15,000volts.... that's funny, and not. :no:

I am all for high voltage in EV's, and the highest I will implement is ~600 Volts, still enough to easily kill someone, but at least no arcing.... 15,000V LOL

People will be surprised when a well thought EV comes out. I hope the person and/or company will last long enough to open their eyes.

I won't be surprised, I just think people need to get back to the drawing board. Quit trying to push just any electric car to appeal to the environuts and put out a great product. Like the saying goes, build a better mousetrap............

I for one would love a well engineered and executed electric car.

+1 :yes:

Someone is trying :lol:. That someone might have found a legend in the automotive and motor sport industry. If the vehicles that certain someone :whistle: gets to build, it'll sure push other technologies forward. It will definitely open the door for better batteries and better materials to be made.

It's not the electric car that needs to well designed and executed, the root issue is, and always has been the batteries, and the ONLY issue. Every other piece of the EV, as far as motors, controllers, electronics are far advanced and provide plenty of headroom to work with. If battery tech were actually funded and R&D'd with a 'decent' buck for the last 100 some years, we would already have had awesome EV's for probably several decades, since the 70's even. As the tech theory was there on paper, just not near enough funding.

Aside from battery tech, there are 5000+ high tech patents in the USA alone that are labeled top secret and are on a technical 'gag order', as titled by the CIA... all because they tell you that they are a 'threat to national security'. So, use your imagination on what these 5000+ patents consist of, because obviously they are a threat to THEIR security of power.

Funded..by whom? It's just that every time I hear "properly funded" I feel someone tugging at my wallet! If there is a honest demand for an EV it will be developed and sold by private enterprise and as of present that demand doesn't exist. As an example Toyota has mothballed an entire factory that was 99% complete that was set to produce the Prius but after fuel prices dropped there was no longer a demand for the car.

Maybe by leveling the playing field a bit with the massive tax breaks and subsidies the oil industry gets.

Exactly, by the tax payers money. They waste billions upon billions of our money every year on useless nonsense, that never pans out (and they know this), for instance hydrogen fuel cell research, they know it's a dead end as far as storing hydrogen, it leaks straight through the tank wall. The fuel cell system is incredibly complex, and the efficiency from WELL-to-WHEELS is equal to WORSE than that of an ICE car (depending on source).

Billions of you money goes to military, to a war that is a complete farce, which can never be won, and is war being fought for Israel. Billions go to these pharmaceutical companies who produce nothing of value, only drugs which 'may' reduce this, but cause this, this , and this, which need these drugs........on and on, we're living in a drug pill popping society. They make several 100,000 times profit on some products, and where is this going? To rich globalists who produce NOTHING of value, and do not evolve our society.

Whoever the money changers are, control the population.

Some of you think why am I talking about this, but it's very important to see the whole picture to understand what is going on, otherwise, there is confusion.

The "truth" about the OIL CO. tax breaks and subsidies!

Not sure what is meant by that. That talks about offshoring oil profits as a tax dodge, and is from 2 yrs ago admist an election campaign.

What I'm talking about are large tax/subsidy adv oil co's have due tp govt policy, and how it distorts the market and does not let tech fairly compete. This article from the conservative Cato institute discusses the issue. They argue against the $36B odd subsidies, but also criticize the Dems for wanting to end the breaks to just transfer them to Green Tech. Both actions distort free markets at the expensive pf taxpayers. I dont go as far as they do, but they do make the point.
I'm for the elec tech, but they do need to produce marketable vehicles. Between the Leaf and the Tesla, they don't seem to be aiming higher than a niche status. Somebody will eventually figure it out.

lol, once again an innocent thread has turned political. Seems to be a recurring theme. I wonder why this type of thing seems to happening more and more lately?

Anyway, from all the posts, I think we can agree that (in no particular order):

1: We are generally moving in the right direction as far as popularizing EV's
.
2: Motor and controller technology is ready and waiting for the ideal power source.

3: Need to expand the EV market to more than just supercars and in-town runners. I honestly think this is because no company wants to jump in with both feet making their whole vehicle line-up electric until they see if it's gonna sell.

4: 100 mile range is simply not good enough. Most want more. Especially since EV's are relatively rare and finding a convenient "fill-up" station during a road trip may be difficult if not impossible at the moment.

5: Battery technology is what is holding us back.

6: Simple is better. No complex fuel cells, or other unnecessarily complicated schemes.

7: Price needs to come down.

I personally think the biggest hurdle right now is battery tech. No matter how nice everything else works, if the batteries can't meet expectations, these ideas are not gonna take off (except maybe for the niche greenie market). Once that is solved, all the other issues will be easily addressed.

Until that happens, I'd like to see an efficient solar technology used. Not to run the car off it, but to charge it between runs and to assist during running. Even if a panel array "only" puts out 1000w, that should at least extend runtime. And if you do run out of juice in the middle of nowhere, just give it several hours in the sun to get you going again.

I hear talk about cheap and flexible solar panels that can be "painted" onto panels. This would be pefect given the surface area of a vehicle's body panels. But so far, nothing is actually being done with it (that I know of anyway).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0719011151.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0320095008.htm

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...n/item_59.html

Agreed Brian. On the subject of solar panels, there is so much headroom that is waiting too, with panels being between 10 - 15 % efficient. There is roughly ~1300watts per square meter on the surface of earth, so you do the math on what could be done with 100% efficiency. A couple years ago I read an article that a team of scientists have figured out how to mimic photosynthesis (99.8% efficient). So if the same process is applied to an electrical solar panel, well, wouldn't that be just grand. :smile:


I too find it strange that these unsuspecting threads keep turning political. :whistle:

Election time, Sorry :oops:

Lol no worries everybody. I think all the economic turmoil has just got everyone in the country stressed out and edgy. Hell of a decade we've been thru.

Does anyone know who is suppling the batts? The solar tech is an interesting idea too. You could really disconnect. I always wonder how friendly employers will be to charging @ work. If its $3/day/car, & 500 cars in the lot is doing it, I could see some employers getting pissy about it. Low range elecs really have a hurdle if you only have the night to charge.