Powered cycles



Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Come on. You know that's just creative accounting. Tell me
> what makes your lights glow when the sun's not shining and the
> wind's not blowing. The answer is mostly coal.

I'll mention that to the people complaining about wind turbine
noise near wind farms. "That's just the noise accountants make
these days" :)

Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators. There's
hydroelectric. Wind turbines produce useful output more often
than not. It all helps.

And then there's other technology going into commercial
production like this: http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/

John
 
John Henderson wrote:

> Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators. There's
> hydroelectric. Wind turbines produce useful output more often
> than not. It all helps.

> And then there's other technology going into commercial
> production like this: http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/

That may be interesting. Not happening yet though. At the moment all they
want is your money.

Theo
Professional cynic.
 
Owen <[email protected]> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly:

> I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist"
>
> The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor assisted bicyles.
>

I looooooove my electric bike.

(I don't think you'll find too many people seriously advocating mass
adoption of two-stroke petrol bikes).

As a car-replacement it's great when carrying a boxload of cargo, and
trust me, a wimpy 200W motor combined with the intertia of weighty
bike leaves /plenty/ of "health promoting" exercise.

> These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't
> promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and
> fly past you like a real motor bike.

yawhat?

My 200W bike is the slowest thing on the bikeway. The motor tops out
at 20kph and the pedal gearing is such that about 35 is absolute top
speed.

The newer hub-motor electric bikes are phenomenal---you don't even
notice they're electric, they're so quiet and unobtrusive.

The current 200W peak power limit is inadequate for hills if you have
any kind of load (eg. kid(s)!). A 400-500W motor with the same size
batteries would do me fine, 'cos I only need that peak power for a
brief section of my commute.

As I see it the major advantages of electric assist cycles are

1/ easy intro to cycling - its up to the rider how many calories to burn.
Commuters can slack off in the morning, and get a workout in the
evening---lessening that "sod it, I'll ride tomorrow" temptation that
seems so enticing at 6am.

2/ casual car replacement - short cargo-carrying errands are more
conveniently accomplished than by car. For example, in Brisbane
using the bikeways I can make a lunchtime errand of 5-20km in less time
than car or bus, and get back to work fresh.

--chris
 
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:42:08 +1002, Christopher Biggs wrote:

>> These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't
>> promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and
>> fly past you like a real motor bike.
>
> yawhat?

You need to order replacement EFI firmware from one of those
revhead websites.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> John Henderson wrote:
>
>> Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators.
>> There's
>> hydroelectric. Wind turbines produce useful output more
>> often
>> than not. It all helps.
>
>> And then there's other technology going into commercial
>> production like this: http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/
>
> That may be interesting. Not happening yet though. At the
> moment all they want is your money.

The funds are for building commercial plants - not for the R&D,
which is already done.

In any case, using "green power" doesn't always mean the
generating capacity is there /every/ single time I want to use
that power. At worst it means that the equivalent amount of
energy in /not/ produced from coal in the medium to long term.
It gets balanced out, and that very important aspect is a far
cry from just creative accounting.

John
 
On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> A worker here only gets about 4km down the road from the bottom of the
> mountain before the engine kicks in to prop up the electric motor --
> that happens once the battery charge gets down to 85%. In other
> words, only 15% of the battery is used as a potential energy store
> which means most of the way down this mountain, he's going to be
> bleeding that excess energy off as heat in his brakes, or perhaps a
> bank of resistors if the prius has the same as a diesel loco. It
> doesn't let them drain below 85% otherwise the life expectancy of your
> battery decreases so rapidly.

Toyota are being exceptionally conservitave in their protection of the
batteries. The Prius runs NiMH batteries and they can take much more
than a wimpy 15% depth of discharge without damage or decreased
cycles.

If your co-worker is really cashed up (well they *did* buy a Prius)
they could buy a plug in kit and turn it into a proper battery
electric vehicle.
http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm
 
On Jul 4, 11:33 am, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 4:00 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I would think that
> >> electric-only cars are not really designed for sustained highway use
> >> either.
>
> >http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
>
> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say
> "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same
> sentence.
>
> Theo

It's a US firm, they've got a few of these feeding their grid

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/amazing_solar_t.php
 
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

>> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
>
> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say
> "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same
> sentence.

Yes it's an issue. Especially with SUV-sized electric cars that can
accelerate from 0-60mph (0-100kmh) in 10 seconds and cruise at 95mph
(150kmh)!!! Electric or not, that's going to be very energy-intensive
transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or drive a
smaller car eg. Smart Car.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
On 2007-07-04, PeteSig (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
>>
>> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say
>> "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same
>> sentence.
>
> Yes it's an issue. Especially with SUV-sized electric cars that can
> accelerate from 0-60mph (0-100kmh) in 10 seconds and cruise at 95mph
> (150kmh)!!! Electric or not, that's going to be very energy-intensive
> transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or drive a
> smaller car eg. Smart Car.

The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of
torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that.
But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a
hill sometime. You get that energy back.

If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that
is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of
the velocity, or so.

--
TimC
The prolonged application of polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly
exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression,
rendering the ultimate tendancy apocryphal. --unknown
 
"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2007-07-04, PeteSig (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
>>>
>>> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say
>>> "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same
>>> sentence.
>>
>> Yes it's an issue. Especially with SUV-sized electric cars that can
>> accelerate from 0-60mph (0-100kmh) in 10 seconds and cruise at 95mph
>> (150kmh)!!! Electric or not, that's going to be very energy-intensive
>> transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or drive
>> a
>> smaller car eg. Smart Car.
>
> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of
> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that.
> But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a
> hill sometime. You get that energy back.
>
> If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that
> is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of
> the velocity, or so.
>
The square I believe, but that still means 2¼ times as much power needed for
50% more speed.
 
On 2007-07-04, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of
>> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that.
>> But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a
>> hill sometime. You get that energy back.
>>
>> If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that
>> is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of
>> the velocity, or so.
>>
> The square I believe, but that still means 2¼ times as much power needed for
> 50% more speed.

It's actually quite variable. No doubt depends on things such as if
you have an aero car with little turbulence vs a non aero car with
eddies everywhere (where's Eddie?). I wonder what typical proportion
of losses happen through the tires vs the wind?

--
TimC
"Eddies in the space time continuum"
"Oh. Is he?" -- Douglas Adams
 
"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2007-07-04, Resound (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> "TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of
>>> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that.
>>> But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a
>>> hill sometime. You get that energy back.
>>>
>>> If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that
>>> is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of
>>> the velocity, or so.
>>>
>> The square I believe, but that still means 2¼ times as much power needed
>> for
>> 50% more speed.
>
> It's actually quite variable. No doubt depends on things such as if
> you have an aero car with little turbulence vs a non aero car with
> eddies everywhere (where's Eddie?). I wonder what typical proportion
> of losses happen through the tires vs the wind?


Fair enough. I discounting rolling drag and just assuming air resistance as
that seems to be overwhelmingly the thing that slows virtually any kind of
vehicle down once you get over about 10-20 kph, even if they are nicely
aerodynamic. I'm fairly sure that air resistance is a straight square of
velocity.
 
TimC wrote:

> (where's Eddie?).

Eddie cat (pronounced "etiquette") always knows the correct
place to be, and is right in front of the fire at the moment :)

John
 
On Jul 3, 9:40 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Most countries allow a 500W limit, even the ones with an oil man in
> charge like the USA. I think the EU is 250W, but 500W is a more
> realistic target.

Acutally IIRC the USA allows 750W (yep, 1HP) and Canada has 500W.
 
TimC wrote:
> PeteSig (wrote
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:

>>> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way
>>> they say "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in
>>> almost the same sentence.
>>
>> Yes it's an issue. Especially with SUV-sized electric cars that can
>> accelerate from 0-60mph (0-100kmh) in 10 seconds and cruise at 95mph
>> (150kmh)!!! Electric or not, that's going to be very energy-intensive
>> transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or
>> drive a smaller car eg. Smart Car.
>
> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of
> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that.
> But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a
> hill sometime. You get that energy back.

Ya what? Once you're doing over about 40 km/h in any car, regardless of how
aerodynamic it is, the main drag is air resistance. You constantly lose
that, even when you're going down hill. You never get that energy back.

Theo
 
TimC wrote:
> You get that energy back.

So why does the battery run flat?

Regeneration basically sucks badly.

> If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that
> is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of
> the velocity, or so.

And you do nopt get the energy used to push air around back.
 
TimC wrote:

> A worker here only gets about 4km down the road from the bottom of the
> mountain before the engine kicks in to prop up the electric motor --

The Prius and allthe other common hybrids are basically expensive toys
designed to suck money out of rich "green" people.

The IC motor does not top up the battery. It is the main motor.

If you want a real hybrid car, then you get an electric vehicle and add
a IC powered generator. That will double your milage. This hapens
becuase the IC is set to run at its most efficent speed.

And if you are prepared to trade off acceleration, you will get even
better fuel economy.

If you are prepared to trade off money in NiMh batteries and reduce
battery weight, then you can get even better economy, but the vehicle
had better be earning a good packet for every kilometre.


> bank of resistors if the prius has the same as a diesel loco.

Hmm, turbo diesel powered generator. Should get excellent economy.

> doesn't let them drain below 85% otherwise the life expectancy of your
> battery decreases so rapidly.

**** house batteries or faulty knowledge?
Even deep discharge lead acid are okay to 50%, provided you do not
exceed C/10. C/20 gives really long life, but the weight.

I was unde the impression that the denominator for NiMh is much smaller;
i.e. higher charge and discharge rates.

but we all know the effect of that[1], even with temperatre control.


[1] think laptop batteries.
 
John Henderson wrote:

> In any case, using "green power" doesn't always mean the
> generating capacity is there /every/ single time I want to use
> that power.

lol, if you are going to criticise "green" power on this aspect, then
you really need to understand your existing electrical power generation
technologies.

Do you have any idea how long it takes the following to come on line;

coal powered?
gas powered?
hydro powered?

You are aware that traditional power generation only looks good (your
instantaneous demand) because it has hundred of kilowatts spinning in idle.

You might also like to talk to a few of the big users and find out how
they get on with "instantaneous" supply.


"Green" energy is currently the main researcher behind new forms of
energy storage and recovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Solar powered fatbike about to complete the canning stock route
Replies
0
Views
4K
Australia and New Zealand
Canning Walker
C
A
Re: Let us discuss fossil fueled powered
Replies
0
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
Alan Erskine
A
A
Re: Let us discuss fossil fueled powered
Replies
0
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Alan Erskine
A
P
Re: Let us discuss fossil fueled powered
Replies
0
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Philip Shaw
P
R
using a high powered torch as a headlight??
Replies
8
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
slaw
slaw
Top Bottom Back