Upon closer inspection, I am not sure 7.5 HP worth of generators would be able to do the job. You might need two sets of them recharging two seperate packs.

Just some thoughts.

 

If the ICE merely generates electricity, it might be simplified by using fewer cylinders and some of the overhead needed to actually propel a car. The HCCI engine might be able to use 30% less gas if it runs at just one RPM. The ICE weight might be 100 pounds or less.

 

For these reasons:

1. Honda generators are not that efficient. My Prius working as an emergency power source has the same specific fuel consumption per kWh as the 2 kW Honda generator
2. I've seen a photo of an electric RV-4 towing a generator trailer . . .
3. Exhibit 1 - GM's Volt

The problem in the past has been the energy loss from the engine- generator, into the battery and out the motor shaft(s). Of course the folks who spied this energy loss didn't seem to mind hydromechanical transmission losses and could never remember how freight train engines work. Also, today's power semiconductors are superior to what we had in the past (aka., my first circuit designs included tubes . . . did I mention the bare feet snowstorms?)

A well designed gear-set can convert ICE power to motor power very nicely. The problem comes from dealing with variable speed and load requirements. This led to multi-speed gears with clutches and automatic transmissions that were so lossy that they had to have radiator coolant to deal with their waste heat. There have been significant transmission advances.

The computer controlled transmissions are not a bad solution. In the UK, there is a company that uses electric motors to eliminate the clutch when changing gears - computer controlled synchro. I don't think we've seen the end of mechanical gears but I think we are about to see the end of directly by human, operated, manual gears. Computers can do it better.

Bob Wilson

 

Look up one of my Prius MPH vs. MPH charts that shows the power needed to maintain any given speed. It is roughly 30 hp to maintain 70 mph.

Also, if you can run an engine at one specific rpm, you can tune the exhaust and in some cases intake manifold for optimum efficiency. You can also tune the engine to run closer to the limits yet get longer life. A lot of problems become simpler with a single speed.

Bob Wilson

 

Hello all. I am a long time GM owner and noticed this thread about the volt.

The Volt looks like an awesome car. I also saw all the "discussion" regarding the EV1 program. I will agree that the EV1 did not have real potential because the problem with range, and the need for a special charging station.

Here is an interesting concept though. I saw this on some other threads here on the forum. http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

I wonder if this might not be a viable electric car? This SUV supposedly can go over 200 miles on a single 6-7 hour charge from a standard 220 volt home outlet. It is also a roomy vehicle and has 400 HP and 400 lb ft of torque. Those are truely impressive numbers.

Anybody know more about this idea? Is this just a bunch of BS? If this is indeed true, then Phoenix Motorcars may have picked up where the EV1 left off.

I wonder if GM might resurect the EV program if Phoenix motorcars is successful?

 

This is not BS. I've been keeping up on them. I've talked to them at the ALt Fuel & Transportation Expo in November here in SoCal.
https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...ad.php?t=10632

They are the only car manufacturer with CARB (California Air Resource Board) Cerification. Their SUT/SUV are listed on CARB website and other California .gov sites. (cant remember, but I'll post some if you're interested).

They are the real deal, and so are Altair Nano batteries. Also, Boshart Engineering and UQM supply services and systems to them. These two companies were also in the news lately, in reference to Phoenix ramping up to sell these EV.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...117&ID=6349793
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...109&ID=6327119

The only thing left to question about them is the Nanosafe batteries (Altair) that will be in their cars. The performance spec is not that spectacular if you've been in the EV drive and conversion business. However, the Nanosafe battery is what makes it possible...so the REAL question is whether these battery live up to their spec. If you search deeper, there's more evidence that the battery is real than not.

The problem is no one else have independently tested their battery, because Phoenix now have exclusive rights...I think for 3 years.

Here's an interesting titbit: I've read (I really gotta make it a habit to bookmark what I've read for reference) that the founder of Phoenix does not really want to own the business side of things, so the plan is to sell to some big auto once they get established. WHo knows...GM might want to buy them out to cover their CARB ZEV mandate.


[edit: some links]
CARB links:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/ma...ttachmente.pdf

Phoenix gets free carpool, just like hybrids with 40mpg or higher:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm

Altair lithium titanate chemical cell publication - it is reported that Prof Aurelien Du Pasquier tested 9k+ durability on this chemical for energy storage first, which then peaked the interest from Altair, which had the Titanate powder, and since then worked together and the result is Altair Nanosafe battery that Phoenix is using:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~adupasqu...P/Lto-PMeT.pdf

 

People didn't buy them, and in general they won't with that short of a range. True, 100miles is plenty for all most all needs.... but what about that long trip once in a while. Its very difficult to convince a buyer they have to buy one $25000 vehicle for most trips, and have another for when they want a longer trip. Its all about perception. Even if they owned two cars there perception was to dislike one that was "limited".

Its also why many people buy SUV's when they could get away with a sedan (I "might" need the cargo space) and vehicles with huge engines and horsepower when they don't really need them either.

Especially in a period when gas was relatively cheap...

Human nature killed the EV1, no conspiracy.

 

I won't deny human nature playing a part in what happened to the EV1 and all the other EVs in the California ZEV mandate, but isn't it unusual to have a hard interview to get a car? GM was accentuating the drawbacks of the EV1, but the number of leasing applicants exceeded the EV1s - the same likely applied to the other automakers.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_kil...r#The_suspects

I would characterize that situation as various self-interests along with mishandling, killing the EV1.

 

You mean those humans in charge of Big Oil and AUto? It's human nature to protect business interests..even if misplaced .

 

I agree. I'm still not letting GM off the hook for the EV1.