Conference back40::soapbox

    It can be a charging experience..... I have seen in the early 80's the
    Le Electric car. Neet unit. Not fast... Why?
    

    not fast is typically the result of an exponential increase in the
    amount of power per unit time needed to move a vehicle as the speed
    rises.  batteries in the early '80s simply couldn't discharge that fast
    and still hold enough charge to get you across the parking lot.  things
    have changed.  gm has an electric car that behaves like a small modern
    car, quite sporty, actually, it'll get from zero to 60 in less than 8
    seconds, and it's eerie because it's almost silent.  it has a range of
    about 300 miles, they claim.

    <--- This is the car I saw on this show I was talking about. The car
    was very sporty looking and they said it could fully recharge in 5-6
    hours. I was very impressed.

    
    I used to operate an electric Raymond forklift that absolutely *flew*!
    Of course, that was indoors, so it probably seemed faster than it really
    was.  :^)
    

    There have been times when I've been on the road that I wished I had a
    forklift.
    
    So, you won't get outa my way eh? hehehehehe.

    Friend of mine years ago got ahold of an old "metermaid" three-wheeler 
    Harley, with a dead engine, ended up converting it to an electric
    drive, batteries in the box over the rear wheels. Pretty fast, but not 
    long range. He used to call it his "Electric-Glide" I'm sure that the 
    Harley purists had a definite opinion...
    
    One little nit about electric cars, the pollution generated by an IC
    engine is just being transferred to being generated by the power plant.
    It's not curing the problem, it's just passing the buck...

    No it's not passing the buck. I think Binder stated the fact earlier
    that it's easier to control the emissions from a power plant than
    controlling the emissions of millions of power plants, i.e. cars. Also,
    90 percent of the pollution from vehicles comes from about 10 percent
    which are not running properly.

    I always figured about 99% of pollution from vehicles came from
    trucks, buses, and the like... those things are awful.  They should
    feel free to become the electric trailblazers, but I won't hold
    my breath (unless I'm driving behind one).
    
    Someone in another note mentioned using some kind of "fluids"
    in an electric car that generated the required electricity,
    and could be refilled.  This sounds something like fuel cells (?)...
    I haven't kept up with this technology, but I wonder what the
    fluids are, what the mechanism is, and what the environmental
    impact (including energy-cost-of-production, etc.) of these
    might be?
    
    Looks like it's time to do more research...
    
    Chris

    >Someone in another note mentioned using some kind of "fluids"
    >in an electric car that generated the required electricity,
    >and could be refilled.

    The two fluids have different eletrical makeups. One will readily absorb
    one(or two) electrons per atom and the other will readily give up 1 (or
    two) electrons per atom. 


    They specified a delta of 5 is needed to make
    this technology feasible for the market and they are actively searching for
    the right mix.

    Doug.

    Aha, thanks... this sounds like a cell with liquid electrodes, perhaps
    even molten electrodes.  The industry was starting to do research on
    this back in the 1970's when I worked at Duracell.  Looks like it
    may be starting to bear some practical results.

    Chris

    Not only that, something useful might come out of it too!

    
    Thank you Gi....
    

    the point is still going on in the ttht topic about how kaliph can
    possibly enforce its law about having a certain percentage of the
    vehicles sold there be nonpolluting.
    
    i can see it now.  fleet buyer shows up with purchase order for 100 new
    cars.  dealer sez, "i'm sorry, sir, i can't sell you the chevy caprice
    classics you want because we're behind quota and i have to sell a bunch
    of electric cars or the state will fine me.  how would you like a
    hundred converted geo metros instead?"
    
    right.

    There will have to be some sort of incentives to spur this on.

I'd buy a hundred converted Geos if I could get a genuine set of Hopalong
Cassidy spurs to go along with 'em . . . 

    > the point is still going on in the ttht topic about how kaliph can
    > possibly enforce its law about having a certain percentage of the
    > vehicles sold there be nonpolluting.
    >    
    > i can see it now.  fleet buyer shows up with purchase order for 100 new
    > cars.  dealer sez, "i'm sorry, sir, i can't sell you the chevy caprice
    > classics you want because we're behind quota and i have to sell a bunch
    > of electric cars or the state will fine me.  how would you like a
    > hundred converted geo metros instead?"
    >
    > right.
    
    The point made was that, absent details, you were speculating in
    ignorance.  Sad to see it continue.
    
    No need to thank me.
    
    DougO

    
    
     The logistic nightmare of running wires and plugs every which way to
    accomodate all the users is astronomical!!
    

    >The logistic nightmare of running wires and plugs every which way to
    >accomodate all the users is astronomical!!
    
    Imagine all those people who can't figure out how to program
    their VCRs stuck at home trying to plug their Volkswagen into
    their cable boxes.
    
    A whole new excuse for not going to work: "My car won't charge".
    
    -b

I don't see it as a big deal.
Northern Canada and Alaska have parking lots with overhead wires and 
connectors hanging in front of each parking place. Companies give it to
employees as a benefit, some public lots where it is provided charge for
the use either thru a parking fee or quarter-meters on each connector.
This is of course for engine heaters for cold weather so the drain/usage would 
be lower than to recharge batteries.

Americans very often buy what really should only be a short-distance commuter 
car(the geo comes to mind) and then try to drive cross-country with 4 kids and 
the dog. Then wonder why they aren't happy.
I see the electric rechargeable car as a second car, for the family person who 
drives 38.4 miles per day to and from work. recharge isn't a problem with a 
100 mile+ range car, to and from work, plug in over night.
For the long-distance salesperson or such gasoline powered cars will probably 
remain the rule for quite a while. I would be quite OK if one of my 3 vehicles 
was electric.

Amos

    .16
    
    sad to see your humor detector so badly impaired.
    
    no need to thank me.

    Ran out of juice maybe?

    Well if I could buy one for commuting to work I would. The cars I saw
    looked sleek and were quiet and quick. I want one. I wonder if they
    would make any with a manual transmission?

Electric cars don't have transmissions.

    Why wouldn't they? Why can't they?

    they could.  but they don't need them.  unlike gasoline engines,
    electric motors are capable of idling at zero rpm.  so there's no need
    to disengage the wheels from the prime mover in order to keep the prime
    mover turning over when the wheels are still.  there's also no need to
    disengage and re-engage the system to keep the prime mover turning in a
    relatively narrow band of rpm while varying the speed that the wheels
    go; electric motors are as happy at 10 rpm as they are at 10,000.

    But wouldn't slower rpm's preserve the life of the motor? Also,
    wouldn't a manual transmission be useful in controlling the amount of
    torque applied to the wheels?

   There's a handful of outlets along one wall of the Alewife T station
   parking garage in Cambridge.

   - Jim

>    But wouldn't slower rpm's preserve the life of the motor?

In an electric motor you only have to worry about some bearings and likely
brushes as far as what speed of the motor could wear.  Also the life of a
high-RPM motor may be considered to be longer than that of a low-RPM
motor+tranny combo.

> Also, wouldn't a manual transmission be useful in controlling the amount of
> torque applied to the wheels?

I think the torque of the motor is pretty much constant over its useful RPM
range.  Also, unlike a gas motor this range extends to 0 RPMs.

    I'll bet if they produced a 5 speed manual transmission electric car,
    they'd sell better. I would miss aggressive shifting. 8^)

    
    What the heck would you clutch???

    I don't know why there is nothing happening with the logical interim
    system, until battery technology improves:
    
    An electric drive car that has a small diesel or gasoline generator on
    board. The batteries can be charged when near an outlet, or if on a
    long journey, a nice, small generator starts up and runs at maximum
    efficiency on a constant load to keep the batteries topped up.
    
    The generator could have some clever electronic circuitry to make it
    automatically start up at night, or set times and criteria, to recharge
    the batteries if not connected to power. A generator under constant
    load in this situation is going to be supremely reliable, smooth,
    quiet, efficient and can be tuned for the lowest possible emmissions.
    
    Perhaps designers are too endeared to the all-or-nothing electric only
    approach...

    How many amps at 12v are needed to run a small car at, say, 50mph?

    
    
    Seem like without a clutch we could be looking at a few twisted
    driveshafts (Hey, there's a good name for a band) or broken drving
    mechanisms in these rascals.  
    
    
    Mike

    
    .27
    
    
    already been mentioned...do keep up...
    
    :>
    

  A transmission is still useful even in an electric car. 

  The job of the transmission is to provide "lower gears" which give the engine
a mechanical advantage over the drive train thus trading speed for power. It's
the same as using a crow bar to pry something open. 

  Going up a hill the lower gear would allow a given number of engine RPM's
to provide more power and less speed just as it would a gas or diesel engine. On
the flat, using a higher gear would allow the engine RPMs to result in more
speed when power is not needed. 

  George 

    I agree about the transmission; it would be useful in an electric
    car for the same reason that it's useful in a bicycle.
    
    I'll "speculate" :-) and say that the main reasons you don't see
    transmissions in electric cars are:
    
    1.  There isn't room for a transmission, with all those batteries
        and electric motors.
    2.  Keeps the cars simpler and cheaper.
    3.  Keeps the cars quieter.
    
    Chris

re .35:

At low RPMs, electric motors such as used in electric cars are very "torque-y"
compared to a gas motor of similar HP. 

You'll certainly be able to gain some power/torque by downshifting an electric
car but it will be nowhere near like what you get downshifting a gas motor
where the engine goes from a low RPM low torque state to a higher RPM higher
torque in addition to the multiplication from the tranny.

    if mechanical transmissions are such a good idea, whyizzit that we do
    not see them in multi-thousand-horsepower railroad locomotives?
    
    diesel-electrics use the diesels to drive generators, which in turn
    drive traction motors mounted integrally to the axles.  to get more
    power out of a diesel, they simply crank up the rpm of the prime mover. 
    
    pure electric locomotives are direct drive, with traction motors
    mounted integrally to the axles and drawing power from the catenary or
    third rail.  to get more power out of an electric, they simply draw
    more from the line.
    
    in a car, the motor itself will have plenty of torque - it will simply
    load the batteries more heavily as the driver increases the throttle
    setting.

    I personally prefer a manual transmission as it gives more control of
    the mechanics of the vehicle. Driving in wet snow is when I really
    appreciate my 5 speed.

    Binder, wouldn't a transmission help reduce power consumption? 

    Glenn, driving a mustang in snow is more or less a test of evolutionary
    forces and theories, 5 speed or not.  :-)  BTW, the lack of a manual
    transmission is the primary reason not to own an electric vehicle for
    me.  It gives me something to do.  
    
    Brian 

    .40
    
    > wouldn't a transmission help reduce power consumption?
    
    no.  unlike a gasoline engine, an electric motor draws only as much
    power as it needs to do the job.  since it hasn't all that monkey
    motion to throw back and forth, it is far more efficient than an otto
    cycle engine; the latter pulls in at about 30% best case, and modern
    aluminum-can versions of the former can go as high as 85%.

>    Binder, wouldn't a transmission help reduce power consumption? 

No.

The reason internal combustion engines drive power out through a transmission
is that such engines are both inefficient and unable to provide much torque
outside a small speed range.

Electric motors do not suffer from this.

/john

re .40:

It could increase power consumption overall as transmissions aren't 100%
efficient.

Diesel-electrics don't need transmissions for 2 reasons:  1) The electric
motors are torque-y enough as I mentioned and 2) a transmission to handle
thousands of HP aren't cheap.

Actually the generator-electricity-motor combo in a locomotive _is_ the
transmission for the diesel engine.  I read that this combination is actually
more efficient at this level of horsepower than a standard transmission
would be.

   re: 268.36 <DECWIN::RALTO>

   >I'll "speculate" :-) and say that the main reasons you don't see
   >    transmissions in electric cars are:
   >
   >1.  There isn't room for a transmission, with all those batteries
   >    and electric motors.
   >2.  Keeps the cars simpler and cheaper.
   >3.  Keeps the cars quieter.

       Another reason (maybe it was implied) is the added weight disadvantage
   of a transmission probably out weight any performance advantage.

   Tony

    The first electric I drove was a converted bug.  It was also the last
    electric I drove.  (They didn't let mere underclassmen actually drive
    it too often.)  And my drive was cut short when the lone controller
    battery ran out, and the controller failed over to limp home mode.
    
    (BTW, bonus points to the first person who correctly explains why
    you would *NOT* want to just swap the controller battery and one
    of the many good drive batteries.  They were all identical.  That's
    a hint.)
    
    
    The bug was loaded down with conventional 12 vote lead acid
    batteries and a 300 Amp house fuse.  Probably the heaviest bug ever.
    
    The controler wasn't quite as smart as it should be (dumb EE guys)
    so it was possible (though unlikely) that you could pop the fuse
    by starting it in 4th and asking too much too soon.  (Of course,
    the dumb EE guys thought the fuse popping was a mechanical problem.
    My first project was to design a light proof box to fit around the
    chopper wheel, which they blamed for the fuse pops.  "Stray lights
    confusing the led detector, that's got to be the problem."  It
    wasn't.  So that was my last project as well.)
    
    When they ran gymkanas, they used to replace the fuse with a copper
    bar and run it flat out in 4th.  I never much approved of this practice,
    but since I was regarded as less than a grunt, nobody cared.
    Still odd to remember that bug smoking tires so easily.
    
    
    Electrics are most efficient at rather low RPMs.  They can also
    pull a hell of a lot of torque at low RPMs.  If you have a dumb
    controller (those damn EE guys) you would really like to have
    a gear box.  And if you have a real dumb controller (those
    damn EE guys) you even want a clutch.  Otherwise, you are far
    better off without all the power eating drive train.  (It
    is smart controllers that make the modern diesel electric
    locomotive possible.  Without a smart controller, you could
    spend a long long time going nowhere very fast.)
    
    
    Went on from there to work at SCM labs working on driving a stepper
    motor the right way (with essentially electronic shift points).
    Unfortunatly, the keyboard controller took up way too much ROM,
    so they weren't interested in anything that added a whole 64 bytes.
    And they did like that the existing stepper controller would stall
    if you put a crumpled paper in the way.  My method drove it at
    peak torque all the time and would quite happily run right over
    your fingers.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   (BTW, bonus points to the first person who correctly explains why
>    you would *NOT* want to just swap the controller battery and one
>    of the many good drive batteries.  They were all identical.  That's
>    a hint.)

Well, not being an anything-E,  wouldn't the bad battery drain the other
good batteries, making for a slow push home instead of a slow ride?

Bob

re .47:

If the drive batteries are in series, the bad battery might
get reverse-charged by the others, meaning you'll have to
spring for a new battery after you push it home.
There might even be excitement along the way, depending
on exactly what those batteries do if reverse-charged.

    So an electric engine, in a nutshell, is way more efficient and the only
    limitation is the power supply. Sounds to me like it would be cheaper
    to mass produce such vehicles.
    
    Glenn

RE: 268.32 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR

> How many amps at 12v are needed to run a small car at, say, 50mph?

A small car would need a couple of thousand watts of power to overcome air
and frictional resistances at 50mph.  This would be a couple of hundred
amps at 12 volts,  which explains why electric cars don't use 12 volt
electric systems,  but rather series batteries to get higher voltages.


Phil

    
    The bad battery would not last long enough to get any charge at all.
    To a first approximation, a dead lead acid battery is a resistance
    load.  So it will get hot.
    
    ----
    
    Nota bene - this is the very same reason you shouldn't let your
    kids put batteries in their toys.  Take that silly casio keyboard with
    6 C batteries in series.  They should be in as:
    
    	[+ -][+ -][+ -][+ -][+ -][+ -]
    
    If they kid puts them in this way:
    
    	[+ -][+ -][- +][+ -][+ -][+ -]
    	                 ^
    	                 +---- ooops, this one *will* get hot
    
    								-mr. bill

    Seems to me the best idea so far is based on multiple platform
    technology (sorry!).  Basically using an electric/battery system with 
    a mechanical energy conversion layer (small fueled engine and
    generator), an top the whole package with a light reactive layer (Solar 
    Array).  Again a good controller (operating system) would provide the 
    necessary logic to use the most economical/environmental composite 
    system for energy conversion.....or 
    
    	you could just jack up the back end of everyones gas guzzler, and
    reap the benefits of always driving down-hill.
    
    	The choice is yours!

    I understand that they are working on solar cells that are not
    dependent on the visible light spectrum. This would negate the cloudy
    day problem.

    {Psssst. There's a free Gilliganism there.)

    
    ...and it wouldn't make any difference if the sun weren't shining,
    either!!

    With all the road kill one sees on the highway. Too bad they cannot
    make a roadkill engine. One that molecularizes(sp), burns, or converts
    roadkill to good mile-age....:)
    

    
    I like to have a electric car which drive at maximum speed
    of 35-40Mhr.  Why?  I live in LA and this kind of light weight
    pollution free car is good for city driving and as a second
    car which doesn't go on highway.  I think this is really a
    good idea.  The only problem is how to convince the government
    to allow this kind of car on city road. 

	How about propane as an alternate fuel for internal combustion
	engines?  Several companies have built cars and utility vehicles
	that use this fuel -- Morgan sports roadsters come to mind.  There
	are two benefits.  Propane engines emit only CO2 and water vapor
	and they produce significantly greater power output as compared
	to normal gasoline engines.  The down side is that propane is
	more dangerous to handle than gasoline.  If memory serves me
	correctly, propane powered cars have used a fuel cell tank design
	simular to a race car (metal shell, flexible bladder liner and 
	open cell foam -- 92% void -- filling the liner).

    Propane became quite popular up here in the NOrth Country some  years
    back, until the Government stepped in and taxed propane conversions
    into submission.  Many companies I have talked to recently are having 
    the propane equipment removed, and going back to gas.  The economy just
    isn't there.  In addition propane is inherently dangerous, supported by
    the fact that all underground garages refuse admittance to propane
    powered vehicles.  Even the local hospitals and government buildings
    follow this.  GAs may be brutal on the environment, but basically is
    easier to handle.  Until something better comes along, Propane is just
    a hard sell.

    	Another alternative fuel is hydrogen. Someone somewhere that I read 
    about has a working hydrogen powered car. He has a set up that uses
    electricity to split tap water into H2 and Ox trapping the H2 for use
    in the car. The only byproduct from burning H2 is Water. He drives the 
    car around to show it off, and drinks out of the tailpipe as the final
    demonstration.
    
    	Some thoughts on electric vehicals. To extend range, why couldn't 
    they make batteries easily removeable, so you could exchange depleted
    batteries for fresh ones without actually waiting for the charging
    proccess. You could keep a spare at home always charging, or service
    stations could offer battery changing as a service. You pull in and
    give them your old batteries plus the cost of a charge, and they give
    you fresh ones. Also, what if the braking system was set up to act as a
    generator during braking. The energy of the car could be transformed
    back into electricity by useing the turning wheels to drive the
    generator, then restored in the batteries.
    
    
    								S.R.

re .60:

>    The only byproduct from burning H2 is Water.

And NOx pollution.

Regardless, it's better for hydrogen-powered vehicles to use fuel cells
to generate electricity rather than burn it, this avoids the ~30% efficiency
problem of an internal-combustion engine, as well as NOx.
Assuming the problems of storing hydrogen can be solved.

    <------- You get nitrous oxcide from burning hydrogen? Guess I need to 
    take another Chem class.

RE: 268.62 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE

Air is made of ~20% O2 and ~80% N2.  Burn anything,  or otherwise get air
hot enough to start to break the bonds of N to N,  and then NO,  NO2,  etc
are produced.


Phil

re .62:

Burn anything in air hot enough and some of the nitrogen in air will react
with oxygen in air.  Hydrogen burns hot.

Gasoline contains almost no nitrogen either yet cars still produce
NOx.

    
    
    I saw one idea, just recently. Use the house power to effectively wind
    a spring in the car...Store the electicity as kinetic energy and then
    convert that back to electricly to get the car rolling.
    
    The bonus was the recharge time was much faster.