Will Electric Vehicles Work For Us?

In article .com>,
"John S." > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "John S." > wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30% range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient and
> > > > > > > > > > charging
> > > > > > > > > > losses with
> > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as 0.1% ! ).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of the
> > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > energy of the
> > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the kinetic
> > > > > > > > > engergy
> > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not recover
> > > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it for a
> > > > > > > moment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of the
> > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be using
> > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
> > > > > statement.
> > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs when
> > > > > the
> > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is moving,
> > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant while
> > > > the cars speed remains constant.
> > >
> > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking will in
> > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be
> > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a
> > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that
> > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
> > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
> > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
> > > situations.
> >
> > There's your problem:
> >
> > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object)
> > to a given speed."
> >
> > That statement is incorrect.
> >
> > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation
> > to something else.
>
> Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
> only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
> braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.

No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that, but
the OP made no such implication

You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.

>
>
> >
> > --
> > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "John S." > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > "John S." > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30% range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient and
> > > > > > > > > > > charging
> > > > > > > > > > > losses with
> > > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as 0.1% ! ).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > energy of the
> > > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > engergy
> > > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not recover
> > > > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it for a
> > > > > > > > moment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of the
> > > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be using
> > > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
> > > > > > statement.
> > > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is moving,
> > > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant while
> > > > > the cars speed remains constant.
> > > >
> > > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking will in
> > > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be
> > > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a
> > > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that
> > > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
> > > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
> > > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
> > > > situations.
> > >
> > > There's your problem:
> > >
> > > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object)
> > > to a given speed."
> > >
> > > That statement is incorrect.
> > >
> > > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation
> > > to something else.
> >
> > Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
> > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
> > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.
>
> No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that, but
> the OP made no such implication
>
> You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
> continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
> vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
> recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
> which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.


Will you please go back and read the thread....

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> > > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

In article . com>,
"John S." > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "John S." > wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > charging
> > > > > > > > > > > > losses with
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as 0.1%
> > > > > > > > > > > > ! ).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > energy of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the
> > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > engergy
> > > > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not
> > > > > > > > > recover
> > > > > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it
> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > moment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
> > > > > > > statement.
> > > > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is
> > > > > > moving,
> > > > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > the cars speed remains constant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking will
> > > > > in
> > > > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be
> > > > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to move
> > > > > a
> > > > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that
> > > > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
> > > > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
> > > > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
> > > > > situations.
> > > >
> > > > There's your problem:
> > > >
> > > > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object)
> > > > to a given speed."
> > > >
> > > > That statement is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation
> > > > to something else.
> > >
> > > Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
> > > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
> > > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.
> >
> > No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that, but
> > the OP made no such implication
> >
> > You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
> > continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
> > vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
> > recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
> > which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.
>
>
> Will you please go back and read the thread....

Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
underline what you think I've missed...

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "John S." > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article .com>,
> > > "John S." > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain amount
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very* efficient
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > charging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > losses with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as 0.1%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ! ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > energy of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > engergy
> > > > > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not
> > > > > > > > > > recover
> > > > > > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about it
> > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > moment.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
> > > > > > > > statement.
> > > > > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is
> > > > > > > moving,
> > > > > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains constant
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > the cars speed remains constant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking will
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy" will be
> > > > > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to move
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains that
> > > > > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
> > > > > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
> > > > > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
> > > > > > situations.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's your problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other object)
> > > > > to a given speed."
> > > > >
> > > > > That statement is incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in relation
> > > > > to something else.
> > > >
> > > > Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
> > > > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
> > > > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that, but
> > > the OP made no such implication
> > >
> > > You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
> > > continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
> > > vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
> > > recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
> > > which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.
> >
> >
> > Will you please go back and read the thread....
>
> Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
> underline what you think I've missed...
>

Clearly it is otherwise. I'll try once more - Go reread the thread.

In article .com>,
"John S." > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "John S." > wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article .com>,
> > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> > > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > . com>,
> > > > > > > > "John S." > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amount
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficient
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > losses with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.1%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ! ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > engergy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not
> > > > > > > > > > > recover
> > > > > > > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > moment.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be
> > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
> > > > > > > > > statement.
> > > > > > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is
> > > > > > > > moving,
> > > > > > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains
> > > > > > > > constant
> > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > the cars speed remains constant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy"
> > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to
> > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
> > > > > > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
> > > > > > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
> > > > > > > situations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's your problem:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other
> > > > > > object)
> > > > > > to a given speed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That statement is incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in
> > > > > > relation
> > > > > > to something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
> > > > > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
> > > > > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.
> > > >
> > > > No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that,
> > > > but
> > > > the OP made no such implication
> > > >
> > > > You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
> > > > continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
> > > > vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
> > > > recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
> > > > which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will you please go back and read the thread....
> >
> > Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
> > underline what you think I've missed...
> >
>
> Clearly it is otherwise. I'll try once more - Go reread the thread.

I'll try once mo

Since you claim you *know* precisely what I missed, quote it.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "John S." > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> > In article .com>,
>> > "John S." > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Alan Baker wrote:
>> > > > In article . com>,
>> > > > "John S." > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
>> > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > . com>,
>> > > > > > "John S." > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eeyore >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John S." wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The real issue is that it takes a certain
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amount
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > energy to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > car from point a to point b. When we have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transport
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that energy several times there are losses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > efficiency
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffers. We are going to have to work some
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > magic to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall efficiency number above the 20 - 30%
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hovers, no matter the energy source.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electric cars ar themselves ~ 90% efficient.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ummmm...
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...sounds doubtful.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some references.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Check out the efficiency of electric motors !
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The motor controllers these days are *very*
>> > > > > > > > > > > > efficient
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > charging
>> > > > > > > > > > > > losses with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Lithium ion batteries are negligible ( as low as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 0.1%
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ! ).
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I nearly forgot. EVs can also recover a large part
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
>> > > > > > > > > > > > energy of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > vehicle with regenerative braking.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Actually they can recover a certain portion of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > kinetic
>> > > > > > > > > > > engergy
>> > > > > > > > > > > under certain conditions.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Would you care to elaborate ?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Unless the car is going downhill perpetually it could not
>> > > > > > > > > recover
>> > > > > > > > > "a
>> > > > > > > > > large part of the kinetic energy". Come on, think about
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > for a
>> > > > > > > > > moment.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > How do you think regenerative braking works ?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Well, you made the statement that it revcovers a large part
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > kinetic energy of a car. For it to do so it would have to be
>> > > > > > > using
>> > > > > > > regenerative braking almost continually. Hence the downhill
>> > > > > > > statement.
>> > > > > > > However we should know that regenerative braking only occurs
>> > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > electric motor isn't being used to power the car.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > How do you think regen braking works.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry, but you're the one with the thinking problem.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You seem to think that kinetic energy is expended as the car is
>> > > > > > moving,
>> > > > > > but it's not. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 and thus remains
>> > > > > > constant
>> > > > > > while
>> > > > > > the cars speed remains constant.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Good grief. I'll keep it simple. The only time regen braking
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > the words of the original poster "recover the kinetic energy"
>> > > > > will be
>> > > > > in limited situations. Kinetic energy is the energy required to
>> > > > > move
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > car (or other object) to a given speed. The vehicle maintains
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > energy until the speed changes. Regen brakes would by that very
>> > > > > definition not recover any of that kinetic energy in that state.
>> > > > > Common sense would tell us that regen brakes only work in certain
>> > > > > situations.
>> > > >
>> > > > There's your problem:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Kinetic energy is the energy required to move a car (or other
>> > > > object)
>> > > > to a given speed."
>> > > >
>> > > > That statement is incorrect.
>> > > >
>> > > > Kinetic energy is the energy a body *has* due to its motion in
>> > > > relation
>> > > > to something else.
>> > >
>> > > Splitting hairs. The fact remains that kinetic energy is "recovered"
>> > > only under limited situations. The OP made it seem as though regen
>> > > braking was close to a perpetual motion or energy machine.
>> >
>> > No, he didn't. You misunderstanding of the terms let you infer that,
>> > but
>> > the OP made no such implication
>> >
>> > You keep trying to insist that there is kinetic energy that is
>> > continuously being lost. This is not the case. At any given speed, a
>> > vehicle as a set amount of kinetic energy and it is all available for
>> > recovery. The only limitation is the efficiency of the recovery system
>> > which must by the laws of thermodynamics be less than 100% efficient.
>>
>>
>> Will you please go back and read the thread....
>
> Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
> underline what you think I've missed...
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

Oh, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to show how ignorant it is
to post everything posted previously, then have nothing relevant to add.

And I think I've done that.

Steve ;-)

In article >, "Steve B" >
wrote:

<snipping that which is not relevant... ...in this post, anyway>

> >> Will you please go back and read the thread....
> >
> > Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
> > underline what you think I've missed...
> >
> > --
> > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.
>
> Oh, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to show how ignorant it is
> to post everything posted previously, then have nothing relevant to add.
>
> And I think I've done that.
>
> Steve ;-)

Except in this case, the whole point is that the PP to me is telling me
that there is something in the thread I'd missed and I wanted to give
him an opportunity to display it.

So deleting everything would have defeated the very purpose of my post.
Hence, everything previously posted was relevant to what I was posting
and vice versa.

But since it's not directly necessary for this post, I've deleted it.

;-)

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Steve B" >
> wrote:
>
> <snipping that which is not relevant... ...in this post, anyway>
>
>> >> Will you please go back and read the thread....
>> >
>> > Since everything that is salient is still in this post, why don't you
>> > underline what you think I've missed...
>> >
>> > --
>> > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very
>> > carefully" --
>> > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.
>>
>> Oh, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to show how ignorant it
>> is
>> to post everything posted previously, then have nothing relevant to add.
>>
>> And I think I've done that.
>>
>> Steve ;-)
>
> Except in this case, the whole point is that the PP to me is telling me
> that there is something in the thread I'd missed and I wanted to give
> him an opportunity to display it.
>
> So deleting everything would have defeated the very purpose of my post.
> Hence, everything previously posted was relevant to what I was posting
> and vice versa.
>
> But since it's not directly necessary for this post, I've deleted it.
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone.

IS SO!

IS NOT!

IS SO!

IS NOT!

(you get the point)

Steve

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:13:38 -0800, Scott en Aztlán >
wrote:

>Dave Head > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>>> What's amazing to me is the same open mind that can envision
>>>>> multi-quadrillion-dollar orbiting solar shields to stop global warming
>>>>> cannot envision a solar panel on the roof of his garage.
>>>>
>>>>I can envision it, alright, but I can't envision it being cheap enough
>>>>nor provide enough power.
>>>
>>>I see. Where were your cost objections when we were discussing the
>>>upteen billion dollar pricetag for an orbiting space shield?
>>
>>Well... that's different, in that it is something that, assuming global warming
>>_must_ be stopped, is something that just MUST be done.
>>
>>I _still_ don't think it would be ANYWHERE as expensive as y'all were
>>speculating because _somebody_ is gonna figger out a cheap way to orbit and
>>then things will get simple.
>
>Similarly, I don't think installing a solar panel on your garage roof
>to charge your electric car is going to be that bad.

It won't, after a solar cell breakthru that gets the efficiency up and the
price down.

But I just read today on the internet about a house in New Jersey that was
built 100% solar, electrolyzed water to produce hydrogen to feed back into a
fuel cell for use during cloudy times, high-current-draw times, and night-time,
and... it was $500,000 for a 3000 sq. ft house, JUST for the power system. That
was the 1st one, so a lot of 1st time costs are in there, but still, the
estimate is that doing it again would cost $100,000 for the same sort of
electrics.

How'd you like to be the last guy that bought one of those before the breakthru
that makes the electrics cost $10,000 - all of a sudden you aren't going to get
the resale value out of your place that is based on $100,000 of power
generation - it'll be based against the new price of $10,000.

Better to wait for the breakthru, and that's what everyone is doing.

> In the long run,
>the money you save by not having to buy gasoline will pay for the cost
>of the panels.

Nope. I'm averaging about $125 a month for electric, and another $1,600 or so
for oil for heat. So, $1500 + $1600 = $3100. $100,000 / $3,100 = 32 years.
I'm 59 years old, so I likely don't have that long...

but, at $100,000, we're right on the hairy edge of it being worthwhile. I
think there will either be a price or an efficiency breakthru soon that _will_
make it worthwhile.

>Plus you can use the electricity they generate for
>other things when you're not charging your car, saving you even more
>money.

Yep. I think powering the house should be 1st, then the car. Adding the car
is prolly gonna make it get a lot more expensive again, tho. Give it 10 - 20
years... lessee how the price comes down.

>AND the 100% emission-free power will help to reduce global
>warming.

Yep, and achieve energy independence.

>Heck, if they spent that upteen trillion dollars and bought
>everyone solar panels, we wouldn't need the orbiting shield anymore.

Maybe, maybe not. There's a natural component to global warming that _still_
might fry the planet...

Dave Head

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:36:34 +0000, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >Dave Head wrote:
>> >> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>> >> >Dave Head > wrote:
>> >> >>OK, lets say that a viable electric vehicle is on the horizon:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/tech...biz2/index.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The idea is to charge it up and it'll run for 300 miles. It can be fully
>> >> >>charged in 5 minutes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hmm. "it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to
>> >> >drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity". Average cost of
>> >> >electricity is roughly 10 cents per kilowatt/hour. So $9 of
>> >> >electricty is 90kWh. Dump that into a car in 5 minutes and you're
>> >> >pumping about 1 megawatt of power into the car. Color me skeptical.
>> >>
>> >> Well, its a capacitor. Capacitors are very good at flowing big current, in or
>> >> out. Capacitor at 3,500 volts is 285 amps for a megawatt. Yes, there better
>> >> be a hefty substation standing near the recharging station, and yes, they
>> >> better figure out a really safe way to do that without frying people
>> >> accidentally. I still favor the remove and replace the power source and charge
>> >> it elsewhere model. Remove the capacitor, charge it indoors, in the dry, by
>> >> robots that can't be electrocuted. People shouldn't be handling this sort of
>> >> voltage.
>> >
>> >Some modern battery technologies can accept charge that fast too.
>> >http://www.a123systems.com/html/technology.html
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>> Well, great! Electric cars are going to happen, sooner or later, and they'll
>> be high enough power that we're gonna like 'em.
>
>I'm sure this will happen in due course.
>
>The main hurdle remains battery technology.
>
>The main criteria are.....
>Energy density by weight
>Energy density by volume
>Ability to accept fast charge ( and discharge ) - which is related to 'power density'
>Efficiency in the charge-discharge cycle
>Maximum lifetime in years
>Lifetime in charge-discharge cycles
>Lifetime reduction through fast charging
>Self discharge rate

All that. Self-discharge rate might not be as big a deal - solar cells on the
roof of the car _probably would_ sufficiently help that situation (as long as
you don't park in a parking garage...)

>> Efficient solar PV is going to happen, eventually...
>
>Price is actually more important. Due to quantum effects I think the max theoretical
>efficiency lies roughly in the 30-40% range. About double to 3 times what's currently
>commonly available.

Those Japanese guys might still get that 85% efficient optical rectenna to
work, and then things get _real_ interesting.

>> Stuff's happening, and the future looks really bright, I think.
>
>Check out CIGS solar e.g.
>http://www.isetinc.com/cigs.html
>http://www.nanosolar.com/products.htm

Everybody's working on something, eh? Either greatly improved efficiency at
the same price, or greatly reduced price for the same (pitiful) efficiency -
either one will be a great thing - and we'll eventually tell the foreigners to
keep their oil, 'cuz we'll have enough.

Dave Head

>Graham