No. LPFM is not open to individuals or commercial interests. (In fact, much of the time, it isn't open to anyone; it is a severely limited service.) What I am saying is not that a citizen should have to pretend they are an educational operation and sneak in commercial or individual uses, they should be allowed open access to a useful portion of the airwaves for whatever purpose they see fit.
...your posts made it sound like you didn't want to disc jokey, more of a community service type operation.
...citizens would just have a space of our own we could broadcast opinion in, broadcast our own dramatic or musical productions in, talk about our businesses or conduct our business in. For the first time since such equipment was inexpensive.
In other words, no more monopoly for commercial and moneyed interests. Let the citizens at the airwaves, and leave them alone as long as they don't create out of band interference. That's my agenda, insofar as I have one with regard to the FCC. The best, least disruptive way I see to do that is to open a band like the FM band, in a similar area of the spectrum, of similar size, and let the citizens at it. I think this is not only a good idea, I think it is inherently compatible with the principles of liberty that underlie the founding rationales that built this country.
You know as well as I do that the FCC exists for the express purpose of serving moneyed interests which also means they control the content of what is broadcast. I'm not just talking about censorship, though of course they do that too, I'm talking about the fact that you, for instance, can't host a call-in show on any subject at all; you can't advertise your lawn service on the air; you can't play your own music on the air; you can't act out a play of your own on the air; you can't use the airwaves because they are not available to you. I would very much like to see that change. There is no mechanism available in the current context of how the FCC manages the spectrum that allows for these concepts. Ham radio and LPFM certainly do not, both having specific provisions forbidding all manner of uses. I obey the restrictions; but I certainly consider it my right to object to them, and to raise what I consider to be ideas that offer improvements.
Dude... ham radio. Check it out. They dropped the morse code requirement, so the barrier to entry is very low. or check out Low Power FM Radio here.... yes, you need to apply but the barrier to entry, again, is very low.
Dude. Read the thread. (a) I'm an extra-class ham. (b) hams can't broadcast. (c) LPFM is not available to individuals or commercial operations.
just because YOU Live in a terrible radio market, it doesn't mean the whole country is screwed.
No. You're entirely missing the point. The issue is that no citizen can set up a station to broadcast to their fellow citizens. The whole country is screwed. By law. More to the point, by the FCC. I don't care if you listen to RAP or country or bluegrass or Coast to Coast. These are corporations broadcasting to you, feeding you what they see fit to feed you. This is manifestly different from Joe down the street who has an idea about building a local park, or Jane, who writes children's stories, or Leroy, who thinks the local government's upcoming law on trapping stray cats is cruel, or the local libertarian, atheist, other person without much of a voice, who would like to have some open discussions without being the victim of a broadcaster who has already made up their mind and will edit them into oblivion. That is why the ability for citizens to broadcast matters. Not because you can get Sirius or XM or you live in a city, but because all of those things are moneyed interests speaking to the people, or sponsoring speaking to the people, or deciding what is entertainment and what is not. You have NO radio-based opportunity to listen to your neighbors, and they have NO radio-based opportunity to speak to you.
Radio is unique in that it can, particularly in the guise of bands like the FM band, address the area around the station in a high fidelity, live and timely manner for citizens who are parked in their recliners, jogging, or just out walking their dog. There is no other communications medium that can do this, and you're not allowed to use it. If you'd think about this for a moment, really think about it, I'd hope it would piss you off at least a little bit.
i'm not fan of the FCC's policies, but somebody has to keep stations from stepping on each others toes.
No. There are numerous bands where toe-stepping would be a problem, and the FCC has neither the manpower nor the inclination to regulate those bands. The only place it is *really* a problem is where propagation allows signals from far away to regularly come in locally, I'm thinking of the citizen's band at 27 MHz in particular. Providing an unregulated band - in the sense that inside the band, one could broadcast to one's neighbors without breaking any rules - that is local by nature, say around 110 MHz for 20 MHz, is a perfectly reasonable proposal that poses danger only if citizens communicating with each other is dangerous. And if that's the case... we have other problems.
Right. Moneyed interests, then. More to the point, they don't serve the individual citizen in the sense or providing citizens a voice. We get to listen, an entirely passive role. One might take a moment to wonder why this has been uniformly so for so long.
I see nothing ridiculous about his example at all. I'm sure that such things would be quite routine if there was nobody to enforce rules against it.
With regard to your fear of Scientologists broadcasting on every available frequency, they can't afford to alienate entire communities by greedily consuming limited public resources at everyone else's expense any more than any other organization that depends upon picking up recruits from the rank and file can.
Just because you don't like what's on the air right now doesn't mean we should abandon the whole thing.
Look, it has nothing to do with whether I like what is on the air or not. It has to do with the liberty to speak to and otherwise broadly communicate over radio with one's fellow citizens. If you're not interested in that, fine. Many people are, however, and it is not a matter of what "I want."
My suggestion has been that a band be made available which allows broadcast. There are numerous bands available that do not such as citizens band, ham bands, public service bands, etc. No band - anywhere - allows citizens to broadcast. Broadcasting is limited to those with money, power. Citizens are locked out. All we need to enable citizen broadcasting is one chunk of space. Of any size, though certainly an FM band at least comparable to the commercial FM band (about 20 MHz at or above 110 MHz) would be appropriate for several technical reasons. The FCC or a more reasonable replacement can stay out of it unless someone causes interference outside the band. Nothing would happen to FM-band broadcasters, AM-band broadcasters, etc - citizens would just have a space of our own we could broadcast opinion in, broadcast our own dramatic or musical productions in, talk about our businesses or conduct our business in. For the first time since such equipment was inexpensive.
You will not see such a thing, however, because the people you should be worried about, the government, will never allow it.
Sorry, editing glitch. What I meant to say was "as well as." Ultracaps take up incoming current much faster and with considerably less energy wasted than can a battery. That's why even present generation ultracaps are often found in regenerative braking subsystems.
What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.
No. Broadcasting is forbidden in the ham bands.
If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.
I hold an extra class ham license and have for many years. It is still illegal for me to broadcast. Or any other ham, for that matter. I am quite familiar with the rules and the technologies. In fact, some years you can find my name and call in the radio amateur handbook; I've done some innovating in ham radio, including some designs that were sold by AEA, way back when.
So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first.
This is true, however, you are still forbidden to use it to broadcast. The reason the bands are valuable is because instead of making them available to the citizens, they are auctioned to those with the most money. What is your objection to a broadcast band, let's say 50 to 100 MHz in size, being made available without power, content or range restriction to the public with broadcasting being expressly allowed?
...you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.
Exactly - you are locked out of broadcasting. That's the problem, all right. If I want to share my views live with a random single local individual, this is a capability that is already available to me without the need of radio, though yes, I can also do it as a ham or as a citizen's band user. If I want to share my views live with thousands or tens of thousands of local people at once, RF broadcast is not an option. I think it should be. Other than greed, I see no reason why it should not be.
I have no problem with this at all. There are no broadcasts of any nature that are worth listening to at present; an entire dial full of stations that changed with location would at least have a chance of coming up with something. Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding.
The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like.
It's a circular definition. The FCC defines what is proper for a broadcaster; then requires that stations be proper. Technically speaking, what keeps a broadcast station on the proper frequency and at the proper fidelity is hardware, and fully functional hardware that can do this is extremely inexpensive these days.
Without the FCC, broadcast stations still have motivation to stay in one place, primarily so that they are easily located, and easily retrieved from memory, both human and hardware. Without the FCC, stations still have motivation to maintain high quality signals, because listeners prefer such signals. Without the FCC, stations would no longer have a monopoly on listeners, and you and I could start our own stations. Without the FCC, putting up a very high quality local radio station capable of covering ten square miles or so would cost well under $100 and have a maintenance cost of a few cents a month. With the FCC, the same low power station costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if you can get them to issue you a license, which you probably cannot. Without the FCC, all manner of clever services and hardware would be possible and most likely would appear. For instance, your radio could read out the weather forecast or stocks or whatever using sub 20-hz encoding. Without the FCC, you could actually broadcast your own opinions and those of your peers (and I strongly suspect this is one of the key reasons you'll never see low power stations easily licensed.)
The FCC is absolutely and totally a tool of the corporations. Other than maintaining their monopoly, it has no reason to prevent the average citizen from having free access to a decent broadcast band, not to mention a great deal of the rest of the spectrum. But corporations are completely against this (and with good reason - I could put a far better "talk" station on the air than anything you've ever heard from a corporation in the last 25 years or so, at which point it would be easy to consume part of "their" demographic. So could a lot of other people.)
I am perfectly willing to say that the FCC, or an agency like it, needs to regulate access to, and interference with, enough of the spectrum so that (a) emergency services are enabled and nor compromised, (b) people are not endangered by RF in the "can cook you" portions of the spectrum, (c) science, such as radio astronomy, is not compromised and (d) people's liberty and privacy are not compromised. None of this in any way provides for corporate dominance of the airwaves.
TFA talks about Sterling engines as a partial power source. They work on heat differences. I was thinking about that, and it occurred to me that you should be able to get a significant heat difference in a moving vehicle on a sunny day by (a) putting the hot end of the SE in a glass-enclosed bubble on top of the car and (b) putting the cold end of the SE on a heat sink that is a set of fins inside a duct that transits the car from front to back, using front to back air flow to carry heat away. The output of the SE would feed the car's electrical storage system, either batteries or ultracaps, which I expect will replace batteries before very long.
It would work best, by far, in a moving vehicle, and only in the daylight, but that covers a large fraction of when people travel.
Terrorists can't even build an exploding shoe half the time.
That doesn't stop the USG from using OMG WTF TERRORISTS on a regular basis to frighten the dimbulb masses and drive all manner of appalling legislation through the not-much-brighter congress and senate.
If the government really wanted to keep tabs on you, they'd mandate GPS/RFID systems in your car, not scan your license plate one Tuesday afternoon.
No, they'd put them in your cellphone. Because cellphones are carried with you pretty much everywhere you go, while your car stays in the parking lot.
And by the way, that's exactly what they have done. So they really don't need to GPS your car. If you don't want to be tracked via your cellphone, then you have to take the battery out or not carry it in the first place. Not very useful that way, is it? Surprise, surprise.
You could make an even more effective argument by pointing out what some police and justice systems have developed into. England is well on the way to becoming a surveillance society beyond Orwell's dreams. In the US, your property can be taken in order to get better tax revenue. Police can break down your door without a warrant. Legislators make unconstitutional laws, and the courts uphold them.
There are very good arguments for minimal government outside of transport, utility and communications infrastructure management, minimal police, minimal judicial structure. Yes, things would be different, and not better in every way, but liberty has considerable value as well. Clearly, the situation we're in now has its own severe drawbacks. And directly to the point, things are getting worse rather rapidly.
Few people are that stupid when their life is at stake.
People should be allowed to go about their legitimate business without regard to time, place, coat, pants, slanty eyes, skin color, reported need for pharmaceuticals or food. It isn't your place - or the cops - to judge why she needed her meds suddenly; there are all kinds of situations that can come up, ranging from not having the money to stock them up in advance, to prescriptions that force refills to happen at the end of a supply that may be fully depleted, to spilling a bottle down a drain, to your kid getting into the medicine closet and feeding them to your goldfish, and so on, ad infinitum.
I live in a rural area (Glasgow, Montana) with a diabetic; she uses a med called "Byetta" that has, at most, one extra shot left when the prescription is refillable. More common diabetes drugs don't work for her any longer, though they used to. She really needs this; without it, her blood sugars reach for the 400's, which is just plain no good. The only local source for the med - the only place that has been willing to carry it, since it is moderately expensive, about $225 per monthly refill - is the local Pamida. I convinced them by paying in advance for a years worth of prescriptions. One time, they simply didn't receive it, though they had ordered it. I drove her to Billings, 300 miles from here, to get that med. We bought it at an all-night pharmacy. It wasn't about money. I have lots of money. It wasn't about stupidity. I'm a reasonably smart fellow, and she's smarter than I am. It wasn't about planning. The prescription is specific, and it isn't an option to get extra. We bought it late at night because it's a five hour drive and we learned the Pamida didn't have it after 5 pm, and the fastest I could get to Billings was five hours. Part of the reason for that is mommy speeding laws. There are four very small towns between here and there, and it used to be that the parts of the trip between the towns could be made legally and safely at 95 MPH; I'd have been there with daylight to spare. In a car that is well designed to handle those speeds. This time, I couldn't do that, because some minion of Montana's legislative mommy core might have stopped us and put her at even greater risk. Does that piss me off? Yes, and you have no idea just how much.
What am I doing about it? I am in the process of getting my pilot's license, and as soon as I have it, I'll buy a plane. That'll put Billings a lot closer in time. Luckily, I'm in a financial position where I can do that simply because I want to, I can dedicate the time required, and I'm capable of learning to fly one. What about people who don't command the inherent and developed resources I do? Should they be subject to opinions like yours? "Attempted suicide"? "Stupid"?
When police actually protect you from an intentional assault, or stop someone they know to have done same because they have probable cause and a warrant, they're doing the jobs that naturally arise for such a role in any society. When they take on the role of mommy, second guessing safe traffic maneuvers, coercing you to wear seatbelts, concerning themselves with which seat your kid is in, worrying about what you're smoking, wearing, buying, saying or doing with a consenting, informed and competent partner... they're the enemy of the citizens. No less than that.
Rules? Doesn't matter if they're following the rules or not; There's an underlying social rationale for having police, and being your mommy isn't it. AT&T's's minions were just following the government's instructions when they tapped people's phones without warrants, too. When bad government makes bad rules, following them is no act of public service, and it is not "ok." A good cop is looking for direct threats from one source against another. Watching residences for people breaking windows and doors; looking for accidents; stopping altercations, that sort of thing. Y
But, more to the point, electric cars won't ever be common without significant increase in electrical generating capacity, and since it takes 10-20 years (and growing) to bring a new plant online, it's not going to happen anytime soon.
No. Generating capacity is there now; most electric vehicles will recharge in off-peak hours, when the generators are significantly under-utilized. Charging stations can also move demand from night to day by charging themselves at night, and cars during the day from the nighttime charge.
That's fascinating; I can see how small flywheels could fit into that application very well. They use them for some small machines to even out performance, essentially storing energy across inputs, as in a car transmission.
I think the Mr. Hates Ultracaps guy was talking about something like this; as near as I can tell, that's state of the art for flywheel ideas with regard to cars. Of course it can't store nearly enough energy to be useful to actually run the car for any length of time so its not really germane to the general discussion; but it is clever enough as far as it goes. That page imagines 36% as the efficiency for an electric vehicle's regen system (as a comparison) but of course it would be (using their numbers) 80% of 80%, or 64% for an ultracap assisted or based electric car - no chemical conversions. Which is better than the number quoted for the flywheel. The assumption of 80% is pretty harsh, too - most motors and generators can do much better, and while you might not have great control of the braking (generator) conversion in the worst case, you certainly have direct control over the acceleration phase, so I think the 80% back conversion is too conservative, which would bring it up past 64% quite handily. Numbers like 85% for a DC motor are pretty conservative, and using them, it is 85% of 85%, or 72%. Kind of obviates the whole flywheel idea; it's that CVT that kills it, of course - how to get a continuously variable wheel rotation into a flywheel's accelerating spin without wasting energy with some form of a clutch is troublesome for the whole "keep the energy kinetic" idea. It's a wonder they can hit 60%.
That's because you've never driven more than 300 miles and never given any thought to it. 300 miles is at least 4 hours, non-stop. The vast majority of humans need to stop at that often anyhow, and 30 minutes is about the right length of time.
Currently, I drive it every week. Glasgow Montana to Billings Montana. Look it up. Just under 300 miles. My lady has breast cancer and her radiation treatment is at the Billings oncology center. So I know a little bit about driving 300 miles. In addition, I drive to the east coast twice a year, and the west coast once, unless there are family emergencies, in which case, more than once. Mostly, I just drive. I certainly don't hang around for half an hour here or there, and especially would not want to in a gas station or truck stop. I like to drive. I get out of (or sometimes off of, sometimes I go on my motorcycle) the vehicle (we have six) about once an hour, stretch, and get back in or on. Takes about a minute; very restorative and ensures I don't get fatigued. I also reposition the seat, and/or myself, a fair bit. I'm a martial arts instructor; I'm very aware of what my body tells me. So let's just get past this whole "you don't drive" nonsense your fevered, capacitor-fearing imagination cobbled up for you.
I'm getting very tired of hearing you bullshit your way through this...
Really? I look forward to my education, then. Let's see what you have to say, Mr. Scienceguydudeman.
Torque is the important measurement here, not HP. Not to mention that quoting engine HP very unfairly biases the comparison to begin with.
HP converts linearly to watts, I knew the conversion off the top of my head. Sorry if it upset you. Further. However: Go look at the Tesla torque and HP curves. They're common to the electric motors, nothing to do with the differences between batteries or ultracaps. They kick the butt of any IC engine. Fact. Go look. Or don't and continue being wrong, I'm not too concerned about it, actually. It seems to be your SOP.
Your blanket assertion that batteries can't charge fast enough to absorb the energy generated by regenerative braking is absurd.
Apparently not.
Otherwise, it'd be kind of funny that one of the key uses for ultracaps is to deal with regenerative braking issues, eh? But hey, don't let the facts slow you down.
The hypothetical service station can't reasonably exist, now or in the foreseeable future. At a minimum, there would need to be a nuclear power plant very nearby, with massive power lines feeding ultra-massive banks of super capacitors on-site.
Yes, of course you'd need ultracaps on site, and yes, you'd need high energy feeds. Why you think this is impossible or unreasonable, I have no idea. You ever look around you? Do you have *any* idea what levels of power are being delivered in those big towers you see? Are you under the impression that building more would be impossible? Or that building power plants is impossible? Do you live in a cave? Or are you just an angry corn farmer?
They take a very long time to charge in homes, because they are limited to 20-30amps. They charge much faster from commercial chargers, which are designed to be wired to much more powerful lines
Hoo boy. Look. A single residential circuit is 20 amps. Normally. You can have more if you like. But, this is at 120 VAC, more or less. About ten times the voltage a car battery needs. 120x20=2400 watts. So, you feed this to a handy-dandy step-down transformer, and 120 VAC turns into 12 VAC, and 20 amps can be turned into 200 amps, just given a big enough transformer to handle the current. Still, 12x200=2400 watts. No, really, stop screaming and look it up. I'll wait. Back yet
if I needed to increase the size of my gas tank 10,000 times I'd be a little short on leg room.
Sure. But those numbers have to be filtered through things like efficiency and how, practically speaking, one can distribute the energy storage system. You definitely don't want your gas tank under your seat. Batteries, not such a problem. Ultracaps, no problem, they're very safe (much safer and less toxic than batteries.) But we begin by asking, can a gasoline engine recover all that energy? The answer is no. Internal combustion engines are about 25% efficient. So, of that hypothetical 10k difference, you can only recover 2500. Not that this will help you when gasoline is too expensive and rare to buy, but that's another issue entirely. But again, this is energy density, not energy availability. Your gas tank takes up a relatively small amount of volume in your vehicle. This is because of that high energy density, essentially; a small amount of gas can get you 300 miles, and that's near the benchmark for a passenger car. So the question becomes, what does it take to get you 300 miles with electric? Because the answer to that question is the answer to your legroom issue.
Turns out, it's not too bad. Look at the Tesla (forget the price - look at the design.) Also remember we're not quite where we want to be yet. But anyway, the Tesla can deliver a 200 mile range (essentially 66% of what we'd like to see) with 450 kg of batteries. A gallon of gasoline is about six pounds. If your car gets 30 MPG, then it takes ten gallons to go three hundred miles. So we're talking about sixty pounds of gasoline. 60 pounds is about 27 kg.
So 27 kg gets you 300 miles with gas, and 450 kg gets you 200 with LI batteries. That's a 2/3rds difference in range, so we'll factor by.66 (or 1/x = 1.5); 450/27 is 16x, and 1.5x that is 25x. So in terms of mass, we're looking at a factor of 25 - not 2500. But keep in mind that batteries are a lot denser than gasoline is, so in terms of volume, we're not looking at 25x, but somewhat less. Don't have numbers on this, but we can hand-wave at least to the degree that the volume requirements are less than a factor of 25.
The Tesla delivers a comparable fuel efficiency of 100 MPG in terms of electrical costs (at retail.) Tesla is good for about 135 MPH, though just like an internal combustion engine, if you drive like that, you won't get a 200 mile range. The Tesla is a 2-person car, and your 30 MPG thing is probably a sedan and good for maybe 100 MPH before it catches fire (but again, you put four people in there, you won't get 30 MPG or 300 miles or go 100 MPH.) How come this isn't different by a factor of 2500? It is because the electrical motors are considerably more efficient, and they don't waste energy the way an IC engine does; the torque and power curves of an electric motor are things of beauty, while an IC engine has narrow peaks you keep having to shift gears to stay in (or your car does, if it is an automatic.) So the electrical motor is always about 85% efficient; the IC engine is only running at its (pitiful) 25% when it is in the right part of the curve. In town, this *really* sucks. On the highway, not so much. You've probably noticed a heck of a difference between in town and on the road mileage; that's essentially why.
But. The Tesla uses LI batteries. According to EEStor, ultracap systems will become available this year that deliver a performance advantage of 280/120 or 2.3 times over LI batteries. So either the weight will come down to 195 kg, leaving you considerably more leg room, or the range will go up to 466 miles, or there could be a compromise between the two. But wait, there's more! Because you're switching from batteries to ultracaps, you'll also get a better recharge, because batteries can't absorb regenerative braking energy and ultracaps can, plus if you'd like (and if they give you really good motors and controllers) you should be able to hit 200 MPH or ma
Batteries are infinitely cheaper than capacitors of similar capacities.
Up front, they are less expensive (not "infinitely cheaper") right now, yes. However, batteries have a very short lifetime compared to ultracaps. This makes total cost of ownership of ultracaps lower. Even right now. Certainly this will be so if and when the power/weight ratios equalize.
Battery recycling is a done deal... a net plus for a long time now.
No, not a net plus. They have to be transported two ways each time, and they are heavy. They have to be transported a lot, because they don't last long. They are dangerous - sulfuric acid is not anyone's friend, and randomly exploding lithium batteries aren't exactly anyone's cup of tea, either. Ultracaps contain no such toxic materials, and typical lifetimes in a once-a-day recharge situation are such that you could conceivably use the same ones through many generations of your family, in vehicle after vehicle or other high power applications.
Batteries can deliver enough immediate power to shred your wheels and turn your motor into molten metal if allowed to do so... Far, far more power than an internal combustion engine, and far more than anyone should ever need.
A typical car battery might be able to deliver a few thousand amps for a few seconds. Cranking amps, this is called; it's marked right on your battery, usually. 800 CA might be a typical rating; big ones can do better. In the process, the output voltage drops precipitously, because the battery's internal series resistance is very high. You can't do this for long, because the battery will fail due to overheating. Power dissipation is high because of that high series resistance. But that's OK, because the only time this load is placed on the battery is when the starter is turning over the engine. This is not a motor application as we are discussing here. Various battery technologies skew these numbers various ways from lead-acid batteries, but they're really not hugely different.
Ultracaps, however, are different. They have extremely low series resistance; so they can dump current at any rate you like, for as long as you like (as long as they have any left, of course) without in any way compromising the physical integrity or lifespan of the ultracap. They can take charge just as fast, very important with things like regenerative braking; that current must be absorbed when it is generated, or it is lost (usually as heat.) Charge times being faster mean that at an hypothetical service station, a car based on ultracaps can be recharged and on its way in just a couple minutes. As fast, or faster, than filling your tank with gasoline. Batteries can't do this - even your quoted 1/2 hour is a hugely optimistic claim. Drive 300 miles, wait 1/2 hour to charge, drive 300 miles, wait another 1/2 hour? That sounds annoying to me, frankly. If you're going 60 MPH for three hours, you make 180 miles, then lose 30 miles to your charging. With ultracaps, you lose maybe 5 miles. That's assuming your claim of 30 minutes to charge, which really isn't practical at all.
Far, far more power than an internal combustion engine
Um. Well. Lets poke some numbers. One horsepower is about 746 watts. A 2007 Corvette cranks 505 HP, or about 376.5 kilowatts. A car battery that can put out 1000 amps, if it can hold at 12.6 volts (unlikely, but anyway) is putting out 12.6 kilowatts. So to match that Vette, you're going to need thirty batteries, assuming 100% conversion efficiency to the motor drive requirements.
Of course, the Vette can put out 505 HP repeatedly without damage. The batteries can't. So really, you'd need maybe 60 batteries to reduce the load to 500 amps, or 120 to get it down to 250 amps. Think of that. 120 full size car batteries. Man. And 250 amps? How long do you think those batterie
Also, you started with a coal turbine. Start with a hydro plant or a solar plant. The supply is essentially infinite, there is essentially zero continuous delivery/extraction cost (as compared to coal mining and delivery) and there is no pollution at all anywhere in the whole generation / delivery / end user path. Solar cells are hitting 42% conversion lately, which is awesome in terms of power per square whatever. And we have lots of square whatevers. Kind of changes the whole picture, doesn't it?
And a last quibble; straight rectification isn't really what happens in any modern design; that's old tech. High speed switching converters do a lot better than 90%; more on the order of 95%. That's why switching power supplies deliver so much power for their size and run comparatively cool as compared to old linear supplies. Plus, they give voltage and current conversion at the same time, and you need that to get the most efficiency out of the motors.
Slashdot Mirror
No. LPFM is not open to individuals or commercial interests. (In fact, much of the time, it isn't open to anyone; it is a severely limited service.) What I am saying is not that a citizen should have to pretend they are an educational operation and sneak in commercial or individual uses, they should be allowed open access to a useful portion of the airwaves for whatever purpose they see fit.
I specifically said:
In other words, no more monopoly for commercial and moneyed interests. Let the citizens at the airwaves, and leave them alone as long as they don't create out of band interference. That's my agenda, insofar as I have one with regard to the FCC. The best, least disruptive way I see to do that is to open a band like the FM band, in a similar area of the spectrum, of similar size, and let the citizens at it. I think this is not only a good idea, I think it is inherently compatible with the principles of liberty that underlie the founding rationales that built this country.
You know as well as I do that the FCC exists for the express purpose of serving moneyed interests which also means they control the content of what is broadcast. I'm not just talking about censorship, though of course they do that too, I'm talking about the fact that you, for instance, can't host a call-in show on any subject at all; you can't advertise your lawn service on the air; you can't play your own music on the air; you can't act out a play of your own on the air; you can't use the airwaves because they are not available to you. I would very much like to see that change. There is no mechanism available in the current context of how the FCC manages the spectrum that allows for these concepts. Ham radio and LPFM certainly do not, both having specific provisions forbidding all manner of uses. I obey the restrictions; but I certainly consider it my right to object to them, and to raise what I consider to be ideas that offer improvements.
Dude. Read the thread. (a) I'm an extra-class ham. (b) hams can't broadcast. (c) LPFM is not available to individuals or commercial operations.
Absolutely. Have you listened to talk radio in the last decade or so?
Well, you could always tune away, now couldn't you? What are you afraid of?
No. You're entirely missing the point. The issue is that no citizen can set up a station to broadcast to their fellow citizens. The whole country is screwed. By law. More to the point, by the FCC. I don't care if you listen to RAP or country or bluegrass or Coast to Coast. These are corporations broadcasting to you, feeding you what they see fit to feed you. This is manifestly different from Joe down the street who has an idea about building a local park, or Jane, who writes children's stories, or Leroy, who thinks the local government's upcoming law on trapping stray cats is cruel, or the local libertarian, atheist, other person without much of a voice, who would like to have some open discussions without being the victim of a broadcaster who has already made up their mind and will edit them into oblivion. That is why the ability for citizens to broadcast matters. Not because you can get Sirius or XM or you live in a city, but because all of those things are moneyed interests speaking to the people, or sponsoring speaking to the people, or deciding what is entertainment and what is not. You have NO radio-based opportunity to listen to your neighbors, and they have NO radio-based opportunity to speak to you.
Radio is unique in that it can, particularly in the guise of bands like the FM band, address the area around the station in a high fidelity, live and timely manner for citizens who are parked in their recliners, jogging, or just out walking their dog. There is no other communications medium that can do this, and you're not allowed to use it. If you'd think about this for a moment, really think about it, I'd hope it would piss you off at least a little bit.
No. There are numerous bands where toe-stepping would be a problem, and the FCC has neither the manpower nor the inclination to regulate those bands. The only place it is *really* a problem is where propagation allows signals from far away to regularly come in locally, I'm thinking of the citizen's band at 27 MHz in particular. Providing an unregulated band - in the sense that inside the band, one could broadcast to one's neighbors without breaking any rules - that is local by nature, say around 110 MHz for 20 MHz, is a perfectly reasonable proposal that poses danger only if citizens communicating with each other is dangerous. And if that's the case... we have other problems.
Right. Moneyed interests, then. More to the point, they don't serve the individual citizen in the sense or providing citizens a voice. We get to listen, an entirely passive role. One might take a moment to wonder why this has been uniformly so for so long.
With regard to your fear of Scientologists broadcasting on every available frequency, they can't afford to alienate entire communities by greedily consuming limited public resources at everyone else's expense any more than any other organization that depends upon picking up recruits from the rank and file can.
Look, it has nothing to do with whether I like what is on the air or not. It has to do with the liberty to speak to and otherwise broadly communicate over radio with one's fellow citizens. If you're not interested in that, fine. Many people are, however, and it is not a matter of what "I want."
My suggestion has been that a band be made available which allows broadcast. There are numerous bands available that do not such as citizens band, ham bands, public service bands, etc. No band - anywhere - allows citizens to broadcast. Broadcasting is limited to those with money, power. Citizens are locked out. All we need to enable citizen broadcasting is one chunk of space. Of any size, though certainly an FM band at least comparable to the commercial FM band (about 20 MHz at or above 110 MHz) would be appropriate for several technical reasons. The FCC or a more reasonable replacement can stay out of it unless someone causes interference outside the band. Nothing would happen to FM-band broadcasters, AM-band broadcasters, etc - citizens would just have a space of our own we could broadcast opinion in, broadcast our own dramatic or musical productions in, talk about our businesses or conduct our business in. For the first time since such equipment was inexpensive.
You will not see such a thing, however, because the people you should be worried about, the government, will never allow it.
Sorry, editing glitch. What I meant to say was "as well as." Ultracaps take up incoming current much faster and with considerably less energy wasted than can a battery. That's why even present generation ultracaps are often found in regenerative braking subsystems.
Here you go: over 40% conversion efficiency.
Well, to balance that point, you really should bring up a downside...
No. Broadcasting is forbidden in the ham bands.
I hold an extra class ham license and have for many years. It is still illegal for me to broadcast. Or any other ham, for that matter. I am quite familiar with the rules and the technologies. In fact, some years you can find my name and call in the radio amateur handbook; I've done some innovating in ham radio, including some designs that were sold by AEA, way back when.
This is true, however, you are still forbidden to use it to broadcast. The reason the bands are valuable is because instead of making them available to the citizens, they are auctioned to those with the most money. What is your objection to a broadcast band, let's say 50 to 100 MHz in size, being made available without power, content or range restriction to the public with broadcasting being expressly allowed?
Exactly - you are locked out of broadcasting. That's the problem, all right. If I want to share my views live with a random single local individual, this is a capability that is already available to me without the need of radio, though yes, I can also do it as a ham or as a citizen's band user. If I want to share my views live with thousands or tens of thousands of local people at once, RF broadcast is not an option. I think it should be. Other than greed, I see no reason why it should not be.
I have no problem with this at all. There are no broadcasts of any nature that are worth listening to at present; an entire dial full of stations that changed with location would at least have a chance of coming up with something. Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding.
It's a circular definition. The FCC defines what is proper for a broadcaster; then requires that stations be proper. Technically speaking, what keeps a broadcast station on the proper frequency and at the proper fidelity is hardware, and fully functional hardware that can do this is extremely inexpensive these days.
Without the FCC, broadcast stations still have motivation to stay in one place, primarily so that they are easily located, and easily retrieved from memory, both human and hardware. Without the FCC, stations still have motivation to maintain high quality signals, because listeners prefer such signals. Without the FCC, stations would no longer have a monopoly on listeners, and you and I could start our own stations. Without the FCC, putting up a very high quality local radio station capable of covering ten square miles or so would cost well under $100 and have a maintenance cost of a few cents a month. With the FCC, the same low power station costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if you can get them to issue you a license, which you probably cannot. Without the FCC, all manner of clever services and hardware would be possible and most likely would appear. For instance, your radio could read out the weather forecast or stocks or whatever using sub 20-hz encoding. Without the FCC, you could actually broadcast your own opinions and those of your peers (and I strongly suspect this is one of the key reasons you'll never see low power stations easily licensed.)
The FCC is absolutely and totally a tool of the corporations. Other than maintaining their monopoly, it has no reason to prevent the average citizen from having free access to a decent broadcast band, not to mention a great deal of the rest of the spectrum. But corporations are completely against this (and with good reason - I could put a far better "talk" station on the air than anything you've ever heard from a corporation in the last 25 years or so, at which point it would be easy to consume part of "their" demographic. So could a lot of other people.)
I am perfectly willing to say that the FCC, or an agency like it, needs to regulate access to, and interference with, enough of the spectrum so that (a) emergency services are enabled and nor compromised, (b) people are not endangered by RF in the "can cook you" portions of the spectrum, (c) science, such as radio astronomy, is not compromised and (d) people's liberty and privacy are not compromised. None of this in any way provides for corporate dominance of the airwaves.
Democracy [US version, noun]: "Where each dollar gets an equal vote."
TFA talks about Sterling engines as a partial power source. They work on heat differences. I was thinking about that, and it occurred to me that you should be able to get a significant heat difference in a moving vehicle on a sunny day by (a) putting the hot end of the SE in a glass-enclosed bubble on top of the car and (b) putting the cold end of the SE on a heat sink that is a set of fins inside a duct that transits the car from front to back, using front to back air flow to carry heat away. The output of the SE would feed the car's electrical storage system, either batteries or ultracaps, which I expect will replace batteries before very long.
It would work best, by far, in a moving vehicle, and only in the daylight, but that covers a large fraction of when people travel.
Terrorists can't even build an exploding shoe half the time.
That doesn't stop the USG from using OMG WTF TERRORISTS on a regular basis to frighten the dimbulb masses and drive all manner of appalling legislation through the not-much-brighter congress and senate.
No, they'd put them in your cellphone. Because cellphones are carried with you pretty much everywhere you go, while your car stays in the parking lot.
And by the way, that's exactly what they have done. So they really don't need to GPS your car. If you don't want to be tracked via your cellphone, then you have to take the battery out or not carry it in the first place. Not very useful that way, is it? Surprise, surprise.
You could make an even more effective argument by pointing out what some police and justice systems have developed into. England is well on the way to becoming a surveillance society beyond Orwell's dreams. In the US, your property can be taken in order to get better tax revenue. Police can break down your door without a warrant. Legislators make unconstitutional laws, and the courts uphold them.
There are very good arguments for minimal government outside of transport, utility and communications infrastructure management, minimal police, minimal judicial structure. Yes, things would be different, and not better in every way, but liberty has considerable value as well. Clearly, the situation we're in now has its own severe drawbacks. And directly to the point, things are getting worse rather rapidly.
People should be allowed to go about their legitimate business without regard to time, place, coat, pants, slanty eyes, skin color, reported need for pharmaceuticals or food. It isn't your place - or the cops - to judge why she needed her meds suddenly; there are all kinds of situations that can come up, ranging from not having the money to stock them up in advance, to prescriptions that force refills to happen at the end of a supply that may be fully depleted, to spilling a bottle down a drain, to your kid getting into the medicine closet and feeding them to your goldfish, and so on, ad infinitum.
I live in a rural area (Glasgow, Montana) with a diabetic; she uses a med called "Byetta" that has, at most, one extra shot left when the prescription is refillable. More common diabetes drugs don't work for her any longer, though they used to. She really needs this; without it, her blood sugars reach for the 400's, which is just plain no good. The only local source for the med - the only place that has been willing to carry it, since it is moderately expensive, about $225 per monthly refill - is the local Pamida. I convinced them by paying in advance for a years worth of prescriptions. One time, they simply didn't receive it, though they had ordered it. I drove her to Billings, 300 miles from here, to get that med. We bought it at an all-night pharmacy. It wasn't about money. I have lots of money. It wasn't about stupidity. I'm a reasonably smart fellow, and she's smarter than I am. It wasn't about planning. The prescription is specific, and it isn't an option to get extra. We bought it late at night because it's a five hour drive and we learned the Pamida didn't have it after 5 pm, and the fastest I could get to Billings was five hours. Part of the reason for that is mommy speeding laws. There are four very small towns between here and there, and it used to be that the parts of the trip between the towns could be made legally and safely at 95 MPH; I'd have been there with daylight to spare. In a car that is well designed to handle those speeds. This time, I couldn't do that, because some minion of Montana's legislative mommy core might have stopped us and put her at even greater risk. Does that piss me off? Yes, and you have no idea just how much.
What am I doing about it? I am in the process of getting my pilot's license, and as soon as I have it, I'll buy a plane. That'll put Billings a lot closer in time. Luckily, I'm in a financial position where I can do that simply because I want to, I can dedicate the time required, and I'm capable of learning to fly one. What about people who don't command the inherent and developed resources I do? Should they be subject to opinions like yours? "Attempted suicide"? "Stupid"?
When police actually protect you from an intentional assault, or stop someone they know to have done same because they have probable cause and a warrant, they're doing the jobs that naturally arise for such a role in any society. When they take on the role of mommy, second guessing safe traffic maneuvers, coercing you to wear seatbelts, concerning themselves with which seat your kid is in, worrying about what you're smoking, wearing, buying, saying or doing with a consenting, informed and competent partner... they're the enemy of the citizens. No less than that.
Rules? Doesn't matter if they're following the rules or not; There's an underlying social rationale for having police, and being your mommy isn't it. AT&T's's minions were just following the government's instructions when they tapped people's phones without warrants, too. When bad government makes bad rules, following them is no act of public service, and it is not "ok." A good cop is looking for direct threats from one source against another. Watching residences for people breaking windows and doors; looking for accidents; stopping altercations, that sort of thing. Y
No. Generating capacity is there now; most electric vehicles will recharge in off-peak hours, when the generators are significantly under-utilized. Charging stations can also move demand from night to day by charging themselves at night, and cars during the day from the nighttime charge.
That's fascinating; I can see how small flywheels could fit into that application very well. They use them for some small machines to even out performance, essentially storing energy across inputs, as in a car transmission.
I think the Mr. Hates Ultracaps guy was talking about something like this; as near as I can tell, that's state of the art for flywheel ideas with regard to cars. Of course it can't store nearly enough energy to be useful to actually run the car for any length of time so its not really germane to the general discussion; but it is clever enough as far as it goes. That page imagines 36% as the efficiency for an electric vehicle's regen system (as a comparison) but of course it would be (using their numbers) 80% of 80%, or 64% for an ultracap assisted or based electric car - no chemical conversions. Which is better than the number quoted for the flywheel. The assumption of 80% is pretty harsh, too - most motors and generators can do much better, and while you might not have great control of the braking (generator) conversion in the worst case, you certainly have direct control over the acceleration phase, so I think the 80% back conversion is too conservative, which would bring it up past 64% quite handily. Numbers like 85% for a DC motor are pretty conservative, and using them, it is 85% of 85%, or 72%. Kind of obviates the whole flywheel idea; it's that CVT that kills it, of course - how to get a continuously variable wheel rotation into a flywheel's accelerating spin without wasting energy with some form of a clutch is troublesome for the whole "keep the energy kinetic" idea. It's a wonder they can hit 60%.
Currently, I drive it every week. Glasgow Montana to Billings Montana. Look it up. Just under 300 miles. My lady has breast cancer and her radiation treatment is at the Billings oncology center. So I know a little bit about driving 300 miles. In addition, I drive to the east coast twice a year, and the west coast once, unless there are family emergencies, in which case, more than once. Mostly, I just drive. I certainly don't hang around for half an hour here or there, and especially would not want to in a gas station or truck stop. I like to drive. I get out of (or sometimes off of, sometimes I go on my motorcycle) the vehicle (we have six) about once an hour, stretch, and get back in or on. Takes about a minute; very restorative and ensures I don't get fatigued. I also reposition the seat, and/or myself, a fair bit. I'm a martial arts instructor; I'm very aware of what my body tells me. So let's just get past this whole "you don't drive" nonsense your fevered, capacitor-fearing imagination cobbled up for you.
Really? I look forward to my education, then. Let's see what you have to say, Mr. Scienceguydudeman.
HP converts linearly to watts, I knew the conversion off the top of my head. Sorry if it upset you. Further. However: Go look at the Tesla torque and HP curves. They're common to the electric motors, nothing to do with the differences between batteries or ultracaps. They kick the butt of any IC engine. Fact. Go look. Or don't and continue being wrong, I'm not too concerned about it, actually. It seems to be your SOP.
Apparently not. Otherwise, it'd be kind of funny that one of the key uses for ultracaps is to deal with regenerative braking issues, eh? But hey, don't let the facts slow you down.
Yes, of course you'd need ultracaps on site, and yes, you'd need high energy feeds. Why you think this is impossible or unreasonable, I have no idea. You ever look around you? Do you have *any* idea what levels of power are being delivered in those big towers you see? Are you under the impression that building more would be impossible? Or that building power plants is impossible? Do you live in a cave? Or are you just an angry corn farmer?
Hoo boy. Look. A single residential circuit is 20 amps. Normally. You can have more if you like. But, this is at 120 VAC, more or less. About ten times the voltage a car battery needs. 120x20=2400 watts. So, you feed this to a handy-dandy step-down transformer, and 120 VAC turns into 12 VAC, and 20 amps can be turned into 200 amps, just given a big enough transformer to handle the current. Still, 12x200=2400 watts. No, really, stop screaming and look it up. I'll wait. Back yet
In this house, we always...
(Simpsons...)
Sure. But those numbers have to be filtered through things like efficiency and how, practically speaking, one can distribute the energy storage system. You definitely don't want your gas tank under your seat. Batteries, not such a problem. Ultracaps, no problem, they're very safe (much safer and less toxic than batteries.) But we begin by asking, can a gasoline engine recover all that energy? The answer is no. Internal combustion engines are about 25% efficient. So, of that hypothetical 10k difference, you can only recover 2500. Not that this will help you when gasoline is too expensive and rare to buy, but that's another issue entirely. But again, this is energy density, not energy availability. Your gas tank takes up a relatively small amount of volume in your vehicle. This is because of that high energy density, essentially; a small amount of gas can get you 300 miles, and that's near the benchmark for a passenger car. So the question becomes, what does it take to get you 300 miles with electric? Because the answer to that question is the answer to your legroom issue.
Turns out, it's not too bad. Look at the Tesla (forget the price - look at the design.) Also remember we're not quite where we want to be yet. But anyway, the Tesla can deliver a 200 mile range (essentially 66% of what we'd like to see) with 450 kg of batteries. A gallon of gasoline is about six pounds. If your car gets 30 MPG, then it takes ten gallons to go three hundred miles. So we're talking about sixty pounds of gasoline. 60 pounds is about 27 kg.
So 27 kg gets you 300 miles with gas, and 450 kg gets you 200 with LI batteries. That's a 2/3rds difference in range, so we'll factor by .66 (or 1/x = 1.5); 450/27 is 16x, and 1.5x that is 25x. So in terms of mass, we're looking at a factor of 25 - not 2500. But keep in mind that batteries are a lot denser than gasoline is, so in terms of volume, we're not looking at 25x, but somewhat less. Don't have numbers on this, but we can hand-wave at least to the degree that the volume requirements are less than a factor of 25.
The Tesla delivers a comparable fuel efficiency of 100 MPG in terms of electrical costs (at retail.) Tesla is good for about 135 MPH, though just like an internal combustion engine, if you drive like that, you won't get a 200 mile range. The Tesla is a 2-person car, and your 30 MPG thing is probably a sedan and good for maybe 100 MPH before it catches fire (but again, you put four people in there, you won't get 30 MPG or 300 miles or go 100 MPH.) How come this isn't different by a factor of 2500? It is because the electrical motors are considerably more efficient, and they don't waste energy the way an IC engine does; the torque and power curves of an electric motor are things of beauty, while an IC engine has narrow peaks you keep having to shift gears to stay in (or your car does, if it is an automatic.) So the electrical motor is always about 85% efficient; the IC engine is only running at its (pitiful) 25% when it is in the right part of the curve. In town, this *really* sucks. On the highway, not so much. You've probably noticed a heck of a difference between in town and on the road mileage; that's essentially why.
But. The Tesla uses LI batteries. According to EEStor, ultracap systems will become available this year that deliver a performance advantage of 280/120 or 2.3 times over LI batteries. So either the weight will come down to 195 kg, leaving you considerably more leg room, or the range will go up to 466 miles, or there could be a compromise between the two. But wait, there's more! Because you're switching from batteries to ultracaps, you'll also get a better recharge, because batteries can't absorb regenerative braking energy and ultracaps can, plus if you'd like (and if they give you really good motors and controllers) you should be able to hit 200 MPH or ma
Up front, they are less expensive (not "infinitely cheaper") right now, yes. However, batteries have a very short lifetime compared to ultracaps. This makes total cost of ownership of ultracaps lower. Even right now. Certainly this will be so if and when the power/weight ratios equalize.
No, not a net plus. They have to be transported two ways each time, and they are heavy. They have to be transported a lot, because they don't last long. They are dangerous - sulfuric acid is not anyone's friend, and randomly exploding lithium batteries aren't exactly anyone's cup of tea, either. Ultracaps contain no such toxic materials, and typical lifetimes in a once-a-day recharge situation are such that you could conceivably use the same ones through many generations of your family, in vehicle after vehicle or other high power applications.
A typical car battery might be able to deliver a few thousand amps for a few seconds. Cranking amps, this is called; it's marked right on your battery, usually. 800 CA might be a typical rating; big ones can do better. In the process, the output voltage drops precipitously, because the battery's internal series resistance is very high. You can't do this for long, because the battery will fail due to overheating. Power dissipation is high because of that high series resistance. But that's OK, because the only time this load is placed on the battery is when the starter is turning over the engine. This is not a motor application as we are discussing here. Various battery technologies skew these numbers various ways from lead-acid batteries, but they're really not hugely different.
Ultracaps, however, are different. They have extremely low series resistance; so they can dump current at any rate you like, for as long as you like (as long as they have any left, of course) without in any way compromising the physical integrity or lifespan of the ultracap. They can take charge just as fast, very important with things like regenerative braking; that current must be absorbed when it is generated, or it is lost (usually as heat.) Charge times being faster mean that at an hypothetical service station, a car based on ultracaps can be recharged and on its way in just a couple minutes. As fast, or faster, than filling your tank with gasoline. Batteries can't do this - even your quoted 1/2 hour is a hugely optimistic claim. Drive 300 miles, wait 1/2 hour to charge, drive 300 miles, wait another 1/2 hour? That sounds annoying to me, frankly. If you're going 60 MPH for three hours, you make 180 miles, then lose 30 miles to your charging. With ultracaps, you lose maybe 5 miles. That's assuming your claim of 30 minutes to charge, which really isn't practical at all.
Um. Well. Lets poke some numbers. One horsepower is about 746 watts. A 2007 Corvette cranks 505 HP, or about 376.5 kilowatts. A car battery that can put out 1000 amps, if it can hold at 12.6 volts (unlikely, but anyway) is putting out 12.6 kilowatts. So to match that Vette, you're going to need thirty batteries, assuming 100% conversion efficiency to the motor drive requirements.
Of course, the Vette can put out 505 HP repeatedly without damage. The batteries can't. So really, you'd need maybe 60 batteries to reduce the load to 500 amps, or 120 to get it down to 250 amps. Think of that. 120 full size car batteries. Man. And 250 amps? How long do you think those batterie
Also, you started with a coal turbine. Start with a hydro plant or a solar plant. The supply is essentially infinite, there is essentially zero continuous delivery/extraction cost (as compared to coal mining and delivery) and there is no pollution at all anywhere in the whole generation / delivery / end user path. Solar cells are hitting 42% conversion lately, which is awesome in terms of power per square whatever. And we have lots of square whatevers. Kind of changes the whole picture, doesn't it?
And a last quibble; straight rectification isn't really what happens in any modern design; that's old tech. High speed switching converters do a lot better than 90%; more on the order of 95%. That's why switching power supplies deliver so much power for their size and run comparatively cool as compared to old linear supplies. Plus, they give voltage and current conversion at the same time, and you need that to get the most efficiency out of the motors.