@Nolan posted:Just a random thought, I'm no electric engineer but would this be feasible?
Build an EV with two batteries. Battery number 1 powers the car on the road and turns a Generator/alternator that charging Battery number 2. After Battery number 1 reaches a programmed low, power is switched over to Battery number 2 and it runs the EV and charges Battery Number 1....
I'm just saying?
So you want to create energy out of nothing?
The perpetual motion machine! 
I believe someone already did........GOD
You know, I like pies. I'm diabetic so I can't eat a lot of pie unless it is reduced sugar. For example, I turned 70 a few weeks ago and my culinary genius daughter-in-law made a couple of chocolate pies that were very similar to what my mom made.
The pies had no sugar in them. She used a mixture of erythritol and monkfruit and to tell you the truth, it was just a little too sweet. Still, pie.
Just saying, different ingredients, but still pie. And I like pie.
@IaM-Ray, are you aware that The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement?
A Chinese company NIO has a unique battery concept. Owner leases the battery which can easily (??) be removed and exchanged. So you could lease a small battery for normal grocery getting/commuting and if you plan a long trip you could up your lease to a larger battery for the trip.
I wonder if you could lash up say 3 or 4 Solos if the whole family wanted to go on a trip together? Or add a rumble seat?
I never thought I would ever see cattle farts being taxed but it's coming ! It must be from some clever politicians.......Bruce
Taiwan has electric scooters that are everywhere,
You pull into the battery shop, they exchange your low battery with a freshly charged one and you are off in a few minutes ......
A little harder to do on an EV Speedster !
cattle farts taxed...daughterinlaw bought 5 acres in boonies,,county installed meter on water well and tax on UR water on UR property,,WTF
@LI-Rick posted:So you want to create energy out of nothing?
The perpetual motion machine!
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. That conversion is never 100% efficient, there is always loss due to resistance, heat, mechanical loss, whatever.
One battery to charge another @Nolan ? I want whatever you're smoking. Physics cannot support this. And no, it isn't "settled science", it's just science. If you were joking, great. But if you weren't, I'm a bit scared.
I'm not an engineer either.
There is no such thing as perpetual motion. All things decay, even the nuclear fusion going on in our sun.
I was only pondering or maybe wondering about electric generation from a rotating axle. The idea that the gasoline engine via a belt turning a generator/alternator charges a battery that in turn fire spark plugs is simplistic. I totally understand perpetual motion is not possible. So far we have the means of producing electricity by solar, wind, fire, nuclear and water. All these, and some I may have missed, all create electricity by rotating a generator. Now my pipe dream, consisted of an EV being powered by Battery #1. A second battery (#2) is being charged by an axle driven generator. Certainly not a 100% transfer of energy but sufficient to charge a smaller capacity battery to act as a backup source similar to reserve tank early VWs had. If these are thoughts of a mad man then I'll have to stop experimenting trying to charge a battery with 2 electric eels.....
@Michael McKelvey posted:@IaM-Ray, are you aware that The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement?
Michael they have articles and writers that have different opinions at times if you read these they are from Can Authors the comments on them apply to all of North American life and democracy you might enjoy them.
@Nolan posted:I was only pondering or maybe wondering about electric generation from a rotating axle. The idea that the gasoline engine via a belt turning a generator/alternator charges a battery that in turn fire spark plugs is simplistic. I totally understand perpetual motion is not possible. So far we have the means of producing electricity by solar, wind, fire, nuclear and water. All these, and some I may have missed, all create electricity by rotating a generator. Now my pipe dream, consisted of an EV being powered by Battery #1. A second battery (#2) is being charged by an axle driven generator. Certainly not a 100% transfer of energy but sufficient to charge a smaller capacity battery to act as a backup source similar to reserve tank early VWs had. If these are thoughts of a mad man then I'll have to stop experimenting trying to charge a battery with 2 electric eels.....
Honestly I hear what you are saying but it's not practical. Now Toyota's Prius is an actual practical application of sound hybrid technology. That little gasoline engine combined with the electric motor/battery/generator is a great combination.
Using one battery to charge another is NOT a great combination. It is simply because you are carrying all that extra weight ALL THE TIME.
Plus it will take energy to charge the second batter - energy that would otherwise be used to move the car. Performance would suffer and given that the transfer is not 100% efficient, range would suffer when compared to just having the two batteries combined.
Some of the EV cars have a "regeneration" (re-gen) mode whereby they can partially re-charge the battery while slowing down or braking. Some electric bicycles have that feature, too, but you'd need one helluva long downhill to fully recharge the battery, as the re-gen is only intended as a partial booster, not a full recharger.
There is also some drag introduced when the re-gen is turned on, kind of like dragging your brakes slightly whenever you stop pedaling. Several of my friends have E-Bikes and only one uses the re-gen feature - the rest don't like it all that much. I tried riding their bikes and I'm not a fan of it, either. It just feels weird.
Re-gen is intended to extend the battery charge life by taking advantage of gravity and/or the mass of the bike and rider, but using electricity to get up a hill and overcome gravity always takes more energy than overcoming gravity going down the other side.
For example, on one of my bike trips we started in Aspen, Colorado (8,000 feet elevation), up the mountain to the Maroon Bells at 12,000 feet. It took about 1-1/2 hours to climb up there. We rested a bit and then rode back down and that took about 15 minutes (it's about 11 miles distance). It would probably take a little longer coming down on an E-Bike because the re-gen would slow you a bit, plus riding a 45+ pound E-Bike is a lot heavier in turns than my 15 pound non-electric road bike.
On the idea of using a battery to run a generator to recharge another battery; Yes it would work, but as Danny alluded, there is a bit of loss incurred along the circuit: The generators isn't 100% efficient, meaning that it takes some juice to run the generator itself so you lose a little there each time. The first time you re-charge from one battery to another you probably won't get to 100% charge before you run out of juice on the battery running the generator, then you flip the other way to recharge the other battery and lose a little more and so on.
Will you extend the overall charge and 2-battery life? Yes.
Will it be a meaningful amount of extended charge, overall? Probably not.
I would expect that, if you kept the two original batteries as-is, removed the generator and filled that recovered space with more batteries, you would get as much, if not reasonably more, overall battery life (mileage, if in a car) than using the generator idea.
Is this kind-a clear? The big thing to consider is energy loss in the generator due to friction, heat and just plain inefficiency of the energy transfer (as Danny mentioned - I just used more words).
@Lane Anderson posted:Plus it will take energy to charge the second batter - energy that would otherwise be used to move the car. Performance would suffer and given that the transfer is not 100% efficient, range would suffer when compared to just having the two batteries combined.
^ that.
Yeah, what Lane and Gordon said. In my defense of "less words", it was early on in my morning coffee regimen.
There are two basic types of hybrid vehicles - a parallel hybrid and a series hybrid.
A series hybrid works like a diesel/electric locomotive. The engine drives a generator, which charges the battery, which drives the car. The car drives like a full electric, because the engine is just a range extender. To my way of thinking, this is the way forward to meet most of the goals of the Paris Accords. The vehicle is for all intents and purposes a BEV, with the ICE only there as a range-extender.
If we lived in times driven by science rather than religion, we'd be whole hog on this technology, and engineer the range-extenders to run at a constant speed at their optimal efficiency only when needed. We could continue to build out the electrical grid and charging network (because the vehicles would still be plug-in), while at the same time greatly increasing the energy extraction from the gasoline that IS burned.
This would make driving an "electric" vehicle a workable solution for the vast majority of the country. I'd embrace it if it were the alternative presented to me, because it would allow me to use nothing but the battery 95% of the time, but would never leave me dead in the water in the event of a pileup on the interstate in a blizzard.
... but alas, we don't live in times driven by science, our choice going forward will be to embrace the new religion or walk.
The United States may not have an ICE ban on the books, but various states and cities do, and the major vehicle manufacturers have created a defacto ban by announcing that they will cease production of ICE vehicles by a not-too-distant date.
The transformation has been ensured by recent events, which make buying a new vehicle almost impossible. When the only alternative (in the future) is a full BEV or keeping your worn out work-truck/daily-driver/etc., governments will not need mandates, because parallel- track engineering of ICE and BEV vehicles is cost prohibitive, and thus the manufacturers must choose one or the other. Given the current political/religious climate, they have chosen the "safe" track (which is the full BEV).
Will the proliferation of electric vehicles eventually drive us to the opposite of what we have today? Will we be complaining about the absence of gas pumps instead of that of charging stations?
I always loved the smell of gas
I think change can be a good thing with honest planning and common sense.....Rome wasn't built in a day, (also, keep the Politicians OUT OF IT 
!!!!!)....
@Panhandle Bob posted:Will the proliferation of electric vehicles eventually drive us to the opposite of what we have today? Will we be complaining about the absence of gas pumps instead of that of charging stations?
Yes, maybe not for me, but yes for the youngsters. I worry a bit about getting my gasoline fix in the future. Most articles (not studies) I read say planners in the counties that have stated an end date for selling new ICE cars are thinking that they will need to accommodate existing ICE vehicles for 15 years (2050 roughly).
That's probably after I shuffle off my mortal coil, so phooey on the rest of you whipper snappers.
Michael.....I here the very same statement from the other guys in the local car club I belong to....and agree with you 100%.....
I’m for watching California step off the cliff first, and let’s see what happens with their 2035 mandate.
On the series hybrid thing, I believe that Mazda will be introducing a hybrid SUV with a small Wankel engine running purely as a range extender. The small size, light weight, and simplicity is perfect. The ability to run at a fixed speed only when needed should help them to get it to run cleanly and fuel efficiently.
I'm waiting for the turbine range-extender, series hybrid, plug-in (big battery), mid-sized (Mercedes Metris sized) work van. I'd buy two tomorrow if they were available.
@Stan Galat posted:I'm waiting for the turbine range-extender, series hybrid, plug-in (big battery), mid-sized (Mercedes Metris sized) work van. I'd buy two tomorrow if they were available.
Funny you should mention that. Years ago when hybrids were very new Chrysler planned a race car with such a drivetrain. Not sure what happened, but it never became reality.
@Stan Galat it might be here sooner than you think…
Lane, interesting that they would use a Wankel, as they had notoriously poor fuel economy. Maybe running at a constant speed and load they will be better.
@Gordon Nichols posted:@Stan Galat it might be here sooner than you think…
That's a hard no.
There's no range-extender. I've got zero interest in a pure BEV work-van for all of the reasons I expanded upon (for about 2000 words) above.
@LI-Rick posted:Lane, interesting that they would use a Wankel, as they had notoriously poor fuel economy. Maybe running at a constant speed and load they will be better.
That was my thought exactly. It's time to let the Wankel die.
@Stan Galat, have you looked at the GM EV600? It looks like FedEx bought 500 of them last year. 250 miles range, recharge at night, etc. Looking at it, it might be a little too big for your use.
@Stan Galat posted:That was my thought exactly. It's time to let the Wankel die.
Agreed. I never had a desire to deal with rotor seal problems.
@Stan Galat posted:All the other cars/trucks/etc. in the Stanistani vehicle pool are just appliances to get from A to B - I don't feel fondly about them, I don't work on them (beyond basic maintenance, and even that is on a sporadic schedule), I just drive them.
Give me a BEV work van that will haul me, my ladders, tools, and a small hardware store's worth of stock down the road at 75 mph for 500 miles
Hey, not poking the bear, I just read your response about the work van having to have range extender and trying to understand it in your business operations.
I'm assuming that if you had a van with some EV capabilities you'd just plug it in overnight like I do my phone. That may be a bad assumption.
Also, I see what you WANT above (500 mile range at 75 mpg). Just spit balling the numbers, and assuming your team or just you) works an average of 8 hrs/day, that means you only have 1 hour and 20 minutes of billable time for that van per day.
Maybe driving 500 miles every day in the van isn't sustainable or maybe it's on the extreme side? I'm still wondering if something like the 250 mile range GM EV600 would work in that case. I'm probably not fully understanding the requirements.
There was a turbine-powered Indy car in 1967. It would have won, but the transmission failed with 8 miles left...
https://www.speedsport.com/oth...ne-powered-indy-car/
A very small diesel-turbine could do the job in a serial hybrid, and do it very efficiently.
Wankels have high fuel consumption, just say NO.
@Lane Anderson posted:On the series hybrid thing, I believe that Mazda will be introducing a hybrid SUV with a small Wankel engine running purely as a range extender. The small size, light weight, and simplicity is perfect. The ability to run at a fixed speed only when needed should help them to get it to run cleanly and fuel efficiently.
I liked jaguar’s plan with a small jet turbine (built on Isle of Man FTW) powering a generator. Has the benefit of being able to run on just about anything flammable, from alcohol to kerosene.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75
Mazda currently (not in US) has something they call i-Eloop (i for intelligent). It uses regeneration to charge not a battery but a large 25v capacitor. When i-EStop (car turns off at a light), the capacitor runs accessories, so engine does not have to idle. Apparently, BMW has a similar system. Good for an extra 2 miles per gallon but special battery is $400 to replace plus extra $1k for i-Eloop.
@Michael Pickett posted:@Stan Galat, have you looked at the GM EV600? It looks like FedEx bought 500 of them last year. 250 miles range, recharge at night, etc. Looking at it, it might be a little too big for your use.
That would sound perfect if it included a small gas-turbine humming away under the floor and running a generator, when needed, to keep the batteries charged.
And it could look like this!
I keep explaining it, but I sense what I'm saying isn't being grasped, which is unsurprising since we're trying to communicate over the interweb.
Of course I don't need 500 mi of range every single day. But if you read my entire 1500 word opus, you'd understand that this is a 24/7/365 service. Waiting is not an option. I've had to leave in the middle of more dates, dinners, church services, and social gatherings of all kinds than I could ever count. I missed my grandmother's funeral.
Getting 8 uninterrupted hours to charge at night is never a given. Never. 95% of the time, 200 mi of range would be adequate. But what works 95% of the time is irrelevant, unless I have a second truck standing by in case I need to head out and my primary (BEV) truck has less than 30% battery left.
I often get a call at a place 45 mi away at 8 pm, and need to run back the opposite direction, past my shop to Peoria for parts (which is 120 mi there and back), then take care of the problem and drive back home. That's a 210 mi round trip, and I would have had 3 hrs of charge time on a flat battery before heading out.
What I can say with 100% certainty is that I'll NEVER be heading out at 8:00 PM, unless I'm 100% certain I can get home. The customer can't wait until morning.
It's the same reason we can't have crappy, unreliable trucks (which were dirt cheap, until the Recent Troubles). I need 100% reliability, and essentially unlimited range.
The pure BEV would need a ridiculously over-sized battery to even consider it. If it weren't a matter of religious principle, I could just get hybrid trucks with range-extenders.
@LI-Rick posted:I’m for watching California step off the cliff first, and let’s see what happens with their 2035 mandate.
My hope is that the next governor cancels that mandate. Newsom isn't know for thinking through his decisions. He shoots from the lip without giving much thought to the ripple effect of those decisions.
@Stan Galat posted:I keep explaining it, but I sense what I'm saying isn't being grasped, which is unsurprising since we're trying to communicate over the interweb.
Of course I don't need 500 mi of range every single day. But if you read my entire 1500 word opus, you'd understand that this is a 24/7/365 service. Waiting is not an option. I've had to leave in the middle of more dates, dinners, church services, and social gatherings of all kinds than I could ever count. I missed my grandmother's funeral.
Getting 8 uninterrupted hours to charge at night is never a given. Never. 95% of the time, 200 mi of range would be adequate. But what works 95% of the time is irrelevant, unless I have a second truck standing by in case I need to head out and my primary (BEV) truck has less than 30% battery left.
I often get a call at a place 45 mi away at 8 pm, and need to run back the opposite direction, past my shop to Peoria for parts (which is 120 mi there and back), then take care of the problem and drive back home. That's a 210 mi round trip, and I would have had 3 hrs of charge time on a flat battery before heading out.
What I can say with 100% certainty is that I'll NEVER be heading out at 8:00 PM, unless I'm 100% certain I can get home. The customer can't wait until morning.
It's the same reason we can't have crappy, unreliable trucks (which were dirt cheap, until the Recent Troubles). I need 100% reliability, and essentially unlimited range.
The pure BEV would need a ridiculously over-sized battery to even consider it. If it weren't a matter of religious principle, I could just get hybrid trucks with range-extenders.
As a tradesman who can work 5 minutes from home one day and drive an hour and a half (1 way) the next, I know exactly what you're talking about, Stan.
