Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is simply not so.


With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.


Not so. Things have really moved on in the last year or so. To the point
where there is at least one company brave enough to have built a lithium
polymer powered test car and be offering cell packs for sale. They have
repacakged the biggest they could find with safety circuitry and the
tests they came up with were close enough to my predictions for me to
feel they were not avaiting porcines.

Price is still an issue - the sort of stuff I buy retails at $3 per watt hour, so 50kWh is $150,000

Thst for torch battery sized stuff. That represents a sort of 'it won't
cost more than that' level. A hand built racing engine costs thet much
as well, and no one says that because a Cosworth F1 engine is 100 grand,
thats waht a Ka should cost as well..





What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...


Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.



No, but the problem is the one hour minimum to completely refill its 'tank'

Here are some links

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/02-2002/page7.htm
This one is already 9 years old but predicts todays performamnce figures

http://lily.keri.re.kr/battery/wwwbo...ages96/56.html

Heres the record holding electric car for teh Pikes |Peak run

http://www.compactpower.com/pdf/2002...essRelease.pdf

Here is a company that can acatually supply 35kWh batteries for
cars...tho there is a whiff of bovine excrement about his one.
http://www.gatewayreports.com/reports/electrovaya.pdf

heres some data from a 1998 conference that pretty much says the same
thing I have been saying.
http://www.avere.org/evs15/press/evs_2.html

Ah. I found the one site I was looking for

www.acpropulson.com

This is a mean machine.

Enjoy :-)

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.


They sell rotary engined cars here.


The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.


Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.



Its also very arguable what the capacity of a wankel actually is.

F1 engines exceed 200bhp per litre with no forced charging.
Top[ fuel drag cars are doing about 1000 bhp per liter with full nitro
and supercharging. Well for 5 seconds anyway :-)



Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.


That, at least, is true.



Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.


They sell rotary engined cars here.


The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.


Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.



Its also very arguable what the capacity of a wankel actually is.

F1 engines exceed 200bhp per litre with no forced charging.
Top[ fuel drag cars are doing about 1000 bhp per liter with full nitro
and supercharging. Well for 5 seconds anyway :-)



Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.


That, at least, is true.



Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."

Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to read.
I'll give one a miss.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Franz Heymann wrote:


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a system.



Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.


Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically perfect
system, of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into oil...The
power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)


[snip]

Franz

Martin Brown wrote:


Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Regards,

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.


They sell rotary engined cars here.


The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.


Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output,
who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course.

This is balls. Look at the power and the fuel consumption and compare. The
Mazda is at least as good in fuel consumption.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.



Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

snip

quite.

but Efficiency _per square foot_????

if

efficiency = power of panel out per square metre / power put into panel per
square metre

then the area terms disappear.



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact
it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid.
Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it
happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run
continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the
energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I
doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel
for transmissions.

The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into
the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short
its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of
power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision,
axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart
from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug
changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis,
and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally
drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy
access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle
along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. £00 miles + range on
an overnight charge.

How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional electric
element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The car would
probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat out in summer.
Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars cabin?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Xref: kermit uk.d-i-y:303113 uk.rec.gardening:183182

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

As you may know, I have a little hobby.
Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way
to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There
is now. And its tipped the balance so that
applied to cars, it comes out damn near
equal overall in terms of power and range
to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this
technology NOW.

So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and performance.
Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily
than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is
usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.

Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.

One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

snip

quite.

but Efficiency _per square foot_????

if

efficiency = power of panel out per square metre / power put into panel
per
square metre

then the area terms disappear.

They don't. They are clearly there. Look above, you wrote it..."per square
metre", make that per square foot.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."

Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to
read.
I'll give one a miss.

Last time you had a different reason for not reading it. Here it is:

"This web site appears out off date. No press release for two years,
indicating no progress."

Franz

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?

I forget the figures, but they are much more efficient and generate hot
water at low solar levels.

The figure itself is irrelevant, if it is a figure for "efficiency per
square foot".
Any value, whatever it may be, will, according to you, be able to yield more
power out than is put in, if you employ a large enough area.


Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.

Output per squ foot then.

That is an entirely different can of fish.

A sq foot of Thermomax is ratio between input and
output,

No. a square foot is not a ratio of any kind whatsoever. It is an area.

which is much more than the input output ratio of a squ foot of flat
panel.

You appear to be trying to say that any given area of Thermomax will yield a
larger power output than the same area of what you call "flat panel". If my
guess is right, I will have no reason to disagree with you.

This means in a given area the Thermoxmax gives me more hot water
per square foot,

Yes.

which mean per square foot of area the Thermomax is more
efficient.


No. The efficiency is not proportional to the area.
If the efficiency per square foot of Thermomax is, let us say, 30% per
square foot, then a setup with, say, 20 square feet, would be 600%, which
would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

This is a moot point.

The mootness will immediately disappear into thin air if you would stop
talking about "efficiency per square foot" and just stick to the shorter
phrase "efficiency", without conjoining the "per square foot".

Franz

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency
per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a
system.



Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically perfect
system,

That is the beginning of a circular argument.

of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into oil...The
power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)

Thanks for the homily.

I agree that in general usage, "efficiecy" is bandied around with gay
abandon. However, the discussion about solar panels was a
scientific/engineering one. To talk about "efficiency per unit area" in
such a context is pure nonsense.


In engineering and scientific parlance, efficiency is to do *only* with
energy and power.
The efficiency of a sytem for converting energy from one form to another is
uniquely defined as the ratio between the output and the input power.
Since energy is simply the integral of power with respect to time, the same
definition for efficiency will then also determine the ratio between the
input and the output energies.

Franz

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:


Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...

Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than fission
power.

Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.

The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding number
for the extraction of uranium

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible, despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby. And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

Franz