Hi all
More astute readers will have divined that this thread does not actually pertain to an amplifier problem. In fact I'm trying to design and build a range extender for EVs based on Panasonic 18650 batteries (like Tesla!). The closest I can get is a design for a 2 Kw-Hr electric bike pack which is close but needs a DC - DC
converter. I'm hoping to get 12 units in the device under 100kg.
You guys know your way around the electrical design business, anybody kindly point me in the right direction? (other than towards the exit which I so richly deserve!),(we are all sinners and I do go to church), (sometimes).
More astute readers will have divined that this thread does not actually pertain to an amplifier problem. In fact I'm trying to design and build a range extender for EVs based on Panasonic 18650 batteries (like Tesla!). The closest I can get is a design for a 2 Kw-Hr electric bike pack which is close but needs a DC - DC
converter. I'm hoping to get 12 units in the device under 100kg.
You guys know your way around the electrical design business, anybody kindly point me in the right direction? (other than towards the exit which I so richly deserve!),(we are all sinners and I do go to church), (sometimes).
Sorry have to say it to extend the range of a Nissan Leaf or any other electric car for that matter; step one remove motor and battery pack. Step 2 put a tank where the battery pack was and put a V8 where the electric motor was and add a blower (1968 Chevy Camaro hot rod blown blower engine muscle cars wallpaper | 1600x1200 | 71098 | WallpaperUP) OK not green any more but it would be funny as..
It's the slowing down that wastes the fuel.
Energy recovery during slowing down will bring big benefits to extending the range.
Improvements to the efficiency of the energy recovery and re-use is where the research has to go.
Or convince the roads authorities to remove all the junctions and roundabouts and traffic lights and speed bumps. It's the slowing down for them that wastes so much of our energy resource.
And who thought about putting the off ramp down under the main road?
All on/off ramps should, for better economy, be above the roadway.
i.e. don't brake, find a straight level road that is longer than the range of the battery/capacitor.
Energy recovery during slowing down will bring big benefits to extending the range.
Improvements to the efficiency of the energy recovery and re-use is where the research has to go.
Or convince the roads authorities to remove all the junctions and roundabouts and traffic lights and speed bumps. It's the slowing down for them that wastes so much of our energy resource.
And who thought about putting the off ramp down under the main road?
All on/off ramps should, for better economy, be above the roadway.
i.e. don't brake, find a straight level road that is longer than the range of the battery/capacitor.
Last edited:
Brits unveil 'revolutionary' hydrogen-powered car ? The Register
I cannot see this being a runaway success.
I cannot see this being a runaway success.
The accelerating and running at near constant speed are useful work.
It's the braking that wastes energy for no useful output.
Well decide if you are talking about wasting potential energy (fuel) or kinetic energy. You need to be clear which one. Braking uses no fuel.
You are just being pedantic. Being stationary with the handbrake on uses NO FUEL. Is parking your car up at night wasting fuel as the brakes are on?
energy recovery has the potential to NOT waste fuel during the slowing down.
If the energy recover during the slowing down were 100% efficient then all the energy lost during the slowing down would be stored and if that could be reused @ 100% effciciency then you can regain the initial speed prior to slowing down. The only extra required would be due to the friction during the slowing down and accelerating phase.
Any energy one can recover and re-use that is better than 0% efficiency will reduce wastage. That in turn extends range.
The higher the effciciency of that recovery and re-use the higher the range.
It's all about NOT wasting energy due to having to slow down.
If the energy recover during the slowing down were 100% efficient then all the energy lost during the slowing down would be stored and if that could be reused @ 100% effciciency then you can regain the initial speed prior to slowing down. The only extra required would be due to the friction during the slowing down and accelerating phase.
Any energy one can recover and re-use that is better than 0% efficiency will reduce wastage. That in turn extends range.
The higher the effciciency of that recovery and re-use the higher the range.
It's all about NOT wasting energy due to having to slow down.
It is not pedantic.
The whole energy recovery thing is about NOT WASTING fuel/energy due to slowing down.
being stationary is NOT slowing down. It comes AFTER you have slowed down to a stop.
Yes, but he was wrong in saying wastes fuel. It wasted the kinetic energy. He then went back to saying fuel (potential energy). Would be nice for once in his 50k+ posts for him to say he got it wrong rather than chanelling a well known character here!
Nice. During the 2012 olympics there was a fleet of hydrogen taxis. Every night they would be loaded on transporters and taken to slough to refill them. How green is that!
I cannot agree.
It is the braking that wastes the fuel.
Feel the heat in the brakes. They get hot because they are absorbing the energy due to slowing down/braking.
It is the slowing down that wastes the fuel.
It is this phase of energy recovery that can be improved.
Improve energy recovery during the slowing down phase and re-use that recovered energy for useful work.
It is simple automobiles.
No fuel is used braking. By that argument you should leave your car going around in a circle at night rather than stopping it as stopping wastes fuel.
Kinetic engergy NOT chemical potential energy
Still no
You keep thinking that....
No, that wastes more fuel.
<edit> I'm not sure what's at the root of this disagreement, though I think it hinges on the difference in meaning between 'use' (billshurv) and 'waste' (AndrewT). The dictionary says that waste means to 'use to no purpose'. Thus when Bill responds to AndrewT's 'Braking wastes fuel' with 'Braking uses no fuel' he's not actually rebutting AndrewT's point because the meaning of use <> waste. Crossed purposes perchance?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.