Are cars like the Tesla Model S the future?

[ginwilly]

There is a book called we almost lost Detroit.

It was about the Enrico FermiII plant that came within seconds of a meltdown. It took 30 years before they would allow the plant to operate at greater than 50%. Our technology has advanced exponentially since the reactors were built in the US. I think Tennessee has built one recently, but we seem to avoid nuclear energy rather than improve it.

The US lags behind when it comes to energy (other than fossil fuels) when we should be leading the way. It's way easier for colleges to get a gov grant to study the affects of global warming on canadian geese than it is to get grants to study improved nuclear power and disposal.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Dude my heli stays up for 15 mins and the battery is a lot of the weight.....lifting weight is way more work than rolling it......of course my rc does not have a heater ac or touch screen radio either lol

And yes pg&e can suck it fuckin .4/Kwh is ludacris can't wait to get back to nuclear and some common sense.

your toy helicopter uses a tiny motor which just turns the blades real fast (high speed low torgue) and the blades do all the work.

to move a car from a dead stop to speed you need a high torgue motor, rather like an oversized power drill motor (your car's starter motor is not strong enough, and you know how fast one of those can kill a fresh 30lb battery)

delivering enough torque to make your car go from zero-~30mph requires a shitload of juice, wh9ich is why you have to ramp on the gas from a stop, but once you get up to cruising speed your gasoline engine consumes FAR less energy than a similar electric motor does at the same steady throttle cruise, because electric motors suck ad delivering low torque energy over a long period of time, while they rock your socks off at delivering a huge impulse against inertia.

TLDR version: combustion motors deliver a less efficient torque impulse from a stop, but rule at delivering power over time, electric motors deliver strong starting torque but suck at cruising.

 

[see4]

TLDR version: combustion motors deliver a less efficient torque impulse from a stop, but rule at delivering power over time, electric motors deliver strong starting torque but suck at cruising.

hybrids are the shiznit yo. doesn't Porsche make a nice hybrid? I should look into that.

 

[Dr Kynes]

hybrids are the shiznit yo. doesn't Porsche make a nice hybrid? I should look into that.

hybrids come in TWO FLAVOURS

ones which use an electric motor to augment the gasoline motor for performance, and those which use a gasoline motor to supplement an electric motor for fuel efficiency.

dumbasses like you who dont know the difference are why "Performance" hybrids get an HOV lane sticker despite being less fuel economical than ordinary non-hybrid passenger cars.

stupid is indiscriminate.

must be the flywheels.

 

[twostrokenut]

How many people have died from coal is irrelevant until you can compare how dangerous nuclear power could be on an equivalent scale.


Yes, nuclear power has been around for a while, and fukushima illustrated my concerns of underbuilt reactors perfectly. It has been and will be around for a while; that lends no validity to it's safety on it's own merits. Due to this fact; you cannot assume all reactors are safer than coal. The final point you addressed was not a trap. I was pointing out that people are not inherently perfect. You cannot assume lack of US radiation issues is due to lack of reported issues.

You said you could not recall any us nuclear radiation pollution. I listed two incidents on record. That renders you premise solidly invalid.

I think the avoidance in the first sentience right up there pretty much invalidates the conversation....yes I said I could not recall any US nuclear radiation pollution, and stand now awaiting the measurable devastation of that vs the measurable devastation of US coal.......or that vs other measurable radiation pollution outside the US.....its like pancakes with no syrup.

Its like arguing pepsi vs coke citing that pepsi makers have more potential for not mixing the formula correctly and this alone should negate the taste test being conducted at the moment.

By now we know with things like the Wolf Zone with greater accuracy what the scale will likely be assuming we use the same tech of old, so to simply throw it out of consideration because of what we supposedly can not predict, but should assume the worst of is a big step backward imo.

I think we even know non-weapons grade fuel is tons safer.

My point was, or should be takes as such that we should be the leading example worldwide for safe nuclear and I think we are doing pretty well at it. Maybe I should say that certain nation-states are instead of we as a whole in the US, and that would be a little more on par for comparison for Fukishima, Japan being one small nation that had a big disaster.

To me it comes down to options as to what produces the electricity to charge the car with, what are they? Whats their cost? Not what is their total global cost but out of pocket for me now. I would like to go ahead and squash the possibility of the comment that I wouldn't consider humanity in my out of pocket cost analysis....I don't have that luxury....I can only put into my car what it takes to power it and consider it a good or service, then weigh the risk and reward of that service on a humanitarian level, including being humanitarian to those lower middle class whose wallet is hit the hardest to pay(finance) for such as green subsidies.


Nuclear is a relatively safe option that is ready now. At least on par with and arguably safer than coal. Coal and fossil fuels are ready now and are getting the job done but debate-ably doing some damage....and debate-ably not.

Solar gives me hope, especially seeing the tech getting better and better and witnessing the plane attempting the round the world trip....and flying at night and charging when cloudy.

So to me for electricity there's two options ready to put the gloves on battle it out and best option wins, all things considered and none rendered simply irrelevant for lack of convenient counterpoints.

Wind and Solar are nowhere close to being contenders at this point.

So for me the question of "is it the way of the future" rest solely on how many miles per dollar do I get vs the only other alternative for me; if the Tesla is cheaper per dollar to operate, how long will it take to recover the initial buy-in?

 

[twostrokenut]

hybrids come in TWO FLAVOURS

ones which use an electric motor to augment the gasoline motor for performance, and those which use a gasoline motor to supplement an electric motor for fuel efficiency.

dumbasses like you who dont know the difference are why "Performance" hybrids get an HOV lane sticker despite being less fuel economical than ordinary non-hybrid passenger cars.

stupid is indiscriminate.

must be the flywheels.

OK so now back to a question I may have asked earlier....before anyone flames me for this one its just a genuine question and keynes you can even make a cartoon durp de derrr pic for me on this one I won't be offended...

....maybe I didn't ask idk but given there are those two types of hybrids and you and I both know what a gas motor can be tuned to ESPECIALLY at a certain RPM......I don't mean broadly tuned for wide load range as a stop and start but still a good highway mpg of 40; I mean a dedicated motor that's tuned to and runs at a dedicated RPM full time to achieve maximum efficiency...theoretical efficiency not just the average Honda EU generator I mean ceramic bearings and all....and using that to charge only, not serving as an alternate start-stop, to find better balance of range vs efficiency of the hybrid?

Would the dedicated gas generator not possibly be able to produce the electricity required to operate the vehicle vs just dumping that gas in a non hybrid tank and would this config be LESS efficient that the two available hybrid configs?

 

[canndo]

As I have said, large ships and gigantic earth movers use diesel engines soley to run generators which power electric moters which prooell the machines. works pretty well. Oh and the large devices use transmissions both to keep the moters in the best or more efficient power range but to keep from needing two directional electrics.

 

[twostrokenut]

Cool canndo thanks for the response....thought you were talking about flywheels then, my bad.

 

[Dr Kynes]

OK so now back to a question I may have asked earlier....before anyone flames me for this one its just a genuine question and keynes you can even make a cartoon durp de derrr pic for me on this one I won't be offended...

....maybe I didn't ask idk but given there are those two types of hybrids and you and I both know what a gas motor can be tuned to ESPECIALLY at a certain RPM......I don't mean broadly tuned for wide load range as a stop and start but still a good highway mpg of 40; I mean a dedicated motor that's tuned to and runs at a dedicated RPM full time to achieve maximum efficiency...theoretical efficiency not just the average Honda EU generator I mean ceramic bearings and all....and using that to charge only, not serving as an alternate start-stop, to find better balance of range vs efficiency of the hybrid?

Would the dedicated gas generator not possibly be able to produce the electricity required to operate the vehicle vs just dumping that gas in a non hybrid tank and would this config be LESS efficient that the two available hybrid configs?

using a gasoline engine to generate electricity for an electric motor is NOT efficient.

again, when you go from a standing stop to speed with an electric motor, they are very effective, but maintaining a steady RPM over time uses EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER as going from zero to cruising speed, while a combustion engine uses more power per joule of delivered torque to get up to speed and then energy consumption drops dramatically at steady throttle cruise.

the most effective hybrids use an electric motor to accelerate, and use a combustion engine to maintain cruising speed over time as well as charge the battery packs which power the electric motor for acceleration. during deceleration the electric motor once again engages, acting as a generator, while the gasoline engine disengages, reclaiming as much of the energy as possible through braking rather than simply casting it off as friction heat like you would with ordinary brakes.

this is a rational question, and not deserving of derision.

it is a matter of the nature of the two different motor designs.

combustion engines consume more energy to accelerate then consumption drops considerably to maintain speed, while electric motors use the same amperage whether accelerating or cruising.

 

[Dr Kynes]

As I have said, large ships and gigantic earth movers use diesel engines soley to run generators which power electric moters which prooell the machines. works pretty well. Oh and the large devices use transmissions both to keep the moters in the best or more efficient power range but to keep from needing two directional electrics.

most earth movers do NOT use electric power to operate, only a few do.

those that do, do so because they need massive torque to operate hydraulic pumps for their booms, dumps and jaws, which electric motors excel at, but i have NEVER seen one that uses electric motors to power the tracks for travel unless they operate indoors where diesel exhaust would be a problem. most earth movers operate on good old reliable diesel.

forklifts which operate indoors often use electrics exclusively (no extraneous flywheels though) because they can run the hydraulics without any additional action, unlike propane diesel or gasoline forklifts which require you to ramp up the gas when operating the hydraulics.

combustion forklifts are MUCH more efficient at traveling distances, are more versatile and run longer between fuel stops than electrics.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Cool canndo thanks for the response....thought you were talking about flywheels then, my bad.

he is still talking about flywheels.

a few very new, very expensive experimental applications use a big spinning inertia wheel to hold power, and use electric motors to bump it back up to speed with short impulses when the big wheel slows down. these systems are new, unproven, and extremely expensive, but they promise quieter, lower maintenance operation for long haul freighters and cruise ships.

until a bearing goes out, then you are fucked.

these solutions COULD work well on water, since weight is not as much of an issue at sea as it is on land.

ships can be so large because they are FLOATING, not riding on suspensions, with bearings struts, steering assemblies and wheels.

it is a standard axiom of nautical engineering: "when mass increases on the cube power needs increase on the square"

this is not true for land or airborne vehicles.

 

[twostrokenut]

True indeed I worked in a dc for a while.....turret operator mostly but the gas lifts were used some mostly outside makes sense about ramping up the gas to lift....so torque gets you up to speed and horsepower keeps you there then?

 

[Dr Kynes]

True indeed I worked in a dc for a while.....turret operator mostly but the gas lifts were used some mostly outside makes sense about ramping up the gas to lift....so torque gets you up to speed and horsepower keeps you there then?

no.

torque is the force impulse against inertia.

horsepower is a result of torque and speed together, measured at the output in work accomplished.

some engines deliver so much torque that they can make the car rock when you ramp on the gas with the clutch in, but thats a result of massive fuel consumption, 90% or better volumetric efficiency, high compression ratios and usually a supercharger.

electric motors of a similar size and power output can do that job MUCH better, since the go from zero to MAXIMUM POWER in the blink of an eye while a combustion engine has to climb up to it's best torque range.

but electric motors are always operating at MAXIMUM POWER from the moment you close the circuit till you open it up gain.

you ever popped the clutch when your starter motor is working? the whole car lurches forward then stops because the motor has been defeated.

if you turn over the starter again youll feel it lurch again then stop because it does not have the ability to throttle up, and thus is defeated by inertia.

if your electric motor and batteries were powerful enough to move the car, you would get moving quite rapidly, even faster than you can with a gas engine, but once you hit the motors' speed, thats it. and whether you are going from a stop to cruising, or cruising for an hour, electric motors use the same amount of power all the time when they are in operation.

imagine your power drill. it goes from stopped to cranking that screw quicker than shit, but when the screw bottoms out, the drill just stops. no amount of jamming on the button will make it use more power or less (variable speed drills use a resistor to simulate a throttle but i tcan only apply downward pressure on the motor's speed)

a combustion engine, once in motion, uses FAR less juice than it does to accelerate up to speed. once it is going, it keeps going with much less input, but electric motors always use the same amount of energy to operate whether they are facing huge resistance (inertia, hills or friction) or no resistance at all.

when a combustion engine is running at speed, it breathes deeper, drawing more fuel and air in, and as that speed increase so does it's efficiency, until it hits the top of it's power curve, and then the efficiency starts to drop. (usually the spot on your speedometer occupying the vertical position is the optimum speed in top gear) this range offers the most efficient power to fuel consumption ration yet devised. this is why they are so effective.

electric motors may in fact have a better ratio of power in to power out, but that only matters in a laboratory.

 

[twostrokenut]

Ah so like the rc heli.....I could let it idle for 15 mins on the ground or fly it full throttle for 15 mins because the throttle is only simulated? Last dumbass question this is going over me a little lol

And yea I get what your saying about the starter motor....had a harley which has no neutral or kickstand safety, used to forget it was in first all the time lol.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Ah so like the rc heli.....I could let it idle for 15 mins on the ground or fly it full throttle for 15 mins because the throttle is only simulated? Last dumbass question this is going over me a little lol

And yea I get what your saying about the starter motor....had a harley which has no neutral or kickstand safety, used to forget it was in first all the time lol.

yes and no.

some electric motors have variable speed, and as a result can operate using less power then maximum, but the result is essentially just the same motor using less power

you could run that helicopter full throttle flying it around the room for X minutes, or take the blades off and let it spin at max power for the same exact X minutes (give or take a second) while a combustion engine's fuel consumption is load sensitive.

you can top off your bike's 3.5 gallon tank, set the throttle screw to idle at 2500 RPM until the tank ran dry, and it would take a couple hours. if you go out on the road and keep your tach nailed at 2500rpm, your tank will run dry MUCH faster (especially if you are fat, going up hill or into the wind)

 

[Canna Sylvan]

no.

torque is the force impulse against inertia.

horsepower is a result of torque and speed together, measured at the output in work accomplished.

some engines deliver so much torque that they can make the car rock when you ramp on the gas with the clutch in, but thats a result of massive fuel consumption, 90% or better volumetric efficiency, high compression ratios and usually a supercharger.

electric motors of a similar size and power output can do that job MUCH better, since the go from zero to MAXIMUM POWER in the blink of an eye while a combustion engine has to climb up to it's best torque range.

but electric motors are always operating at MAXIMUM POWER from the moment you close the circuit till you open it up gain.

you ever popped the clutch when your starter motor is working? the whole car lurches forward then stops because the motor has been defeated.

if you turn over the starter again youll feel it lurch again then stop because it does not have the ability to throttle up, and thus is defeated by inertia.

if your electric motor and batteries were powerful enough to move the car, you would get moving quite rapidly, even faster than you can with a gas engine, but once you hit the motors' speed, thats it. and whether you are going from a stop to cruising, or cruising for an hour, electric motors use the same amount of power all the time when they are in operation.

imagine your power drill. it goes from stopped to cranking that screw quicker than shit, but when the screw bottoms out, the drill just stops. no amount of jamming on the button will make it use more power or less (variable speed drills use a resistor to simulate a throttle but i tcan only apply downward pressure on the motor's speed)

a combustion engine, once in motion, uses FAR less juice than it does to accelerate up to speed. once it is going, it keeps going with much less input, but electric motors always use the same amount of energy to operate whether they are facing huge resistance (inertia, hills or friction) or no resistance at all.

when a combustion engine is running at speed, it breathes deeper, drawing more fuel and air in, and as that speed increase so does it's efficiency, until it hits the top of it's power curve, and then the efficiency starts to drop. (usually the spot on your speedometer occupying the vertical position is the optimum speed in top gear) this range offers the most efficient power to fuel consumption ration yet devised. this is why they are so effective.

electric motors may in fact have a better ratio of power in to power out, but that only matters in a laboratory.

Can't you fix that by having two motors and/or using a gear box to keep the car efficient at all times?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Can't you fix that by having two motors and/or using a gear box to keep the car efficient at all times?

not really. electric motors by their very nature get maximum torque at zero rpm. their actual power drops off rapidly as speed increases.

they are most effective when operating in short bursts, they really suck at delivering steady power, and their energy consumption doesnt scale with the load.

it is just their nature.

 

[canndo]

no.

torque is the force impulse against inertia.

horsepower is a result of torque and speed together, measured at the output in work accomplished.

some engines deliver so much torque that they can make the car rock when you ramp on the gas with the clutch in, but thats a result of massive fuel consumption, 90% or better volumetric efficiency, high compression ratios and usually a supercharger.

electric motors of a similar size and power output can do that job MUCH better, since the go from zero to MAXIMUM POWER in the blink of an eye while a combustion engine has to climb up to it's best torque range.

but electric motors are always operating at MAXIMUM POWER from the moment you close the circuit till you open it up gain.

you ever popped the clutch when your starter motor is working? the whole car lurches forward then stops because the motor has been defeated.

if you turn over the starter again youll feel it lurch again then stop because it does not have the ability to throttle up, and thus is defeated by inertia.

if your electric motor and batteries were powerful enough to move the car, you would get moving quite rapidly, even faster than you can with a gas engine, but once you hit the motors' speed, thats it. and whether you are going from a stop to cruising, or cruising for an hour, electric motors use the same amount of power all the time when they are in operation.

imagine your power drill. it goes from stopped to cranking that screw quicker than shit, but when the screw bottoms out, the drill just stops. no amount of jamming on the button will make it use more power or less (variable speed drills use a resistor to simulate a throttle but i tcan only apply downward pressure on the motor's speed)

a combustion engine, once in motion, uses FAR less juice than it does to accelerate up to speed. once it is going, it keeps going with much less input, but electric motors always use the same amount of energy to operate whether they are facing huge resistance (inertia, hills or friction) or no resistance at all.

when a combustion engine is running at speed, it breathes deeper, drawing more fuel and air in, and as that speed increase so does it's efficiency, until it hits the top of it's power curve, and then the efficiency starts to drop. (usually the spot on your speedometer occupying the vertical position is the optimum speed in top gear) this range offers the most efficient power to fuel consumption ration yet devised. this is why they are so effective.

electric motors may in fact have a better ratio of power in to power out, but that only matters in a laboratory.

What you are talking about is transmissions - the use of gearing ratios to keep internal combustion engines within optimal power bands. Did you believe that no electric vehicles had similar trains? Once a vehicle is under speed then it is no longer expending energy to accelerate but mearly needs to overcome road and wind reistance.

I'd like to see your source for "electric motors are less efficient than internal combustion engines. The figures I gave, regardless of your point, make up for those differences. Even if an internal combustion engine is at it's most efficient in a given situation it cannot compare to an electric - in any situation. This is simply physics. Where the energy it took to bring an electric car from a full stop to 60 mp to continue at that rate, the vehicle would continue to attempt to accellerate until inertia and resistancefinally limited that increase in speed. Thus, one naturaly lets off on the pedal, in so doing, offering that motor lessenergy. Let alone the possible inclusion of transmission gear boxes.

 

[canndo]

http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?5853-Electric-Drive-Tractors!!!

 

[see4]

I'd like put a brushless motor on the tip of my erection.