Electric locomotion will replace internal combustion

On Sep 24, 2:18*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

---
Mark

I'm not going back through all your broken links.

Put up or shut up.

--
Jim Pennino

Actually, it wasn't "all your broken links". The one
that so greatly disturbed and upset you a couple of
posts back, had the same link, in the same post,
just above it, which worked. I simply hand typed
the same link below it, ommitting one number.
The comparison was hard to miss.

----
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
120 miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
production that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

On Sep 24, 2:37*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
120 miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
production that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
exists, and if it's going mainstream.

In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
[ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]

----
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:37Â*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
120 miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
production that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
exists, and if it's going mainstream.

No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.


In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
[ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]

Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 24, 4:15*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:37*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
120 miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
production that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
exists, and if it's going mainstream.

No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.

I'm not smart enough to do that. I'll have to restrict myself
to one topic, establish reality, then pick another. Your main
refute thus far has been that it is technologically impossible.
You've said it over and over.

Is this still your stance on an electric car? That they won't
exceed 40 miles on a charge, and never will, therefore we'll
never see them on the roads?

In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
[ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]

Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Yes, that's the way I remember it.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

So are wheels. They predate the pyramids. But I
wouldn't put one of their wheels on my truck.

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. I believe the greater minds
today are thinking beyond Al-air (aluminum air) or Li-air
(lithium air) batteries. The military uses Al-batteries now,
but then, our national debt is 13 trillion dollars, so what
does that tell you.

Smart money is betting on carbon nano-engineering.
Does Walmart carry these today on isle 12? No. We're
basically talking about a NEW INVENTION here. Same
thing with Li-air, new invention. Are these mature
technologies? Of course not. Not even close. The anology
to a 1969 calculator is...apples to apples.

--
Jim Pennino

Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 4:15Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:37Â*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
120 miles you claim.

Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
production that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
exists, and if it's going mainstream.

No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.

I'm not smart enough to do that. I'll have to restrict myself
to one topic, establish reality, then pick another. Your main
refute thus far has been that it is technologically impossible.
You've said it over and over.

Learn to read.

What I've said was technologically impossible for the foreseeable future
is any kind of portable, electric storage device to come anywhere near the
energy density of gasoline/diesel fuel.

Is this still your stance on an electric car? That they won't
exceed 40 miles on a charge, and never will, therefore we'll
never see them on the roads?

Learn to read.

What I've said was I don't see any production, pure electric cars with
a one charge range of greater than 40 miles.

Since saying that I realize the Tesla gets around 200 miles on a charge,
so there is one.

One.

What I also said was that the price of all the pure electric cars was too
high for anyone other than a rich enviro-whinner to buy one.

The price of the Tesla is over $100,000, about what a new LSA costs.

You have said such a price level is unatenable for the average person
to buy an airplane.

If that is too much to pay for a new airplane, it also too much to pay for
a new car.

QED.

snip more babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 2010-09-24, wrote:
Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
not so much.

Since I started flying radio control helicopters (only in early 2008),
the batteries have got visibly smaller and higher capacity. The batteries
I bought for the T-Rex 500 in Dec. 2008 are larger, heavier, and have
about 40% less capacity than the new ones I bought a month ago - which
not only are more capacious, lighter, and smaller - but were also around
50% of the cost of my original battery packs (which I am still using).

Ten years ago, Li-Ion type batteries were hard pushed to discharge
at rates greater than 1C (1C = a charge or discharge rate in amps equal
to the amp-hour rating of the battery). Most of my packs now are 25C
to 35C discharge rate (continuous discharge) and double that for peak
discharge rate. I have a 3700mAh LiPoly pack that has a discharge rate
adequate to easily start my car's engine, and it fits happily in the
palm of my hand. There have been lab designs that have increased the
density of Li-Ion type batteries five fold in the lab. On previous
performance it takes around 10-15 years before Li-Ion developments
go from a lab concept to a commercial product. (Whether the latest
developments can support a high "C" rating are yet to be seen).

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
rates greater than their design).

The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
They are also highly recyclable.

In any case, improvements in $INSERT_TECHNOLOGY_HERE usually are by
materials and manufacturing engineering, it's hardly a surprise that
it's the same for batteries. How many billions has Intel had to invest
to make the latest sub 40nm fabrication process?

I will agree that we won't be seeing electric aircraft with the utility
of a Beech Bonanza any time soon, and affordable electric cars are still
quite a way off. However, I wouldn't throw the concept out of the window
just yet.

On Sep 27, 10:01*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-24, wrote:

Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
not so much.

Since I started flying radio control helicopters (only in early 2008),
the batteries have got visibly smaller and higher capacity. The batteries
I bought for the T-Rex 500 in Dec. 2008 are larger, heavier, and have
about 40% less capacity than the new ones I bought a month ago - which
not only are more capacious, lighter, and smaller - but were also around
50% of the cost of my original battery packs (which I am still using).

Ten years ago, Li-Ion type batteries were hard pushed to discharge
at rates greater than 1C (1C = a charge or discharge rate in amps equal
to the amp-hour rating of the battery). Most of my packs now are 25C
to 35C discharge rate (continuous discharge) and double that for peak
discharge rate. I have a 3700mAh LiPoly pack that has a discharge rate
adequate to easily start my car's engine, and it fits happily in the
palm of my hand. There have been lab designs that have increased the
density of Li-Ion type batteries five fold in the lab. On previous
performance it takes around 10-15 years before Li-Ion developments
go from a lab concept to a commercial product. (Whether the latest
developments can support a high "C" rating are yet to be seen).

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
rates greater than their design).

The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-24, wrote:
Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
not so much.

There is no new physics in a lithium battery, only new materials, and they
satisfy a need that didn't exist a few decades ago.

snip

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
rates greater than their design).

That i.e should have been e.g., but anyway...

Lithium may not be a rare earth element, but it is expensive and most of the
sources are outside of the US if you are the type to worry about imports.

The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
They are also highly recyclable.

Some of them are more expesive than gold and again most source are outside
of the US.

In any case, improvements in $INSERT_TECHNOLOGY_HERE usually are by
materials and manufacturing engineering, it's hardly a surprise that
it's the same for batteries.

Yep, but batteries have been around for over a hundred years so most of
the basic work was done long ago.

What is new is the demand for small, light weight batteries for portable
electronics.

The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
since the WWI submarine.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dylan Smith wrote:

The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
They are also highly recyclable.

One other thing...


"Concern rippled through markets Thursday after The New York Times
reported that China had slapped a ban on the export to Japan of rare earth
minerals - elements crucial to the production of everything from solar
panels and guided missiles to iPhones and Toyota's hybrid Prius automobile."

"In fact, China, which controls some 95 per cent of the world's supply
of these minerals, had begun to restrict its exports to all countries as
far back as July, after nearing an annual quota."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...24/?cmpid=rss1

BTW, China is also controls the majority of the worlds lithium production.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.