Has anyone seen this? And do they have any comments on it?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
It was actually me. I killed them all. Well, not really...me, per se, but I own their stock...so I feel responsible.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't know. With electricity prices prepared to jump by 72% in my state over the next year, the strain on my wallet probably wouldn't be impacted all that much.
The obvious benefit would be I assume the environment. But I think that would even depend on how electricity is produced in your area. Sure the emmisions from the car will go away, but what about the electric plant?
I am looking forward to the Smart Car coming here in 1 or 2 years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Electric cars require a support system. They also do not produce all that much less in emissions; they simply do it indirectly (where the power plant is, instead of where the car is).
Hybrid cars are better option.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka is right; however, if that power is provided by 'clean' resources (hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc, which I realize is another discussion) then aren't emissions less?
Also, electric cars COULD be cheaper, since the delivery medium for the fuel is basically an electrical outlet at home, and not a complex series of transport-delivery-delivery systems.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Rivka is right; however, if that power is provided by 'clean' resources (hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc, which I realize is another discussion) then aren't emissions less?
Yup. However, I believe that currently ( ) only a very small fraction of the electric power in our country is generated that way. (Anyone have current numbers? I want to say less than 5%, but that's based on a hazy recollection at best.)
quote:Also, electric cars COULD be cheaper, since the delivery medium for the fuel is basically an electrical outlet at home, and not a complex series of transport-delivery-delivery systems.
Given the current range of electric cars, going both to and from work on a single charge is impractical for many. Accordingly, many municipalities wishing to encourage their use installed (or gave financial incentives to businesses which installed) charging stations in various public-access spots. (Around here I see them at malls and public libraries for the most part.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:New battery technology gives full-function EVs ranges of 80-120 miles per charge traveling at highway speeds.
This seems like usable range to me. Plus, most local travel occurs at less than highway speeds, so I would imagine the range should be higher for your local commute. Battery technology has long been the limiting factor in electric cars, and it has improved tremendously since the introduction of laptops. I expect it will continue to get better.
As far as pollution goes, power generation has economy of scale on it's side. Automobiles are typically only about 8% thermally efficient, while oil or coal fired steam turbines are better than 30% efficient. Emission control devices also have an economy of scale, so it's cheaper to reduce emissions from a power plant than it is to reduce emissions from a car.
The movie trailer claims that EV's cost the same as a gas powered car if gas only cost $0.60 per gallon. Electric prices may be rising, but so are gas prices, and that sounds like an awesome deal to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I don't know. With electricity prices prepared to jump by 72% in my state over the next year, the strain on my wallet probably wouldn't be impacted all that much.
I have an electric car--though admittedly a much more limited one than the ones they discuss--and it costs substantially less per mile to drive. Electricity is cheaper than gas.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Hybrid cars are better option.
I like my Prius, but I'd like it even better if it had was a plug-in hybrid with an EV switch. The newer priuses (priusi? prii?) have an EV switch for full electric operation below 35 mph, but still no plug in option, so the range is very limited.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Isn't the plug-in option (for a hybrid) barred by US law?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I don't think it is. At least, I've never heard anything to that effect, and I'm pretty sure I've heard of people in the US who have converted their cars to plug ins.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Why would it be barred?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It voids the warrantee on the battery, but it's not barred by law.
Icarus, what kind of car do you drive?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Electric cars require a support system. They also do not produce all that much less in emissions; they simply do it indirectly (where the power plant is, instead of where the car is).
Hybrid cars are better option.
But it goes without saying that emissions at a power plant are far cleaner than those from portable combustion systems -- if we're judging by emissions alone, electric cars far outperform anything else on the market, even counting emissions from power plants.
Hybrids are a good option, but only beat out the electric car if you travel great distances every day or need to fill up in a hurry. For almost everyone, an electric car would at least be their car of choice 99% of the time -- and for that last 1% of road trips or moves, I suspect there'll still be a market for hybrid cars.
Electric cars really are astounding creatures. With improvements in battery life since their first incarnation -- and some pretty incredibleinnovations over the horizon -- they survive at least as long as the next car. They accelerate faster and stronger than gasoline-powered cars, and with almost no moving parts, require almost no maintenance. I loved playing around with my old Firebird's engine, but I'd trade for an electric car in a second. I wish they were still on the market rather than the impractical hydrogen pipedream -- which is nearly four times less efficient than pure electric cars, with significant cost for and damage to the survival of the car.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think it's illegal to convert it yourself, but when I researched hybrids a year or so ago, I recall reading the the US made it illegal to sell them that way. Cars that are available that way overseas are converted to not have a plug-in option before they can be imported.
-o-
I have what's called a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle. It's specifically designed for small town living and driving conditions. If you've every been to, say, Key West, they you would have seen them all over the streets there. Ours is a four-seater, open-air unless I put up the weather flaps, with a top speed (set by governor)of 25 mph. I've never really tested its range--it would be impractical to do so. It requires a license plate and insurance, and is street legal on streets with speed limits up to and including 35 mph. It costs about as much as an entry-level compact car, but has virtually no maintenance costs afterward, provided you take minimal care of the batteries.
When I bought it I calculated the cost per mile; internal combustion cars were averaging 7 cents per mile at the time, and the NEV was around 2 cents per mile. A year or so ago, in a Hatrack thread (one in which someone who hardly knew me told me that my ownership of an electric car indicated that I was some sort of self-righteous prig, if memory serves), I repeated the exercise and cars were up over 9 cents a mile, with NEVs holding around three. The problem is the calculations keep changing, as the price of electricity and gas keeps changing. I'm feeling too lazy to go through the effort again right now.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
Wow, 14 posts and nobody has mentioned The Stonecutters yet...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Shut uuuuuuuuuup.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Electric cars can't really have heaters in them. They don't go very far on one charge, and they take a long time to charge up. Their batteries are quite expensive, and they go bad fairly quickly, requiring the owner to purchase new expensive batteries regularly. Battery charging produces dangerous hydrogen gases which must be vented to prevent any buildup inside a structure. The metallic compounds of which batteries are made are highly toxic, and pollute the environment arguably worse than burning gasoline does. The energy to charge the batteries is not free, and comes from buring fossil fuels in power plants (where the emissions aren't zero, although they can be controlled more easily than in cars), with a good bit of attendant losses in generation, transmission, and delivery to the battery. Battery powered cars have very little power available to them, compared to cars with engines, so that they are essentially glorified golf carts.
If electricity to drive a particular electric car costs less than the gas to drive a car with an internal combustion engine, then I will bet money that the car engine has a whole lot more horsepower than the electric car motor. To make a good comparison, you would have to compare the electric car with a motorcycle or Cushman type cart (the type that parking ticket givers often drive in big cities), not with an actual car. Perhaps an Iceta, if you know what those look like (something like a motorized phone booth).
Electric cars may someday solve all those technical problems and be good value, but I expect fuel cell cars that run on hydrogen will be a much more viable technology for automotive use. YMMV. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tatiana, I know this is related to your field, but some of your facts don't match my experience. My car charges completely in less than three hours--admittedly, I don't know how much you consider to be "a long time," but it doesn't seem so long to me. My batteries aren't particularly expensive; no more so than ordinary car batteries. They also don't go bad with any frequency, and I have had mine for five years. I keep my electric car in the garage, and I haven't noticed any family members dying from built-up battery gases in at least a month. I don't know that I can agree that the batteries are worse polluters than gasoline, simply from the standpoint that I have had the same six batteries for five years, versus many thousands of gallons of gasoline (and one battery) that I would have used in the same time. As far as where my electricity comes from, there is a local nuclear plant, and I am under the impression that good bit of my power comes from there.
I suppose someone could call my car a "glorified golf cart." I would actually find that more than a bit insulting, but I know you weren't directing that at me personally. I guess it depends. Yes, I have substantially less horsepower, lower speed, and less range than a conventional car. But I have greater horsepower, speed and safety than a golf cart--you try riding a golf cart on an open road sometime! At some point the question becomes whether or not all the capabilities of a conventional car are always necessary. We have decided in my family that they are not always so. We have a conventional car that we use whenever we need to go outside of our small town, but find our NEV to be an enjoyable and inexpensive way to get around town.
Now, bear in mind that there are/were fully electric vehicles that supposedly had addressed all of these problems you see. Mine is not one of them, and I can't speak from experience when it comes to cars that can go over sixty, go a full day between charges, etc.
PS: I have been personally insulted for my choice of second car (not by you, mind you, but it has happened at Hatrack) and yet I have never insulted anyone for choosing differently from me. I wonder why that is?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:A Silicon Valley start-up is expected to show off an electric car this summer that it says can hang with Porsches and Ferraris and has attracted investments from the founders of Google and eBay.
Tesla Motors says its Tesla Roadster can accelerate, brake and handle like a high-end sports car. The company, in fact, claims the car can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in four seconds.
The big difference is that it runs completely on electricity. It plugs into the wall and is not a hybrid. The battery gives it a range of 250 miles.
"We have made a sports car that is really a sports car," said CEO Martin Eberhard. "It is first and fundamentally a driver's car."
I expect the low duty cycle your car has (only for local trips, short distances, not much weight) is also masking for you the battery life issues and charging issues. Three hours is still considerably longer than it takes to fill up my car at the gas station, though not as long (overnight) as most electric cars which drive normal urban commutes every day require. Could it be because your car gets such light duty that it seems cheap compared to an internal combustion engine (ICE) car? If you had a comparable ICE car, and used it with a comparable duty cycle, for instance, wouldn't it probably have a motorcycle type engine, and get over a hundred miles to the gallon, require little maintenance, last extremely long, etc?
You live in Florida, so probably rarely need a car heater, if at all. For people in Michigan or Canada would this even be an option? Batteries release their energy much more slowly at low temperatures, of course, so you would need bigger batteries and still there would be no heat.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
P.S. I apologize for the glorified golf cart remark. Would it help if I explain that I have a great affection for machinery of all kinds, and would delight in having a glorified golf cart to play with myself? It was not meant to be disparaging of you or your car.
I didn't know you had a nearby nuclear plant. The closest ones I know about is Saint Lucie east of you, and Turkey Point which is south of you, I believe. I hope it's not too close to Orlando. It's not a good idea to locate them close to population centers. My three plants are like 30 miles outside Augusta, GA, 20 miles outside Dothan, AL, and a long way from anywhere outside Vidalia, GA.
It's cheaper to generate electricity from Nuclear plants than from Fossil, and less polluting (barring an accident), but Nuclear provides only about 20%, currently, of our generated power. Just thought I'd throw that statistic in since I happen to know it. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I rarely need a heater. The coldest we ever get is in the forties, and we just zip up the weather flaps and tough it out when it gets that cold.
I think an ICE car must need more maintenance, because it has more moving parts. My car never needs new spark plugs. It never needs an oil change. It never needs a new starter. It just needs to have the water levels maintained--ideally every month, but I actually let it slide to more like every three months. And in five years, I have not had any kind of break down or mechanical expense.
WRT an ICE car with a motorcycle engine, do they make those that seat four?
In my experience with ICE cars, frequent short trips are actually harder on them. When you start the engine, the oil is in the pan, not in the engine.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I have this urge to build an underground house, with all sorts of super efficiency and solar power stuff on it, from very low tech hot water heated by sunlight in black channels, to a high tech combined heat and power (CHP) generation system, feeding a hot water heating system and a cold water cooling system run by extracting the energy in the hot water in an absorption chiller, and chilling water with that.
I would be totally independent of the electric grid, then, if I wanted to be (though I would still run in parallel for times when my engine generator set needed maintenance.) It would be so fun! Of course it's way overkill for a single residence, so I'd probably need to build an underground hotel, and rent rooms out to hatrackers for a reduced rate. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I personally would consider an electric car simply for the statement. It would be worth it to me just to say to the world that I'm boycotting ICE cars and fossil fuels, at least for locomotion.
Anything I can do to lessen my dependence on oil is good, IMO. Plus, the ICE development just seems a little stagnant. Shouldn't they be waaaaay better by now than they are?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Re oil changes. Have you driven your electric car 5,000 miles yet in 5 years?
I don't know of a motorcycle engine car that seats 4, no. Do you know your HP rating?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know my HP. Actually, I'd have to go look to see my miles. But I'm under the impression that you need oil changes more frequently the more you stop and start.
If your underground hotel had a casino, I would totally stay there. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
El JT, the technical problems are intractible, is my understanding of why development has stagnated on electric cars. All the smart money has gone into fuel cells and hybrids.
Electricity is so inefficient, too. You throw away all of your heat, to begin with, which is over 60% of the energy in the fossil fuels the plant is burning to generate your electricity. You don't really save anything, you just move it around. You're still burning fossil fuels like mad to charge your car, just you're doing it via fossil power plant, and transmission line losses rather than directly. (Note that you do throw away most of your heat when burning fossil fuels in a car, as well, but at least you can have a car heater in the wintertime, if you happen to live somewhere where they are really important. (Which they are as far south as Alabama. I would certainly not want to be without a car heater here in January and February.))
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I never use my car heater.
Plus, I know all that. My point still stands that if people buy more electric cars and hybrids then maybe we'll encourage someone to develop some more of them. Money directs progress, and the only way to get cars with better efficiency and lesser footprints is to vote that way with our dollars.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also, for the techno-geeks that are interested, I just recently learned how the continuously variable transmission on my Prius works (I'd always wondered)
It seems the internal combustion engine (ICE) is coupled to one end of a planetary gear system, while the electric motor is coupled to the planet gears. If the electric motor (EM)is held stationary, the ICE works against it, and the planetary gear system (I'm guessing the sun gear) pushes the car.
But if the EM is allowed to spin, the ICE can idle without pushing the car. In this mode the EM is acting as a generator to charge the battery. In order to drive the car forward, the EM applies resistance. By applying a small resistance, the ICE begins pushing (along with the EM) but remains at a constant RPM, with the EM gradually reducing speed until it stops moving. The amount of power it adds to the car is a function of how hard it pushes, but not necessarily how fast it turns.
Of course if the ICE is off, it provides resistance for the EM to push against, so it can drive the car as well.
The planetary gear set just takes up the differential speed between the ICE and the EM, and that's what drives the car, so it really is infinitely variable in ratio. The transmission actually has very few moving parts, and it's constantly meshed, so it's actually a very robust system. I don't think it even uses clutches, so it ought to outlast a regular automatic transmission by a large margin.
Icarus, it sounds like you are the perfect (and rare) customer for an electric car. You live in a community that purposefully has put everything within walking distance, right? And you're in mid-FL where it doesn't get very cold. It sounds like your electric car is a great fit to your needs.
I just don't think electric cars are very practical for most people, or that they represent any ecological improvement over ICE cars, for anyone.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In theory, everything was supposed to be within walking distance. I think it's open to debate whether three miles or so in the Florida heat really is walking distance. But yeah, I have never argued that they work for everyone. I am a big believer in New Urbanism, though, and planning you life, if possible, so that you live close to what you need (unless you are a farmer or something). I think this is viable for anybody who lives and works in the same small town. But I don't think I have ever been pushy or snotty about my choices; I do, however, share my experience whenever it comes up, because you never know if someone else will be a good fit as well.
(And I remain unconvinced that it is not an ecological improvement.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Electricity is so inefficient, too. You throw away all of your heat, to begin with, which is over 60% of the energy in the fossil fuels the plant is burning to generate your electricity.
Tatiana, automobile ICE's are only about 8% efficient (although you can see legitimate claims of up to 15% for the engine alone at optimum conditions) so they are throwing away 92% of the heat energy. That's pretty pale compared to an electrical power plant.
It makes sense too, since electric cars can't be cheaper to run if you're throwing away most of the energy at the power plant.
I'll give you the point on heat. My Prius has terrible heat. But in that respect, I use it as a plug-in hybrid: In the cold of winter I leave a hair dryer in the car plugged into my outside outlet. When I get up in the morning, I turn on the circuit breaker to run the hair dryer for 20 minutes, so I don't have to start the car to warm it up. The car is warm when I go out, and I'm sure it uses a lot less power than it would cost to run the engine for heat.
I actually think it's a good option for anyone who routinely idles their car for 10 minutes to heat it up on a cold morning, hybrid or not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And that would work in an EV too, you just have an electric heater that preheats the car while it's still plugged in in the morning. The heat in the cabin would last for a decent commute. The commute home would be cold though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since burning is actually an efficient way to generate heat, wouldn't a liquid fuel burner of some kind make sense to add to electric cars?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Lalo and Tatiana: I would like to see more discussion on the the speed and strength of acceleration of battery powered cars. The two of you contradict each other.
I was under the impression that electric cars have no "get-up-and-go" and that is why Americans won't buy pure electric cars because they are in love with power so the auto industry went the direction of hybrids so that one could have the best of both worlds.
Lalo, please direct me to the studies that say electric cars accelerate faster and stronger than gasoline cars. Tatiana, could you also cite the studies that show the opposite?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, I found a link. This is cool
You owe me the Tylenol I have to take for the headache I got trying to figure this out. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Lalo and Tatiana: I would like to see more discussion on the the speed and strength of acceleration of battery powered cars. The two of you contradict each other.
I was under the impression that electric cars have no "get-up-and-go" and that is why Americans won't buy pure electric cars because they are in love with power so the auto industry went the direction of hybrids so that one could have the best of both worlds.
Lalo, please direct me to the studies that say electric cars accelerate faster and stronger than gasoline cars. Tatiana, could you also cite the studies that show the opposite?
I've read plenty of articles on the subject, but here's a Wikipedia link that should summarize the basic points:
quote:Acceleration performance
Many of today's electric vehicles are capable of acceleration performance which exceeds that of conventional gasoline powered vehicles. Electric vehicles can utilize a direct motor to wheel configuration which increases the power deliverability to the wheels. Having multiple motors connected directly to the wheels allows for each of the wheels to be used for both propulsion and as braking systems, thereby increasing traction. In some cases, the motor can be housed directly in the wheel, such as in the Whispering Wheel design, which lowers the center of gravity and reduces the number of moving parts. When not fitted with an axle, differential or transmission, many electric vehicles have greater torque availability, which goes directly to accelerating the wheels. A gearless or single gear design in some electric vehicles eliminates the need for gear shifting, giving the newer electric vehicles both smoother acceleration and braking. This also allows higher torque at wide rpm levels. For example, the Venturi Fetish delivers supercar acceleration despite having a relatively modest 300 horsepower. Its top speed is only around 100 mph, however. Some electric vehicles, such as some DC motor-equipped drag racers, have simple two-speed transmissions to improve top speed. [9] [10] Larger vehicles, such as electric trains and land speed record vehicles, overcome this speed barrier by dramatically increasing the wattage of their power system.
That said, hybrid vehicles have incredible pickup, and I hear they're being incorporated into racecars -- they accelerate absurdly quickly. I've also heard electric cars have no acceleration, but I'm not sure where that rumor comes from. I've never seen any evidence to verify it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I've also heard electric cars have no acceleration, but I'm not sure where that rumor comes from. I've never seen any evidence to verify it.
It comes from the 1970's, when it was still true. The logic back then was that you could accelerate to 60 mph, or travel at 60 mph, but you couldn't do both. And speeds higher than 60 were just pipe dreams.
Also, see my link above for info on the Fetish, Tango and tZero.
quote:You owe me the Tylenol I have to take for the headache I got trying to figure this out.
I figured you'd try. I remember trying to figure out how all the relative motions work in a differential, so I'm sympathetic. I still haven't figured out how limited slip diffs work.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Since burning is actually an efficient way to generate heat, wouldn't a liquid fuel burner of some kind make sense to add to electric cars?
Seems counterintuitive, but yeah. Volkswagen used to make a heater that sat on top of the gas tank and burned fuel (shudder) just to make heat. Might have been kerosene, I'm not sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I figured you'd try.
So it was intentional! Darn you!
I can follow about 2/3 of it, but then when I figure out the next part, the first part slips away.
I figure that there are people who can hold it in their head in its entirety and these are the people who do the engineering in this country.
quote:Seems counterintuitive, but yeah. Volkswagen used to make a heater that sat on top of the gas tank and burned fuel (shudder) just to make heat. Might have been kerosene, I'm not sure.
Something like that would be necessary for me to get an electric car. I'd use the plug-in heater idea for sure, but there's too much winter to tolerate it otherwise. I assume it's too big a drain on the batteries to use an electric heater while running.
I'd be a lot happier with a burner-driven heater in a car without a gas tank, as long as the hydrogen from the battery doesn't get near it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Liquid fuel burners are pretty bad polluters. None of them have catalytic converters, for instance. I wonder if you'd generate more pollution with your liquid fuel burner car heater than the engine of a conventional ICE would make, considering all the ways they have of cleaning up the exhaust.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Liquid fuel burners are pretty bad polluters. None of them have catalytic converters, for instance. I wonder if you'd generate more pollution with your liquid fuel burner car heater than the engine of a conventional ICE would make, considering all the ways they have of cleaning up the exhaust.
I doubt it. There's a lot less heating going on, it doesn't run the whole time the car is running, and it's not used during the summer.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Glenn, look midway down the page, starting at "Clutch Type Limited Slip".
Essentially, a LSD functions just like a regular differential, except it adds some friction or spring force that must be overcome for the wheels to 'unlock'. This is what enables you to get out the mud, or get more traction on ice than an ordinary diff, as I understand it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Liquid fuel burners make considerably less pollution than ICE's because they don't have to optimize the combustion within the time frame of a single piston stroke.
I remember using a CO meter to tune the injection system in VWs (Back in 1986). I think the correct setting at idle was about 1% CO. That's a lot of CO, so you really need a CAT to clean it up. A Coleman stove, on the other hand, probably produces around 50-100 ppm CO. (This is a guess based on years of reading CO analyzers in the combustion lab. Don't ask for a cite, but I'm comfortable making the assertion to within an order of magnitude)
NOx is a different story, and SO2 is pretty much purely based on sulfur content of the fuel, but I'm pretty confident that an ICE makes a LOT more pollution than a burner.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Thanks, JT, but it still explains just exactly the amount that I've seen before. I need the little animation in order to see the relative motion as torque is applied and the clutches slip.
I also wish it would give an animation of the Torsen diff (or at least a mechanical drawing). I've wanted to know how those things work for a long time.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, you want to *understand* understand. I just get the gist and move on.
Torsen.com has some info, including pics of the guts in the faqs, if that helps.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
More to consider. Electric-pnly does seem to be the cheapest.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
JT, Yeah, actually now that I've seen the diagram of the torsen diff I think I understand it better than the limited slip. I can see how the "element gears" replace the spider gears in a regular diff, and I can see how they transfer torque to the axles. (I don't see how they transfer the torque to the axle with the most traction however, but that's a matter of doing the math on each ratio and seeing which comes up greater. Not something you can really see visually)
Thanks.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The numbers on energy balance between production and ethanol production are the most optimistic I've seen. I'd like to believe they are accurate, but I'm still skeptical.
They failed to mention that methanol is highly toxic, and carcinogenic, and that it mixes easily with water. A real bad compbination for any fuel that's widely used.
They also failed to mention that biodiesel relies on methanol and lye to manufacture. That's one reason why I'm focused on using waste vegetable oil without transesterifying it. Also they failed to mention home heating, which is a substantial fraction of the energy picture.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) only a very small fraction of the electric power in our country is generated that way. (Anyone have current numbers? I want to say less than 5%, but that's based on a hazy recollection at best.)![[Smile]](smile.gif)