Can Aircraft Be Far Behind?

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Well they say the motor weighs 70 pounds and produces 248 HP but I can't
find anything about the weight of the batteries.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:31:49 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Well they say the motor weighs 70 pounds and produces 248 HP but I can't
find anything about the weight of the batteries.


Total weight is indicated as ~2,400 lbs (including air conditioning).
Given its 1:10 power to weight ratio, I'd say, if it had wings instead
of the beefy structure it requires to meet road safety standards, it
would fly. It wouldn't require any fuel. Recharges fully in 3.5
hours. I wonder if noise attenuating headsets would be necessary.

Larry Dighera wrote:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Well they say the motor weighs 70 pounds and produces 248 HP but I can't
find anything about the weight of the batteries.

Total weight is indicated as ~2,400 lbs (including air conditioning).
Given its 1:10 power to weight ratio, I'd say, if it had wings instead
of the beefy structure it requires to meet road safety standards, it
would fly. It wouldn't require any fuel. Recharges fully in 3.5
hours.

The batteries weigh 900 lb., and put out 75 HP for an hour. You wouldn't
get too far on that in a C150.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

I even suspect that cars fitting this description beyond shape or color
are a long way off. The endurance/performance claims by this outfit are
for some reason not able to be produced by the major car companies (or
anyone else?). Why is that? I didn't see any reference to the specific
design of the motor, and if I had a lot of time on my hands, I'd do a
patent search. I'll just remain skeptical until shown more details.

Neil

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:19:00 -0600, James Robinson
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Well they say the motor weighs 70 pounds and produces 248 HP but I can't
find anything about the weight of the batteries.

Total weight is indicated as ~2,400 lbs (including air conditioning).
Given its 1:10 power to weight ratio, I'd say, if it had wings instead
of the beefy structure it requires to meet road safety standards, it
would fly. It wouldn't require any fuel. Recharges fully in 3.5
hours.

The batteries weigh 900 lb., and put out 75 HP for an hour.

I didn't see those numbers on the Tesla Motors web site. Have you got
a source for that information? There is a chart here, but it is more
about marketing than engineering:
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/performance.php

Your numbers seem to conflict to some degree with these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Battery
Battery:
6,831 Lithium ion battery cells
About 450 kg
Full-charge time of three and a half hours
~56 kWh capacity

If an aircraft were covered in Spectrolab* triple-junction solar
cells, fuel would be free during the daylight, quiet, and pollution
free.

You wouldn't get too far on that in a C150.

With a C-150 gross weight of ~1,600 lbs, it's considerably lighter
than the Tesla Roadster. But an aircraft wouldn't require many of the
car's systems such a transmission, electric windows, heavy running
gear (springs, 17" wheels and tires, disk brakes, power assist
steering, etc), and the Tesla motor weighs less than 70 lbs. What is
the weight of the Continental O-200 complete with its manifolding,
muffler, oil, and fuel?

Intuitively, an electrically powered aircraft employing Li battery
technology still seems feasible to me.


And, this fellow seems to have his finger in the pulse of the electric
propulsion issue:

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0...l?tw=rss.index
Tesla has managed to produce an impractical and exorbitantly
expensive vehicle just as a revolutionary new battery has appeared
on the scene. The question is whether Tesla Company will screw its
initial owners by delivering the car with its obsolete lithium ion
laptop batteries (all 6831 of them), a more clumsy way of powering
an electric vehicle than I've ever seen. I really don't think big
oil is shaking in its boots at the appearance of a $90K two seater
that has a range of 250 miles and takes 4 hours to recharge.

The Tesla as it stands is obsolete if it doesn't use the new type
batteries from Altair[**]. It will be the laughingstock of the
business world if it delivers its current overly-complicated
battery system, with its computers and sensors and HVAC system.
Tesla has discovered that the best laid plans can be shattered
when the unexpected happens. Yet the new batteries have been known
about for months. Now they've been demoed in Sacramento in an SUV
and can be recharged in 8 minutes, flow 4 times the power of those
Tesla is using, operate in temperatures where Tesla's cannot and
can be recharged 15 times as many times as Tesla's. They are
intrisically safe and don't require all the computerized
paraphernalia the Tesla contains.

Now we'll find out whether the Tesla company is on the ball. As it
now is, the Tesla car isn't worth a damn with those obsolete
lithium ion batteries, which cost $20,000+ and last a paltry 4-5
years.


* http://www.spectrolab.com/prd/terres/tasc-main.htm

** http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...lease_id=83895

http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/...Cat egory=856

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:35:40 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

I even suspect that cars fitting this description beyond shape or color
are a long way off.

Tesla Motors has apparently sold 200 of their all electric roadsters
which are scheduled for delivery late this summer. You can reserve on
for delivery next year.

The endurance/performance claims by this outfit are
for some reason not able to be produced by the major car companies (or
anyone else?). Why is that?

Battery technology is advancing rapidly. However, GM, and their Volt
prototype, are so mired in corporate bureaucracy, that they can't even
turn a profit with their IC products.

I didn't see any reference to the specific
design of the motor, and if I had a lot of time on my hands, I'd do a
patent search. I'll just remain skeptical until shown more details.

Neil


I'm hopeful, but I don't blame you for being skeptical.

Electrically powered vehicles are the only hope to reduce the transfer
of wealth from the western world to the middle east, and reduce global
warming. If the US doesn't find some breakthrough technology soon,
we'll all be speaking Farsi before long. :-(

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:35:40 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote:
I didn't see any reference to the specific
design of the motor, and if I had a lot of time on my hands, I'd do a
patent search. I'll just remain skeptical until shown more details.


I'm hopeful, but I don't blame you for being skeptical.

Electrically powered vehicles are the only hope to reduce the transfer
of wealth from the western world to the middle east, and reduce global
warming. If the US doesn't find some breakthrough technology soon,
we'll all be speaking Farsi before long. :-(

I agree with you that we need to develop alternative energy methods and
supplies. However, I am not convinced that we are as close to a practical
solution for electric-only vehicles as the promotional material on that
site suggests. If the information suggested by James Robinson is accurate,
the vehicle will not achieve its stated performance or endurance figures.
For one thing, a 75 hp/hr. battery won't deliver 200 kW for very long.

Neil

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:19:00 -0600, James Robinson
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Well they say the motor weighs 70 pounds and produces 248 HP but I
can't find anything about the weight of the batteries.

Total weight is indicated as ~2,400 lbs (including air
conditioning). Given its 1:10 power to weight ratio, I'd say, if it
had wings instead of the beefy structure it requires to meet road
safety standards, it would fly. It wouldn't require any fuel.
Recharges fully in 3.5 hours.

The batteries weigh 900 lb., and put out 75 HP for an hour.

I didn't see those numbers on the Tesla Motors web site. Have you got
a source for that information? There is a chart here, but it is more
about marketing than engineering:
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/performance.php

Your numbers seem to conflict to some degree with these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Battery
Battery:
6,831 Lithium ion battery cells
About 450 kg
Full-charge time of three and a half hours
~56 kWh capacity

I don't have my hp W tables handy... if you do, how does Robinson's info
conflict, given that the weight is about right as "about 450 kg" ~= 990
lbs.

Intuitively, an electrically powered aircraft employing Li battery
technology still seems feasible to me.

The possibility isn't the question; what would it take?

And, this fellow seems to have his finger in the pulse of the electric
propulsion issue:

The reference is very interesting, yet I think this writer is off-target
in his critical focus on the Tesla. Would he pay $90k if it had the Altair
battery instead?

While the Altair battery offers some theoretical advantages over the Tesla
power pack, neither is a complete solution. The Altair battery's basic
configuration is 13v. @ 88 Ah.
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html

That isn't a very long drive in an electric-only vehicle. However, in a
hybrid there are potential advantages because it can be charged rapidly.
Unfortunately, it can also be discharged rapidly which can be a
significant hazard. In short, I'm intrigued, and I think that there may be
a future for PLI batteries. Additionally, the original Marketwire article
makes it seem that there is reason to be cautious about optimistic
predictions for this company, so perhaps the "bird in the hand" is the
best approach for Tesla, whether or not they can deliver on the
performance.

Neil

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:20:07 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

If the information suggested by James Robinson is accurate,

Assuming 746 watts / horsepower, and the Tesla Motor's ~56 kWh
capacity, Robinson's 75 Hp for one hour assertion seems accurate.

the vehicle will not achieve its stated performance or endurance figures.

I don't know specifically to which figures you are referring, but the
Tesla roadster will probably easily meet it's acceleration figure.

For one thing, a 75 hp/hr. battery won't deliver 200 kW for very long.

Perhaps the Tesla roadster doesn't need to develop 75 Hp during it's
entire run time, and there's the issue of regenerative braking, but
these things are not germane to electrically powered aircraft which
typically must produce 75% rated Hp continuously in cruise flight.

Unlike automobiles, aircraft not only require motive power to propel
them forward, but they are not afforded the luxury of a roadway to
support their weight, and I would presume aircraft drag is
considerably more than an automobile.