zero is undefined!
</MX>

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Nov 2007 01:06:18 GMT, James Robinson > wrote in
>:

[snip]

Thank you for providing the information upon which your opinions are
based. It's refreshing to get the opinions on electrical vehicles of
a professional electrical engineer. Thank you for your contributions
to the debate.

>I got pretty cynical about claims of energy saving after listening to all
>the people who came to our company trying to sell various products that
>guaranteed huge energy savings or emission reduction.
>
>There are the snake oil salesmen who have the magic potion that can be
>added to the fuel tank to virtually eliminate air pollution, plus it will
>double engine life as a side benefit. I wonder why GM hasn't heard of
>them? The people with a black box you simply have to hook up to the fuel
>line that will absolutely, for sure, pay for itself in fuel savings many
>times over, but they won't tell us what's inside it, or how it works,
>because it's a company secret. You can trust us; The people who have
>special ceramic magnets that can be put on either side of the fuel line
>near the engine to align the fuel molecules so they will pass through the
>injectors more easily, and therefore burn more efficiently; the people
>who resurrect old ideas like water injection, without realizing why it
>worked to increase power, but also why it won't improve fuel consumption;
>I remember one person who claimed that when he applied his device to an
>engine, the horsepower jumped by 20 percent, and he had dynamometer test
>results to prove it. The only thing was that when he fudged the figures,
>he forgot that RPM times torque equals Horsepower. The horsepower
>certainly showed a jump in his test results, but when there was no
>associated change in torque or RPM, it completely blew his credibility.
>etc. etc. etc.
>
>A new salesman with a new twist would appear at our door about once a
>month, so we got lots of practice. It was sometimes really difficult to
>keep a straight face during their presentation. After listening to their
>pitch, our usual approach was to tell them to go to one of the reliable
>engine testing labs and do a standardized test, and if the product worked
>as claimed, we would buy all they could sell. We'd never see them again,
>but some would even protest that we wouldn't see any improvement by
>performing the tests, since the tests were wrong, and we should trust
>their claims instead.
>
>Just like the salesmen and women would appeared at our door, I just say
>you can trust my calculations.

Ah. This explains your apparent cynicism.

So, let me see if I understand your position correctly. You believe,
that from a physics viewpoint energy recovery through regenerative
braking is marginally useful at best, that the current state of
technology cannot enable the production of useful electric vehicles,
and the emerging popularity of hybrid automobiles is just a vogue
based on marketing prowess? How far did I miss the mark?

[snip additional reasonable explanations]

>>> and in heavy braking it
>>> might be 10 times that required for acceleration. Consider that an
>>> energy-efficient car might do zero to 60 in say 20 seconds, but is
>>> able to stop from 60 mph in less than two seconds.
>>
>> The prototype electric Mini Cooper and Tesla Roadster mentioned in
>> these links seem to do 0 to 60 mph in ~4 seconds:
>>
>> http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
>> The Tesla Roadster’s specs illustrate what it does (0 to 60 mph in
>> under 4 seconds)...
>>
>> http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/1/
>> In the MINI QED, this package offers a 0-60mph time of 3.7 seconds
>> and a 150mph top speed ...
>
>Yes, that is true. However, they aren't selling those vehicles as
>energy-efficient replacements for gasoline powered cars, any more than
>Ferrari is trying to sell their cars for commuting.

While that may be true of the MINI QED (it's a prototype after all),
the Tesla Roadster IS being marketed as "high mileage" (as in MPG
presumably), as is apparent from the graph here:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/electric_power.php
No More Tradeoffs
Up until now, if you wanted a car with amazing gas mileage, you’d
pick something like the leading hybrid; but when you pressed down
the gas pedal to zip up a freeway on-ramp, you'd likely be a
little disappointed — it takes over 10 seconds to reach 60 miles
per hour. On the other hand, if you demanded the 0 to 60 times of
a $300,000 supercar, you'd wind up with an embarrassing 9 miles to
the gallon in the city.

The graph below shows the Tesla Roadster (upper right) in a class
by itself with better acceleration than a Lamborghini Murcielago
and twice the mile-per-gallon equivalent of popular hybrids. The
highly efficient Tesla Roadster gets the equivalent of 135 miles
per gallon with an enviable 0 to 60 time of less than four
seconds.

And if the GM Volt (solely electrical propulsion) ever materializes,
it is also being marketed as "energy-efficient replacements for
gasoline powered cars" with "responsive acceleration" as stated here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/the-chevrolet-v.html
Comparing the fuel costs between old and new methods of
propulsion, GM estimated that driving costs in EV mode would be 2
cents per mile&mash;or 1 cent per mile if charged
off-peak—compared to about 12 cents per mile per gallon of
gasoline for a typical car today.

[snip]

>>> The designer of a vehicle knows that the cost of the motor and control
>>> system varies in about direct proportion to the power to be handled.
>>> He would have to determine whether it would be economically reasonable
>>> to provide a motor that is ten times the size and cost needed for
>>> acceleration just to capture all of the small amount of braking energy
>>> available.
>>
>> That statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. While it may
>> be true that the active semiconductors may need to be sized for the
>> peak current, that reasoning is inappropriate for the motor and
>> conductors.
>
>Yes, motors and conductors can be overloaded for a period of time. I am
>well aware of short time ratings, since we rely on those on the machinery
>in my business. My assumption is that they would normally be sized in a
>car for typical acceleration and the power demand at constant speed to be
>economic. The need to collect power at a minimum of ten times those
>values suggests that they would have to be upsized to handle the power of
>regeneration. There is no free lunch.

But there is a liquid cooling system designed in both the Tesla
Roadster, and the GM Volt, so "upsizing" may not be necessary.

>>> For a real-world example, look at the current hybrids. They use
>>> friction brakes at highway speeds, and do not recover braking energy
>>> regeneratively,
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>>
>> http://www.toyota.com/prius/specs.html
>> Brakes Power-assisted ventilated front disc/rear drum with
>> Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) and integrated regenerative braking
>
>Maybe I should have said that they primarily use friction brakes, with a
>minor contribution to regeneration.

I'm unable to provide any research about the percentage of energy
recovery achieved through regenerative braking, but it appears to
theoretically very doable given the fact that the MINI QED is not
equipped with friction brakes at all, and solely relies on
regenerative breaking for deceleration; it needs to be chocked when
parked!

>Otherwise, why are ventilated disc brakes even necessary?

I could speculate: For consumer acceptance. To meet government
standards. Lack of imagination. ...

>My understanding is that the vast majority of
>braking power at highway speeds is dissipated as heat, rather than being
>recovered as energy.

Are you able to provide any evidence of the validity of that
understanding?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:50:55 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote in
>:

>As has been publicized, we don't have the grid capacity to support
>much in the way of all electric cars. The same is true for Hydrogen.
>It's either produced from fossil fuels with a lot of polluting
>byproducts or takes a whale of a lot of electrical energy to produce
>from water.

When/if worldwide photovoltaic production ever meets consumer demand,
you are going to see an enormous increase in solar power
installations, not only in commercial buildings, but residences as
well. Today, the excess electricity generated by a home's
photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the electric
utility meter backwards. As electrically powered vehicles become more
mainstream, that excess solar power could be used to directly charge
vehicle batteries or for hydro-electrolysis to generate hydrogen gas
for fuel.

Side benefits of residential solar power generation are the peace of
mind inherent in the redundancy of distributed (as opposed to central)
power generation and the resulting robustness against massive power
outages due to a cascade of equipment outages triggered by a
single-source failure, the ability to "thumb the eye" of oil
robber-barons, the reduction in the production of pollutants,
insurance against the inevitable increases in the price of energy, and
virtue of abandoning 19th century technology for a more enlightened
solution.

>Alcohol is an interim solution with the hybrid being by far the most
>economical and quickest to implement of the interim solutions.
>
>As for grid capacity we are rapidly coming to the point of real time
>usage monitoring with remote setback of heating and air conditioning.
>Here with peak rates of about 10 cents per KWH we wouldn't see the
>savings of those fortunate souls paying 38 cents during peak demand
>out in the Republik of Kalafornia.
>
>OTOH solar panels don't do us much good either.

Why? Photovoltaic panels are able to convert infrared isolation even
on cloudy days.

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:


>When/if worldwide photovoltaic production ever meets consumer demand,
>you are going to see an enormous increase in solar power
>installations, not only in commercial buildings, but residences as
>well. Today, the excess electricity generated by a home's
>photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the electric
>utility meter backwards. As electrically powered vehicles become more
>mainstream, that excess solar power could be used to directly charge
>vehicle batteries or for hydro-electrolysis to generate hydrogen gas
>for fuel.

I know of two local wind generators that have been trying to "sell"
electricity back for well over two years. One was given permission to
connect to "the grid" and was instructed to disconnect it the next
day.

The current hold-up is that the state public utilities commision is
having difficulty establishing a "fair price". It is obviously not
going to be a case of "turn"ing "the electric utility meter
backwards".

Perhaps there are states where this is happening, but it isn't
happening around here...

TC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
<...>.
>
> So, let me see if I understand your position correctly. You believe,
> that from a physics viewpoint energy recovery through regenerative
> braking is marginally useful at best,

Many (most, all?) hybrid vehicles currently in production use regerative
braking. The effectiveness of the regenerative braking is limited by the
fact that the electric drive system is typically not connected to all the
wheels and the maximum current limits in the motor (working as a generator),
electronics, and battery charging capacities. As a result current hybrid
vehicles employ friction brakes along with the regenerative braking to make
up whatever additional capacity is required. Getting the two brake systems
to play well and not change the relation betweeen pedal effort and braking
result takes a bit of engineering...

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but in urban driving a significant
portion of the gasoline energy is expended by the brakes (10-15%? - I used
to have a chart on the wall at my desk, but I don't remember the numbers -
sorry)


that the current state of
> technology cannot enable the production of useful electric vehicles,

Define useful.

> and the emerging popularity of hybrid automobiles is just a vogue
> based on marketing prowess?

Small diesels give about the same fuel economy as hybrids, but the
diffuculty is making the tailpipe emission standards in the US -
particularly California. Thus the popularity of hybrids in the US but not in
Europe where emission standards are easier.

<...>

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:31:45 GMT, wrote in
>:

>On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>
>>When/if worldwide photovoltaic production ever meets consumer demand,
>>you are going to see an enormous increase in solar power
>>installations, not only in commercial buildings, but residences as
>>well. Today, the excess electricity generated by a home's
>>photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the electric
>>utility meter backwards. As electrically powered vehicles become more
>>mainstream, that excess solar power could be used to directly charge
>>vehicle batteries or for hydro-electrolysis to generate hydrogen gas
>>for fuel.
>
>I know of two local wind generators that have been trying to "sell"
>electricity back for well over two years. One was given permission to
>connect to "the grid" and was instructed to disconnect it the next
>day.
>
>The current hold-up is that the state public utilities commision is
>having difficulty establishing a "fair price". It is obviously not
>going to be a case of "turn"ing "the electric utility meter
>backwards".
>
>Perhaps there are states where this is happening, but it isn't
>happening around here...
>
>TC

I'm in southern California, and solar residences have been running
their electric meters backwards for several years.

http://www.sce.com/Feature/Archive/200701d_howitworkssolar.htm
A metering arrangement available from SCE permits extra
electricity generated and not used during the day to be credited
to the customer's account.


http://www.solar-tec.com/CAStateSolarRebate.htm
When the sun shines, you can generate more power than your home is
consuming and your electric meter will spin backwards generating a
credit.





Where are you located?

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:18:24 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>I'm in southern California, and solar residences have been running
>their electric meters backwards for several years.
>
> http://www.sce.com/Feature/Archive/200701d_howitworkssolar.htm
> A metering arrangement available from SCE permits extra
> electricity generated and not used during the day to be credited
> to the customer's account.
>
>
> http://www.solar-tec.com/CAStateSolarRebate.htm
> When the sun shines, you can generate more power than your home is
> consuming and your electric meter will spin backwards generating a
> credit.
>
>
>
>
>
>Where are you located?
>

East of the Mississippi.

IMHO, it would be a little different if there were sound
technical/safety reasoning behind not letting them connect.

TC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:27 -0800 (PST), Denny >
> wrote:
>
<...>
> The electricity has to come from some where and about 2/3rds to 3/4
> comes from coal fired plants. These plants put huge amounts of CO2,
> Mercury, and Sulphur into the air along with lots of particulate
> matter. That means the so called clean electric car would probably
> cause far more pollution than what's on the road now.
>
> Both Hydrogen and Electric cars which are touted as being so clean
> only move the source of pollution from the vehicle to the power
> generation plant. Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce so it is
> even less efficient.
<...>

Prof. Heywood at MIT Sloan Labs has co-authored a few papers on this sort of
topic that you can find somewhere on the MIT website. There is a lot of hype
and nonsense printed out there, but John has always seemed to be pretty
level headed to me.

Aviation content - if it wasn't for his glasses (about 3/8 inch thick) John
Heywood would look kinda like Bob Hoover.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jim Macklin]

Saw a program on the History Channel last week about modern oil recovery
technology. They pump CO2 into the well, which releases the crude oil from
the shale and they recover something like three times the previous amounts.

Where do they get the CO2, from capturing the exhaust from the local oil and
coal fired powerplants.

Sounds like a good idea.

Recycle the CO2.

Years ago the University of Illinois at Urbana put dry ice in corn fields
and increased corn production, air born fertilizer.



"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
...
| "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:27:27 -0800 (PST), Denny >
| > wrote:
| >
| <...>
| > The electricity has to come from some where and about 2/3rds to 3/4
| > comes from coal fired plants. These plants put huge amounts of CO2,
| > Mercury, and Sulphur into the air along with lots of particulate
| > matter. That means the so called clean electric car would probably
| > cause far more pollution than what's on the road now.
| >
| > Both Hydrogen and Electric cars which are touted as being so clean
| > only move the source of pollution from the vehicle to the power
| > generation plant. Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce so it is
| > even less efficient.
| <...>
|
| Prof. Heywood at MIT Sloan Labs has co-authored a few papers on this sort
of
| topic that you can find somewhere on the MIT website. There is a lot of
hype
| and nonsense printed out there, but John has always seemed to be pretty
| level headed to me.
|
| Aviation content - if it wasn't for his glasses (about 3/8 inch thick)
John
| Heywood would look kinda like Bob Hoover.
|
| --
| Geoff
| The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
| remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
| When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
|
|

[James Robinson]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> James Robinson > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It's refreshing to get the opinions on electrical vehicles of
> a professional electrical engineer.

I'm more of a mechanical engineer.

>> I got pretty cynical about claims of energy saving after listening to
>> all the people who came to our company trying to sell various products
>> that guaranteed huge energy savings or emission reduction.
>
> Ah. This explains your apparent cynicism.

I prefer to consider it healthy skepticism.

The problem with many of the proposals for alternative energy sources or
new sources of power for transportation is that while the basic physics
is often sound, the benefits are too often exaggerated, the full costs
are not included, or the downsides are not explained. Sometimes even the
physics is not correct.

Often this comes from enthusiasm in trying something new. People
typically want to believe that there are alternatives, particularly if
they themselves have already spent several thousand dollars on the
technology. Sometimes it is hype to attract money for a project, or to
gain political support. On occasion it is plain deceit.

Because of the above, one needs to at least make a first pass through
some ballpark numbers to see if any claims being made for breakthrough
technology are realistic. If they seem to be a big departure from what
is currently known about the subject, then alarm bells should ring to
indicate that things might be too good to be true.

It is not always easy to find good information, however, particularly if
one doesn't understand the technology. It can also be a problem deciding
if a new technology is all it is described without some history of use.
You can't dismiss it out of hand, nor can you confidently assume it will
work as advertised. That's where the skepticism needs to come in.

> So, let me see if I understand your position correctly. You believe,
> that from a physics viewpoint energy recovery through regenerative
> braking is marginally useful at best, that the current state of
> technology cannot enable the production of useful electric vehicles,
> and the emerging popularity of hybrid automobiles is just a vogue
> based on marketing prowess? How far did I miss the mark?

Yes, no, perhaps, in that order.

It is simple enough to work through the calculations on regenerative
braking to see that while it does provide some savings, and is somewhat
easy to implement in the control system, it does not have a huge effect
on the economics of hybrids.

The question of whether hybrids are useful depends on what considers
useful. If an economic case has to be made, then hybrids are pretty
marginal, or even uneconomic, as Consumer Reports, for one, calculated.
That doesn't mean that the technology doesn't work, just that one
shouldn't expect a return on the additional investment. There might be
better technologies, such as turbo diesels, which are popular in Europe.

Many of the encouraging economics for hybrids early on benefitted from
subsidies provided by various levels of government. Once those subsidies
disappeared, then the economics became pretty strained.

That said, as the development of the technology continues, and
improvements are made, then the economics will also improve. It doesn't
appear, though, that with the developments now being anticipated, that
the economics will ever be breathtaking.

It reminds me of a recent news item where an inventor demonstrated how he
could ignite seawater with radio waves. He was proclaiming that it was a
possible energy source for the future. Well, what he was doing was
splitting up the oxygen and hydrogen in the water, which takes a huge
amount of energy, and the two would then catch fire. In short, the
technology might work, but the economics would be hopeless. Is it a
useful technology? maybe there is some use, but not as an alternative
energy source.

So, is the enthusiasm for hybrids a flash in the pan? Perhaps. You will
note that most auto manufacturers have not jumped on the bandwagon and
built their own hybrid designs. The Germans, as an example, seem to feel
that diesels or plug-in cars are the way of the future to help reduce
greenhouse gases or improve efficiency. Are they wrong?

> The graph below shows the Tesla Roadster (upper right) in a class
> by itself with better acceleration than a Lamborghini Murcielago
> and twice the mile-per-gallon equivalent of popular hybrids. The
> highly efficient Tesla Roadster gets the equivalent of 135 miles
> per gallon with an enviable 0 to 60 time of less than four
> seconds.

Sorry, but when I see claims of 135 mpg for a high performance car, when
the equivalent gasoline-powered car would only get maybe 10 or 15, my
skeptic alarm bells start to ring. It takes a certain amount of energy to
accelerate a car, and there is no magic way of avoiding it. The only
difference might be in efficiency, but there isn't enough room for
improvement for their claims to be realistic. Their claims are simply too
good to be true.

> And if the GM Volt (solely electrical propulsion) ever materializes,
> it is also being marketed as "energy-efficient replacements for
> gasoline powered cars" with "responsive acceleration" as stated here:
>
> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/the-chevrolet-v.html
> Comparing the fuel costs between old and new methods of
> propulsion, GM estimated that driving costs in EV mode would be 2
> cents per mile&mash;or 1 cent per mile if charged
> off-peak—compared to about 12 cents per mile per gallon of
> gasoline for a typical car today.

As I wrote earlier, the claims of 1 to 2 cents per mile just aren't
realistic. Don't you wonder why GM wasn't able to get their earlier
electric car effort to pay off? There hasn't been any major breakthrough
that will significantly change things.

As far as acceleration, which is what this discussion was about, consider
that the Toyota RAV4-EV took 18 seconds to get from 0 to 60 mph. If it
was so easy to make a car that does it in less than 1/4 of the time, why
was Toyota's engineering so conservative. I suspect it was because of the
poor economics. Obviously, Tesla isn't that concerned about economics
with a $100,000 car, and is delivering performance for the price.

>> Yes, motors and conductors can be overloaded for a period of time. My
>> assumption is that they would normally be sized in a car for typical
>> acceleration and the power demand at constant speed to be economic.

> But there is a liquid cooling system designed in both the Tesla
> Roadster, and the GM Volt, so "upsizing" may not be necessary.

That introduces extra cost and complexity into the system. I wonder what
that does to the economics and reliability? Overall, if the vehicle is
designed to accelerate at a rate closer to the typical braking rate, then
my concerns about motor size would disappear. But improved performance
also implies lower economy.

> I'm unable to provide any research about the percentage of energy
> recovery achieved through regenerative braking, but it appears to
> theoretically very doable given the fact that the MINI QED is not
> equipped with friction brakes at all, and solely relies on
> regenerative breaking for deceleration; it needs to be chocked when
> parked!
>
>>Otherwise, why are ventilated disc brakes even necessary?
>
> I could speculate: For consumer acceptance. To meet government
> standards. Lack of imagination. ...

Well, according to information from Toyota, the batteries will only
accept energy up to a maximum rate of 20 kWh (sic) That's obviously a
misprint, since kW is a rate, and kWh is a quantity. They meant 20 kW.

http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/cours-section6.pdf

Converting that to more familiar units, that works out to 26.8
horsepower. So, the regenerative system can only accept braking energy
at the rate of 27 horsepower. Now compare that to the typical horsepower
of an engine needed to accelerate a car from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds. It
looks like a ten to one ratio, which was my earlier guess.

I also note in the above Toyota document that they claim only 30 percent
of the braking energy is recovered. They don't go into enough detail to
know whether that is simply an average number in typical driving, or if
that is the recovery rate of the charge/discharge cycle, which would mean
an even lower percentage of total energy.

There are a couple of additional features of the regeneration system on
the Prius contained in the following discussion forum:

http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/b-mode.html

It says that once the batteries are 80% charged, that no additional
energy will be accepted from the regen system. It also says that the
regen system does not work below about 7 mph due to low voltage. (there
wouldn't be much energy to recover at those low speeds in any event)

>> My understanding is that the vast majority of
>> braking power at highway speeds is dissipated as heat, rather than
>> being recovered as energy.
>
> Are you able to provide any evidence of the validity of that
> understanding?

I wasn't able to find a cite in a quick search, but there is lots of
documentation out there, so with a diligent search one might find
something.

However, given the info above, one can make a stab at how much energy
might be recovered.

When I drive, I typically apply the brakes such that my car decelerates
at the moderate rate of about 4 to 6 miles per hour per second. Others
might be more or less aggressive, depending on the driving situation and
their patience, but it puts things into the ballpark. A panic stop could
be up to about 20 mphps.

Now let's compare the maximum braking rate, given the weight of the car,
and the limit of 27 horsepower in braking, as a comparison.

The deceleration limit to take full advantage of regeneration at various
speeds would be:

60 mph 1.8 mphps
40 mph 2.7 mphps
20 mph 5.4 mphps

If 5 mphps is the typical deceleration rate, then an shortfall in the
above would be made up by the friction brakes on the car, effectively
converting that portion of the braking energy to heat, which is lost.

So, if I apply the brakes at 60 mph to get a 5 mphps deceleration rate,
then on a Prius, I would be capturing (1.8)/5 or about 1/3 of the
available energy in braking. At 40, it would be about 1/2 of the
available energy, and below about 20 mph, I would be able to capture all
of the energy, until the system dropped out at 7 mph.

Given that most of the energy to be recovered is at high speeds, then the
above suggests that if I drove the car, I would only recover between 1/3
and 1/2 of the available braking energy.

If someone less aggressive drives the car and has a very light touch on
the brake pedal, they might be able to capture a good proportion of the
energy.

In any event, as I suspected, the amount of energy that can be recovered
from the regenerative braking system is limited. You also have to take
into account the efficiency losses in the charge/discharge cycle, meaning
that even less of the recovered energy can be used on the power side.

[William Hung]

On Nov 19, 7:25 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
>
> More vaporware.
>
> I particularly got a big kick out of the part where the hybrid gasoline air
> power car could drive coast to coast of the US on one tank full of petrol.
>
> How dumb do they think we are?
>
> I would be ashamed to be lumped into the masses of people that think it
> would be possible, even for a second.
>
> Either that, or it is a VERY big tank full of petrol.
> --
> Jim in NC

Perhaps, but it seems they are trying it out as TAXIs in India. We'll
see how that goes I suppose.

Wil

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:


> My wife has a Prius which is a bit over a year old. I remember the
> sticker EPA estimate was 50 mpg in town. I don't remember what it was
> for highway but it was something like 5 % or so less.


I was just at the Toyota dealer this week driving a Camry hybrid. No
way I get a Prius for a number of reasons. Real world driving in the
Camry gets you about 36-40 MPG in the city. For highway driving you
need to specify at what speed to make your comparison with other cars.
At 80, which is a very typical speed here, you get 35 MPG, no wind. The
wind plays a big factor, just like with my full size van and pickup.
With a 20 knot tailwind at 80 MPH I was seeing 40-45 MPG. Into that
wind I was seeing 30 MPG. Very impressive car. Fully loaded it is
$30K. If in your city traffic causes you to drive at 20 MPH or less
then you have an all electric car because you can do that without the
gas motor starting.

[James Robinson]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

> Small diesels give about the same fuel economy as hybrids, but the
> diffuculty is making the tailpipe emission standards in the US -
> particularly California. Thus the popularity of hybrids in the US but
> not in Europe where emission standards are easier.

Actually, the emission standards are tighter in Europe. The reason they
can meet their emission standards with diesel engines is that they mandated
low sulfur fuel several years ago, and it is has an even lower sulfur
content than the ultra low sulfur fuel recently mandated in the US.

Where sulfur enters into things is that it fouls catalytic converters. By
eliminating the sulfur, converters can be used in the exhaust system to
reduce the amount of NOx and particulates, which are the two primary
pollutants from diesel engines.

Now that we have low sulfur fuel, a number of European manufacturers intend
to export their diesel car technology to the US. Expect to see new diesel
models that will even meet California standards, from companies like VW in
the new year.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" <> wrote

> I was just at the Toyota dealer this week driving a Camry hybrid. No way
> I get a Prius for a number of reasons. Real world driving in the Camry
> gets you about 36-40 MPG in the city. For highway driving you need to
> specify at what speed to make your comparison with other cars.

I'm not sure which of the reasons you gave are the reasons that cause you to
say that you would not get the hybrid Camry.

Are you saying that it is not enough improvement for the cost, or what?

I'm just curious. Thanks.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"James Robinson" <> wrote

> So, if I apply the brakes at 60 mph to get a 5 mphps deceleration rate,
> then on a Prius, I would be capturing (1.8)/5 or about 1/3 of the
> available energy in braking. At 40, it would be about 1/2 of the
> available energy, and below about 20 mph, I would be able to capture all
> of the energy, until the system dropped out at 7 mph.
>
> Given that most of the energy to be recovered is at high speeds, then the
> above suggests that if I drove the car, I would only recover between 1/3
> and 1/2 of the available braking energy.
>
> If someone less aggressive drives the car and has a very light touch on
> the brake pedal, they might be able to capture a good proportion of the
> energy.
>
> In any event, as I suspected, the amount of energy that can be recovered
> from the regenerative braking system is limited. You also have to take
> into account the efficiency losses in the charge/discharge cycle, meaning
> that even less of the recovered energy can be used on the power side.

I can tell you spent a fair amount of time composing that post, and doing
some figuring, so good for you. You seem to have a pretty good grip on some
numbers, I think.

I think that you should not get hung up on the braking issue, though. To
me, if it recovers any energy from the brakes, that is all gravy. There are
too many good things to look at, to knock it out of contention, because of
that one issue.

I know that there are some problems with the technology, as it exists, now.
It does appear to work pretty good, though. The GM offering looks like it
may be able to take the concept one notch better.

Many vehicles have had their specs "optimized" in the past. Airplanes,
cars, it doesn't matter. It is fairly common. That does not make it right,
though. I would be surprised to see the figures off more than ten percent,
though, from real world driving.

There are still problems with the pollution shifting to another place (power
plants) and in many places there is not enough capacity to prop up much of
an electric fleet. I know, but perhaps it will be enough for the public to
realize the need for more capacity, and do something about it. Wishful
thinking, probably.

For some people, the electric cars will make great sense. For others, not
so much. It is hard to argue against the fact that greater production of
electric cars will bring advances in the technology of electric cars. It
will happen.

Most of all, I am encouraged by the first generations of real attempts at
widely produced electric cars. It is surely a step in the right direction.

For now, I'm happy to leave it at that.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:43:50 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> James Robinson > wrote:
>
>> I have seen people quote average mileage numbers as low as 25 mpg in very

On the expressway ours will run about 46 MPG at 70 MPH. Faster than
that and it's down hill in a hurry, but there are no places around
here where we can legally go faster than 70. Most of the roads are 55,
but typical traffic moves 62 to 63. What ever it's moving, just stay
with it.

I can't imagine one getting 25 even in the coldest part of our
winters. Of course it's a small engine and cools quickly so maybe they
just leave it running out in the parking lot.
Of course if they drive the belt way around Atlanta where the off
ramps are running about 65, the center two lanes about 80 and who know
what the through lanes are running. It was fast enough I was
uncomfortable in a Trans Am with a Corvette engine.

The early Prius did not get as good a mileage as the present ones.

>> cold or hot climates, to over 55 mpg under ideal conditions. Some quote
>> consistent numbers of 35 mpg. So it seems that people can experience a
>> great spread of fuel economy with the car.
>
>Some things that adversely impact the per mile fuel economy of my hybrid:
>
>1) ethanol in the fuel

Everything here is 10% ...so far.

>2) New England winters (the engine runs much more often to stay warm)
it should only run if the battery needs charging or it needs extra HP
for the moment. Even in the winter if we don't let it warm up the
engine doesn't start until after the garage door has opened and we are
half way to the road. it seems strange to back out of the garage and
then the engine starts, or pull out of a parking spot and start down
the he street before it starts.

We actually let it warm up in Michigan winters and use the air
conditioner a lot in the summer and have still been running about 47.
Admittedly that is only after a bit over a year and a half.

>3) short trips

On short trips (5 or 6 miles) it does very well

However the car is extremely sensitive to driving technique and winds.
Jackrabbit starts with full throttle to highway speeds and mashing on
the brakes at the next stop really kill the mileage.

Gentle starts (no you don't have to take a mile to get up to 55) and
light braking seem to be the best combination. Light braking seems to
be the key. The regenerative braking appears to work, but not when
it's mainly maximum effort stops.

There are clubs that are experimenting with unmodified cars running
contests using driving technique. There was a program (Discovery
Channel...I think) where several of the members using the Toyota Prius
did well over 100 MPG. I think the winner was 128 MPG. Of course they
were using driving techniques that would never fit into normal city or
hill country driving without getting the driver shot<:-))

Setting the cruise control in hills is hard on the mileage. You let
is ease up the hill while gently slowing and then let it gain speed
coasting, or slowly accelerating down hill. That is where it really
shines.

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:18:56 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>
>> The Toyota Prius has the capability of running all electric in Europe.
>> There's a big button on the dash to put it in the all electric mode.
>> That makes them capable of over 100 MPG. Without it we seem to be
>> averaging a tad over 47. That option is not available in the states
>> so they could push the warranty up on the battery. In town and out in
>> the hills it's possible to get much better than the rated 50 MPG, BUT
>> to use the driving techniques required to get that kind of mileage
>> would make you the target of everyone else on the road<:-))
>
>
>Not to be a smart ass but wouldn't putting it into all electrice mode make
>the car go INFINITY mpg?

It would if they ran all electric all the time, but the battery pack
isn't that large. Normal mode to get to town and then drive around
town using all electric. Also at present the electric power is much
cheaper than that derived from gas.

Still a realistic mileage would require recording the KWH used for the
miles driven.

Figure the HP required to maintain 50 or 70 MPH, multiply by 0.746 to
get KWH and multiply that by your electric rates. The results should
come out with the gas costing 50 to 100% more for an hour at a given
speed IF your electric rates are 10 cents per KWh as they are here. In
California it's probably cheaper to use gas. <:-)) OTOH if your car
already gets 50 MPG there is little if any savings by going to
electric. A Prius in California would probably cost half as much to
drive as an electric car. The problem is making these kinds of
comparisons requires a LOT of assumptions.

It's like solar panels in the SW where they see paybacks in only a few
years and that is with some hefty subsidies. Here in Michigan we
receive so little sunlight on average we aren't even on the payback
charts which only go to 20 years and we receive no subsidies for solar
installations.

Roger (K8RI)
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> >3) short trips
>
> On short trips (5 or 6 miles) it does very well

I have a Mercury Mariner hybrid which is based on Toyota hybrid drive
technology. Since I don't have an option of not running the engine, short
trips are where it does the worst for mileage, especially in the winter.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:50:55 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote in
>:
>
>>As has been publicized, we don't have the grid capacity to support
>>much in the way of all electric cars. The same is true for Hydrogen.
>>It's either produced from fossil fuels with a lot of polluting
>>byproducts or takes a whale of a lot of electrical energy to produce
>>from water.
>
>When/if worldwide photovoltaic production ever meets consumer demand,
>you are going to see an enormous increase in solar power
>installations, not only in commercial buildings, but residences as
>well. Today, the excess electricity generated by a home's
>photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the electric
>utility meter backwards. As electrically powered vehicles become more
>mainstream, that excess solar power could be used to directly charge
>vehicle batteries or for hydro-electrolysis to generate hydrogen gas
>for fuel.

This doesn't change the lack of grid capacity. Ask the State of
Wisconsin which has a large wind farm. The state agreed to purchase
any electricity the grid couldn't handle. It's costing them many
millions of dollars.

We don't have the economically viable technology for all electric
vehicles to have enough range. Generating H2 with the excess energy
sounds good, but how do you generate and store enough if you don't
live in the SW?

>
>Side benefits of residential solar power generation are the peace of
>mind inherent in the redundancy of distributed (as opposed to central)
>power generation and the resulting robustness against massive power
>outages due to a cascade of equipment outages triggered by a
>single-source failure, the ability to "thumb the eye" of oil
>robber-barons, the reduction in the production of pollutants,
>insurance against the inevitable increases in the price of energy, and
>virtue of abandoning 19th century technology for a more enlightened
>solution.

It comes down to economics and geographic location. My daughter's
husband is a consultant in the business. We sat down and figured a
hybrid system of both active and passive solar would cost me close to
$50,000 up here and unlike California we receive no subsidies for
either active or passive solar panels.

Price photovoltaic panels per KWH. The price without a subside is
enough to scare most any one off.

>
>>Alcohol is an interim solution with the hybrid being by far the most
>>economical and quickest to implement of the interim solutions.
>>
>>As for grid capacity we are rapidly coming to the point of real time
>>usage monitoring with remote setback of heating and air conditioning.
>>Here with peak rates of about 10 cents per KWH we wouldn't see the
>>savings of those fortunate souls paying 38 cents during peak demand
>>out in the Republik of Kalafornia.
>>
>>OTOH solar panels don't do us much good either.
>
>Why? Photovoltaic panels are able to convert infrared isolation even
>on cloudy days.

But that ain't much power out. it's only a small fraction of what you
get in direct sunlight and solar panels are not all that efficient at
best. Also we're 43'37" N and the days are several hours shorter up
here than in say Georgia or even California. Also you can see the
power drop due to clouds, or just due to dust and dirt collecting if
you don't clean them every couple of weeks. They also age so it's not
a one time cost. Efficiency is going up, but electricity from solar
panels is still about 3 to 5 times the cost of that from the power
grid in areas where sunlight is plentiful and the atmosphere is seldom
cloudy. Here with 10 cents per KWH and we have about 3 days a month
without some clouds it's probably more like 5 to 7 times.

And even when they do get the cost down and I expect they will, the
power grid is still limited as to the amount they can buy back (or
handle) When that point is reached the payback for power into the grid
will drop and at times they may not even accept power. As I mentioned
the wind farm in Wisconsin and their problems.

There is a Silicon plant near here that is multiplying their capacity
several times over and they just finished doubling the size of the
plant. The amount of pure Silicon coming out of there is staggering.
Wafer size has gone from 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch when I started in the
industry to a current of 14 inches or there abouts. Still the waste
of making wafers from silicon rods is over 50%. Considering it used to
be on the order of 80 to 90% that's pretty good. Many years ago when
loss was much greater they developed some new sawing techniques that
cut the waste in half. it was still tremendous, but the increase in
yield almost caused several of the suppliers to go out of business.
One did.

We still have a long way to go before solar cells become economically
viable except in some select areas.

Roger (K8RI)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:
>
>> Small diesels give about the same fuel economy as hybrids, but the
>> diffuculty is making the tailpipe emission standards in the US -
>> particularly California. Thus the popularity of hybrids in the US but
>> not in Europe where emission standards are easier.
>
> Actually, the emission standards are tighter in Europe. The reason they
> can meet their emission standards with diesel engines is that they
> mandated
> low sulfur fuel several years ago, and it is has an even lower sulfur
> content than the ultra low sulfur fuel recently mandated in the US.
>

They run a different cycle in Europe.

I've worked on vehicles to meet both the Europian and US certification
requirements. Europe is easier.

> Where sulfur enters into things is that it fouls catalytic converters. By
> eliminating the sulfur, converters can be used in the exhaust system to
> reduce the amount of NOx and particulates, which are the two primary
> pollutants from diesel engines.
>

Correct. The problem with NOx is that it is hard to reduce (de-oxidize) in
the presense of O2. Lean NOx catalysts just don't have the efficiency
required to meet the California standards. NOx traps require that you inject
fuel into the exhaust to reduce the stored NOx every few minutes.

Selective Catalytic Reduction using Urea injection should start showing up
in the US soon.

> Now that we have low sulfur fuel, a number of European manufacturers
> intend
> to export their diesel car technology to the US. Expect to see new diesel
> models that will even meet California standards, from companies like VW in
> the new year.

You will be seeing stuff from a number of companies in the near future.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> >3) short trips
>>
>> On short trips (5 or 6 miles) it does very well
>
> I have a Mercury Mariner hybrid which is based on Toyota hybrid drive
> technology.

Not really.
Ford traded some patents with Toyota since each company got to the patent
office first with some technologies. Toyota then got to the press first
claiming that Ford was using the Toyota technology - they forgot to mention
the Ford technology that they needed....

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

>
> Selective Catalytic Reduction using Urea injection should start showing up
> in the US soon.
>
That's a new one, to me. Could you give us a "high points" report on that
technology?

Are we going to have to pull in to a service station, and fill it up with
diesel fuel, and check the urea tank level, or pee into a tank, once they
start with that? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

The Camry is a great car and I may buy one. I would not be seen dead in
a Prius.





Morgans wrote:
> "Newps" <> wrote
>
>
>>I was just at the Toyota dealer this week driving a Camry hybrid. No way
>>I get a Prius for a number of reasons. Real world driving in the Camry
>>gets you about 36-40 MPG in the city. For highway driving you need to
>>specify at what speed to make your comparison with other cars.
>
>
> I'm not sure which of the reasons you gave are the reasons that cause you to
> say that you would not get the hybrid Camry.
>
> Are you saying that it is not enough improvement for the cost, or what?
>
> I'm just curious. Thanks.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>> Selective Catalytic Reduction using Urea injection should start showing
>> up in the US soon.
>>
> That's a new one, to me. Could you give us a "high points" report on that
> technology?

I don't know all the details - but the Urea is used to create amonia which
will react to the NO and NO2 on the surface of the catalyst.

> Are we going to have to pull in to a service station, and fill it up with
> diesel fuel, and check the urea tank level, or pee into a tank, once they
> start with that? <g>

Yea. As I understand it, the Urea tank is supposed to last for a few
thousand miles. Dunno if you could get away with peeing into the tank.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" > wrote

> I don't know all the details - but the Urea is used to create amonia which
> will react to the NO and NO2 on the surface of the catalyst.

It is discoveries like this that makes me wonder *how* they first found this
out. Nah, never mind; I don't think I want to know! <g>

> Yea. As I understand it, the Urea tank is supposed to last for a few
> thousand miles. Dunno if you could get away with peeing into the tank.

I didn't think so. I *had* to ask, though! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>Yea. As I understand it, the Urea tank is supposed to last for a few
>>thousand miles. Dunno if you could get away with peeing into the tank.
>
> I didn't think so. I *had* to ask, though! ;-)

After doing some reading about how it all works, I am impressed by the
number of different chemical reactions that take place using the whole SCR
process, and the urea solution. I'm no chemical engineer, and if I was, it
would probably be no big deal, but being as I'm not, it.....Sure looks like
a big deal!
--
Jim in NC

[oilsardine[_2_]]

you cant do it, it's used to be refined sheeps' pee

"Morgans" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>>>Yea. As I understand it, the Urea tank is supposed to last for a few
>>>thousand miles. Dunno if you could get away with peeing into the tank.
>>
>> I didn't think so. I *had* to ask, though! ;-)
>
> After doing some reading about how it all works, I am impressed by the
> number of different chemical reactions that take place using the whole SCR
> process, and the urea solution. I'm no chemical engineer, and if I was,
> it would probably be no big deal, but being as I'm not, it.....Sure looks
> like a big deal!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Dave[_5_]]

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
>
> Wil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This video certainly lends some credibility to the idea of a
compressed air car. As I said, we'll see - and I would make a special
trip to see one of these.

If nothing else, this thread has produced a lively discussion, and
has, for the most part, avoided ****ing contests.

Elsewhere I stated that one cannot buy a practical electric car today.
That is not strictly true. For example, one of these would
certainly meet my requirements for a commuting vehicle: http://www.myersmotors.com.
It's even made in the suburbs of my hometown (and not China or India
etc). But omigod - the price!
It's really just an enclosed motorcycle. Howzcum none of the bigname
motorcycle manufacturers make anything like this (regardless of the
powerplant)? Probably wouldn't sell (anybody remember the
Messerschmitt in the 1950s? [yes - the same company that made aircraft
in WWII]). Nobody wanted it.

There are "promising" battery technologies "in the works" - but that
has been the case for years. I hear that some of the folks planning to
introduce "viable" batteries for EVs are talking about leasing rather
than selling their products. No doubt they forsee "Sticker Shock"
problems.

In spite of all the disappointments, there is research and
experimentation going on everywhere, and I, for one, am confident that
there are better (and hopefully revolutionary) developments ahead. For
a collection of links on this subject look at this:http://
freeenergynews.com/Directory/EV/index.html

Thanks to all who responded.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 23, 9:55 am, Dave > wrote:
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
>
> > Wil- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This video certainly lends some credibility to the idea of a
> compressed air car. As I said, we'll see - and I would make a special
> trip to see one of these.
>
> If nothing else, this thread has produced a lively discussion, and
> has, for the most part, avoided ****ing contests.
>
> Elsewhere I stated that one cannot buy a practical electric car today.
> That is not strictly true. For example, one of these would
> certainly meet my requirements for a commuting vehicle:http://www.myersmotors.com.
> It's even made in the suburbs of my hometown (and not China or India
> etc). But omigod - the price!
> It's really just an enclosed motorcycle. Howzcum none of the bigname
> motorcycle manufacturers make anything like this (regardless of the
> powerplant)? Probably wouldn't sell (anybody remember the
> Messerschmitt in the 1950s? [yes - the same company that made aircraft
> in WWII]). Nobody wanted it.
>
> There are "promising" battery technologies "in the works" - but that
> has been the case for years. I hear that some of the folks planning to
> introduce "viable" batteries for EVs are talking about leasing rather
> than selling their products. No doubt they forsee "Sticker Shock"
> problems.
>
> In spite of all the disappointments, there is research and
> experimentation going on everywhere, and I, for one, am confident that
> there are better (and hopefully revolutionary) developments ahead. For
> a collection of links on this subject look at this:http://
> freeenergynews.com/Directory/EV/index.html
>
> Thanks to all who responded.
>
> David Johnson


P.S.: If you are interested in seeing what the Messerschmitt car
looked like, go here: http://www.microcarmuseum.com/ This would be a
great place to visit (East of Atlanta). It's on my list!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Camry is a great car and I may buy one.

The SE V-6? Ass kicker for under $25K.

[Newps]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>The Camry is a great car and I may buy one.
>
>
> The SE V-6? Ass kicker for under $25K.

Not looking for performance. Only way I buy a new car is the Camry
Hybrid. Otherwise I'll get an 05ish Accord. Another possibility is I
have a friend with a dealer license so I may get an 07 or 08 Chevy
Impala rental car that are normally disposed of at 20K miles. As much
as I would hate to be stuck with a Chevy they're hard to beat when these
things can be had for about $11K.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>The Camry is a great car and I may buy one.
>>
>>
>> The SE V-6? Ass kicker for under $25K.
>
> Not looking for performance. Only way I buy a new car is the Camry
> Hybrid. Otherwise I'll get an 05ish Accord. Another possibility is I
> have a friend with a dealer license so I may get an 07 or 08 Chevy Impala
> rental car that are normally disposed of at 20K miles. As much as I would
> hate to be stuck with a Chevy they're hard to beat when these things can
> be had for about $11K.

Try to find a Camry that is a ex-rental unit.

I had a Camry for a rental back several years ago and found it cheap and
tinny. The I had one earlier this year and decided that it would be my next
car.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:45:24 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote in
>:

>On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:39:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:50:55 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>As has been publicized, we don't have the grid capacity to support
>>>much in the way of all electric cars. The same is true for Hydrogen.
>>>It's either produced from fossil fuels with a lot of polluting
>>>byproducts or takes a whale of a lot of electrical energy to produce
>>>from water.
>>
>>When/if worldwide photovoltaic production ever meets consumer demand,
>>you are going to see an enormous increase in solar power
>>installations, not only in commercial buildings, but residences as
>>well. Today, the excess electricity generated by a home's
>>photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the electric
>>utility meter backwards. As electrically powered vehicles become more
>>mainstream, that excess solar power could be used to directly charge
>>vehicle batteries or for hydro-electrolysis to generate hydrogen gas
>>for fuel.
>
>This doesn't change the lack of grid capacity.

If the home's photovoltaic power generating system is used to turn the
electric utility meter backwards, it doesn't require any additional
grid capacity.

>We don't have the economically viable technology for all electric
>vehicles to have enough range. Generating H2 with the excess energy
>sounds good, but how do you generate and store enough if you don't
>live in the SW?

Here's how it's being done in New York:


http://www.distributed-energy.com/data/Unsorted/web_Renewable_Energy-20329-1.pdf
The Solar-Hydrogen Home
The US Merchant Marine Academy and the New York Institute of
Technology joined forces to build a home for the 2005 Department
of Energy Solar Decathlon Competition. The home, which
incorporated a Distributed Energy Systems’ HOGEN RE hydrogen
generator, was in a class of its own. In a typical “off-grid”
scenario, a large battery bank is required to store energy. In the
“solar-hydrogen” home, solar energy is stored in the form of
hydrogen gas generated from the HOGEN RE hydrogen generator.
When it is dark, instead of drawing energy from a battery bank,
hydrogen gas is converted into electricity through a fuel cell.
During the day when there is plenty of energy from the sun, water
is converted into hydrogen gas through the use of a HOGEN RE
hydrogen generator.
>
>>
>>Side benefits of residential solar power generation are the peace of
>>mind inherent in the redundancy of distributed (as opposed to central)
>>power generation and the resulting robustness against massive power
>>outages due to a cascade of equipment outages triggered by a
>>single-source failure, the ability to "thumb the eye" of oil
>>robber-barons, the reduction in the production of pollutants,
>>insurance against the inevitable increases in the price of energy, and
>>virtue of abandoning 19th century technology for a more enlightened
>>solution.
>
>It comes down to economics and geographic location. My daughter's
>husband is a consultant in the business. We sat down and figured a
>hybrid system of both active and passive solar would cost me close to
>$50,000 up here and unlike California we receive no subsidies for
>either active or passive solar panels.
>
>Price photovoltaic panels per KWH. The price without a subside is
>enough to scare most any one off.

That's because the demand for photovoltaic panels exceeds the
worldwide manufacturing capacity. As more manufacturing facilities
come on-line, I would expect to see prices decline due to competition.

>>
>>>Alcohol is an interim solution with the hybrid being by far the most
>>>economical and quickest to implement of the interim solutions.
>>>
>>>As for grid capacity we are rapidly coming to the point of real time
>>>usage monitoring with remote setback of heating and air conditioning.
>>>Here with peak rates of about 10 cents per KWH we wouldn't see the
>>>savings of those fortunate souls paying 38 cents during peak demand
>>>out in the Republik of Kalafornia.
>>>
>>>OTOH solar panels don't do us much good either.
>>
>>Why? Photovoltaic panels are able to convert infrared isolation even
>>on cloudy days.
>
>But that ain't much power out. it's only a small fraction of what you
>get in direct sunlight and solar panels are not all that efficient at
>best.

You can purchase ~40% efficient solar cells today. The technology is
improving.

>Also we're 43'37" N and the days are several hours shorter up
>here than in say Georgia or even California. Also you can see the
>power drop due to clouds, or just due to dust and dirt collecting if
>you don't clean them every couple of weeks. They also age so it's not
>a one time cost. Efficiency is going up, but electricity from solar
>panels is still about 3 to 5 times the cost of that from the power
>grid in areas where sunlight is plentiful and the atmosphere is seldom
>cloudy. Here with 10 cents per KWH and we have about 3 days a month
>without some clouds it's probably more like 5 to 7 times.

In that case, you'd have to increase the solar generating area to
compensate for the reduction in isolation.

>And even when they do get the cost down and I expect they will, the
>power grid is still limited as to the amount they can buy back (or
>handle) When that point is reached the payback for power into the grid
>will drop and at times they may not even accept power. As I mentioned
>the wind farm in Wisconsin and their problems.

I believe it's a matter of the utility reducing their output during
periods of excess locally (solar) generated power.

>There is a Silicon plant near here that is multiplying their capacity
>several times over and they just finished doubling the size of the
>plant. The amount of pure Silicon coming out of there is staggering.
>Wafer size has gone from 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch when I started in the
>industry to a current of 14 inches or there abouts. Still the waste
>of making wafers from silicon rods is over 50%. Considering it used to
>be on the order of 80 to 90% that's pretty good. Many years ago when
>loss was much greater they developed some new sawing techniques that
>cut the waste in half. it was still tremendous, but the increase in
>yield almost caused several of the suppliers to go out of business.
>One did.
>
>We still have a long way to go before solar cells become economically
>viable except in some select areas.
>
>Roger (K8RI)

Perhaps, but there seems to be a definite increase in their use out
here.

[Dave[_5_]]

As with any energy conversion scheme, a viable storage medium is the
key. Perhaps the hydrogen generator is what is needed.

As for the source of this energy, how about photovoltaic roof
shingles? Look at this: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17129/

David Johnson

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:sOOdnfvCNLWpO9nanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
<...>
> I don't have the numbers in front of me, but in urban driving a
> significant portion of the gasoline energy is expended by the brakes
> (10-15%? - I used to have a chart on the wall at my desk, but I don't
> remember the numbers - sorry)
>

Ok, I looked it up - the "typical" car puts about 6% of the gasoline energy
into the brakes on the US EPA urban cycle.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2007-11-23 16:14, Dave wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:55 am, Dave > wrote:
>> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
>>
>> > Wil- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> This video certainly lends some credibility to the idea of a
>> compressed air car. As I said, we'll see - and I would make a special
>> trip to see one of these.
>>
>> If nothing else, this thread has produced a lively discussion, and
>> has, for the most part, avoided ****ing contests.
>>
>> Elsewhere I stated that one cannot buy a practical electric car today.
>> That is not strictly true. For example, one of these would
>> certainly meet my requirements for a commuting vehicle:http://www.myersmotors.com.
>> It's even made in the suburbs of my hometown (and not China or India
>> etc). But omigod - the price!
>> It's really just an enclosed motorcycle. Howzcum none of the bigname
>> motorcycle manufacturers make anything like this (regardless of the
>> powerplant)? Probably wouldn't sell (anybody remember the
>> Messerschmitt in the 1950s? [yes - the same company that made aircraft
>> in WWII]). Nobody wanted it.
>>
>> There are "promising" battery technologies "in the works" - but that
>> has been the case for years. I hear that some of the folks planning to
>> introduce "viable" batteries for EVs are talking about leasing rather
>> than selling their products. No doubt they forsee "Sticker Shock"
>> problems.
>>
>> In spite of all the disappointments, there is research and
>> experimentation going on everywhere, and I, for one, am confident that
>> there are better (and hopefully revolutionary) developments ahead. For
>> a collection of links on this subject look at this:http://
>> freeenergynews.com/Directory/EV/index.html
>>
>> Thanks to all who responded.
>>
>> David Johnson
>
>
> P.S.: If you are interested in seeing what the Messerschmitt car
> looked like, go here: http://www.microcarmuseum.com/ This would be a
> great place to visit (East of Atlanta). It's on my list!


My father had a three-wheeler when I grew up, a 'Heinkel Kabin'.
Pretty good at parking, but you were well below the sight-line of larger
car drivers, which could be risky then, and I'd imagine even more so
nowadays what with all SUV's etc.

Major disadvantage was in wintertime, when the centred rear-wheel would
tend to slip into either right or left track in heavy snows, and driving
sideways in traffic was no fun.

Advantage back then was a three-wheeler classed it as a motorbike, which
was cheaper tax-wise; now this isn't the case any more.

/Rolf