It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
why do we need +1.5 tonne of car to transport an 80kg human?
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by ebe51
Capacitors are as dangerous as batteries or more due to low internal
resistance the current surge is great. But are needed to hold charge.
Work with coils that hold current and won't discharge dangerous currents.
A very high multiple pole engine seems best. But this is on the working end.
Originally posted by Oldtimer2
I remember as a kid in Long Beach California,all the trolleys were electric,at one time we had the best mass transit system in the world also had the red car,Think the oil companys greased a few politions and such was it's demise
Electric cars started to become popular because they were quieter and ran smoother than other cars. After improvements to storage batteries, electric cars started to flourish. However, these were mainly in Europe only. It was not until 1890 that America paid any attention to the growing technology. The two different electric autos built by A. L. Ryker and William Morrison in 1891 brought the electric car to the spotlight in America.
The first commercial application of an electric car came in 1897 when the Electric Carriage & Wagon Company of Philadelphia built a fleet of New York taxis. Until 1899, electric cars held the land speed record. At the turn of the twentieth century, They were produced by Anthony Electric, Baker Motor Vehicle, Detroit Electric, Woods Motor Vehicle and others and at one point in history out-sold gasoline-powered vehicles.
Electrified trains were used for coal transport as the motors did not use precious oxygen in the mines. Switzerland's lack of natural fossil resources forced the rapid electrification of their rail network. In 1916, a man by the name of Woods invented the first hybrid car, combining an electric motor and an internal combustion engine.
Originally posted by communicator
The film has been criticized for some of its suggestions.
Karl Brauer, editor-in-chief of Edmunds com, a popular auto market web site, wrote his own criticism of the movie, contrasting the interpretations in the movie with his own in a rumor/fact format. For example, regarding how GM negatively marketed the car, he said:
Rumor: There were 5,000 people who wanted an EV1, but GM wouldn't let them buy it.
An independent study commissioned by the California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) and conducted by the Green Car Institute and the Dohring Company automotive market research firm found very different results. The "study the auto industry didn't want to see....used the same research methodologies employed by the auto industry to identify markets for its gasoline vehicles" [Moore 2000]. It found the annual consumer market for EVs to be 12-18% of the new light-duty vehicle market in California, amounting to annual sales of 151,200 to 226,800 electric vehicles [Green Car Institute, 2000], approximately ten times the quantity specified by CARB's mandate [Moore 2000]. The results of the Toyota-GM survey are also called into question by the success of Toyota's RAV4-EV, which has waiting lists of buyers at over $30,000.
Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1,
The blog post refers to a number of statistics, purporting to show a lack of demand for the EV1. The "biggie" is that only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period (late 1996 to late 2000); if that's all the lessees GM could find, then clearly that's inadequate demand to build a market, as they claim. However, that four-year period only includes two actual model-years of vehicles, 1997 and 1999; between these was a long period of zero availability, after the 1997s were gone and before the 1999s were finally released (near the end of calendar 1999 due to some engineering tweaks, a year after every other 1999 model!). Moreover, every new vehicle that was made available for lease was leased; that is, the fact that only that many EV1s were leased was a result of GM's decision not to make any more to meet additional demand, but it is (and long has been) misrepresented as a reason that they decided not to make any more. Actually, there were about 1100 EV1s made; the other 300 included in-house demonstrators and testbeds, test-drive cars for EV1 specialists, and a substantial number that went to utility-company lease programs in Florida and Georgia, so the figure of 800 includes only "regular" leases in California and Arizona. But some commentators have taken the difference between 1100 and the quoted four-year total of 800 to mean that 300 EV1s sat on lots going begging! Nothing could be further from the truth, but GM is clearly encouraging that impression.
In addition, the writer of the blog post has been quoted elsewhere as saying that the EV1 production lines never ran above 8% of capacity, again implying that they could have ramped up production if there had been more demand. Of course, this is also consistent with the conclusion that they could have ramped up production if there had been the will to meet unmet demand; the fact that GM didn't have those supposed 300 "leftovers" sitting on the lot looking for lessees argues that the latter is a more accurate statement. And this statistic, baldly stated, appears to imply that GM expected to lease (and thus intended to lease) twelve times as many cars as they did, having designed the production lines for that capacity; however, the production line was designed to build EV1s in batches of 500 or so, and then to be disassembled and put in storage until a decision was made to build another 500. (There was a GM/UAW display on this at either an auto show or an EV1 event that I attended in 1996 or 1997; sorry, I don't have photos to jog my memory for the details.) Thus, the low "duty cycle" of the production lines simply means they ran exactly as designed; it says nothing about whether GM leased as many cars as they could (GM's implication), or only as many as they were willing to build.
but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?).
Despite the demand, the EV-1 could only be leased, not purchased, and was available only for six-month terms before the lease had to be renewed. The first prototypes had a range of 100 kilometres without recharging, but new technology added a further 50 per cent to this. This covered 90 per cent of the trips made on a daily basis by Californian vehicles, and it’s been estimated that the latest advances in battery life would have extended this even further to more than 300 kilometres.
The regulation was removed on 24 April 2003, when CARB, under a new Chair, reversed their decision.
Although demand for these vehicles continued growing expeditiously, General Motors not only withdrew them all from their distraught owners, but had them crushed and minced into metal confetti to prevent their ever reaching the marketplace again.
Electric car enthusiasts scoff at the affordability arguments. They point out that at the same time the EV1 was dropped, GM was busy promoting the most expensive and biggest gas guzzler of them all - the Hummer.
DAVE BARTHMUSS: I know that there are charges that we killed the electric vehicle program in order to create the Hummer, or be able to afford and pursue the Hummer program. Again, there is no conspiracy to cut off the electric vehicle because we wanted to pursue heavier and larger vehicles. People did not demand the EV1 from GM in large enough numbers, for us to pursue it.
CHRIS PAYNE: The Hummer was the ultimate SUV. And in fact, when it came out, you could get up to a $100,000 tax deduction if you were a small business owner for owning one. So the government gave a message to the people. The message was - buy these huge monstrosities. Meanwhile, the electric car, when they were on the road, the maximum tax credit you could get was $4,000. So this is how government shapes the future, and unfortunately the American Government was pushing Hummers and no wonder in some ways the car companies walked away from the EVs and concentrated on these Hummers.
The film likes to quote a figure of 29 miles as the average American's daily driving needs, but that is a national figure and the EV1 was only sold in California and Arizona, primarily in Los Angeles. Anyone wanna guess what the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is? I'm betting it's higher than that national average....
This is to be compared with 37 miles per charge that I got with the lead-acid EV1; of course, the weather was in the 40's and low 50's Fahrenheit in December compared to the 70's this month, which also affected the lead-acid battery pack more severely than it would a NiMH pack. Early reports from people with NiMH EV1's, even in the cold weather, are that it is good for 120 to 160 miles per charge around town! Given that GM is charging less than 20% extra for the NiMH option in the 1999 EV1 lease, I have to wonder if anybody is going to go for the (improved) lead-acid variant
Originally posted by Obliv_au
one thing i always wondered.
why do we need +1.5 tonne of car to transport an 80kg human?
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Tesla had one that ran around Canada.
Most likely a myth.
No internal generator yet he replaced the car engine with a Westinghouse
An iron pipe took energy from the air and was operated on by 12 diodes
connected to a black box.
So was the energy wave in the air 6x the motor power or would the
motor need 6x the number of poles.
A power antenna, anyone heard of that.
Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Electric cars are cool, but Diesel technology out paces it by alot.
Why is everyone so "anti oil" if that oil was waste vegi oil, or new vegi oil(hemp,corn,peanut,any plant oil really).
They put these filters in the exhaust any they have near zero emissions now(well in europe diesel cars at least).
There are so many reasons to switch to deisel over electric I could go on for days. Diesel cars get 40-70mpg(and upwards of 120mpg in newwer cars using 1-3 cylinder engines with turbos).
My buddy has a converted VW Golf TDI that can go a little under 1500 miles before a refill(which costs under 10$!!).
Electric cars are really only good for people who are rich
If a car costs more than 10-15,000$ only 5-10% of the population will be able to afford an electric car(notice I said afford,ie without going into extreme debt).
Auto repair shops can not fix them for the most part too(an auto mechanic is not an electrition).
A car full of electrics is also bad if something shorts out and trashes the circuts.
Diesel engines ignite the fuel using pressure and no spark plugs
you could never jump start an electric by pushing it.
please read up about Diesel engines, its an already affordable "alternative" fuel engine.