This is Engineer-Poet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Engineer-Poet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
There may be exemptions for block heaters because they are de-energized when the vehicle isn't plugged in; the vehicle battery is on all the time unless there's a disconnector.
IIUC the voltage limits are not conductor-to-ground, they're anything-to-anything so somebody can't grab the wrong two wires and get hurt. You still have the 48V (nominal) limit so as not to exceed 60 V in operation.
The peak regen power may be higher, as the start/assist power is limited by the battery voltage and the regen power is not so limited at higher shaft speeds. Whether this matters in any significant way I can't say, and certainly depends on the specific details of the system as designed and built.
Spell checking is a function of your browser, not the web site. The other PEBCAK.
There's a heaping ton of wiring out there just begging to be repurposed for EV charging. Think every parking lot with lights in it. Lots of them are wired for big sodium-vapor bulbs and carry 240 VAC with 20-30 amp breakers. Replace the sodium lights with LED. Use X10 modules to move the on-off function from the building to the lamp itself, so the wiring can be powered 24/7. Use the excess power capacity to charge vehicles. Voila, with a specialty charger module that bolts onto the light pole and a bit of electrician labor, you've got an EV charger someplace that people are already parking.
Things like the idle-torque compensation are firmware, which ought to be transferable to any unit with a crankshaft-mounted ISG (not doable with BAS because of the play in the belt tensioner). The boost function and electric aux compressor should transfer to anything, BAS or otherwise.
It could certainly be used to make FRP composites, maybe even conductive ones. If the yarns spun from it are conductive, it could be used to make ultra-lightweight wire for power transmission. Weaving together insulated conductors would make it immune to skin effect. If you're buying electricity at $20/MWh, your cost of CO2 removal is a minimum of $49/ton (and probably more like $100/ton). If CO2 emissions are priced at $100/ton, it adds about 3.3¢/kWh to the cost of power from a CCGT plant and about 5¢/kWh to power from an OCGT plant burning natural gas. At that point, nuclear power becomes a no-brainer. You build it out to serve the full base load plus some extra to keep your CO2-reduction systems hot. If RE is much cheaper than nuclear, you can dump excesses to the CO2 reduction systems and convert the energy to fixed carbon. Presumably you can use these CNTs as fuel in a direct-carbon fuel cell as well as building material. Voila, there's your peaking generation. Let's see: $660/ton carbon @ 32.75 GJ/ton @ .85 efficiency = $85.35/MWh fuel cost. Not too shabby. I think we might have a winner here. Notice that it includes hypedrogen precisely nowhere?
Looking at these particular points: Boost function: for a short period, the generator is able to support the internal combustion engine with up to 250 N·m of torque and 16 kW of output. Electric auxiliary compressor: this ensures almost instant compression of the intake air when additional power is required, before the turbocharger responds. Turbo-lag is completely eliminated in this way. Idling rpm control: for more efficiency and comfort, idling rpm control of the combustion engine is carried out by the electric motor. To this end the electric motor acts as a generator which regulates the charge current so that mechanical vibrations from the combustion engine are absorbed. In short, this gives the vehicle a quality of smoothness and responsiveness which rivals electric drivetrains. EVs have permanently raised the bar.
You still have to capture the carbon and then invest the energy to reduce it. Given that the ΔHf of CO2 is -393.52 kJ/mol, reducing 1 ton of CO2 to fixed carbon will take a whopping 2.48 megawatt-hours plus losses. On the other hand, if this process is reversible (converting fixed carbon back to CO2 and electricity) it could be the basis of a carbon-based storage battery.
Even thirty years ago, it was common knowledge in the industry that every vehicle "failed the first bag" because the catalyst was cold. One of the responses I saw was an electrically pre-heated catalyst cartridge, so the catalyst would "light off" right away. It had a terminal that took a starter-sized power cable. I can only imagine the size of the battery required to feed that thing.
You are very likely correct about that.
The failure to define or link to a definition of OME is a serious weakness of this article.
So funny to see the "not tall enough" meme get traction. gorr, just give it up; your creeping senility or whatever is terminal now. It's time for the nursing home. I'm particularly interested in the doubling of energy capacity. I doubt anyone would care for 200 kWh in a Tesla (what would you do with it?) but 100 kWh in half the space/weight/cost would be a boon. It would particularly benefit PHEVs built on ICEV platforms. The mild hybrid would be a no-brainer, especially if SiC power electronics eliminated the need for a low-temperature liquid cooling loop for them. All of these forces are coming together to make electric drivetrains dominant. It WILL happen.
I don't recall seeing that Honda piece before. Thanks for the heads-up. IIUC, large machines such as multi-megawatt alternators have long used, not just square wire, but hollow wire with the central passage used for coolant. Hydrogen appears to be the most commonly-used coolant, which is why you occasionally read about hydrogen explosions at power plants.
Not a joke so much as a tip of the hat, and a dog-whistle to see who remembers his name. He contributes no more but the battle he began continues to gain ground.
No kidding. Lighter, more conductive wire (looking at you, Richard Smalley nanotube guru) would change so many things it's hard to come up with even a short list. Especially if it's made from carbon. All the talk about materials shortages—POOF!
No, gorr. It's you, not them. You aren't tall enough for this ride.
I've been through the "old school" EM curriculum, and what you just wrote is incomprehensible. Skin effect is an issue with very large conductors and high frequencies. RF applications often used braided "Litz wire" to distribute current through the bulk of the conductor. This is generally not an issue in the small wire used for electric motors up to a few tens of horsepower and frequencies of 50-60 Hz; the "skin depth" is much greater than the conductor size.
There have been recent stories about the use of square wire in motors, specifically to increase the packing fraction, reduce electrical resistance, shrink the physical size of the windings and reduce the magnetic flux path length. One of the consequences of square wire is that the area of contact between wires will be much greater. It would be interesting to know if this has a corresponding effect on the cross-conductor thermal conductivity, or if the interface effects between conductor and insulation dominate.
1000 bbl/sec * $40/bbl * 3600 sec/hr * 8766 hr/yr = $1,262,304,000,000/yr
Given that Volvo is electrifying everything starting in 2019, and other major manufacturers like Toyota seem almost certain to follow, this projection may be overtaken by events very quickly.
I see lots of these things going to Venice.
Fossil gasoline can only get so cheap before it isn't worth drilling for petroleum any more. At some point, it becomes such a small expense that sin taxes on it will gain some traction and shove it out entirely. We're probably better off using M85 anyway, and methanol is easily and cheaply made from natural gas if we run out of bio-based feedstock. Just tax it to keep it the second choice and it won't be a problem.
My Fusion Energi is now 4 years old, pushing 40k miles and reports a lifetime average of 129.8 MPG (which does not include evaporative losses). 4 years on and I've burned barely more than 300 gallons in the thing. It's glorious. We'd have to employ some trickery to fully replace gasoline with a combination of battery-electric and biofueled sustainer engines, but I have little doubt it could be done.
There isn't enough biodiesel feedstock to make such a scheme work (maybe 2 billion gallons used fryer oil per yr in the USA). You might be able to co-fuel with e.g. methanol using a bit of diesel/biodiesel for pilot ignition, though. That would let you use a barely-modified injection system with only the addition of a carburetor and a third fuel tank. If you're willing to alter the fuel injection system you can make dimethyl ether from methanol and just use one fuel.