I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

That means to achieve 500 miles range they would need just 10KWh.

This on a 200bhp sports car..

I still reckon that to get serious range at sensible power levels you need
around 50KWh.

Even taking my tiddly little lithium batteries at 150Wh/kg, thats only
333kg. and about 167 liters of space. (I just measured mine. 36Wh in 120 cc
of volume)

Thats a cinch to fit in a car. Under the floor. I mean a petrol tank is 60
liters in a decent one..this is not even three times that.

Add in lets say a kilowatt per kg of the rest of the power train (easily
achievable) the motor(s) and control gear would weigh in around 150kg

so about 483kg for the 200bhp power train.

Thats the practicaliies

Now for fuel efficiency and economy.

Comparison with diesel at 10kw/litre
(http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm) shows that to be *as
efficient* that diesel ought to be able to do a 100 miles on just two
liters of fuel. In fact its more like two GALLONS showing that the diesel
is, with respect to the electric car (neglecting charging and generation
inefficiencies) about 27% efficient. That bears out my gut feeling that a
diesel is at its very very best, capable of about 40% thermal efficiency,
and is probably operating at less than 30% even in the most favourable
regimes. And far far worse idling at traffic lights :-)

taking not the 200Wh/mile figure, but somethig nearer 400Wh per mile, as
being realistic and figuring on an overall 80% charge efficiency, you get 2
miles per unit of electrical input. So whats that - 5p a mile worst case.
At sort of off peak prices you might be down to 1.5p a mile or better.

With diesel at £3.42 a gallon and doing 50mpg, thats 6.8p a mile.

Overall energy efficiency.

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Charging issues

to charge 50kWh overnight in ten hours is a peak rate of 5Kw. Somewhat
beyond a 13A socket, ...but NOT beyond a 13A ring, which is typically rated
at 30A or 7.5kw. Its certainly less than the load a cooker spur - rated on
a 40A 45A or 60A trip - could handle.

A fast charge at a service station WOULD be a challenge. If the batteries
would take a half hour charge - after 500 miles you'd need that sort of
break anyway - you are looking at 100KW - say 300A at mains voltages.

Chances are however in the UK that 500 miles is all you would ever need to
do in a day. Keeping your 'tank full' would be basically what you would do
every night.

Sadly this makes 'on street' parking a thing of the past :-) No bad thing
anyway IMHO.

On street users would have to drive to Tescos and charge their once a week
while they did their shopping :-)

Or get the AA out with their 400KW batteries and get a 'tankful'..or at
least enough to get them to where they could charge.

Cost of cells and operations
Mmm. This is the current killer. I paid about $6 per watt hour for a
bargain buy. that puts the cost of the 50kWh pack at $300,000 in terms of
what is currently actually in production. Say £200k. ;-)

Motors? well a halfway decent vacuim cleaner motor is about 50 quid for a
couple of bhp so 5 grand should net you 200bhp of electric motors. Not an
issue there.

We reckon to get 200-300 cycles out of a pack...at 500 miles range, that
comes out to 100,000-150,000 miles. Acceptable. Amortise the pack cost even
at 200,000 pounds, and you are up to a shade over 2pounds a mile. That is
not cost effective, but its not so far outside what would be cost effective
on a big luxury car (and I think that is where this sort of thing may
actually come in first - not in town cars, but in big Lexus style cars,
where the utter smoothness of the electric drives will be seen as a great
benefit) When you consider that there should actually be - apart from
possibly brake pad and tyre changes NO SERVICE COSTS AT ALL (ok, maybe a
squirt of oil and grease somewhere..) it actually gets to look a bit more
sensible.

Conclusions

Apart from inertia, and battery costs,nothing is stopping anyone from
building a top class electric car.. the technology exists to build an
electric car that would certainly perform as well as, and in many ways
better than, a current state of the art diesel, with no worse overall fuel
economy from oil well to street mile, and conceivably better.

It could be charged overnight, have a top speed in excess of 120mph, a
performance rivalling any car in the 200bhp class, and have a 500 mile
range driven reaosnably gently (and with the whole motor system under
computer control, thats nothing more than setting a switch..)

Its oin-street pollution would be zero, and due to the fact that the power
stations can certainly act more realistically to sink carbon and have
higher thermal efficiencies than a car can, its overall pollution would be
less.

If nuclear power to generate electricity comes along - or other green
energy generation methods - it has to be seen in a new light: How does it
compare with

- biofuels
- nuclear electric to hydrogen in IC engines
- nuclear electric to hydrogen in fuel cell electrics

It matches biofuels directly in the same way as burning diesels does now.
I.e. not a lot in it. Once you burn biodiesel you end up with the overall
20-40% efficiency. The more efficient power station is offset by the losses
in transmission and charging.

It knocks the spots of hydrogen, because fuel cell efficiences are simply
limited by the same sorts of efficiency limits that limit heat engines.
With hydrogen you get a double whammy - creating it is inefficient and so
is burning it. If we didn't have suitable batteries, it woild be the only
answer ...but we do..

Batteries are simply the best way to store electrical energy bar none in
terms of efficiency. And lithium batteries are small enough and light
enough for all but extremely high power or long duration use. I.e. not for
boats, and not for aircraft Well not airliners. I reckon that if it hasn't
happened already, the first man carry ing microlight or glider powered by
lithium batteries is months away only.


Why aren't peole doing it?

I think two reasons

Firstly, the 'green' tag is flawed unless the electricity comes from other
than fossil sources. As I feel I have demostrated that the overall fuel
efficiency is similar to class diesel car. (performance is BETTER though
;-))

Cost. The batteries are simply way too expensive right now. Ther is
however absolutely no reason why they should be...there is nothing
intrinsically expensive about a lithium polymer battery. In massive
volumes, one might expect them to be cheaper than lead acid batteries
ultimately.

This is why I think Tzero have the better approach, and the Priuset al are
deeply flawed from a marketing perspective. Electric cars have not actually
- until mated with a nuclear generating backbone - got any green points to
make. What they do offer, is extaordinary peak power to weight ratios, but
good econonmy at cruise, coupled with almost vibration and noise free
operation. That puts them straight into the luxury market.

ULTIMATELY when the batteries are cheap you wiill see them being turned out
as mass market shopping trolleys, but not yet. The high level of
development money needs to be recouped in more profitable markets.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

Does all this reduce the 10 mile by 3 hour traffic queues on
the M6, M1, M62, M25 et al at all?

Chris.

wrote in message
oups.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on
the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

Does all this reduce the 10 mile by 3 hour traffic queues on
the M6, M1, M62, M25 et al at all?

NO. just just don't choke in them.

On 29 Nov 2005 11:56:19 -0800, wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

Does all this reduce the 10 mile by 3 hour traffic queues on
the M6, M1, M62, M25 et al at all?

Chris.

No, not directly.

You reduce those by staying at home more. Or dying .

However it should reduce the fuel wasted in sitting in them.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .

I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

Oh I nearly fell asleep after reading that message. Can you get to the
point in a few lines ?
Stick to a diesel car, far more economical than running an electric one.

"gtl" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .

I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on
the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that
those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

Oh I nearly fell asleep after reading that message. Can you get to the
point in a few lines ?
Stick to a diesel car, far more economical than running an electric one.

Nope. Toyota Prius knocks them for 6.

"gtl" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .

I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on
the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that
those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

Oh I nearly fell asleep after reading that message. Can you get to the
point in a few lines ?
Stick to a diesel car, far more economical than running an electric one.

Don't underestimate electric vehicles. Batteries have come a long way, and
the laest technology has no relatio to the outdated lead/acid battery in
your car. In addition to the extened range, Toshiba recently announced
Lithium batteries that can charge to 80% in one minute, and fully charge in
5. Electricity is a way more efficient way of generating motion than petrol
or derv. Using petrol or derv to make steam, turn a generator, and put the
electricity in a car is more efficient than putting petrol or derv directly
into a car. Electricity can also be generated from motion of the car itself,
regenerative breaking, which petrol or derv can't do. Electric cars are
vastly superior to petrol in maintenance costs. They require no
transmissions, no cooling systems, no oil changes, and with periodic battery
replacements, will last forever. Then the ride: smooth, silent, vibration
free. That alone is a great environmental plus.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Don't underestimate electric vehicles. Batteries have come a long way,
and the laest technology has no relatio to the outdated lead/acid
battery in your car.

Ever wondered why even the most expensive cars still use lead acid?

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:20:10 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Don't underestimate electric vehicles. Batteries have come a long way,
and the laest technology has no relatio to the outdated lead/acid
battery in your car.

Ever wondered why even the most expensive cars still use lead acid?

Because its cheap and good enough.
To staert the engine.

Ever wondered why the most exoensive cars are still made of steel, when a
real performance car is made of alumnium, titanium, and carbon fibre,.

Yup. Yuu guessed it BECAUSE ITS CHEAP, AND GOOD ENOUGH.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:20:10 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) through a
haze of senile flatulence wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Don't underestimate electric vehicles. Batteries have come a long way,
and the laest technology has no relatio to the outdated lead/acid
battery in your car.

Ever wondered why even the most expensive cars still use lead acid?

Because its cheap and good enough.
To staert the engine.

Richard thinks the battery propels the car. He does.

Ever wondered why the most exoensive cars are still made of steel, when a
real performance car is made of alumnium, titanium, and carbon fibre,.

Yup. Yuu guessed it BECAUSE ITS CHEAP, AND GOOD ENOUGH.

Steel is not good enough. It is heavy. When energy becomes more expensive
steel will be dropped.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ever wondered why even the most expensive cars still use lead acid?

Because its cheap and good enough.
To staert the engine.

Even on an expensive sports car where they go to all sorts of lengths to
save weight? And then there's the problem that many of these 'new'
batteries simply don't work at low temperatures. Fine in California, but
not in whole chunks of the rest of the world...

Ever wondered why the most exoensive cars are still made of steel, when a
real performance car is made of alumnium, titanium, and carbon fibre,.

Yup. Yuu guessed it BECAUSE ITS CHEAP, AND GOOD ENOUGH.

There are plenty of newer expensive cars making much use of aluminium etc.
Even Jaguar. ;-) They've been somewhat of a pioneer in this. The snag is
it makes repair methods extremely expensive which in turn will push up
insurance premiums.

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Don't underestimate electric vehicles. Batteries have come a long way,
and the laest technology has no relatio to the outdated lead/acid
battery in your car.

Ever wondered why even the most expensive cars still use lead acid?

Richard, they use them tio make the car go?

** snip senile ramblings **

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Electric cars are
vastly superior to petrol in maintenance costs. They require no
transmissions, no cooling systems, no oil changes, and with periodic battery
replacements, will last forever. Then the ride: smooth, silent, vibration
free. That alone is a great environmental plus.

What is the cost of the battery replacement? What is the environmental
impact of replacing these batteries?

With regard to crashes - the rescue services have problems with hyrbid
vehicles as often very high current cables are run through the bodywork,
making cutting people out very difficult, as they cannot just cut
anywhere as they currently can.

D

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Electric cars are
vastly superior to petrol in maintenance costs. They require no
transmissions, no cooling systems, no oil changes, and with periodic
battery
replacements, will last forever. Then the ride: smooth, silent,
vibration
free. That alone is a great environmental plus.

What is the cost of the battery replacement? What is the environmental
impact of replacing these batteries?

New batteries are made of plastic. They also last a long time.

With regard to crashes - the rescue services
have problems with hyrbid vehicles as often
very high current cables are run through the bodywork,
making cutting people out very difficult, as they cannot just cut
anywhere as they currently can.

Then they just disable the battery by cutting the cable.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What is the cost of the battery replacement? What is the environmental
impact of replacing these batteries?

New batteries are made of plastic. They also last a long time.

Is that as long as a tank of petrol? Or as long as the average IC engine?
Or just a piece of string?

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:23:02 +0000, David Hearn wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Electric cars are
vastly superior to petrol in maintenance costs. They require no
transmissions, no cooling systems, no oil changes, and with periodic battery
replacements, will last forever. Then the ride: smooth, silent, vibration
free. That alone is a great environmental plus.

What is the cost of the battery replacement?

At the moment, vast

What is the environmental
impact of replacing these batteries?

Not vast. FAR nicer than batteries with lead or cadmium in them.

The main components of li-ion batteries are aluminium and carbon
electrodes, and a lithium salt. Lithium salts comprise a huge amount of
the earths crust and ecosystem, and are stable and inert. Calcium
carbonate, soueum carbonate, lithium carbonate. Not exactly a set of words
to isnpire panic in the eco-geeks are they?



Ther eare some organic electiolytes in their as well. Nothing too exciting.



With regard to crashes - the rescue services have problems with hyrbid
vehicles as often very high current cables are run through the bodywork,
making cutting people out very difficult, as they cannot just cut
anywhere as they currently can.


That is certainly an issue.

I have considerd that, and think that teh wy to go is a modular power pack,
with every module having some electronics on it to isolarte it..and
probably carsh sensors on each one that essentially make the thing dead
outside of its internals.

..Ive used tehse cells extensivley, and they CAN go up on flames. The
electrolytes fir ukltra high discharge are fairly flammable.

Thigs get better when a somewhat lower discharge rate cell is specified.
These are not so explosive.

Les than petrol perhaps.



You cannot cut through a full tank of petrol either...

D

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:10:43 GMT, gtl wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .

I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

Oh I nearly fell asleep after reading that message. Can you get to the
point in a few lines ?
Stick to a diesel car, far more economical than running an electric one.

The point is, theres nothing to choose between them until you end up with
nio fossil fuel, when te electric has a huge advantage efficiency wise,

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
.. .

I thought I would start a new thread..because having found the data on the
Tzero, it bears a bit more discussion.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf

They got - at an average speed of 50mph - a figure of 217Wh per mile

Now I accept that they were probably driving in the sort of way that those
idiots trying to 60mpg out of skoda diesels drive..but its still a data
point.

That means to achieve 500 miles range they would need just 10KWh.

This on a 200bhp sports car..

I still reckon that to get serious range at sensible power levels you need
around 50KWh.

Even taking my tiddly little lithium batteries at 150Wh/kg, thats only
333kg. and about 167 liters of space. (I just measured mine. 36Wh in 120
cc
of volume)

Thats a cinch to fit in a car. Under the floor. I mean a petrol tank is 60
liters in a decent one..this is not even three times that.

Add in lets say a kilowatt per kg of the rest of the power train (easily
achievable) the motor(s) and control gear would weigh in around 150kg

so about 483kg for the 200bhp power train.

Thats the practicaliies

Now for fuel efficiency and economy.

Comparison with diesel at 10kw/litre
(http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm) shows that to be *as
efficient* that diesel ought to be able to do a 100 miles on just two
liters of fuel. In fact its more like two GALLONS showing that the diesel
is, with respect to the electric car (neglecting charging and generation
inefficiencies) about 27% efficient. That bears out my gut feeling that a
diesel is at its very very best, capable of about 40% thermal efficiency,
and is probably operating at less than 30% even in the most favourable
regimes. And far far worse idling at traffic lights :-)

taking not the 200Wh/mile figure, but somethig nearer 400Wh per mile, as
being realistic and figuring on an overall 80% charge efficiency, you get
2
miles per unit of electrical input. So whats that - 5p a mile worst case.
At sort of off peak prices you might be down to 1.5p a mile or better.

With diesel at £3.42 a gallon and doing 50mpg, thats 6.8p a mile.

Overall energy efficiency.

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel
consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Charging issues

to charge 50kWh overnight in ten hours is a peak rate of 5Kw. Somewhat
beyond a 13A socket, ...but NOT beyond a 13A ring, which is typically
rated
at 30A or 7.5kw. Its certainly less than the load a cooker spur - rated
on
a 40A 45A or 60A trip - could handle.

A fast charge at a service station WOULD be a challenge. If the batteries
would take a half hour charge - after 500 miles you'd need that sort of
break anyway - you are looking at 100KW - say 300A at mains voltages.

Chances are however in the UK that 500 miles is all you would ever need to
do in a day. Keeping your 'tank full' would be basically what you would do
every night.

Sadly this makes 'on street' parking a thing of the past :-) No bad thing
anyway IMHO.

On street users would have to drive to Tescos and charge their once a week
while they did their shopping :-)

Or get the AA out with their 400KW batteries and get a 'tankful'..or at
least enough to get them to where they could charge.

Cost of cells and operations
Mmm. This is the current killer. I paid about $6 per watt hour for a
bargain buy. that puts the cost of the 50kWh pack at $300,000 in terms of
what is currently actually in production. Say £200k. ;-)

Motors? well a halfway decent vacuim cleaner motor is about 50 quid for a
couple of bhp so 5 grand should net you 200bhp of electric motors. Not an
issue there.

We reckon to get 200-300 cycles out of a pack...at 500 miles range, that
comes out to 100,000-150,000 miles. Acceptable. Amortise the pack cost
even
at 200,000 pounds, and you are up to a shade over 2pounds a mile. That is
not cost effective, but its not so far outside what would be cost
effective
on a big luxury car (and I think that is where this sort of thing may
actually come in first - not in town cars, but in big Lexus style cars,
where the utter smoothness of the electric drives will be seen as a great
benefit) When you consider that there should actually be - apart from
possibly brake pad and tyre changes NO SERVICE COSTS AT ALL (ok, maybe a
squirt of oil and grease somewhere..) it actually gets to look a bit more
sensible.

Look at:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002435.html
The Toshiba battey can be charged to 80% in a few minutes.

Conclusions

Apart from inertia, and battery costs,nothing is stopping anyone from
building a top class electric car.. the technology exists to build an
electric car that would certainly perform as well as, and in many ways
better than, a current state of the art diesel, with no worse overall fuel
economy from oil well to street mile, and conceivably better.

Also the smoothness and silence which a diesel tractor like engines just
can't get. Then servicing that costs of a small check and check the brakes
and running gear. Cheaper to service and far more reliable. The car will
also be much better designed as no large engine/transmission.

It could be charged overnight, have a top speed in excess of 120mph, a
performance rivalling any car in the 200bhp class, and have a 500 mile
range driven reaosnably gently (and with the whole motor system under
computer control, thats nothing more than setting a switch..)

Its oin-street pollution would be zero, and due to the fact that the power
stations can certainly act more realistically to sink carbon and have
higher thermal efficiencies than a car can, its overall pollution would be
less.

If nuclear power to generate electricity comes along - or other green
energy generation methods - it has to be seen in a new light: How does it
compare with

- biofuels
- nuclear electric to hydrogen in IC engines
- nuclear electric to hydrogen in fuel cell electrics

It matches biofuels directly in the same way as burning diesels does now.
I.e. not a lot in it. Once you burn biodiesel you end up with the overall
20-40% efficiency. The more efficient power station is offset by the
losses
in transmission and charging.

It knocks the spots of hydrogen, because fuel cell efficiences are simply
limited by the same sorts of efficiency limits that limit heat engines.
With hydrogen you get a double whammy - creating it is inefficient and so
is burning it. If we didn't have suitable batteries, it woild be the only
answer ...but we do..

Batteries are simply the best way to store electrical energy bar none in
terms of efficiency. And lithium batteries are small enough and light
enough for all but extremely high power or long duration use. I.e. not
for
boats, and not for aircraft Well not airliners. I reckon that if it hasn't
happened already, the first man carry ing microlight or glider powered by
lithium batteries is months away only.

Why aren't peole doing it?

I think two reasons

Firstly, the 'green' tag is flawed unless the electricity comes from other
than fossil sources. As I feel I have demostrated that the overall fuel
efficiency is similar to class diesel car. (performance is BETTER though
;-))

Cost. The batteries are simply way too expensive right now. Ther is
however absolutely no reason why they should be...there is nothing
intrinsically expensive about a lithium polymer battery. In massive
volumes, one might expect them to be cheaper than lead acid batteries
ultimately.

This is why I think Tzero have the better approach, and the Priuset al are
deeply flawed from a marketing perspective.

I think you are wrong. The marketing is right for the time. Toyota, and
others, would not put on a mains charging plug as this would give it the
wrong image. That is changing. What concerns people is having a flat
battery miles from nowhere, and charging from the mains (fine if you have a
garage or car port). There are no few minute recharge stations about yet
(the Toshiba battery). Many want the hybrid with larger batteries and a
mains charger as an alternative. A Califorinan company has installed a
charging point and larger Lith Ion batteries and getting 120mph (US), which
is more in UK gallons. The overnight charging is very cheap.
http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

Tzero cars would benefit from a small high efficient free wheeling piston
(the only moving part) Stirling engine that charges the batteries, when they
get to a certain low level. A Steam Cell could also be used for charging.
http://www.enginion.com/en/index.html A Stirling or Steam Cell is very
small.

Electric cars have not actually
- until mated with a nuclear generating backbone - got any green points to
make. What they do offer, is extaordinary peak power to weight ratios, but
good econonmy at cruise, coupled with almost vibration and noise free
operation. That puts them straight into the luxury market.

They do not pollute at point of use. That is a GREAT advantage. Towns and
cities, where millions of lungs are exposed, are instantly cleaned up.

ULTIMATELY when the batteries are cheap you wiill see them being turned
out
as mass market shopping trolleys, but not yet. The high level of
development money needs to be recouped in more profitable markets.

You are way behind. Mitsubishi are developing EV cars right now. The
batteries will be in place by the time their cars come to market in 4 to 5
years time.
http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000730048453/

This is an all new dedicated electric in design of body and mechanicals to
take advantage of the technology.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:18:42 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"

A Califorinan company has installed a
charging point and larger Lith Ion batteries and getting 120mph (US)

A 4 pack of 40 litre AA Duracells please.


--

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:18:42 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"

A Califorinan company has installed a
charging point and larger Lith Ion batteries
and getting 120mph (US)

A 4 pack of 40 litre AA Duracells please.

Lord Hall, are you into electric cars now? Do you think a Makita would
propel one?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:15:47 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:18:42 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"

A Califorinan company has installed a
charging point and larger Lith Ion batteries and getting 120mph (US)

A 4 pack of 40 litre AA Duracells please.


Again drivel is probably randomly correct in this instance.

A pack of 40 liter duracells would neither get you the power nor the range
of the Lithium cells.


Anyway, ou will be able to judge for yourselves, The first power tools
wioth Li-Ion batteries are due to hit the shops about now.

Thats the first consumer 'power' application apart from RC aircraft to
actually use them in anger...prices should be a LOT better once you guys
have all bought them.

Mobile phones and laptops have had them for a few years now.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:15:47 +0000, Matt wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:18:42 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"

A Califorinan company has installed a
charging point and larger Lith Ion batteries and getting 120mph (US)

A 4 pack of 40 litre AA Duracells please.


Again drivel is probably randomly correct in this instance.

Our resident snot is coming out with the snides again.now.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Its on-street pollution would be zero,

No, it wouldn't be.

Why aren't peole doing it?

Because there are no advantages over similar cars with IC engines.

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to
the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile
is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel
consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

Its on-street pollution would be zero,

No, it wouldn't be.

It would. Clean at point of use.

Why aren't peole doing it?

Because there are no advantages over similar cars with IC engines.

You are confused. Please read all again.

The message ws.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

You can't have it both ways Dribble. If electric motors were 100%
efficient there would be no waste heat at all.

With hub mounted electric motors recovery of any waste heat would be a
problem and unsprung weight is traditionally considered undesirable so
why are hub motors the obvious choice?

To change the subject somewhat I remember reading an article in a
technical journal back in 1961 that suggested that hydraulic motors were
the way to go but that never caught on either.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ws.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

You can't have it both ways Dribble. If electric motors were 100%
efficient there would be no waste heat at all.

Roger, keep you hand on your washing machine motor for while. Or keep it
there for a few hours.

With hub mounted electric motors recovery of any waste heat would be a
problem and unsprung weight is traditionally considered undesirable so
why are hub motors the obvious choice?

One inboard motor can be utilised with a small diff. More Rogerness to
follow...

To change the subject somewhat I remember reading an article in a
technical journal back in 1961 that suggested that hydraulic motors were
the way to go but that never caught on either.

Yes that was Rogerness all right.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
One inboard motor can be utilised with a small diff.

Explain how a high torque motor gets away with a small diff? Add gearing
to reduce the torque? What ever happened to your gearless car...

More Rogerness to follow...

We can certainly expect much more drivel.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:11:05 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



One inboard motor can be utilised with a small diff.

Oh, like my Enfield 8000 electric 'Moke' you mean?

And the 'small electric motor' in there is about 18" long (about the
same as the 1300 in my kit car) about 12" diameter (similar width..)
and far too heavy to lift. Oh, and propells the Moke to 30 mph for 20
miles on 1/2 tonne of semi traction batteries.

Oh and it's freezing in the winter ... ;-(

All the best ..

Timmy (EV owner / driver for nearly 20 years) ;-)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:45:15 GMT, Roger wrote:

The message ws.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

You can't have it both ways Dribble. If electric motors were 100%
efficient there would be no waste heat at all.

With hub mounted electric motors recovery of any waste heat would be a
problem and unsprung weight is traditionally considered undesirable so
why are hub motors the obvious choice?

They aren't that heavy. I am not decided as to whether they are better or
worse.

To an extend its possible to integrate them with the wheel rims. IN a
typical multipole 3 phase motor the magnets are arranged inside a drum
whilst the stator comprises a bunch of interlinked coils. The chief weight
is the magnets on the rim, and the actual ironwork of the stator.

This is a simple arrangement..and easily allows one motor per wheel which
provides excellent traction..whether or not a more complce and heavy system
with a centrally mounted motor and shafts and maybe a reduction gear -
probably more efficient in terms of the motor - is worth the added weight
and complexity - is a moot point.



To change the subject somewhat I remember reading an article in a
technical journal back in 1961 that suggested that hydraulic motors were
the way to go but that never caught on either.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:45:15 GMT, Roger wrote:

With hub mounted electric motors recovery of any waste heat would be a
problem and unsprung weight is traditionally considered undesirable so
why are hub motors the obvious choice?

They aren't that heavy. I am not decided as to whether they are better or
worse.

To an extend its possible to integrate them with the wheel rims. IN a
typical multipole 3 phase motor the magnets are arranged inside a drum
whilst the stator comprises a bunch of interlinked coils. The chief weight
is the magnets on the rim, and the actual ironwork of the stator.

This is a simple arrangement..and easily allows one motor per wheel which
provides excellent traction..whether or not a more complce and heavy system
with a centrally mounted motor and shafts and maybe a reduction gear -
probably more efficient in terms of the motor - is worth the added weight
and complexity - is a moot point.

Motors in the wheels mean considerable unsprung weight in the wheels.
This in turn means much poorer road holding. Its fine for city buses,
but used as a general runaround youre going to sacrifice a good bit of
road handling ability. It'll be like going from a car to a commercial
in terms of handling / roadholding.

Not that thats really a big problem, but public perception might be,
after being used to cars of such high performance today. People will
need to go back to the once universal ways of driving cars to their
limits at normal travel speeds much of the time. Those without the
brain to do that, and there are certainly some, will come acropper from
their failure, so in short, poorer handling equals lower safety levels
and higher death rates specific to your new design.


NT

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:52:27 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

And in summer you melt


--

"Matt" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:52:27 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

And in summer you melt

Lord Hall, do you keep your heater on full in summer in your appalling car?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:31:12 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Matt" aka Matt wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:52:27 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

And in summer you melt

Lord Hall, do you keep your heater on full in summer in your appalling car?

I'm not Lord Hall. But in answer to your question, no I drop the top
or use the air conditioning or when I feel like it do both.


--

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

And in summer you melt

Lord Hall, do you keep your heater on full in summer in your appalling
car?

Of course not. You run the air conditioning to keep those hot electric
motors cool...

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

How much heat does the average car heater give out on full?
How much insulation do you have on a weight saving electric design?
When will you think these things through rather than blindly accepting
wild claims in ads?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:19:06 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

How much heat does the average car heater give out on full?
How much insulation do you have on a weight saving electric design?
When will you think these things through rather than blindly accepting
wild claims in ads?

Well I'll amswer what Drivel can't.

At say 250Wh per mile and an average speed of 60miles an hour, the actual
power input is 15KW. Or 20bhp. Which sounds about right.At 90% efficiency
you are losing 1.5KW. More than enough to heat the car IF you could get the
heat from the motors to the car interior.

Its possible to wind the motirs not with wire, but with small bore copper
tube and pass coolant thriugh them, but its complex and makes the motors
larger and higher resistance (less efficient).

So its feasiable, but I don;t think its necessarily practicable. I think it
might increase the motor losses anway - its probably better to simply take
an electrical heat pump and use it to heat or cool the interior depending
on whether ambient is above or below desired heat levels.

Becasue motor heat output is not that huge, and falls away to nowt at
'idle'

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:19:06 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

How much heat does the average car heater give out on full?
How much insulation do you have on a weight saving electric design?
When will you think these things through rather than blindly accepting
wild claims in ads?

Well I'll amswer what Drivel can't.

At say 250Wh per mile and an average speed of 60miles an hour, the actual
power input is 15KW. Or 20bhp. Which sounds about right.At 90% efficiency
you are losing 1.5KW. More than enough to heat the car IF you could get the
heat from the motors to the car interior.

Its possible to wind the motirs not with wire, but with small bore copper
tube and pass coolant thriugh them, but its complex and makes the motors
larger and higher resistance (less efficient).

So its feasiable, but I don;t think its necessarily practicable. I think it
might increase the motor losses anway - its probably better to simply take
an electrical heat pump and use it to heat or cool the interior depending
on whether ambient is above or below desired heat levels.

Becasue motor heat output is not that huge, and falls away to nowt at
'idle'

or perhaps add a shroud over 2 motors, and air duct from motor to
interior. Forward movement then causes warm to be blown into the
interior. A backup fan is needed during short stops, and electric
heating for longer stops. All easy to control automatically.


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Electric motors give off heat. This can be harnessed.

How much heat does the average car heater give out on full?

Oh a quiz. Richard Cranium does like to have fun.

** snip senility **
How much insulation do you have on a weight saving electric design?
When will you think these things through rather than blindly accepting
wild claims in ads?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:49:15 +0000, Nick Finnigan wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Same aplies to any car. You don;t need more than 500w or so to heat a car.

Heating it for an hour is thes ame fuel used as travelling two miles.


Its on-street pollution would be zero,

No, it wouldn't be.


Why not?

Why aren't peole doing it?

Because there are no advantages over similar cars with IC engines.

At least you have that partly right. There is no overall cost benefit to
the user at this point, because the cost saved in diesel tax is used up in
the capital cost of batteries.

But you obviously didn't want to read what I write carefully, merely offer
snide comments.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:49:15 +0000, Nick Finnigan wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to
the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile
is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel
consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Same aplies to any car. You don;t need more than 500w or so to heat a car.

Cars contain absolutely no thermal insulation, because engines have masses
of surplus heat. Once heating the car is draining energy away, then a layer
of insulation be fitted to the inner side of the panels.

Heating it for an hour is thes ame fuel used as travelling two miles.


Its on-street pollution would be zero,

No, it wouldn't be.


Why not?

Why aren't peole doing it?

Because there are no advantages over similar cars with IC engines.

At least you have that partly right. There is no overall cost benefit to
the user at this point, because the cost saved in diesel tax is used up in
the capital cost of batteries.

But you obviously didn't want to read what I write carefully, merely offer
snide comments.

And snide comments they were.