On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 3:37:34 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
Ah...Â* Someone previously mentioned getting about 50% back going
down a hill from what he used going up.Â* I'm sure that's variable,
too.



I think these electric cars are terrific and, for a lot of folks,
work out great.Â* But, for me and others who live out in the
wilderness, they just can't yet compete with gasoline
or diesel over the spectrum of use.Â* There will come a day, however,
when the state of the art will announce the demise of internal
combustion engines.Â* I hope I'm around to see it.




On 12/15/2019 4:26 PM, Martin Gregorie
wrote:



On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:54:44 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:



Regenerative braking does work but, like other things in life, there's
no free lunch.Â* There are losses (heat, friction, induction, hysteresis)
in any system, electrical or mechanical, so you don't recoup all you
spent going up hill by going down hill.



Yes,I understand that (Chemistry degree, so allegedly I have/had a decent
grasp on basic physics). So, I understand that you don't get back all the
energy spent in getting higher when you come down again.

What I don't understand is what proportion of that energy you get back,
given the current state of automotive engineering. This is why I'm asking
questions about it.







--

Dan, 5J

I think that is close enough for our purposes. By way of comparison, it takes 20% more energy to recharge my glider battery than it delivered. This includes battery and dc-dc charger inefficiencies.

Tom