Sorry, had to jump back on the electric car discussion for a second:

4 0AH Lithium Ion battery pack

Ford electric crate motor

quote Originally posted by dratts: December Automobile magazine mentions one I hadn't thought of. Air is compressed to 4500 lbs in special tanks to give a range of 125 miles and 68 mph top speed with a compressed air engine.

Those Air car numbers are complete lies. They've barely gone 30 miles at 30 mph in the real world on compressed air, and that's in a vehicle about the size of a golf cart. Compressed air is another terribly inefficient use of electricity.

I give up

I confess I'm doubtful of the claims about the air engine too. There was some research using high tech composite flywheels spun to super high speeds. I don't know whether that turned out to be a dead end. The was the fear about an explosion that was addressed by the composite construction. When it failed it sort of feathered. With frictionless bearings in a vacuum to eliminate air resistance it offered a high efficiency storage system.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: Since the title of this thread is "Advanced Propulsion", let's take a step back, name all of the possible methods we can think of to store energy, then attempt to list some pros & cons. No matter how ridiculous, let's name them. Here's what I can think of: - Electrical (batteries) - Compressed Air - Gasoline - Compressed Hydrogen/Propane/Methane (as in buying the tanks) - Water (electrolysis)

quote Originally posted by JRP3: - Electrical (batteries): Most efficient. End of story - Compressed Air: Pure hype, total crap - Gasoline: Old skool. Ties us to foreign oil and weakens our security. - Compressed Hydrogen/Propane/Methane (as in buying the tanks): Compressing gas + ICE = poor efficiency - Water (electrolysis): Totally inefficient use of electricity. The worst type of "green washing" possible. Here, take a ride in a Tesla and get the EV grin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJW5dVF_ss8

Why aren't liquid alternative fuels on the list (biodiesel/fuel, ethanol, etc.)?

If one or a few of those were given the same massive investment needed to make EVs a reality, wouldn't they be at least as attractive. IMHO, they would be a better first step away from fossil fuels because they would take advantage of existing infrastructure, and support existing transportation culture. By transportation culture I mean the needs and preferences of society that have developed with the use of fossil fuel burning ICE vehicles. Also, with massive investment the potential of the fuels would likely increase, and with wide spread use the cost would come down - same as what's being promised with current battery technology. If one was to dream the way some EV visionaries like to (not you guys ) you could imagine the day when a super fuel is developed that has a higher energy density than our precious gasoline, with zero emissions.

Again, don't take what I am saying as bash on EVs. I am actually still wishing on a prayer that I can find an EV setup that would meet my needs. There are some advantages for me with electric, that don't really apply to the main focus of most people who do this, that really appeal to me. So far, the pros are just not outnumbering (or even matching) the cons

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-16-2009).]

well i sure am learning alot and have some ideas

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: Why aren't liquid alternative fuels on the list (biodiesel/fuel, ethanol, etc.)?

Biofuels have big problems. Small quantities are fine, but once you try to scale them up to volumes that might actually impact our petroleum usage things fall apart. First problem is using acreage for fuel on a large scale ends up cutting into acreage for food, which is not a good thing. Even recent attempts to promote ethanol have helped to drive up corn prices. There is a decent amount of research that shows growing corn and processing it to make ethanol ends up using more energy than you get back. Brazil makes it work by having vast amounts of sugarcane and basically slave labor. Other things like cellulosic ethanol sound good but no one has been able to really make it work. Biodiesel from algae is another possibility but again has not been proven to be practical and would take up massive amounts of space to make enough to make a difference. There may be improvements coming that could make it more practical.
A friend of mine runs his diesel on used fryer oil from the restaurant he works at, but it wouldn't take too many more people trying to do the same for his free supply to run out. In the end we are still stuck with the inherent inefficiencies of the ICE, wasting 70-80% of whatever fuel you put into it, unless some radical redesign shows up that can really improve on that. The main reason I'm enthusiastic about EV's is that there are no major technological hurdles to get over, just scale and cost improvements. And if someone does come up with a flux capacitor or a Mr. Fusion I can hook that up to my electric motor too

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: Triple sucks! I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, just expressing my frustrations with trying to find a suitable EV solution. From my perspective, it seems like it's going to be a l-o-n-g time before this whole "movement" really pans out for anything more than green image marketing. Just venting...

I share your pain....

Unless you are making a statement, or just have money to burn on a cool hobby, the numbers are not favorable to an EV Conversion based on energy savings alone.

Of course an LS powered V8 is not cost effective either, so it's not unfair to say that it's worth it to build an EV just to have one.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: I share your pain.... Unless you are making a statement, or just have money to burn on a cool hobby, the numbers are not favorable to an EV Conversion based on energy savings alone. Of course an LS powered V8 is not cost effective either, so it's not unfair to say that it's worth it to build an EV just to have one.

You just touched on my problem. The only feasible reasons to take the plunge right now seem to be if it makes you feel good (green?) and/or makes you money. Since I was interested in EV/hybrids as a marketing tool I might end up making money with it, but the limitations wouldn't make me feel so good. If we are twenty, thiry, forty, years away from this being reality for all but the green and/or technological purist my marketing tool will have a short "shelf life".

Where you guys are exploring this from the technological perspective, I have been paying more attention to the business side of the issue. More specifically, I have been trying to catch the "undercurrent" of what you hear the major players blabbing about.

Here's an example, from this article

quote Visiting South Africa from Japan, Nissan senior vice-president and technology develop- ment division GM Minoru Shinohara tells Engineering News that the Japanese car manu- facturer aims to enhance the scope of the electric vehicle to take it beyond the city one day. “Depending on customer acceptance, electric vehicles will have a very strong position ten years from now,” he adds. “The global market for new car sales is around 70-million units a year, and we estimate that 10-million of these are for urban use. That is our initial target for the electric vehicle market: 10-million units,” says Shinohara. That said, though, he adds that Nissan believes that 50% of all cars will still be powered by internal combustion engines in 2050. Nissan sells 3,7-million vehicles in more than a hundred countries each year. The Japanese carmaker believes that 55% of the world’s population will live in cities five to seven years from now, and that the urban gridlock will only be avoided through the increased use of small electric cars.

I think the major automotive manufacturers see a different shade of green in this, and have ulterior motives in pushing it as the replacement for gas - batteries and technology. It's another part and more specialized services they can sell. A fringe benefit of being forced to meet emissions standards was more complex, computer-controlled, cars that the Average Joe can't wrench on under the backyard shadetree. In other words, the vehicles spend more time in dealer service shops. Imagine the possible increase with an EV!

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: The only feasible reasons to take the plunge right now seem to be if it makes you feel good (green?) and/or makes you money.

I can tell you that my reasons for doing this are simple, I like EV's, I like the concept, I like that they help get us away from foreign oil, and I like the engineering challenge of doing the conversion. I did my 6 wheeler conversion because I needed a vehicle that could handle rough terrain and water crossing but I didn't like driving around in a cloud of 2 stroke smoke and the lack of low end torque. The electric motor was a great improvement and as a bonus costs less to run and doesn't pollute.

quote I think the major automotive manufacturers see a different shade of green in this, and have ulterior motives in pushing it as the replacement for gas - batteries and technology. It's another part and more specialized services they can sell. A fringe benefit of being forced to meet emissions standards was more complex, computer-controlled, cars that the Average Joe can't wrench on under the backyard shadetree. In other words, the vehicles spend more time in dealer service shops. Imagine the possible increase with an EV!

It's funny but most of us in the EV world see the exact opposite. EV's should need much LESS maintenance. The motor has one moving part that should be good for hundreds of thousands of miles, and the only thing that can wear out are two bearings. Properly built electronics should never need servicing and can be upgraded through software if necessary. There are no oil changes, no coolant changes, no engine flushing, no tune ups, no exhaust systems, and less brake wear. A whole slew of services for dealers and after market products will be eliminated. Those are probably some of the reasons car companies haven't tried harder to adopt EV's and why they are pushing hybrids, which still have ICE's, and hydrogen, which is no where near practical. Car companies want to hold onto their ICE's since servicing them is a large part of their revenue stream.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: It depends. .

I like that answer. It's more or less true. If you are currently driving an inefficient vehicle, (<20 mpg) and you could actually get an EV Conversion for <$4K (unlikely) and batteries lasted for 8 to 10 years (very unlikely) then the EV might have a payoff.

The reality is that I have a daily driver that cost <$12K that gets 30+ mpg and won't need to be replaced for 8 to 10 years. The only maintenance costs have been oil changes.

But again, the payoff misses the point. A V8 Fiero certainly doesn't pay for itself, nor does a chop top. Some things are cool to have in their own right, and can be justified other ways.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: It's funny but most of us in the EV world see the exact opposite. EV's should need much LESS maintenance. The motor has one moving part that should be good for hundreds of thousands of miles, and the only thing that can wear out are two bearings. Properly built electronics should never need servicing and can be upgraded through software if necessary. There are no oil changes, no coolant changes, no engine flushing, no tune ups, no exhaust systems, and less brake wear. A whole slew of services for dealers and after market products will be eliminated. Those are probably some of the reasons car companies haven't tried harder to adopt EV's and why they are pushing hybrids, which still have ICE's, and hydrogen, which is no where near practical. Car companies want to hold onto their ICE's since servicing them is a large part of their revenue stream.

They'll be sure to either design some necessary maintenance in, or compensate in the price. The major manufacturers are shareholder owned, money-making, enterprises. If they don't find a way to increase profits over time they won't be there. The shareholders could care less about our passion for cars, they have a passion for increasing their wealth. I read somewhere that one of the reasons GM got itself in so deep is the only way they could pay the dividends (necessary evil to keep the shareholders money in the company) and the high-cost employees was to push the high-margin trucks and SUVs. One of the major hurdles they have going forward, if oil goes and stays up, is there isn't enough of a margin on smaller cars to ever get out of debt, much less break even, much less pay the owners. No owners - no company. The other car companies have better balance (financially) but none of them can afford to put out a product that means they lose a core aspect of their business - service.

But we digress, this is just a point I wanted to bring up in considering possible forms of advanced propulsion that could actually see the light of day in a production vehicle. The absolute bottom line is whether the company makes money to make it worth it. Big business doesn't respond to consumer demand, it creates it. That the safest way of getting a suitable ROI.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: could actually get an EV Conversion for <$4K (unlikely) and batteries lasted for 8 to 10 years (very unlikely) then the EV might have a payoff.

Used Geo metro with bad motor, $500 or less
7-9 inch forklift motor, $500 or less
Alltrax 72 volt motor controller, $650
12 Trojan 6 volt batteries, $1350
Motor adapter, battery cables, contactors, odds and ends $600 or less
Zivan 72 volt battery charger, $615
Total $4185 Max cost, could easily be less with some careful shopping. Might be able to recoup some cash by selling good parts from the donor car, (radiator, alternator, etc.). Should give 40 miles of range and at least 60 mph top speed. Paid off in 2 years at $4 per gallon. If you have to replace batteries after even 4 years that cost is recouped one year after replacement. If gas stays low and you already have an efficient vehicle, then you're right, it doesn't make financial sense.
This guy did one with a smaller battery pack for $3000 http://evalbum.com/1652 I'm not saying its' for everyone but anyone with some basic mechanical skills should be able to do something similar.

I know, I talk too much I really believe it is going to take a combination of the top few feasible alternatives. I do believe electric is definitely a part of the equation, just not an all-encompassing solution. City dwellers and mass transit would benefit greatly, in the long run, from EVs. For a lot of people some type of, renewable, alternative fuel (preferrably liquid) would seem to be the best short and medium term solution. CNG, compressed hydrogen, etc., may also come into play but I would expect it would be aimed more at mass transit again, with maybe a few specialized personal apps.

So I would expect the advanced propulsion refilling stations of the 20's and 30's to have conventional style liquid pumps like we have now, compressed gas pumps, and maybe electric plug-in terminals (if advanced batteries allow really rapid charging). Also, a lot of companies and parking facilities in urban areas will probably begin incorporating charging terminals at some spaces. We live in a very diverse world, and it's becoming more so every year, so diversity is what we should see in transportation as well.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: IThe same travel in an EV assuming 250 watt hours per mile and a .12 cents per kwh cost gives you [$.03 per mile]. ... I have not considered the cost of battery replacement ...

This article, originally posted by fieroboom provides a brief but interesting economic analysis. Bottom line: Cost of electricity = $.02 per mile (at $.08 per KWh), which is consistent with your figures. But the amortized cost of lead-acid batteries = $.10 per mile, which is 5 times the cost of electricity! I don't know of any "ordinary" automotive vehicle (except perhaps the Fiero ) where the cost of maintenance is five time the cost of fuel.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: They'll be sure to either design some necessary maintenance in, or compensate in the price. The major manufacturers are shareholder owned, money-making, enterprises. If they don't find a way to increase profits over time they won't be there. The shareholders could care less about our passion for cars, they have a passion for increasing their wealth. I read somewhere that one of the reasons GM got itself in so deep is the only way they could pay the dividends (necessary evil to keep the shareholders money in the company) and the high-cost employees was to push the high-margin trucks and SUVs.

Then how did Toyota manage to become the number one car builder by building smaller, quality vehicles that got better mileage than GM offerings? Toyota's generally cost more than comparable GM products but people were willing to pay for the quality and efficiency. GM's business plan obviously failed. Build a quality vehicle that is efficient and you win, Toyota did. If GM builds EV's that fall apart more than ICE's they won't sell, end of story. They should cost more to buy since they cost less to drive and maintain, so yes you can expect to pay somewhat of a premium for an EV, especially since it's a newer technology built on a smaller scale.

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: I really believe it is going to take a combination of the top few feasible alternatives.

Exactly! There is not going to be a single "silver bullet" solution ... at least not in the foreseeable future. For example, a plain-vanilla EV makes economic sense today in most places as an urban commuter vehicle, but it's still totally unsuited for the family vacation.

Many American families already own several different vehicles optimized for different mission profiles. In my case, we own both a Fiero and a Dodge Caravan; the Fiero is primarily an in-town car, and we always use the Caravan for vacation. I know several people who own an old pickup truck as a second or third car, but use it only once or twice a month. There's no reason (other than cost) that EVs, hybrids, and liquid fueled vehicles (including cars, light trucks, and motorcycles) can't fit into such an ownership strategy in the future.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Then how did Toyota manage to become the number one car builder by building smaller, quality vehicles that got better mileage than GM offerings? Toyota's generally cost more than comparable GM products but people were willing to pay for the quality and efficiency. GM's business plan obviously failed. Build a quality vehicle that is efficient and you win, Toyota did. If GM builds EV's that fall apart more than ICE's they won't sell, end of story. They should cost more to buy since they cost less to drive and maintain, so yes you can expect to pay somewhat of a premium for an EV, especially since it's a newer technology built on a smaller scale.

Toyota has a different (better?) business model, that allows it to operate successfully on selling more, smaller margin, vehicles. None of the Big Three have a similar plan so big changes in that regard will to be hard to swallow for the current owners. It's like your job telling you, "we've made a mistake in planning your 401K and you will now only have half of what we promised when you retire, sorry." What would you do? Plus, those numbers don't really mean much; they're just sales figures. I think GM is still number two - a lot of good that's doing for them!?

I digress again...

JRP3 you are a lean, mean, green, fighting machine

So Advanced Propulsion is really more about advancing the leading alternative solutions to our Middle-Eastern-crude-oil-dependence dilemma, right? If we're smart we'll concentrate on developing specialized solutions to each need. I would love to see how this plays out in the later half of this century. We've been here before. There were alternatives at the dawn of the 20th century as well, and there were probably a bunch of guys in "forums" discussing how electric, steam, and internal combustion could all be developed simultaneously to the benefit of society - giving people a choice of personal transportation that suits their individual needs. Then along came a spider (Big Oil) and spun a web of deception, luring the unsuspecting public into blind dependence on black gold. They turned the spigots on and made it cheap and easy to go hither and thither. We've spent a hundred years getting drunk on it and now have a massive hangover! As I said, big business doesn't respond to the demands of society they create them. So, truly "advanced" forms of propulsion would be those which originate from a grassroots level, and so effectively serve the needs of society that they create a demand which can't be ignored.

With that in mind I am more inclined to buy into JRP3's passion for electric because it would be pretty hard to stop the grassroots movement that is developing there. It's very impractical, and unlikely, that people will start brewing their own liquid fuels at home, or equipping their homes with potentially dangerous mini CNG stations on a large scale, but millions of households could easily go EV. I just think it's going to be a long road to it, en masse, and I wonder if the movement will maintain its momentum over a few decades.

I'm talking so much because I am still riding this yo-yo of EV indecision

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: JRP3 you are a lean, mean, green, fighting machine

Bring it! I've spent years researching this stuff I might as well spit some of it back out once in a while. Plus the debate makes me think and investigate even further and learn even more.

quote With that in mind I am more inclined to buy into JRP3's passion for electric because it would be pretty hard to stop the grassroots movement that is developing there. It's very impractical, and unlikely, that people will start brewing their own liquid fuels at home, or equipping their homes with potentially dangerous mini CNG stations on a large scale, but millions of households could easily go EV.

Exactly. Small scale wind and solar at home and an EV means no one can dictate your fuel prices. That's the ultimate goal in my mind, but even with the grid there are diverse ways to generate electricity and all of them can be done here in the US. Price incentives would push most charging to night rates, which is what I already have and operate my electric water heater only at night. That gives me enough hot water for 2 showers and dishes during the day, and my monthly electric bill averages around $40. I plan to do most of my EV charging at the night rate as well.

quote I just think it's going to be a long road to it, en masse, and I wonder if the movement will maintain its momentum over a few decades.

We had a chance to push this technology back in the 70's when the first oil shortage hit, but once that passed and prices went down we didn't learn our lesson and didn't move forward with alternatives. This time two things are different, I don't think oil prices can stay this low for very long, and we have newer and better battery and motor technology than ever before. This could be the tipping point.

quote I'm talking so much because I am still riding this yo-yo of EV indecision

Do it do it do it ....

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Do it do it do it ....

...easy for you to say

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Used Geo metro with bad motor, $500 or less...

Ironic since we are having this debate on a Fiero forum. I have plenty of Donor Fieros I could use for free, but the reality is that the Fiero is not the ideal vehicle. It's heavy for it's size, packaging is lousy in stock form and worse when you try and stuff batteries in it.

I don't know, there are about 30 people here who might disagree: http://evalbum.com/type/PONT
Yeah they are a bit heavy for the size but they seem to be pretty solid and can handle the extra weight if you do go with lead acid.
Since I've been poking around mine it looks as if there are lots of nooks and crannies to stick batteries in, even 6 volt lead acids. This guy fit 20 of them and ended up with a 60 mile range: http://evalbum.com/1393
I'm thinking I might even be able to fit a good part if not all of my lithium pack in the gas tank tunnel, which would be awesome for handling and would give me a total stealth look when I open the hood I could pretend I have a perpetual motion machine. Anyone know off hand the dimensions of the gas tank? I have yet to drop mine.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Ironic since we are having this debate on a Fiero forum. I have plenty of Donor Fieros I could use for free, but the reality is that the Fiero is not the ideal vehicle. It's heavy for it's size, packaging is lousy in stock form and worse when you try and stuff batteries in it.

Ideally you'd need a tube chassis Fiero, like the one gusshotrod was building here s few years back. Lightweight, package-friendly, and expensive - made for an EV!

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Ironic since we are having this debate on a Fiero forum. I have plenty of Donor Fieros I could use for free, but the reality is that the Fiero is not the ideal vehicle. It's heavy for it's size, packaging is lousy in stock form and worse when you try and stuff batteries in it.

All you need to find is one stock-fiero-fuel-tank-shaped battery that also happens to have the kwh you need and you're set!

after all the things i think i am going to try working with steam the draw backs are takes time to build pressure and making a boiler but was thinking using the guts of a torpedo heater they run on diesil fuel and should put out more than enough btu it will be a closed loop system so the water re entering the boile will all ready be hot and that guy made a 20 hp motor that wighed 5 LBS

You should check out the Doble Steam car. Jay Leno has one and it's supposed to build pressure pretty fast. I think it uses coiled tubing around a central flame or something. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=669 http://www.popularmechanics.../1302916.html?page=1

i think from what i am reading i would work on a tesla turbine much simpler than pistons and cheaper than other turbines and could produce high efficiency they say it posible to achive 90 precent

quote Originally posted by JRP3: In the Geo build I outlined above I included battery replacement costs after 4 years and it still works out as a net gain, obviously more so with higher fuel prices.

JRP, why don't you listen? I realize you've probably researched this a lot, but you admitted yourself that you don't know enough about what you're doing to tell me why my figures are wrong. Some of us have careers in these areas, and you are blowing us off as if you know more. I don't want you to take this as bashing, but if you go ahead with your plan, you are not going to get what you think you will. I can guarantee that, because I'm one of those people that's knowledgeable in this area, and jscott is extremely knowledgeable in this area. You can't defeat physics, and converting from 108 VDC WILL reduce your motor input to 76.356 VAC, and that's not including any losses, and it's assuming 100% battery capacity.
You have an awesome idea, and a great start on a project, but if you'd just listen a little and do a little more research, you'd see the facts. Yes, your car will probably move, but it won't achieve the results you're looking for.
Anyway, I guess that's all I have. Good luck with it.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: ... Some of us have careers in these areas...You can't defeat physics...

I'm listening, and have a question for those of you who have firm grasp of physics. Is a lightweight, reasonably powerful EV actually possible, or will it always be one or the other? Even using the latest, most expensive, technology available I always come up with an obese vehicle (on paper) - or one that won't get out of it's own way.

I know there hasn't been the same level of commitment but in say 10 years time our antiquated IC engines see incredible gains. Are EVs just getting started, or headed towards a brick wall (of physics)?

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-18-2009).]

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: You can't defeat physics, and converting from 108 VDC WILL reduce your motor input to 76.356 VAC, and that's not including any losses, and it's assuming 100% battery capacity.

I think what you are missing is you are assuming DC motors will perform better and you are not taking into account the inefficiencies that are involved with brushed DC motors. What I'm saying is simple, even in a DC system there are losses in the controller itself, so the motor doesn't see the full 108 volts, and then there are further losses in the DC motor. AC systems may have more losses in the conversion to DC but have fewer losses within the motor itself. Coupled with a flatter torque curve this is why in the real world AC systems give an overall better performance than DC. Yes a DC motor will have better low end torque. You also keep ignoring the fact that AC systems allow energy to be returned to the pack while braking and series DC motors do not. All I know is that people have done 108 VDC conversions and been happy with them, and one person replaced his 8 inch DC motor with an 8 inch AC motor at the same voltage and got better performance.
You obviously know a lot about electronics so how can you not be aware of the losses in a series, brushed, DC motor? If you are talking about a brushless DC motor that's another story but that is not an option as there are very few in EV sizes. Somehow you seem to be over estimating the conversion losses.
Here is a chart at 48 volts for the smaller 6 inch version of the motor and controller I'm considering. They show about a 95% controller efficiency, much higher than what you claim, and an overall system efficiency, (motor plus controller), of about 83%. Either they are lying or you are wrong, I'd really like to know which before I buy it. Something isn't adding up. http://www.thunderstruck-ev...rive_performance.htm