No I just think he is not aware of all the losses involved.
No I just think he is not aware of all the losses involved.I don't know for sure either but given this.
,
I have my doubts he is talking about regenerative braking which in itself is easily accomplished with the drive motors and no extra mechanical systems are needed.
My interpretation is that he is suggesting using the power from the wheels to drive additional generators to recharge the batteries from the vehicle driving itself down the road on the power coming from its own batteries.
That or this is embarrassingly weak attempt on his part at trolling me.
I have my doubts he is talking about regenerative braking which in itself is easily accomplished with the drive motors and no extra mechanical systems are needed.
My interpretation is that he is suggesting using the power from the wheels to drive additional generators to recharge the batteries from the vehicle driving itself down the road on the power coming from its own batteries.
Trolling you?? I didn't ask you anything.I don't know for sure either but given this.
,
I have my doubts he is talking about regenerative braking which in itself is easily accomplished with the drive motors and no extra mechanical systems are needed.
My interpretation is that he is suggesting using the power from the wheels to drive additional generators to recharge the batteries from the vehicle driving itself down the road on the power coming from its own batteries.
That or this is embarrassingly weak attempt on his part at trolling me.
I really don't understand the problem. The mechanical advantage of a hydraulic system is great. 35 PSI in 4 tires will hold your car off of the ground easily - I really can't understand why that concept is so difficult...TCMtech said:
That is the impression that I was getting as well.
rc3po
Some of your terminology is a little bit vague and open to misunderstanding.
It appeared that you were proposing that by driving a generator from the wheels of the car as it was moving, that there was some "free energy" to be gained.
Please be assured that is not going to happen.
As they say where I originally came from: "Tha never gets owt fer nowt"
JimB
Your interpretation is correct though. It would only require a small amount of PSI to spin a generator. But there may be cheaper and simpler ways to accomplish the same thing.
I really don't understand the problem. The mechanical advantage of a hydraulic system is great. 35 PSI in 4 tires will hold your car off of the ground easily - I really can't understand why that concept is so difficult...
Hydrostatic drive systems variable displacement pumps and motors are a efficient way of creating a means to produce very wide gear ratios for either high torque or high speed with a smooth change from one end of the operating range to the other.
Contrary to popular belief in practical application a efficient electric motor does not produce the same mechanical power over its full operating range. 100% torque at zero RPM's is still zero power. Quick acceleration requires high initial torque from the wheels that rapidly changes to higher speeds with less torque but the total energy being transferred is still the same.
To get high torque at low RPM's from an electric motor either requires a large motor with a lower top end speed or a smaller high speed motor with a gear reduction. Using variable displacement hydrostatic pump and motor systems between the primary electric motor and wheels would simply allow for the electric motor to run at its maximum mechanical power point while providing continuously variable gear ratio transmission system between the motor and wheels.
Hydrostatics are not a magic bullet for making more energy from nothing. All they are is a way to produce highly variable and wide ranging gear ratio transmission with a high power to weight and mass ratio.
I see where you are coming from CVT's. I think in the case of the Tesla they just sized the motor for a respectable top end of 125MPH. With a 10 to 1 reduction ratio that makes the low end acceleration pretty exciting without any gears. It does cause some efficiency loss at low speeds, but the gear ratio helps that and there is not much resistance at low speed so not so many horsepower. Anyway this makes them killer quick, but not killer fast. So if your out in your Ferrari don't race one for a block but maybe a mile.
CVTs seem to make more sense for gas cars where the sweet spot is smaller, but the only one I know of is the Nissan Altima and It's mechanical.
I am not sure if anybody has pointed this out. In the near term the sweet setup looks to be a small turbo charged gas engine with an electric super charger designed to make up for the turbo lag. In this video Jay Lenno drives a 1.1L ford focus and says it feels like a 2L or 3L engine. They mention selling a kit.
I know it would need to have high volume.No it does not take a small amount of pressure to spin a loaded generator. That's your first misunderstanding. If you want to make a kilowatt of electrical or mechanical power at the output you need to put more than a kilowatt of power in first which in order to transfer energy with fluid power requires two things both a flow rate and a pressure. Without one or the other you have nothing. It's the same as with electricity. You need both volts (pressure) and amps (flow) to get power (watts).
The 35 PSI that holds up your car is not the same as the fluid pressures operating in a hydraulic system. It has no flow rate behind it to add up to anything meaningful power or energy wise.
I think you need to take a number of basic physics classes or at least do a lot of reading first before getting into these subjects because right now it's clear you have a very poor understanding of the concepts terminology involved.
Yes, that's what I mean - systems to use to charge the batteries while the vehicle is moving. Even if they can't keep the batteries fully charged even while you are driving, they could at least increase the range of the vehicle between plug-in charging.
You don't have any EV stuffs in the works do ya? Live in Logan. Not a lot of people around here into that sort of thing... You know how it is up here.Back when I had my EV I often pondered on setting it up with a small diesel gen set that I could tow behind it for a similar effect but back then I didn't have any small diesel engines to play with. I figured that with a small 5 - 10 KW gen set I could have easily made my car into a far more practical daily driver being I would not have to plug it in when I went to town. I would have just let the gen set recharge the batteries while it was parked.
Oh well maybe on the next one but it will be a electric pickup next time. The two door hatchback concept just did not work well for me.
I'm lucky in that the vehicle doesn't have much X or Y, nor do I add much Y to it, and don't need to go much Z, therefore don't need much EThe perennial "energy density" conumdrum: how much energy (E) can we pack into X space to be used to move Y mass for a distance of Z at maximum efficiencies?
I'd take one without gas or electric just to look at.The McLaren P1 technology is interesting.
Sorry, but that's an absolutely obvious 'stupid' idea - if you taking energy to charge the battery the energy has to come from somewhere - in this case it comes from the battery.
So you're taking extra power from the battery (for no reason) and returning a small proportion of it - result a fairly large net loss.
You're falling in the usual amateur 'perpetual energy' trap.
Where it can help a little is KER's systems, as on F1 cars - you recover a percentage of the braking energy, which is normally all wasted - but it's a complex system.
Some people said the earth being round was a stupid idea...
I didn't say from nothing.Presumably the same people who think you can 'magically' create energy from nothing
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?