The new Electric Cessna 172

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

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

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

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

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

Vaughn

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

Oh, I completely agree with you on that point.

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In article , ,
says...

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll let you do your own research.

--
Duncan.

Dave Doe wrote:
In article , ,
says...

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory never becomes reality; theory is always theory.

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

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

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

I'll let you do your own research.

I already have but not by watching sifi movies.

On 14/01/13 18:35, wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When automobiles were invented they were praised by many for not filling
city streets with horse **** and as material technology improved, so did
the reliability. None of this required any break through in either physics
or chemistry.
And the cruelty those horses underwent.
Treat a motor vehicle poorly and it'll quit on you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

In article , ,
says...

Dave Doe wrote:
In article , ,
says...

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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

maybe.



Absent some astounding breakthrough in portable electric generation, i.e.

all devices such as fuel cells and not just batteries, I doubt the all

electric vehicle will ever become a significant fraction of vehicles on

the road.



Hybrid vehicles stand a much better chance, the biggest current obstacle

being the huge premium in cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory never becomes reality; theory is always theory.

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

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

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

I'll let you do your own research.

I already have but not by watching sifi movies.

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

--
Duncan.

Dave Doe wrote:
In article , ,

snip old crap


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

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

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

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