Arnold Walker

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:471d5ada$0$25687$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Retired VIP wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:16:05 -0700, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3997@my-deja.com" wrote:
>>>>> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>>>>>
>>>>> A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
>>>>> 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
>>>>> 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi.
>>> ...
>>>> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
>>>> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
>>> No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph.
>>> It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph.
>>
>> How can it take 10.444 kW to move a car at 50 mph but only 200 w/hr to
>> move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a
>> period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time.
>
> Would you prefer if we said that it takes 10.444 kWh to move a car
> 50 miles in one hour? How about that it takes 1/50th of that to move
> the car just 1/50th of that distance in 1/50th of that time?
>
> I'll let you do the math. Hint. 1/50th of 50 miles is 1 mile.
> (I'll let someone else describe w/hr and Whr differences.)
>
>>> Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range
>>> to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I
>>> would imagine you would recharge using a 220V appliance outlet.
>>
>> You still have to put the power used back into the battery regardless
>> of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery
>> you use.
>
> The wiring in most houses is limited in amperage. Say your car can
> only draw 30A from the outlet. If the outlet is 220V then it can get
> twice the power than it could if it was 120V. A car that would need
> 8 hours to recharge on 120V would only need 4 hours on 220V.
>
> Your complaint seems to be that it would take too long to recharge a
> car at 120V. I suggest that it wouldn't take too long at 220V.
>
>> What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric
>> car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery
>> is recharged?
That number should be 500miles per day...at least if the driver wants to
stay
legel and safe.Roughly what a solo truck driver does in a day.
But then that also begs to explain as well ,if electric power is cheaper to
operate.And can do the the range across country without delay,with the
potential
of savings for the driver.Why are we starting out with cars instead of
battery powered trains
and 18wheelers?Hell the trains in most of the country already have thier
600v computer controled
traction motor already installed.Now how many of them everlasting batteries
do we for a 6000hp
locomotive.They sometime run more than one locomotive in a consist.....but I
guess we can multiple that one locomotive number on whatever the consist
requires.
At the same ,time I remember some trains were striaght electric.You think
,there might be a reason for most to run diesel on a generator,instead of
electric off an overhead or batteries.
> What about the poor guy who has to travel 4000 miles? What does he
> do for speeding tickets and sleep?
>
> Around these parts, it would take over 18 hours to drive 1000 miles
> and anyone who has to drive more than a 1000 miles a day has got bigger
> problems than where to plug in his car.
>
> Assuming your car gets some 5 miles/kWh and you get to recharge using a
> typical 220V 30A outlet. It would only require 6 hours of recharging for
> every 200 miles of driving (more or less). This sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Some folks have been suggesting the use of 'quick charge' outlets that
> provide higher voltage, current or both. These could recharge the car
> while eating lunch (or dinner).
>
> Anthony
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arnold Walker

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:471d5ada$0$25687$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Retired VIP wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:16:05 -0700, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3997@my-deja.com" wrote:
>>>>> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>>>>>
>>>>> A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
>>>>> 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
>>>>> 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi.
>>> ...
>>>> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
>>>> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
>>> No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph.
>>> It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph.
>>
>> How can it take 10.444 kW to move a car at 50 mph but only 200 w/hr to
>> move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a
>> period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time.
>
> Would you prefer if we said that it takes 10.444 kWh to move a car
> 50 miles in one hour? How about that it takes 1/50th of that to move
> the car just 1/50th of that distance in 1/50th of that time?
>
> I'll let you do the math. Hint. 1/50th of 50 miles is 1 mile.
> (I'll let someone else describe w/hr and Whr differences.)
>
>>> Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range
>>> to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I
>>> would imagine you would recharge using a 220V appliance outlet.
>>
>> You still have to put the power used back into the battery regardless
>> of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery
>> you use.
>
> The wiring in most houses is limited in amperage. Say your car can
> only draw 30A from the outlet. If the outlet is 220V then it can get
> twice the power than it could if it was 120V. A car that would need
> 8 hours to recharge on 120V would only need 4 hours on 220V.
>
> Your complaint seems to be that it would take too long to recharge a
> car at 120V. I suggest that it wouldn't take too long at 220V.
>
>> What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric
>> car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery
>> is recharged?
That number should be 500miles per day...at least if the driver wants to
stay
legel and safe.Roughly what a solo truck driver does in a day.
But then that also begs to explain as well ,if electric power is cheaper to
operate.And can do the the range across country without delay,with the
potential
of savings for the driver.Why are we starting out with cars instead of
battery powered trains
and 18wheelers?Hell the trains in most of the country already have thier
600v computer controled
traction motor already installed.Now how many of them everlasting batteries
do we for a 6000hp
locomotive.They sometime run more than one locomotive in a consist.....but I
guess we can multiple that one locomotive number on whatever the consist
requires.
At the same ,time I remember some trains were striaght electric.You think
,there might be a reason for most to run diesel on a generator,instead of
electric off an overhead or batteries.
> What about the poor guy who has to travel 4000 miles? What does he
> do for speeding tickets and sleep?
>
> Around these parts, it would take over 18 hours to drive 1000 miles
> and anyone who has to drive more than a 1000 miles a day has got bigger
> problems than where to plug in his car.
>
> Assuming your car gets some 5 miles/kWh and you get to recharge using a
> typical 220V 30A outlet. It would only require 6 hours of recharging for
> every 200 miles of driving (more or less). This sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Some folks have been suggesting the use of 'quick charge' outlets that
> provide higher voltage, current or both. These could recharge the car
> while eating lunch (or dinner).
>
> Anthony
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 1:12 pm, BobG <bobgard...@aol.com> wrote:
> 18KWhrs at $.12 would cost me about $2.16 in Florida... Thats about
> what .75 gal costs this week... 120 miles on .75 gal would be 160 mpg
> equivalent.... sounds hi to me... 100mpg equiv I might believe....

Try getting off peak power. Plug it in and let it charge while you
sleep for about half the cost of daytime power. What makes you think
the $/mi should be the same as for gasoline?

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 1:12 pm, BobG <bobgard...@aol.com> wrote:
> 18KWhrs at $.12 would cost me about $2.16 in Florida... Thats about
> what .75 gal costs this week... 120 miles on .75 gal would be 160 mpg
> equivalent.... sounds hi to me... 100mpg equiv I might believe....

Try getting off peak power. Plug it in and let it charge while you
sleep for about half the cost of daytime power. What makes you think
the $/mi should be the same as for gasoline?

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 3:39 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:16:05 -0700, Anthony Matonak
>
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >Retired VIP wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" wrote:
> >>>http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> >>> A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
> >>> 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
> >>> 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be
> >>> unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi.
> >...
> >> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
> >> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
>
> >No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph.
> >It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph.
>
> How can it take 10.444 kW to move a car at 50 mph but only 200 w/hr to
> move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a
> period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time.

To maintain a speed of 50 mph it takes 10.444 KW (note KW not KWhr).
If you travel at 50 mph for one hour you will have gone 50 miles and
you will have drawn 10.444 KW for one hour, meaning you used 10.444
KWhr. To only travel one mile would only take 1/50=.02 hrs. If you
draw 10.444 KW for .02 hr then you used 10.444*.02=.20888 KWhr or
208.88 watt-hours.

>
>
> >> To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then
> >> solve for current using:
>
> >Why not 300V? 600V? 1000V? Wouldn't higher voltage be easier for the
> >electronics than lower voltage?
>
> You could use any battery voltage you wish. I chose 100 volts to make
> the math easier to follow. The battery voltage would have no effect
> on the power requirement.

Your complaint seemed to be about the high current draw. Using a
higher voltage reduces the current. And actually it does have an
effect on the power requirement. Part of the power requirement is
providing for power losses due to resistance heating in the batteries,
wiring and motors. Those heat losses are proportional to the square
of the current. Go from 100V to 200V and the resistance losses are
cut to 1/4 of what they were. That also means you can work the motor
harder without over heating it.


>
>
> >> We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the
> >> car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an
> >> electric car to have a reasonable range (200 miles) at a reasonable
> >> speed (50 mph). You would be looking at a total power expenditure of
> >> over 41.7 kW to drive for 200 miles at 50 mph.
>
> >It's not the amps, it's the wattage. It's all 10kW no matter how you
> >slice it. If this was a 1000V system then it would only be 10.4 amps.
> >10 Amps doesn't sound like a problem.
>
> It IS the amps and the voltage and the current and the wattage. They
> are all related. Power in watts is voltage time current. Yes, you
> could use a 1000 volt battery and it would only require a current draw
> of 10.4 amps. The power would be the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you
> >> still have the problem of getting all that power back into the
> >> battery. In order to replace 41.7 kW using your 120 vac outlet, you
> >> need to draw over 41 amps for 8 hours. That is assuming 100% recharge
> >> efficiency.
>
> >Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range
> >to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I
> >would imagine you would recharge using a 220V appliance outlet like
> >they use for electric dryers, electric ovens and air conditioners.
> >Besides, who drives 200+ miles a day? If you drive only 30 or 40
> >miles then the battery won't be completely flat and it won't take
> >as much to recharge.
>
> >Anthony
>
> You still have to put the power used back into the battery regardless
> of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery
> you use.
>
> What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric
> car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery
> is recharged?

Take his other car? Take the bus? Rent another car?
The electric may not be able to do all things, but if it can get the
equivelent of 160 mpg or more for the vast majority of your traveling
then maybe you can afford to make other arangements for those trips
that it isn't suitable for.

Another possibility would be to have an engine just big enough to
provide the power needed for a steady state cruise at the highest
speed you need to go. When going slower the batteries could be
charged on the fly so there would be more power availible for
acceleration or climbing hills. Something like this

http://tinyurl.com/22d3n6

should let you cruise at 70 mph while using .9 gal/hr. That works out
to 77 mpg.

Bruce

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 3:39 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:16:05 -0700, Anthony Matonak
>
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >Retired VIP wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" wrote:
> >>>http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> >>> A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
> >>> 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
> >>> 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be
> >>> unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi.
> >...
> >> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
> >> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
>
> >No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph.
> >It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph.
>
> How can it take 10.444 kW to move a car at 50 mph but only 200 w/hr to
> move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a
> period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time.

To maintain a speed of 50 mph it takes 10.444 KW (note KW not KWhr).
If you travel at 50 mph for one hour you will have gone 50 miles and
you will have drawn 10.444 KW for one hour, meaning you used 10.444
KWhr. To only travel one mile would only take 1/50=.02 hrs. If you
draw 10.444 KW for .02 hr then you used 10.444*.02=.20888 KWhr or
208.88 watt-hours.

>
>
> >> To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then
> >> solve for current using:
>
> >Why not 300V? 600V? 1000V? Wouldn't higher voltage be easier for the
> >electronics than lower voltage?
>
> You could use any battery voltage you wish. I chose 100 volts to make
> the math easier to follow. The battery voltage would have no effect
> on the power requirement.

Your complaint seemed to be about the high current draw. Using a
higher voltage reduces the current. And actually it does have an
effect on the power requirement. Part of the power requirement is
providing for power losses due to resistance heating in the batteries,
wiring and motors. Those heat losses are proportional to the square
of the current. Go from 100V to 200V and the resistance losses are
cut to 1/4 of what they were. That also means you can work the motor
harder without over heating it.


>
>
> >> We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the
> >> car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an
> >> electric car to have a reasonable range (200 miles) at a reasonable
> >> speed (50 mph). You would be looking at a total power expenditure of
> >> over 41.7 kW to drive for 200 miles at 50 mph.
>
> >It's not the amps, it's the wattage. It's all 10kW no matter how you
> >slice it. If this was a 1000V system then it would only be 10.4 amps.
> >10 Amps doesn't sound like a problem.
>
> It IS the amps and the voltage and the current and the wattage. They
> are all related. Power in watts is voltage time current. Yes, you
> could use a 1000 volt battery and it would only require a current draw
> of 10.4 amps. The power would be the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you
> >> still have the problem of getting all that power back into the
> >> battery. In order to replace 41.7 kW using your 120 vac outlet, you
> >> need to draw over 41 amps for 8 hours. That is assuming 100% recharge
> >> efficiency.
>
> >Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range
> >to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I
> >would imagine you would recharge using a 220V appliance outlet like
> >they use for electric dryers, electric ovens and air conditioners.
> >Besides, who drives 200+ miles a day? If you drive only 30 or 40
> >miles then the battery won't be completely flat and it won't take
> >as much to recharge.
>
> >Anthony
>
> You still have to put the power used back into the battery regardless
> of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery
> you use.
>
> What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric
> car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery
> is recharged?

Take his other car? Take the bus? Rent another car?
The electric may not be able to do all things, but if it can get the
equivelent of 160 mpg or more for the vast majority of your traveling
then maybe you can afford to make other arangements for those trips
that it isn't suitable for.

Another possibility would be to have an engine just big enough to
provide the power needed for a steady state cruise at the highest
speed you need to go. When going slower the batteries could be
charged on the fly so there would be more power availible for
acceleration or climbing hills. Something like this

http://tinyurl.com/22d3n6

should let you cruise at 70 mph while using .9 gal/hr. That works out
to 77 mpg.

Bruce

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> BobG wrote:
> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>
> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>
> >> >> Graham
>
> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
> >> >Toyota MR2.
>
> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> >> >A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
> >> >746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
> >> >10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be
> >> >unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi. This thing
> >> >looks like it probably has a lower CD than an MR2. BTW that 14.0 hp
> >> >was broken down into
>
> >> >Friction and tire losses @ 50 mph ..... 5.5 hp
> >> >Aerodynamic drag @ 50 mph ............. 8.5 hp
>
> >> >Bruce
>
> >> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
> >> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
> >> That's not the figure given of 14 hp, that's more like 1/4 hp expended
> >> to move one mile. You have to expend that power at a constant rate of
> >> 14 hp or 10.444 kW. Look at it another way.
>
> >Read it again. That is 200 watt hours. Yes, a 1/4 hp motor should be
> >able to move the car 1 mile in an hour. And a 1 hp motor could move
> >it 4 miles in an hour. And a 2 hp motor could move it 8 miles in an
> >hour. And a 14 hp motor could move it 50 miles in an hour. A watt is
> >energy per unit of time, same as hp. A watt hour is a unit of energy,
> >as would be a hp hour. that energy out over a long period of
> >time and the power is low, but the amount of work that can be done is
> >the same.
>
> So 4 hp would move the car 16 miles in an hour (16 mph). A 8 hp motor
> would move the car 32 miles. A 16 hp motor would move the car 64
> miles. And it would take a 32 hp motor to move the car 128 mph. Holly
> smokes, my car should be able to travel at well over 400 mph using its
> 120 hp motor. Do you see something wrong with this progression?

Sure, I made it linear rather than exponential to keep things simple.
The further you get from the 50 mph starting point the further off you
will be. The point was that 1/4 hp would move the car 1 mile in an
hour. That's traveling 1mph for an hour.

> A watt is a unit of power without regard to time. A wHr is a unit of
> work. 10 watts isn't the same as 100 watts but 10 watts applied to a
> device for 10 hours will do the same amount of work as 100 watts
> applied for 1 hour. The same is true of horsepower, it's a
> measurement of power not work. A hpHr is a measurement of work.
>
> So, if it takes 14 hp to move a car at 50 mph without regard to time.
> It will take 14 hp to move that car at 50 mph for one minute or one
> hour. The only difference is the amount of work done, not the amount
> of power needed.
>
> So, his figure of 200 watts to move a car at 50 mph is wrong.

It was 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile in 1/50 hrs. If you
want to go 50 miles in an hour it will take 50 times that.

> Jack
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 000783-0, 10/21/2007
> Tested on: 10/22/2007 4:17:45 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> BobG wrote:
> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>
> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>
> >> >> Graham
>
> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
> >> >Toyota MR2.
>
> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> >> >A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*.
> >> >746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles.
> >> >10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be
> >> >unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi. This thing
> >> >looks like it probably has a lower CD than an MR2. BTW that 14.0 hp
> >> >was broken down into
>
> >> >Friction and tire losses @ 50 mph ..... 5.5 hp
> >> >Aerodynamic drag @ 50 mph ............. 8.5 hp
>
> >> >Bruce
>
> >> I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will
> >> take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile.
> >> That's not the figure given of 14 hp, that's more like 1/4 hp expended
> >> to move one mile. You have to expend that power at a constant rate of
> >> 14 hp or 10.444 kW. Look at it another way.
>
> >Read it again. That is 200 watt hours. Yes, a 1/4 hp motor should be
> >able to move the car 1 mile in an hour. And a 1 hp motor could move
> >it 4 miles in an hour. And a 2 hp motor could move it 8 miles in an
> >hour. And a 14 hp motor could move it 50 miles in an hour. A watt is
> >energy per unit of time, same as hp. A watt hour is a unit of energy,
> >as would be a hp hour. that energy out over a long period of
> >time and the power is low, but the amount of work that can be done is
> >the same.
>
> So 4 hp would move the car 16 miles in an hour (16 mph). A 8 hp motor
> would move the car 32 miles. A 16 hp motor would move the car 64
> miles. And it would take a 32 hp motor to move the car 128 mph. Holly
> smokes, my car should be able to travel at well over 400 mph using its
> 120 hp motor. Do you see something wrong with this progression?

Sure, I made it linear rather than exponential to keep things simple.
The further you get from the 50 mph starting point the further off you
will be. The point was that 1/4 hp would move the car 1 mile in an
hour. That's traveling 1mph for an hour.

> A watt is a unit of power without regard to time. A wHr is a unit of
> work. 10 watts isn't the same as 100 watts but 10 watts applied to a
> device for 10 hours will do the same amount of work as 100 watts
> applied for 1 hour. The same is true of horsepower, it's a
> measurement of power not work. A hpHr is a measurement of work.
>
> So, if it takes 14 hp to move a car at 50 mph without regard to time.
> It will take 14 hp to move that car at 50 mph for one minute or one
> hour. The only difference is the amount of work done, not the amount
> of power needed.
>
> So, his figure of 200 watts to move a car at 50 mph is wrong.

It was 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile in 1/50 hrs. If you
want to go 50 miles in an hour it will take 50 times that.

> Jack
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 000783-0, 10/21/2007
> Tested on: 10/22/2007 4:17:45 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Retired VIP

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:58 -0700, "bsr3997@my-deja.com"
<bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>>
>> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> BobG wrote:
>> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>>
>> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>>
>> >> >> Graham
>>
>> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
>> >> >Toyota MR2.
>>
>> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html

I give up. You folks seem to be unable to understand that there is a
difference between power and work.

Jack


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000783-1, 10/22/2007
Tested on: 10/23/2007 1:16:30 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Retired VIP

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:58 -0700, "bsr3997@my-deja.com"
<bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>>
>> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> BobG wrote:
>> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>>
>> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>>
>> >> >> Graham
>>
>> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
>> >> >Toyota MR2.
>>
>> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html

I give up. You folks seem to be unable to understand that there is a
difference between power and work.

Jack


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000783-1, 10/22/2007
Tested on: 10/23/2007 1:16:30 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 23, 1:16 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:58 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> BobG wrote:
> >> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>
> >> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>
> >> >> >> Graham
>
> >> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
> >> >> >Toyota MR2.
>
> >> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> I give up. You folks seem to be unable to understand that there is a
> difference between power and work.
>
> Jack

Sorry but you're the one that seems to have things mixed up.

If you apply a force over a distance you have work. Say you push with
a force of 11 pounds for a distance of 50 feet , you have done 550
foot pounds of work. Time doesn't enter into it. It is 550 foot
pounds of work whether you do it in ten seconds or ten minutes.

Power is how much work is done in a given time. 550 foot pounds per
second is one horsepower. So if we pushed the object above the 50
feet in one second it would have been 1 hp. But it took 10 times that
long so we were producing .1 hp.

Watts are power. 1 hp = 746 watts.

If we specify a power output for a specific period of time the result
is an answer in work. Look at the units. Power is foot pounds
divided time, and you are multiplying by time. The times cancel out
leaving you with foot pounds.

The same thing applies to watts. A watt is current times voltage.
The current is flow per unit of time. So when you specify a time
period for those watts you multiply by that time and get the work done
during that time.

In the original example we knew it took 10,000 watts to maintain a
speed of 50 mph. We know that at that speed it takes .02 hours to
cover 1 mile. Multiply the power (10,000 watts) by the time (.02
hours) and you get an answer in units of work (watt hours). If we had
multiplied the power in horsepower by the time we would have gotten an
answer in horsepower hours which can be converted into foot pounds.

The 200 watt hours seems like a small number compared to 10 KW, but it
is the work done in a short period of time (.02 hours). If you do the
same thing 50 times it will take 200*50=10,000 watt hours over a
period of 1 hour. Or go at it the other way around. Divide 200 watt
hours by .02 hours. The time units cancel out leaving 10,000 watts.

Starting to make sense?

Bruce

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Oct 23, 1:16 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:58 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 4:17 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 21, 10:09 pm, Retired VIP <Jackj14...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
>
> >> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> BobG wrote:
> >> >> >> > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>
> >> >> >> In a flat country like Holland maybe ?
>
> >> >> >> Graham
>
> >> >> >I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a
> >> >> >Toyota MR2.
>
> >> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html
>
> I give up. You folks seem to be unable to understand that there is a
> difference between power and work.
>
> Jack

Sorry but you're the one that seems to have things mixed up.

If you apply a force over a distance you have work. Say you push with
a force of 11 pounds for a distance of 50 feet , you have done 550
foot pounds of work. Time doesn't enter into it. It is 550 foot
pounds of work whether you do it in ten seconds or ten minutes.

Power is how much work is done in a given time. 550 foot pounds per
second is one horsepower. So if we pushed the object above the 50
feet in one second it would have been 1 hp. But it took 10 times that
long so we were producing .1 hp.

Watts are power. 1 hp = 746 watts.

If we specify a power output for a specific period of time the result
is an answer in work. Look at the units. Power is foot pounds
divided time, and you are multiplying by time. The times cancel out
leaving you with foot pounds.

The same thing applies to watts. A watt is current times voltage.
The current is flow per unit of time. So when you specify a time
period for those watts you multiply by that time and get the work done
during that time.

In the original example we knew it took 10,000 watts to maintain a
speed of 50 mph. We know that at that speed it takes .02 hours to
cover 1 mile. Multiply the power (10,000 watts) by the time (.02
hours) and you get an answer in units of work (watt hours). If we had
multiplied the power in horsepower by the time we would have gotten an
answer in horsepower hours which can be converted into foot pounds.

The 200 watt hours seems like a small number compared to 10 KW, but it
is the work done in a short period of time (.02 hours). If you do the
same thing 50 times it will take 200*50=10,000 watt hours over a
period of 1 hour. Or go at it the other way around. Divide 200 watt
hours by .02 hours. The time units cancel out leaving 10,000 watts.

Starting to make sense?

Bruce

BradGuth

On Oct 9, 7:49 pm, Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Learn morehttp://Muvy.org

200 empg might get our attention, and 100 empg would be entirely
believable of what a 4 seat diesel/electric hybrid shouldn't have any
problems accomplishing while cruising along at 60+ mph with a one
liter turbocharged diesel+electric hybrid, having an ideal city
driving capability of 200 empg being somewhat iffy, especially for
under $30k.

A true multi-fuel hybrid could accomplish a typical 6-passenger SUV at
200 empg city and easily 100 empg sustained at 60+ mph, all at the
absolute minimum of CO2 and zilch/zero NOx. (we accomplish this nifty
feat by simply replacing our polluted atmosphere of mostly N2 with
instead injecting h2o2)
- Brad Guth -

BradGuth

On Oct 9, 7:49 pm, Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Learn morehttp://Muvy.org

200 empg might get our attention, and 100 empg would be entirely
believable of what a 4 seat diesel/electric hybrid shouldn't have any
problems accomplishing while cruising along at 60+ mph with a one
liter turbocharged diesel+electric hybrid, having an ideal city
driving capability of 200 empg being somewhat iffy, especially for
under $30k.

A true multi-fuel hybrid could accomplish a typical 6-passenger SUV at
200 empg city and easily 100 empg sustained at 60+ mph, all at the
absolute minimum of CO2 and zilch/zero NOx. (we accomplish this nifty
feat by simply replacing our polluted atmosphere of mostly N2 with
instead injecting h2o2)
- Brad Guth -

John Ladasky

On Oct 11, 8:10 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:21:58 -0700, BobG <bobgard...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps?
>
> EV1A did way better than that.. (~179Wh/mile)
>
> http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf
>
> I suspect this design will be significantly more efficient.
>
> I.E. 3 instead of 4 wheels, reduced weight, my bet is that it
> consumes less than 100 Wh per mile.

Aptera has also eliminated one of the remaining aerodynamic obstacles
found on conventional cars -- the side-view mirrors. They have
replaced them with a camera and a dashboard monitor. The lack of side-
view mirrors probably wouldn't be street-legal on a car in the United
States. However, in the United States, a three-wheeled vehicle is,
legally speaking, not a car -- it is a motorcycle.


+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 939.4 days 14 hours 17188 17532 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+