The Chevy Volt design....

On Mar 30, 10:24*am, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> Awl --
>
> Recently, with the asshole extreeordinaire KiddingHisself, there was much
> acrimonious debate over the Volt, whose design I initially thought was Da
> Bomb.
> Kidding, however, has pointed out that the design is, in fact, a kind of
> gratuitous silly complexity. *Kidding dudn't understand this or any of the
> implications of his own research, but that's to be expected.
>
> So the Q is:
>
> If a diesel-electric locomotive uses a dert-simple
> diesel-to-generator-to-traction-motor design, with no intermediary bull****,
> why doesn't the Volt do this as well?
> The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
> locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric, so they just
> call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
> electric-only operation. *No big biggie, in my mind.
> Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
> not big in the actual *design details*. *After all, parallel is parallel,
> electrically speaking.
>
> Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
> Electric motors apparently no need no stinkin transmission, one of their big
> advantages.
> So all's you gotta do is hit the gas pedal, rev up the generator, to get
> accelerating electic power. *Release, have some relays switch the motors to
> braking batteries, bang, you slow down.
> Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>
> So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the Volt??
>
> Dare I say it:
> RCMers could build/execute this basic design, and for a whole lot less than
> $45K. *My 15,000 W genset (22 hp, and no bastion of technology) weighs a
> whole 220#. *I'm sure that output could be at least tripled in 500# genset,
> what with Detroit know-how.
>
> Oh, Kidding, please stay out of THIS thread, adults are tryna talk here.....
> --
> EA

You and others may find this of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziri_hLOI0Y

It is my understanding that virtually all American-made, for the domestic
market, diesel electric locomotives consist of a diesel engine that turns a
generator or alternator which drives electric motors attached to gear
reduction drives that turn the wheels. This has been the main stream
design since the late thirties.

Yes there have been locomotives that had gasoline or diesel motors attached
to transmissions with drive shafts attached to differtials on the axles.
Most of these were either home-brewed(Rio Grande "Galloping Goose" et al)
or low powered low speed switch engines. Budd Railcars of the fifties were
straight diesel engines with torque converters driving differntials on a
single axle. One or two cars was about all they could pull.

In the late sixties/early seventies Southern Pacific imported a number of
Kruass-Maiffi (sp) diesel hydraulic locomotives for use on some of the
western mountain routes. They ultimately were considered failures because
the temperature of the hydraulic fluid could not be adequately controlled
causing motors and lines to burn up. And they were no more fuel efficient
than diesel electrics.

The advent of alternators and AC motors increased the fuel effiency and
tractive effort dramtically. The evolution of the controls to computer
management has increased effiency even more. Thus the unit coal trains
that shuttle between Wyoming and the Texas coast routinely consist of 125
cars(1.7 miles of 75 foot long cars), 15000 tons of coal, with 3(2 in
front, one in back, pushing, remote controlled) locomotives( 6000 hp, six
axle, Ac motors) traveling at speeds up to 60 mph.

Getting back to EA's original question of why not use this drivetrain, the
usual answer is: the response time for intial acceleration is too slow for
street/highway use.


--
Remove "nospam" to get to me.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:24:31 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:

>Awl --
>
>Recently, with the asshole extreeordinaire KiddingHisself, there was much
>acrimonious debate over the Volt, whose design I initially thought was Da
>Bomb.
>Kidding, however, has pointed out that the design is, in fact, a kind of
>gratuitous silly complexity. Kidding dudn't understand this or any of the
>implications of his own research, but that's to be expected.
>
>So the Q is:
>
>If a diesel-electric locomotive uses a dert-simple
>diesel-to-generator-to-traction-motor design, with no intermediary bull****,
>why doesn't the Volt do this as well?
>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric, so they just
>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>electrically speaking.
>
>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>Electric motors apparently no need no stinkin transmission, one of their big
>advantages.
>So all's you gotta do is hit the gas pedal, rev up the generator, to get
>accelerating electic power. Release, have some relays switch the motors to
>braking batteries, bang, you slow down.
>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>
>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the Volt??
>
>Dare I say it:
>RCMers could build/execute this basic design, and for a whole lot less than
>$45K. My 15,000 W genset (22 hp, and no bastion of technology) weighs a
>whole 220#. I'm sure that output could be at least tripled in 500# genset,
>what with Detroit know-how.
>
>Oh, Kidding, please stay out of THIS thread, adults are tryna talk here....


I think the primary reason why the basic design parameters of a diesel
electric loco aren't used for an electric car are...
... A D-E is designed to mainly run long distances at more or less max
output and fairly uniform speed, not a not of 0 - 70 mph and back over
and over.
... Acceleration is not a critical factor to the "drivers" of them. It
needs to be adequate but they don't need to provide for "especially
quick starts", or passing slower traffic with a burst of speed.
... Each class of loco is designed for a specific basic function,
switching, passenger service, freight being the main ones. So while a
Passenger loco may be geared to run 90 mph, the freight version will
be geared to run 60 mph and a switcher might be tuned for 30 mph being
it's optimum. Sure they can be interchanged if needed in a pinch but
doesn't change the basic premise.
.... because of the above, and because the actual train is WAY heavier
then the loco itself, the actual weight of the loco isn't all the big
a deal, whereas for a car it's a huge factor in the overall design. In
fact, for a loco, you don't want it to be too light, it needs a lot of
weight to provide the traction to pull the heavy train.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:00 +0100, Clive >
wrote:

>In message >, Existential Angst
> writes
>>"Clive" > wrote in message
...
>>> In message >, Existential Angst
>>> > writes
>>>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric,
>>> No, they're not. You have obviously never heard of Voith who make
>>> hydraulic transmissions for diesel locomotives. There are also some
>>> manufacturers of mechanical transmission but these are only low powered (a
>>> few hundred horsepower) and not therefore mainstream.
>Back in the 1956/60s some main line locomotives did use a 4-speed
>constant mesh gearbox with the engine load being one permanently coupled
>torque convertor (Maybach-Mekydro) but I've not heard of those for
>several years now, and my experience is that the main ( not the only)
>maker of hydraulic transmissions is Voith, the layout differs between
>different models but the principal is the same. A torque convertor can
>multiply torque by up to five when the input shaft is driven and the
>output shaft is stationary. The input shaft connects to an impeller to
>throw oil outwards, the oil is directed by fixed blading onto the
>turbine which is coupled to the road wheels, the ideal behind the Voith
>transmission is to engage gear all you need to do is fill an empty
>converter with oil. If you gear three torque converters separately
>onto one output shaft and fill or empty them as needed you can see that
>three different ratios can be obtained, this is they way gears are
>changed. At idle, all three converters are empty and there is no
>drive, as you need drive so the first converter is filled, as speed
>increases the second is filled whilst the first is emptied and so on.
>>>> so they just
>>>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>>>electrically speaking.
>>>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>On an electric transmission, as you say, a generator is wired to the
>motor/s on the road wheels and some drive can be transmitted. However
>such a design needs modification to work properly. Firstly the
>generator needs the field to be excited to induce current flow in the
>commutator, the more the field is excited the higher the output from the
>generator for a set speed and it's this principal that can be made use
>of. Motors are very similar to generators and try to create a voltage
>opposing the driving voltage (called, back EMF) when turning, so the
>faster the motor turns the larger the back EMF, as it opposes forward
>flow of current, generator to motor, the prime mover (diesel engine) is
>off loaded. To keep the flow of juice constant the forward EMF needs to
>be increased and this is done by increasing the generator field to
>balance out. There comes a point at which you can't increase the field
>voltage without risk of flashover and on a lot of main line locomotives
>this is about 30 to 35 mph.
>The way around this, is to stop the motors generating some back EMF and
>this is done by weakening it's field, allowing the motor to take more
>current and drive to a higher speed, you might say this is the
>equivalent of an electrical gearbox.
>A locomotive would use maybe three different levels of field weakening
>allowing the motors to speed up and giving a higher top speed, the
>gearing between the motors and road wheels chosen for a mixture of
>either high tractive effort (pulling power) or top speed, or a mixture
>of both.
>>> Modern locomotives don't use generators any longer, they use alternators
>>> which are rectified then fed to an inverter which then powers (if modern)
>>> A.C. Three phase motors.
>My understanding of modern three phase traction techniques is seriously
>limited and I'm not going to try to explain them other than to say, they
>are far more efficient and can turn in efficiencies of greater than 95%.
>>> Locomotives would create too much power to store, regeneration is used
>>> where the power can be shunted away as in an electric locomotive which can
>>> either feed D.C. To the third rail or (I don't know about America, but
>>> here in Britain it 25,000volts at 50 Hertz) overhead catenary. Another
>>> locomotive on the same juice section might be drawing current and this
>>> negates the current draw from the power station.
>>>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>This is where a hybrid or range extended transmission can be used and
>frankly it's a case of personal preference. I'd like to make an
>observation and would welcome your feedback, I don't think there is such
>a thing as a free lunch and here in Britain, fuel can be or is 6.60UKP
>per gallon.
>It has been worked out that an electric car, whether pure EV or range
>extender needs to be charged and that electricity costs money, which has
>to be offset against the price of fuel to see if any gain is made. It
>turns out that the gain from using electricity is marginal at best or
>non-existent at worst, with the only upside being regeneration energy
>can be stored in batteries to help accelerate again. You would need to
>work out what it would cost you to drive one mile in both fuels (liquid
>and electricity) to see if it's cheaper to use one fuel over another, in
>the UK there isn't much in it.
> I know a US gallon is a bit smaller than an imperial one but the
>amount of liquid is the same, so it should be easy to look up the
>conversion factor and the financial exchange rate and get a figure for
>USD per US gallon.
>>>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the
>>>>Volt??
>See above.
>>> You might be able to knock up something small like you suggest but
>>> remember that generator to traction motor is not very efficient (which is
>>> why the inverter/asynchronous motor of today), you're looking at about 15%
>>> losses in transmission.
>>
>>OK, some clarifications:
>I have read them.
>If you feel I am in error, please let me know.


Something that is often overlooked in the "it's cheaper to generate
electricity" theory is that the THEORY is fine as far as how efficient
it is AT the point of generation. But when you have to transmit that
electricity over more then a couple hundred miles you start to get
very large transmission losses. I forget the exact numbers but it's
surprisingly large, you lose something like half the power by the time
you send it 400 miles. This is one of the reasons super-cold
superconductors have been a "hot" field of research, just eliminating
that transmission loss would nearly double the available power from
the current electric system.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:16:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:00 +0100, Clive >
>wrote:
>
>>In message >, Existential Angst
> writes
>>>"Clive" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In message >, Existential Angst
>>>> > writes
>>>>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>>>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric,
>>>> No, they're not. You have obviously never heard of Voith who make
>>>> hydraulic transmissions for diesel locomotives. There are also some
>>>> manufacturers of mechanical transmission but these are only low powered (a
>>>> few hundred horsepower) and not therefore mainstream.
>>Back in the 1956/60s some main line locomotives did use a 4-speed
>>constant mesh gearbox with the engine load being one permanently coupled
>>torque convertor (Maybach-Mekydro) but I've not heard of those for
>>several years now, and my experience is that the main ( not the only)
>>maker of hydraulic transmissions is Voith, the layout differs between
>>different models but the principal is the same. A torque convertor can
>>multiply torque by up to five when the input shaft is driven and the
>>output shaft is stationary. The input shaft connects to an impeller to
>>throw oil outwards, the oil is directed by fixed blading onto the
>>turbine which is coupled to the road wheels, the ideal behind the Voith
>>transmission is to engage gear all you need to do is fill an empty
>>converter with oil. If you gear three torque converters separately
>>onto one output shaft and fill or empty them as needed you can see that
>>three different ratios can be obtained, this is they way gears are
>>changed. At idle, all three converters are empty and there is no
>>drive, as you need drive so the first converter is filled, as speed
>>increases the second is filled whilst the first is emptied and so on.
>>>>> so they just
>>>>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>>>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>>>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>>>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>>>>electrically speaking.
>>>>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>>On an electric transmission, as you say, a generator is wired to the
>>motor/s on the road wheels and some drive can be transmitted. However
>>such a design needs modification to work properly. Firstly the
>>generator needs the field to be excited to induce current flow in the
>>commutator, the more the field is excited the higher the output from the
>>generator for a set speed and it's this principal that can be made use
>>of. Motors are very similar to generators and try to create a voltage
>>opposing the driving voltage (called, back EMF) when turning, so the
>>faster the motor turns the larger the back EMF, as it opposes forward
>>flow of current, generator to motor, the prime mover (diesel engine) is
>>off loaded. To keep the flow of juice constant the forward EMF needs to
>>be increased and this is done by increasing the generator field to
>>balance out. There comes a point at which you can't increase the field
>>voltage without risk of flashover and on a lot of main line locomotives
>>this is about 30 to 35 mph.
>>The way around this, is to stop the motors generating some back EMF and
>>this is done by weakening it's field, allowing the motor to take more
>>current and drive to a higher speed, you might say this is the
>>equivalent of an electrical gearbox.
>>A locomotive would use maybe three different levels of field weakening
>>allowing the motors to speed up and giving a higher top speed, the
>>gearing between the motors and road wheels chosen for a mixture of
>>either high tractive effort (pulling power) or top speed, or a mixture
>>of both.
>>>> Modern locomotives don't use generators any longer, they use alternators
>>>> which are rectified then fed to an inverter which then powers (if modern)
>>>> A.C. Three phase motors.
>>My understanding of modern three phase traction techniques is seriously
>>limited and I'm not going to try to explain them other than to say, they
>>are far more efficient and can turn in efficiencies of greater than 95%.
>>>> Locomotives would create too much power to store, regeneration is used
>>>> where the power can be shunted away as in an electric locomotive which can
>>>> either feed D.C. To the third rail or (I don't know about America, but
>>>> here in Britain it 25,000volts at 50 Hertz) overhead catenary. Another
>>>> locomotive on the same juice section might be drawing current and this
>>>> negates the current draw from the power station.
>>>>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>>This is where a hybrid or range extended transmission can be used and
>>frankly it's a case of personal preference. I'd like to make an
>>observation and would welcome your feedback, I don't think there is such
>>a thing as a free lunch and here in Britain, fuel can be or is 6.60UKP
>>per gallon.
>>It has been worked out that an electric car, whether pure EV or range
>>extender needs to be charged and that electricity costs money, which has
>>to be offset against the price of fuel to see if any gain is made. It
>>turns out that the gain from using electricity is marginal at best or
>>non-existent at worst, with the only upside being regeneration energy
>>can be stored in batteries to help accelerate again. You would need to
>>work out what it would cost you to drive one mile in both fuels (liquid
>>and electricity) to see if it's cheaper to use one fuel over another, in
>>the UK there isn't much in it.
>> I know a US gallon is a bit smaller than an imperial one but the
>>amount of liquid is the same, so it should be easy to look up the
>>conversion factor and the financial exchange rate and get a figure for
>>USD per US gallon.
>>>>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the
>>>>>Volt??
>>See above.
>>>> You might be able to knock up something small like you suggest but
>>>> remember that generator to traction motor is not very efficient (which is
>>>> why the inverter/asynchronous motor of today), you're looking at about 15%
>>>> losses in transmission.
>>>
>>>OK, some clarifications:
>>I have read them.
>>If you feel I am in error, please let me know.
>
>
>Something that is often overlooked in the "it's cheaper to generate
>electricity" theory is that the THEORY is fine as far as how efficient
>it is AT the point of generation. But when you have to transmit that
>electricity over more then a couple hundred miles you start to get
>very large transmission losses. I forget the exact numbers but it's
>surprisingly large, you lose something like half the power by the time
>you send it 400 miles. This is one of the reasons super-cold
>superconductors have been a "hot" field of research, just eliminating
>that transmission loss would nearly double the available power from
>the current electric system.
Your numbers are WAY off - by roughly a factor of 10. California's
grid is far from the best in North America, and they lost a whopping
6.8% of their power output in line losses in 2008.US average is about
7%. Better grids run closer to 4.2% , with Japan averaging about 5%

On Apr 1, 2:14*pm, jon_banquer > wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:24*am, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Awl --
>
> > Recently, with the asshole extreeordinaire KiddingHisself, there was much
> > acrimonious debate over the Volt, whose design I initially thought was Da
> > Bomb.
> > Kidding, however, has pointed out that the design is, in fact, a kind of
> > gratuitous silly complexity. *Kidding dudn't understand this or any of the
> > implications of his own research, but that's to be expected.
>
> > So the Q is:
>
> > If a diesel-electric locomotive uses a dert-simple
> > diesel-to-generator-to-traction-motor design, with no intermediary bull****,
> > why doesn't the Volt do this as well?
> > The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
> > locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric, so they just
> > call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
> > electric-only operation. *No big biggie, in my mind.
> > Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
> > not big in the actual *design details*. *After all, parallel is parallel,
> > electrically speaking.
>
> > Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
> > Electric motors apparently no need no stinkin transmission, one of their big
> > advantages.
> > So all's you gotta do is hit the gas pedal, rev up the generator, to get
> > accelerating electic power. *Release, have some relays switch the motors to
> > braking batteries, bang, you slow down.
> > Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>
> > So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the Volt??
>
> > Dare I say it:
> > RCMers could build/execute this basic design, and for a whole lot less than
> > $45K. *My 15,000 W genset (22 hp, and no bastion of technology) weighs a
> > whole 220#. *I'm sure that output could be at least tripled in 500# genset,
> > what with Detroit know-how.
>
> > Oh, Kidding, please stay out of THIS thread, adults are tryna talk here.....
> > --
> > EA
>
> You and others may find this of interest:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziri_hLOI0Y

So lets take some advanced forklift parts and put them in a light
weight electric vehicle and see how they perform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...c1ofVYfd0&NR=1

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:24:31 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>
>>Awl --
>>
>>Recently, with the asshole extreeordinaire KiddingHisself, there was much
>>acrimonious debate over the Volt, whose design I initially thought was Da
>>Bomb.
>>Kidding, however, has pointed out that the design is, in fact, a kind of
>>gratuitous silly complexity. Kidding dudn't understand this or any of the
>>implications of his own research, but that's to be expected.
>>
>>So the Q is:
>>
>>If a diesel-electric locomotive uses a dert-simple
>>diesel-to-generator-to-traction-motor design, with no intermediary bull****,
>>why doesn't the Volt do this as well?
>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric, so they just
>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>electrically speaking.
>>
>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>>Electric motors apparently no need no stinkin transmission, one of their big
>>advantages.
>>So all's you gotta do is hit the gas pedal, rev up the generator, to get
>>accelerating electic power. Release, have some relays switch the motors to
>>braking batteries, bang, you slow down.
>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>>
>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the Volt??
>>
>>Dare I say it:
>>RCMers could build/execute this basic design, and for a whole lot less than
>>$45K. My 15,000 W genset (22 hp, and no bastion of technology) weighs a
>>whole 220#. I'm sure that output could be at least tripled in 500# genset,
>>what with Detroit know-how.
>>
>>Oh, Kidding, please stay out of THIS thread, adults are tryna talk here....
>
>
>I think the primary reason why the basic design parameters of a diesel
>electric loco aren't used for an electric car are...
>.. A D-E is designed to mainly run long distances at more or less max
>output and fairly uniform speed, not a not of 0 - 70 mph and back over
>and over.
>.. Acceleration is not a critical factor to the "drivers" of them. It
>needs to be adequate but they don't need to provide for "especially
>quick starts", or passing slower traffic with a burst of speed.
>.. Each class of loco is designed for a specific basic function,
>switching, passenger service, freight being the main ones. So while a
>Passenger loco may be geared to run 90 mph, the freight version will
>be geared to run 60 mph and a switcher might be tuned for 30 mph being
>it's optimum. Sure they can be interchanged if needed in a pinch but
>doesn't change the basic premise.
>... because of the above, and because the actual train is WAY heavier
>then the loco itself, the actual weight of the loco isn't all the big
>a deal, whereas for a car it's a huge factor in the overall design. In
>fact, for a loco, you don't want it to be too light, it needs a lot of
>weight to provide the traction to pull the heavy train.

Very well stated. Obviously the man knows something about trains.

Gunner

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:47:58 -0400, wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:16:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:00 +0100, Clive >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message >, Existential Angst
> writes
>>>>"Clive" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In message >, Existential Angst
>>>>> > writes
>>>>>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>>>>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric,
>>>>> No, they're not. You have obviously never heard of Voith who make
>>>>> hydraulic transmissions for diesel locomotives. There are also some
>>>>> manufacturers of mechanical transmission but these are only low powered (a
>>>>> few hundred horsepower) and not therefore mainstream.
>>>Back in the 1956/60s some main line locomotives did use a 4-speed
>>>constant mesh gearbox with the engine load being one permanently coupled
>>>torque convertor (Maybach-Mekydro) but I've not heard of those for
>>>several years now, and my experience is that the main ( not the only)
>>>maker of hydraulic transmissions is Voith, the layout differs between
>>>different models but the principal is the same. A torque convertor can
>>>multiply torque by up to five when the input shaft is driven and the
>>>output shaft is stationary. The input shaft connects to an impeller to
>>>throw oil outwards, the oil is directed by fixed blading onto the
>>>turbine which is coupled to the road wheels, the ideal behind the Voith
>>>transmission is to engage gear all you need to do is fill an empty
>>>converter with oil. If you gear three torque converters separately
>>>onto one output shaft and fill or empty them as needed you can see that
>>>three different ratios can be obtained, this is they way gears are
>>>changed. At idle, all three converters are empty and there is no
>>>drive, as you need drive so the first converter is filled, as speed
>>>increases the second is filled whilst the first is emptied and so on.
>>>>>> so they just
>>>>>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>>>>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>>>>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>>>>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>>>>>electrically speaking.
>>>>>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>>>On an electric transmission, as you say, a generator is wired to the
>>>motor/s on the road wheels and some drive can be transmitted. However
>>>such a design needs modification to work properly. Firstly the
>>>generator needs the field to be excited to induce current flow in the
>>>commutator, the more the field is excited the higher the output from the
>>>generator for a set speed and it's this principal that can be made use
>>>of. Motors are very similar to generators and try to create a voltage
>>>opposing the driving voltage (called, back EMF) when turning, so the
>>>faster the motor turns the larger the back EMF, as it opposes forward
>>>flow of current, generator to motor, the prime mover (diesel engine) is
>>>off loaded. To keep the flow of juice constant the forward EMF needs to
>>>be increased and this is done by increasing the generator field to
>>>balance out. There comes a point at which you can't increase the field
>>>voltage without risk of flashover and on a lot of main line locomotives
>>>this is about 30 to 35 mph.
>>>The way around this, is to stop the motors generating some back EMF and
>>>this is done by weakening it's field, allowing the motor to take more
>>>current and drive to a higher speed, you might say this is the
>>>equivalent of an electrical gearbox.
>>>A locomotive would use maybe three different levels of field weakening
>>>allowing the motors to speed up and giving a higher top speed, the
>>>gearing between the motors and road wheels chosen for a mixture of
>>>either high tractive effort (pulling power) or top speed, or a mixture
>>>of both.
>>>>> Modern locomotives don't use generators any longer, they use alternators
>>>>> which are rectified then fed to an inverter which then powers (if modern)
>>>>> A.C. Three phase motors.
>>>My understanding of modern three phase traction techniques is seriously
>>>limited and I'm not going to try to explain them other than to say, they
>>>are far more efficient and can turn in efficiencies of greater than 95%.
>>>>> Locomotives would create too much power to store, regeneration is used
>>>>> where the power can be shunted away as in an electric locomotive which can
>>>>> either feed D.C. To the third rail or (I don't know about America, but
>>>>> here in Britain it 25,000volts at 50 Hertz) overhead catenary. Another
>>>>> locomotive on the same juice section might be drawing current and this
>>>>> negates the current draw from the power station.
>>>>>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>>>This is where a hybrid or range extended transmission can be used and
>>>frankly it's a case of personal preference. I'd like to make an
>>>observation and would welcome your feedback, I don't think there is such
>>>a thing as a free lunch and here in Britain, fuel can be or is 6.60UKP
>>>per gallon.
>>>It has been worked out that an electric car, whether pure EV or range
>>>extender needs to be charged and that electricity costs money, which has
>>>to be offset against the price of fuel to see if any gain is made. It
>>>turns out that the gain from using electricity is marginal at best or
>>>non-existent at worst, with the only upside being regeneration energy
>>>can be stored in batteries to help accelerate again. You would need to
>>>work out what it would cost you to drive one mile in both fuels (liquid
>>>and electricity) to see if it's cheaper to use one fuel over another, in
>>>the UK there isn't much in it.
>>> I know a US gallon is a bit smaller than an imperial one but the
>>>amount of liquid is the same, so it should be easy to look up the
>>>conversion factor and the financial exchange rate and get a figure for
>>>USD per US gallon.
>>>>>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the
>>>>>>Volt??
>>>See above.
>>>>> You might be able to knock up something small like you suggest but
>>>>> remember that generator to traction motor is not very efficient (which is
>>>>> why the inverter/asynchronous motor of today), you're looking at about 15%
>>>>> losses in transmission.
>>>>
>>>>OK, some clarifications:
>>>I have read them.
>>>If you feel I am in error, please let me know.
>>
>>
>>Something that is often overlooked in the "it's cheaper to generate
>>electricity" theory is that the THEORY is fine as far as how efficient
>>it is AT the point of generation. But when you have to transmit that
>>electricity over more then a couple hundred miles you start to get
>>very large transmission losses. I forget the exact numbers but it's
>>surprisingly large, you lose something like half the power by the time
>>you send it 400 miles. This is one of the reasons super-cold
>>superconductors have been a "hot" field of research, just eliminating
>>that transmission loss would nearly double the available power from
>>the current electric system.
> Your numbers are WAY off - by roughly a factor of 10. California's
>grid is far from the best in North America, and they lost a whopping
>6.8% of their power output in line losses in 2008.US average is about
>7%. Better grids run closer to 4.2% , with Japan averaging about 5%
>
Indeed.

And they are doing quite a bit with UHV DC transmission these days..as
it has less loss..oddly enough above certain voltages..then does AC

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:09:11 -0700, Gunner Asch >
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:47:58 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:16:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:00 +0100, Clive >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message >, Existential Angst
> writes
>>>>>"Clive" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>> In message >, Existential Angst
>>>>>> > writes
>>>>>>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>>>>>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric,
>>>>>> No, they're not. You have obviously never heard of Voith who make
>>>>>> hydraulic transmissions for diesel locomotives. There are also some
>>>>>> manufacturers of mechanical transmission but these are only low powered (a
>>>>>> few hundred horsepower) and not therefore mainstream.
>>>>Back in the 1956/60s some main line locomotives did use a 4-speed
>>>>constant mesh gearbox with the engine load being one permanently coupled
>>>>torque convertor (Maybach-Mekydro) but I've not heard of those for
>>>>several years now, and my experience is that the main ( not the only)
>>>>maker of hydraulic transmissions is Voith, the layout differs between
>>>>different models but the principal is the same. A torque convertor can
>>>>multiply torque by up to five when the input shaft is driven and the
>>>>output shaft is stationary. The input shaft connects to an impeller to
>>>>throw oil outwards, the oil is directed by fixed blading onto the
>>>>turbine which is coupled to the road wheels, the ideal behind the Voith
>>>>transmission is to engage gear all you need to do is fill an empty
>>>>converter with oil. If you gear three torque converters separately
>>>>onto one output shaft and fill or empty them as needed you can see that
>>>>three different ratios can be obtained, this is they way gears are
>>>>changed. At idle, all three converters are empty and there is no
>>>>drive, as you need drive so the first converter is filled, as speed
>>>>increases the second is filled whilst the first is emptied and so on.
>>>>>>> so they just
>>>>>>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>>>>>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>>>>>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>>>>>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>>>>>>electrically speaking.
>>>>>>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>>>>On an electric transmission, as you say, a generator is wired to the
>>>>motor/s on the road wheels and some drive can be transmitted. However
>>>>such a design needs modification to work properly. Firstly the
>>>>generator needs the field to be excited to induce current flow in the
>>>>commutator, the more the field is excited the higher the output from the
>>>>generator for a set speed and it's this principal that can be made use
>>>>of. Motors are very similar to generators and try to create a voltage
>>>>opposing the driving voltage (called, back EMF) when turning, so the
>>>>faster the motor turns the larger the back EMF, as it opposes forward
>>>>flow of current, generator to motor, the prime mover (diesel engine) is
>>>>off loaded. To keep the flow of juice constant the forward EMF needs to
>>>>be increased and this is done by increasing the generator field to
>>>>balance out. There comes a point at which you can't increase the field
>>>>voltage without risk of flashover and on a lot of main line locomotives
>>>>this is about 30 to 35 mph.
>>>>The way around this, is to stop the motors generating some back EMF and
>>>>this is done by weakening it's field, allowing the motor to take more
>>>>current and drive to a higher speed, you might say this is the
>>>>equivalent of an electrical gearbox.
>>>>A locomotive would use maybe three different levels of field weakening
>>>>allowing the motors to speed up and giving a higher top speed, the
>>>>gearing between the motors and road wheels chosen for a mixture of
>>>>either high tractive effort (pulling power) or top speed, or a mixture
>>>>of both.
>>>>>> Modern locomotives don't use generators any longer, they use alternators
>>>>>> which are rectified then fed to an inverter which then powers (if modern)
>>>>>> A.C. Three phase motors.
>>>>My understanding of modern three phase traction techniques is seriously
>>>>limited and I'm not going to try to explain them other than to say, they
>>>>are far more efficient and can turn in efficiencies of greater than 95%.
>>>>>> Locomotives would create too much power to store, regeneration is used
>>>>>> where the power can be shunted away as in an electric locomotive which can
>>>>>> either feed D.C. To the third rail or (I don't know about America, but
>>>>>> here in Britain it 25,000volts at 50 Hertz) overhead catenary. Another
>>>>>> locomotive on the same juice section might be drawing current and this
>>>>>> negates the current draw from the power station.
>>>>>>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>>>>This is where a hybrid or range extended transmission can be used and
>>>>frankly it's a case of personal preference. I'd like to make an
>>>>observation and would welcome your feedback, I don't think there is such
>>>>a thing as a free lunch and here in Britain, fuel can be or is 6.60UKP
>>>>per gallon.
>>>>It has been worked out that an electric car, whether pure EV or range
>>>>extender needs to be charged and that electricity costs money, which has
>>>>to be offset against the price of fuel to see if any gain is made. It
>>>>turns out that the gain from using electricity is marginal at best or
>>>>non-existent at worst, with the only upside being regeneration energy
>>>>can be stored in batteries to help accelerate again. You would need to
>>>>work out what it would cost you to drive one mile in both fuels (liquid
>>>>and electricity) to see if it's cheaper to use one fuel over another, in
>>>>the UK there isn't much in it.
>>>> I know a US gallon is a bit smaller than an imperial one but the
>>>>amount of liquid is the same, so it should be easy to look up the
>>>>conversion factor and the financial exchange rate and get a figure for
>>>>USD per US gallon.
>>>>>>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the
>>>>>>>Volt??
>>>>See above.
>>>>>> You might be able to knock up something small like you suggest but
>>>>>> remember that generator to traction motor is not very efficient (which is
>>>>>> why the inverter/asynchronous motor of today), you're looking at about 15%
>>>>>> losses in transmission.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, some clarifications:
>>>>I have read them.
>>>>If you feel I am in error, please let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>>Something that is often overlooked in the "it's cheaper to generate
>>>electricity" theory is that the THEORY is fine as far as how efficient
>>>it is AT the point of generation. But when you have to transmit that
>>>electricity over more then a couple hundred miles you start to get
>>>very large transmission losses. I forget the exact numbers but it's
>>>surprisingly large, you lose something like half the power by the time
>>>you send it 400 miles. This is one of the reasons super-cold
>>>superconductors have been a "hot" field of research, just eliminating
>>>that transmission loss would nearly double the available power from
>>>the current electric system.
>> Your numbers are WAY off - by roughly a factor of 10. California's
>>grid is far from the best in North America, and they lost a whopping
>>6.8% of their power output in line losses in 2008.US average is about
>>7%. Better grids run closer to 4.2% , with Japan averaging about 5%
>>
>Indeed.
>
>And they are doing quite a bit with UHV DC transmission these days..as
>it has less loss..oddly enough above certain voltages..then does AC
>
Yes, but the voltage has to be almost excessively high to get a
sizeable difference.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:31:20 -0400, wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:09:11 -0700, Gunner Asch >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:47:58 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:16:56 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:00 +0100, Clive >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message >, Existential Angst
> writes
>>>>>>"Clive" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>>>> In message >, Existential Angst
>>>>>>> > writes
>>>>>>>>The only germane difference between the Volt and a diesel-electric
>>>>>>>>locomotive (btw, virtually ALL locomotives are diesel-electric,
>>>>>>> No, they're not. You have obviously never heard of Voith who make
>>>>>>> hydraulic transmissions for diesel locomotives. There are also some
>>>>>>> manufacturers of mechanical transmission but these are only low powered (a
>>>>>>> few hundred horsepower) and not therefore mainstream.
>>>>>Back in the 1956/60s some main line locomotives did use a 4-speed
>>>>>constant mesh gearbox with the engine load being one permanently coupled
>>>>>torque convertor (Maybach-Mekydro) but I've not heard of those for
>>>>>several years now, and my experience is that the main ( not the only)
>>>>>maker of hydraulic transmissions is Voith, the layout differs between
>>>>>different models but the principal is the same. A torque convertor can
>>>>>multiply torque by up to five when the input shaft is driven and the
>>>>>output shaft is stationary. The input shaft connects to an impeller to
>>>>>throw oil outwards, the oil is directed by fixed blading onto the
>>>>>turbine which is coupled to the road wheels, the ideal behind the Voith
>>>>>transmission is to engage gear all you need to do is fill an empty
>>>>>converter with oil. If you gear three torque converters separately
>>>>>onto one output shaft and fill or empty them as needed you can see that
>>>>>three different ratios can be obtained, this is they way gears are
>>>>>changed. At idle, all three converters are empty and there is no
>>>>>drive, as you need drive so the first converter is filled, as speed
>>>>>increases the second is filled whilst the first is emptied and so on.
>>>>>>>> so they just
>>>>>>>>call the "diesels") is that the Volt has a parallel battery pack, for
>>>>>>>>electric-only operation. No big biggie, in my mind.
>>>>>>>>Well, big in the sense that this can avoid fossil fuel (Exxon/Mobil), but
>>>>>>>>not big in the actual *design details*. After all, parallel is parallel,
>>>>>>>>electrically speaking.
>>>>>>>>Think about how simple the generator-motor design is.
>>>>>On an electric transmission, as you say, a generator is wired to the
>>>>>motor/s on the road wheels and some drive can be transmitted. However
>>>>>such a design needs modification to work properly. Firstly the
>>>>>generator needs the field to be excited to induce current flow in the
>>>>>commutator, the more the field is excited the higher the output from the
>>>>>generator for a set speed and it's this principal that can be made use
>>>>>of. Motors are very similar to generators and try to create a voltage
>>>>>opposing the driving voltage (called, back EMF) when turning, so the
>>>>>faster the motor turns the larger the back EMF, as it opposes forward
>>>>>flow of current, generator to motor, the prime mover (diesel engine) is
>>>>>off loaded. To keep the flow of juice constant the forward EMF needs to
>>>>>be increased and this is done by increasing the generator field to
>>>>>balance out. There comes a point at which you can't increase the field
>>>>>voltage without risk of flashover and on a lot of main line locomotives
>>>>>this is about 30 to 35 mph.
>>>>>The way around this, is to stop the motors generating some back EMF and
>>>>>this is done by weakening it's field, allowing the motor to take more
>>>>>current and drive to a higher speed, you might say this is the
>>>>>equivalent of an electrical gearbox.
>>>>>A locomotive would use maybe three different levels of field weakening
>>>>>allowing the motors to speed up and giving a higher top speed, the
>>>>>gearing between the motors and road wheels chosen for a mixture of
>>>>>either high tractive effort (pulling power) or top speed, or a mixture
>>>>>of both.
>>>>>>> Modern locomotives don't use generators any longer, they use alternators
>>>>>>> which are rectified then fed to an inverter which then powers (if modern)
>>>>>>> A.C. Three phase motors.
>>>>>My understanding of modern three phase traction techniques is seriously
>>>>>limited and I'm not going to try to explain them other than to say, they
>>>>>are far more efficient and can turn in efficiencies of greater than 95%.
>>>>>>> Locomotives would create too much power to store, regeneration is used
>>>>>>> where the power can be shunted away as in an electric locomotive which can
>>>>>>> either feed D.C. To the third rail or (I don't know about America, but
>>>>>>> here in Britain it 25,000volts at 50 Hertz) overhead catenary. Another
>>>>>>> locomotive on the same juice section might be drawing current and this
>>>>>>> negates the current draw from the power station.
>>>>>>>>Switch over to batteries-only when they are available/charged.
>>>>>This is where a hybrid or range extended transmission can be used and
>>>>>frankly it's a case of personal preference. I'd like to make an
>>>>>observation and would welcome your feedback, I don't think there is such
>>>>>a thing as a free lunch and here in Britain, fuel can be or is 6.60UKP
>>>>>per gallon.
>>>>>It has been worked out that an electric car, whether pure EV or range
>>>>>extender needs to be charged and that electricity costs money, which has
>>>>>to be offset against the price of fuel to see if any gain is made. It
>>>>>turns out that the gain from using electricity is marginal at best or
>>>>>non-existent at worst, with the only upside being regeneration energy
>>>>>can be stored in batteries to help accelerate again. You would need to
>>>>>work out what it would cost you to drive one mile in both fuels (liquid
>>>>>and electricity) to see if it's cheaper to use one fuel over another, in
>>>>>the UK there isn't much in it.
>>>>> I know a US gallon is a bit smaller than an imperial one but the
>>>>>amount of liquid is the same, so it should be easy to look up the
>>>>>conversion factor and the financial exchange rate and get a figure for
>>>>>USD per US gallon.
>>>>>>>>So whazzup with all the rocket science (and rocket machining) in the
>>>>>>>>Volt??
>>>>>See above.
>>>>>>> You might be able to knock up something small like you suggest but
>>>>>>> remember that generator to traction motor is not very efficient (which is
>>>>>>> why the inverter/asynchronous motor of today), you're looking at about 15%
>>>>>>> losses in transmission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK, some clarifications:
>>>>>I have read them.
>>>>>If you feel I am in error, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Something that is often overlooked in the "it's cheaper to generate
>>>>electricity" theory is that the THEORY is fine as far as how efficient
>>>>it is AT the point of generation. But when you have to transmit that
>>>>electricity over more then a couple hundred miles you start to get
>>>>very large transmission losses. I forget the exact numbers but it's
>>>>surprisingly large, you lose something like half the power by the time
>>>>you send it 400 miles. This is one of the reasons super-cold
>>>>superconductors have been a "hot" field of research, just eliminating
>>>>that transmission loss would nearly double the available power from
>>>>the current electric system.
>>> Your numbers are WAY off - by roughly a factor of 10. California's
>>>grid is far from the best in North America, and they lost a whopping
>>>6.8% of their power output in line losses in 2008.US average is about
>>>7%. Better grids run closer to 4.2% , with Japan averaging about 5%
>>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>>And they are doing quite a bit with UHV DC transmission these days..as
>>it has less loss..oddly enough above certain voltages..then does AC
>>
>Yes, but the voltage has to be almost excessively high to get a
>sizeable difference.

Yes..and? Transformers on both ends do a fair job of fixing any
misvoltage issues.

Gunner