Prev: Tesla, Toyota.
Next: Air Conditioner Transplant Question
From: C. E. White on 21 May 2010 20:15

"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:oUDJn.15553$jt.9296(a)newsfe04.iad...
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:58:47 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Under the partners' scenarios, Tesla will gain from Toyota's scale,
>> engineering resources and access to its supplier base. Toyota, in turn,
>> will have Tesla's lean and rapid product development, as well as its
>> electric vehicle technology. Toyota is still using older-tech
>> nickel-metal-hydride batteries in its Prius and other hybrids, while
>> Tesla
>> is using newer, lithium-ion batteries.
>
> IIRC, you are an engineer?

Moi? The quote is from the Autonews article. I make no claims of special
knowledge of batteries.

Ed

>
> Li-IO batteries are tempermental. They were responsible for the laptop
> blowups 4 years ago. If they are allowed to go over voltage or
> undervoltage they can get intoa 'runaway' state and FFFFFFFFFT!
>
> I use Li Io batteries in my electronic ciggies. THe thought of having
> something like that close to my face is a little unnerving. Indeed, one
> experimenter (who, against better judgement didn't use Protected batteries
> in his home-made power source) suffered 2nd & 3rd degree burns when his
> experimental e-cig went FFFFFFFT in his pocket.
>
> Is it worse than Gasoline? Maybe not. More modern devices like cell
> phones, etc are using newer Li-Po (Lithium-Polymer) batteries that are a
> bit more even tempered when pushed to their limits. The state of the art
> right now is that although they are about the same price as Li-Io
> batteries, the charge doesn't last quite as long, so more recharging is
> required.
>
> But, that should be solved within the next 5 years, or an even better
> power source will probably be on line.
>
>
>

From: hls on 21 May 2010 21:48

"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
> I am not disputing that. But if using this plant was so great, why did
> Toyota abandon it? Where they just trying to lose the UAW?


I dont think there was ever any secret about this.. This California
plant was the most expensive to operate in this hemisphere. When
GM ducked out, the reason for it to even exist disappeared. It
was cheaper to shut this dynosaur down than to try to operate it.

Toyota is not dumb.

At least, that is the story as I remember it.
From: hls on 21 May 2010 21:51

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
news:ht7a8e$q3r$1(a)panix2.panix.com...
> hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:

> As the charging systems get better, so do the batteries.

Again very true. Charging rates and levels are critical to long
battery life. But, IMHO, no car will be a success if it cant
go substantially more than 40 miles per day on a charge.
That is a no-brainer, non-starter, as much as I hate those
phrases.


>>There is not, at this point, a superbattery that will do all things for
>>all people.
>
> And there's nothing out there with energy density as good as gasoline.
> But it's getting better.
> --scott

Absolutely... Other liquid fuels or compresses gases can come close,
considering that rather rigid technologies and economies must be taken into
account.

From: Scott Dorsey on 21 May 2010 22:38
hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ht7a8e$q3r$1(a)panix2.panix.com...
>> hls <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>> As the charging systems get better, so do the batteries.
>
>Again very true. Charging rates and levels are critical to long
>battery life. But, IMHO, no car will be a success if it cant
>go substantially more than 40 miles per day on a charge.
>That is a no-brainer, non-starter, as much as I hate those
>phrases.

Agreed, although I would actually more than double that to 100 miles per
charge.

But I also think people need to stop insisting on cars that weigh a couple
tons.

>>>There is not, at this point, a superbattery that will do all things for
>>>all people.
>>
>> And there's nothing out there with energy density as good as gasoline.
>> But it's getting better.
>
>Absolutely... Other liquid fuels or compresses gases can come close,
>considering that rather rigid technologies and economies must be taken into
>account.

Yes, but most of those are expensive in comparison to gasoline... even diesel
has become so.

We also have had more than a century of technology development in handling
gasoline, which is inherently unsafe, in a safe manner. When oil refineries
were new, and cars were new, they both exploded a lot.

We have a lot of development to be done in safety for batteries and for
pressurized gases to get to the point where gasoline is.

Still, I have seen gasoline tanks ignite and it is pretty amazing how much
energy is in a tank of gas, especially when it all comes out at once.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: chuckcar on 21 May 2010 23:03
"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in
news:ZYKdnfGEwNTEsmrWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:

> Bitten by the spell checker - Tesla, NOT Tulsa.
>
> Ed

I was just waiting for the tonguetwister myself <g>.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Tesla, Toyota.
Next: Air Conditioner Transplant Question