I think a power source of 400 long tons per kw would be very useful for an auto. Think of the acceleration possible. Even if the specific energy was 100 kwh per kg it would be hard to get the vehicle moving. But it would go a very long way on a charge.Not quite sure how important power to mass ratio is considering you don't actually want to release all that energy in the shortest possible time in anycase (i.e. by exploding to fuel in the tank of your car)
Electric Cars and Solar Power Kills babies.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Pretty much. A second or third hand car is cheap regarding capital but has limited mileage before it breaks down and is inefficient and expensive to run. An electric car is cheap to run but the capital outlay is somewhat higher. So you use the electric car for the bulk of you commuting and the secondhand car for the occassional long trip.
It wouldn't make sense for someone who makes regular long trips to get an electric vehicle, but I think there is a large section that could soon benefit from owning one, once they get the speed up to 70 or 80 mph and improve the battery lifetime.
It wouldn't make sense for someone who makes regular long trips to get an electric vehicle, but I think there is a large section that could soon benefit from owning one, once they get the speed up to 70 or 80 mph and improve the battery lifetime.
Don't forget the extra battery capacity for wear out and temperature extremes. An old battery at -10C is not going to take you as far as a new battery at 20C. And at -10C you are going to want a heater. The waste heat from an IC engine comes in handy at temps below 15C.jmc wrote:Pretty much. A second or third hand car is cheap regarding capital but has limited mileage before it breaks down and is inefficient and expensive to run. An electric car is cheap to run but the capital outlay is somewhat higher. So you use the electric car for the bulk of you commuting and the secondhand car for the occassional long trip.
It wouldn't make sense for someone who makes regular long trips to get an electric vehicle, but I think there is a large section that could soon benefit from owning one, once they get the speed up to 70 or 80 mph and improve the battery lifetime.
And you don't want to drive in hilly country. Even with regenerative braking the losses reduce range.
And then consider a daily commute up a mountain and then down.
I'm sure that when the car cos. tell you the range of the vehicle it is on flat ground at 20C with a new battery with moderate driving (i.e. if you have to do a lot of accelerating on the freeway to match traffic or for safety [get out of the way of a truck barreling down on you] range is reduced)
I don't think at the current state of technology I'd by a battery only vehicle.
And then there is charging time. If you have 8 or 10 hours - fine. Even 4 hours (commute - lunch - commute - charge) would not be too bad. But you start getting shorter than that and you are in trouble. Esp re: afternoon grid capacity.
Figure 1 w hr kg-1 mi-1 for BOE and then compute the KW required for a given charge time.
The infrastructure is just not there now. And some one is going to have to pay for it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Electric vehicles are not yet economic, I grant you that. But they may well be soon, wear out and temperature extremes is probably an engineering problem, if enough effort is spent developing new materials for batteries I'm sure they'll make progress on that front.
As for hilly country, horses for courses, if an EV doen't suit your daily driving needs don't buy one. There are plenty of people who don't live in massively hilly country though.
Actually GoinGreen tells you the range of a G-wiz on flat ground, yes, but with the average U.K. temperature, india the range is 20km more.
From an economical point of view a battery only vehicles doesn't make sense at present. But the technology is getting there and far from killing babies those people who have bought Tesla Roadsters are financing research into a technology that could in the near future be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels and make city air cleaner to breath.
As for hilly country, horses for courses, if an EV doen't suit your daily driving needs don't buy one. There are plenty of people who don't live in massively hilly country though.
Actually GoinGreen tells you the range of a G-wiz on flat ground, yes, but with the average U.K. temperature, india the range is 20km more.
From an economical point of view a battery only vehicles doesn't make sense at present. But the technology is getting there and far from killing babies those people who have bought Tesla Roadsters are financing research into a technology that could in the near future be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels and make city air cleaner to breath.
I did write into the UK traffic authorities with the proposal (and genuine intent to do the project) that I build a lightweight kit car with traction motors but no batteries or engine. These would come on a small set of trailers, plugging in a battery trailer for commutes, and one with an engine-generator set on for longer journeys. That way, you can have a couple of battery trailers, one on charge while the other is in use, but just one car.
My question - was this an electric vehicle or a fuel powered vehicle? They seems to suggest that if a petrol engine was generating power whilst the vehicle was in motion, then it'd be a petrol powered car. So I asked what would happen if I had a half battery, half petrol trailer and stop the car whilst recharging the batteries. SO they said it couldn't be part of the car. So I ask what'd happen if I disconnected the trailer whilst I recharged the batteries.
They gave up after a while and didn't seem to be interested in helping me resolve the obvious classification issues - no interest in encouraging me to do the project, no leadership on what this vehicle would classify as to register it. They're not ineterested in the hobby engineer doing these types of projects, only bigger companies that they have 'in their pockets', I suppose. I had a genuine attempt to do this and figure it'd've been good for 100mpg and 'switchable' to electric only by just swapping trailers.
In the end, they asked *me* if it had no internal power of its own then how could I get it to a test station? At which point I realised it probably wasn't a road vehicle at all (as UK law requires the 'vehicle' to be capable of use on the road, which this wouldn't, yet adding a trailer can't change a vehicle's classification). they gave no help, only to say that a court would have to decide - great, that's real forward-looking Government encouragement for a 'green' project, huh!? Tell an *inventor* that he *might* become a criminal before he even begins the project, but that they can't tell themselves...
My question - was this an electric vehicle or a fuel powered vehicle? They seems to suggest that if a petrol engine was generating power whilst the vehicle was in motion, then it'd be a petrol powered car. So I asked what would happen if I had a half battery, half petrol trailer and stop the car whilst recharging the batteries. SO they said it couldn't be part of the car. So I ask what'd happen if I disconnected the trailer whilst I recharged the batteries.
They gave up after a while and didn't seem to be interested in helping me resolve the obvious classification issues - no interest in encouraging me to do the project, no leadership on what this vehicle would classify as to register it. They're not ineterested in the hobby engineer doing these types of projects, only bigger companies that they have 'in their pockets', I suppose. I had a genuine attempt to do this and figure it'd've been good for 100mpg and 'switchable' to electric only by just swapping trailers.
In the end, they asked *me* if it had no internal power of its own then how could I get it to a test station? At which point I realised it probably wasn't a road vehicle at all (as UK law requires the 'vehicle' to be capable of use on the road, which this wouldn't, yet adding a trailer can't change a vehicle's classification). they gave no help, only to say that a court would have to decide - great, that's real forward-looking Government encouragement for a 'green' project, huh!? Tell an *inventor* that he *might* become a criminal before he even begins the project, but that they can't tell themselves...
But you might want to, especially if you're talking about something like a small truck. There is a very large utility to having something that is both powerful enough to do real work (hauling, etc) and light enough to be a personal transport. Buying one tool is better than buying two.Not quite sure how important power to mass ratio is considering you don't actually want to release all that energy in the shortest possible time in anycase (i.e. by exploding to fuel in the tank of your car) electric cars can reach 50 mph easily and soon 70 or 80 mph should be routinely attainable. That is enough for many applications.
Same issue here:
But you don't want to buy another car for the other 10%. Example: shortly after graduating I had to drive most of the way across IL (about 700 miles in all, I think) to take the CPA exam. I could not have done that in an electric car.For 90% of driving you don't need a range of 600-1000 miles.
Of course, many people who live in the city don't own cars at all. Electrics have to fit into a fairly specialized niche where you don't need power or distance, but it's too far to bike or walk.
There are more cost effective ways to finance research.From an economical point of view a battery only vehicles doesn't make sense at present. But the technology is getting there and far from killing babies those people who have bought Tesla Roadsters are financing research into a technology that could in the near future be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels and make city air cleaner to breath.
OTOH toys for the rich is not a bad way to finance research.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Laws are required to keep competition out of the market.chrismb wrote:I did write into the UK traffic authorities with the proposal (and genuine intent to do the project) that I build a lightweight kit car with traction motors but no batteries or engine. These would come on a small set of trailers, plugging in a battery trailer for commutes, and one with an engine-generator set on for longer journeys. That way, you can have a couple of battery trailers, one on charge while the other is in use, but just one car.
My question - was this an electric vehicle or a fuel powered vehicle? They seems to suggest that if a petrol engine was generating power whilst the vehicle was in motion, then it'd be a petrol powered car. So I asked what would happen if I had a half battery, half petrol trailer and stop the car whilst recharging the batteries. SO they said it couldn't be part of the car. So I ask what'd happen if I disconnected the trailer whilst I recharged the batteries.
They gave up after a while and didn't seem to be interested in helping me resolve the obvious classification issues - no interest in encouraging me to do the project, no leadership on what this vehicle would classify as to register it. They're not ineterested in the hobby engineer doing these types of projects, only bigger companies that they have 'in their pockets', I suppose. I had a genuine attempt to do this and figure it'd've been good for 100mpg and 'switchable' to electric only by just swapping trailers.
In the end, they asked *me* if it had no internal power of its own then how could I get it to a test station? At which point I realised it probably wasn't a road vehicle at all (as UK law requires the 'vehicle' to be capable of use on the road, which this wouldn't, yet adding a trailer can't change a vehicle's classification). they gave no help, only to say that a court would have to decide - great, that's real forward-looking Government encouragement for a 'green' project, huh!? Tell an *inventor* that he *might* become a criminal before he even begins the project, but that they can't tell themselves...
BTW I have been looking at the Brit scene from afar and up close ( Lousia Lockhart ) and have come to the conclusion that you all are a lost cause (except for Lousia).
Your government takes away your rights willy nilly and aside from the Samizdata folks I don't see much resistance to the binding with 10,000 strings.
First step: form an association of experimental car builders. There is power in numbers. Second step: go to you MP. Never go to the bureaucrats first. Grease the ways with politics. Third if your MP does something favorable make sure it gets a lot of publicity with the MP's name included and let the MP know in advance what you intend. There are other ways to bribe the Critters than cash.
Never assume honest intentions and good technology is enough. Sell, sell, sell. Or in your idiom: monger.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
yup. most of us 'right-thinking folks' here have come to the same conclusion.MSimon wrote:I have been looking at the Brit scene from afar and up close and have come to the conclusion that you all are a lost cause
My MP and local Government personnel know me very well by name, I assure you!
My MP is pretty good actually. He's on the cabinet so he tends to pass on my letters and emails and my comments do often get replies straight from other cabinet members - thought it's mostly non-committal flim-flam in content, but at least my points are represented at the highest possible level.
The local Government has now dropped all facade of pretending to be democratic and just plain doesn't bother replying to me or acting on the legal obligations I put them under with Freedom of Information requests.
I used to tell people here that they should be concerned about banks as there would be a run on them sometime. No-one listened to me, too much complacency in never having seen one. I'm now telling people to be concerned about complete breakdown in public order, and revolution....I keep telling the wife to stock up with 3 mths supply of tinned foods...
....are there any half-decent jobs available, your pond-side?
Depends on your skill set. If you can do aerospace Sundstrand in Rockford, Illinois is very Brit friendly. I worked with two during my first stint at the company. They do aircraft electrical systems.chrismb wrote:yup. most of us 'right-thinking folks' here have come to the same conclusion.MSimon wrote:I have been looking at the Brit scene from afar and up close and have come to the conclusion that you all are a lost cause
My MP and local Government personnel know me very well by name, I assure you!
My MP is pretty good actually. He's on the cabinet so he tends to pass on my letters and emails and my comments do often get replies straight from other cabinet members - thought it's mostly non-committal flim-flam in content, but at least my points are represented at the highest possible level.
The local Government has now dropped all facade of pretending to be democratic and just plain doesn't bother replying to me or acting on the legal obligations I put them under with Freedom of Information requests.
I used to tell people here that they should be concerned about banks as there would be a run on them sometime. No-one listened to me, too much complacency in never having seen one. I'm now telling people to be concerned about complete breakdown in public order, and revolution....I keep telling the wife to stock up with 3 mths supply of tinned foods...
....are there any half-decent jobs available, your pond-side?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
1) It depends on three things, the price of petrol, the price of electricity and the capital cost of the vehicle. With the way the capital costs of vehicles are going with the tata ($1000) and the like, it may not be long before a vehicle will have a similar cost to 1 or 2 year's worth of fuel consumption. If that happens then you may well prefer to have two vehicles, one for short range commutes that runs on cheap electricity and one for the occassional long range commute which runs on more expensive oil. In terms of efficiency this makes more sense that a plug-in hybrid since the electric vehicle isn't lugging around the unecessary load of a petrol engine and the petrol vehicle doesn't lug around the unnecessary load of the battery.TallDave wrote: 1) But you don't want to buy another car for the other 10%. Example: shortly after graduating I had to drive most of the way across IL (about 700 miles in all, I think) to take the CPA exam. I could not have done that in an electric car.
2)Of course, many people who live in the city don't own cars at all. Electrics have to fit into a fairly specialized niche where you don't need power or distance, but it's too far to bike or walk.
2) Not just distances that are too far to bike or walk but also loads. I'm prepared to bike 10 miles, but not while carrying my weekly shopping!
Unless you live where parking is scarce or very expensive.jmc wrote:1) It depends on three things, the price of petrol, the price of electricity and the capital cost of the vehicle. With the way the capital costs of vehicles are going with the tata ($1000) and the like, it may not be long before a vehicle will have a similar cost to 1 or 2 year's worth of fuel consumption. If that happens then you may well prefer to have two vehicles, one for short range commutes that runs on cheap electricity and one for the occassional long range commute which runs on more expensive oil. In terms of efficiency this makes more sense that a plug-in hybrid since the electric vehicle isn't lugging around the unecessary load of a petrol engine and the petrol vehicle doesn't lug around the unnecessary load of the battery.TallDave wrote: 1) But you don't want to buy another car for the other 10%. Example: shortly after graduating I had to drive most of the way across IL (about 700 miles in all, I think) to take the CPA exam. I could not have done that in an electric car.
2)Of course, many people who live in the city don't own cars at all. Electrics have to fit into a fairly specialized niche where you don't need power or distance, but it's too far to bike or walk.
2) Not just distances that are too far to bike or walk but also loads. I'm prepared to bike 10 miles, but not while carrying my weekly shopping!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Its much easier to fudge ones data with fewer stations, particularly when so many of them are government run airport stations. Theres so many problems from airport stations that IMHO the late 20th century warming measured was actually a measure of the growth in commercial aviation. Obviously with more jets sitting waiting in line to take off, you are going to be filling the air around these stations with a lot more hot exhaust gasses.MSimon wrote:Very good question. I think it wasa pointed out in the comments that the number of stations does not meet the Nyquist Criteria for spatial resolution.jmc wrote:"In particular, I have wondered how the current global average can even be compared with that of 1987, which was produced using between six and seven times more stations than today."MSimon wrote:
A scientific look -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/a ... record-is/
it explains how the GISS temp record is corrected. It is real ugly.
Why would there be more weather stations around in 1987 then there are today when interest in climate change has increased?
Likewise the flattening/cooling of temps IMHO also reflects the slowdown in the airline industry since the 9/11 2001 attacks, which is when the flattenting/cooling period began. This also indicates the undue influence of temp stations at airports being influenced by jet exhaust and other airport development creating urban heat island effects greater than previously estimated.