Martin Eberhard Tesla's co-founder might be working for VW. If it's really true, lets see what they can do. The E-Tron looks nice.

HA! That's great:lol:

I`m kinda wanting one of these

www.zeromotorcycles.com

I like those, but you could do your own. Instead of using a brushed motor, you can go with a brushless.

lutach, check the energy density for the Panasonic cells Tesla is using and about which you posted the spec-sheet pdf. They are 202Wh/kg - which is VERY GOOD, if the specs can be trusted!

For comparison on my 1/8 buggy I'm using 5Ah 4S softcase LiPos (35C and 40C) which weigh around 530g which makes only 140Wh/kg. Sure those can give out A LOT power but when speaking about Tesla you are speaking about a regular car, not a racer or a dragster. So my 1/8 buggy battery pack is +45% lighter than the Panasonic cells. If I would not be racing 10-minute heats but 60 or 120-minute heats I'd be running those Panasonic cells just like Tesla :)

If I would be building an electric car (just give me the money ;) I'd also be getting the batteries which have the best energy density and can provide enough power/curren.

You've all talked about heavy batteries and then you want those heavy batteries just for the fact that they'd be able to deliver more power. Obviously the lighter cells can provide _enough_ power while being 45% lighter for an example.

If you run 10-minute then you need avarege of 6C current from the batteries (60min/10min=6). If you'd like to drive around 3 hours with your electric 1/1 car then you'd only need 60min/180min=0.3C batteries. With a fullsize car you are not going to accelerate and brake every 3 seconds like you are doing with small scale RC-cars. You maybe accelerate for 4 seconds to reach 100kmh and then drive until next red light.

In real life you only need 0.3C capable batteries that can provide the maximum power for 5 or 10 seconds. What's the time it takes for Tesla to reach its maximum speed? It won't be more than 10 sec I'm guessing.

For passanger car I'd like to have a battery, that:
- has good lifetime and many lifecycles
- can give out enough power to accelerate the car up to 100kmh in decent time ie 5s for sports car, 10s for regular car
- has best available energy density so you don't have to accelarate and brake the extra mass all the time
- has ok cold performance.Won't like to spend too much power to keep the battery very warm.

Energy cell will always have a higher energy density, but when you add a load higher then the cells are capable of handling, the voltage drop is way higher which will make the energy density a lot different. The cells I can get offers the absolute best energy density and all I would need is a pack that weighs only 250lbs. to give the same performance as the 1000lbs. Tesla pack. The Panasonic cell is not safe as it can't vent when things go wrong. It wasn't meant for cold weather. Life cycle doesn't come close to the military spec cells they could've gotten.

Energy cell is good to offer something that doesn't consume a lot of power a longer lasting charge, but when that cell is used in a power application, things can get a little on the dangerous side.

My point was that for passanger car you'd need to have battery capable of no more than 0.5C because you'd like to drive at least 2 hours - that is 110 mile / 180 km range on average cruising speed.

Most batteries are capable of higher burst currents. And you don't need longer bursts than 10 seconds. 10 seconds will get up over the legal speed limit anyway.

Maybe we'll see cars with some supercaps that are able to give boost to the main battery. They'd only have to help for few seconds.

So for my passanger car I see no reason to have battery thats capable of more than 1C discharge. The same thing applies for charging. You just can't get enough power from the power grid to charge batteries with 1C or even 0.5C currents.

So charging max 0.25C and discharging max 0.5C and very high power density - this would be the ideal batt for passanger car in my oppinion.

BTW - I know about the power sag / voltage drop under load. But when talking about C-values one could assume that the battery does handle it without too much voltage drop ;)

I understand, but most of the EVs need to have the appropriate cell used, not just common laptop cell designed for longer lasting low energy consumption application. You know EVs are not low energy consumption products like a laptop. You can try this in a smaller scale if you want and you will see my point. Before high discharge rate lipos came out, I was messing with high energy lithium cells and guess what, they all failed in a R/C, now think what can happen in a full size car. The cell used in the Tesla in my opinion is not safe. The people I speak to know that a EV to be compatible with the I.C. version, needs a battery capable of more the 0.5C. Why you ask, fast charging. The current grid can support such fast charging if you move away from the 110 or 220 standards. You can have a higher voltage coming from the grid set up to offer the fast charging. A lot of the energy produced by current power plants is wasted anyways. I think of things ahead instead of thinking of common things that we see. Now in order for your 0.5C discharge to work, you will need a much higher voltage then current EVs are using. A few set ups I know of can handle up to 960VDC, but some can go up to 1200VDC. Also, to have a battery only put out 0.5C for a EV, you need to look at the whole vehicle and not just at the battery. How much will the vehicle weigh, how aerodynamic is the vehicle and how much power will the motor need to maintain a certain speed? When you figure all those in, you will then see why you will need a battery capable of more then 0.5C. Even at the weight of 1000lbs., the Tesla pack can't handle the load as it needs water cooling. When a battery can't deliver the current asked, it'll overheat and that causes a very short life cycle. Tesla could've went with SLA batteries at the same weight which would offer better performance, faster charging capabilities and would be much safer.



So do a little test in your R/C with plain energy cells. Example, get a few of the Panasonic cell used in the Tesla and wire them in the voltage you use in your R/C, then do the same with similar sized cell from A123 or K2 (Not the 26650 sized, but the 18650 1100-1200mAh cells) and see which ones will perform better. Also, try charging the Panasonic cell at the same high rate as the A123 or K2 cells. Let us know your results.

My laptop only lasts about 3h on batteries. I think any electric passanger car should last longer. So considering that passanger car cells could be about the same as laptop cells :)

Ok. I think it is stupid to have 10 000 of some small cells but its up to what is cheaper and more efficient to use at some time. Like said, you have to plan ahaed many years when building a car. It would be smarter to use something like those 20Ah LiFePO4 cells just to have fewer of them.

And overheating the cells when using them? Well... it comes down to IR of the cells and the power you take from them. It would be wise to use such cells that don't need cooling. It is a simple high-school fysics equasion to figure it out how much heat is generated by driving a car.

I think that Tesla is overkill considering its acceleration and power needs. Don't know about Tesla but I'd like to have a mode that limits the power to a regular passanger car. No need for better acceleration than 9sec 0-100kmh (0-60mph).

I don't like comparing RC with passanger electric car. Those are very different things. One is high performance 10-minute running and another has totally different need for the batt.

Don't belive there will be high voltage charging stations available in 3-4 years. You could have one at your house but then you usually don't need to charge the car fast...

Check out how much power your laptop consumes and then compare that to how much power Tesla consumes. If Tesla is to be a true sports car, it would need top notch batteries. For $120K, they could've went with a better drive train, battery system and charger.

Now in one of those small cars, then you could use some sort of energy cell, but in a LiFePO4 form. I know places in China that uses a small 10KW drive train along with LiFePO4 ranging from 100Ah-200Ah. They only use 72V or 144V. Using those large format cells only 20 or 40 cells would be needed.

Comparing our R/Cs is the best thing one can use. Wonder how Tesla failed on selecting their components? If your idea of using energy cells compared to power cells is correct, then try it out and let us know. I've done my research since 1998 and I know a laptop energy cell can't come close to performing as well as any power cell.

Currently that are chargers available. Everything is available to make this go forward, but currently the morons doing them are not using them. I don't know if it's the cost or if they don't know where to look. People make things expensive, but if you know where to look, it's very cheap all it takes is some research. I've been speaking with a lot of folks in the EV components market and guess what they say about our R/C components, "We are way ahead of the full size EV and the auto industry in general."

Tesla has limited maximum speed. What is the time it gets up to that speed? I bet it is under 10 sec. So the maximum power need from the battery is a true burst current of under 10 sec. Then driving at any speed doesn't consume more than 1C - otherwise you'd be able tu run less than a hour.

I get what you are saying but when talking about passanger cars you don't have anything sporty about them. RC cars are sporty in a sense that they use all the power available in under 10 minutes (6+C current). Only thing sporty about passanger car is the not-so-often happening acceleration.

Tesla - a passanger car that has good acceleration compared to other pertrol engine cars. It is not anything special considering what electric car could do.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just pointing out some things.
- passanger electric car can't consume high burst current for more than 10 seconds otherwise it would be going too fast for regular traffic. And even this high burst current isn't anything crazy considering the amount of batteries needed to be able to get decent milage.
- you want decent milage from a passenger electric car. Lets say 200miles/300km. This makes the average current only maximum of 0.3C and any battery can handle this.

Ok... you could have 1:1 electric dragster or a racing-car but Tesla isn't non of them. Tesla is a sporty looking passanger car that has good acceleration compared to regular internal combustion engine cars.

My point being is that Tesla consumes ABOUT THE SAME AVERAGE POWER AS A LAPTOP! Average laptop runs 2-3hours on a battery. Tesla runs even longer I think (driving optimal speed). And YES you can compare those two this ways. This all comes down to average consumption aka C-value of the batt which is about the same.

I just checked out the carts from Tesla. Running optimal long distance comes to about 10 hours driving (their calculated charts). So when you'd want to do distance records with Tesla you'd be running a lot lower power than any laptop! Regular driving would be about the same.

Think it this way - which ever battery you put on the car you can limit the power consumption of the car so that the battery would handle it. You MUST do it because of the crazy torque available but not needed. You can limit the power abilities of the car by telling it how long distance you have to go. The car must monitor the state and temp of the batteries. If they are getting too hot the car can just limit the power that is drawn from them etc.

To come back to the original question. You want to have a battery that can accelerate you to top speed every 2-3 minutes? You are not accelerating from 0 to top speed, then braking to 0 speed and then accelerating again like you are doind with a RC car. Usually you accelerate from 0 to cruising speed and then drive to next red light or a hundred miles. And you'd like to get good milage from the battery and you don't want to pay too much for them. There are many things more important than the pure power characteristics of a passanger car battery.

Here's what bugs me the most Lauri. In order for electric vehicles to be as competitive as a I.C. vehicle it needs to have good range and fast charging capabilities. The chargers are available, so are the batteries, plus other technologies for longer electric only range and a grid can be implemented. Now, if the Government are so concerning, why don't they start putting some chargers at gas stations? They are more interested in spending money with the companies making the vehicles and not looking into setting up a nice infrastructure to support them first. Tesla got a nice $520+ million loan from the Government which means we the people paying taxes in the US loaned that money. With that amount of money, Tesla can easily start using better cells, because there current one is not capable of fast charging at all.

That 520 mil might as well have been a handshake and a wink to "keep things as they are". It pisses me off to no end, how many jobs would that money have created?
How many thousand better uses can I think of?

As long as gov't continues to speak out of both sides of it's mouth, nothing improves.

They could have subsidized independent researchers (such as yourself), or even made a contest of sorts. Imagine the response to something like that!

As long as they funnel $ into a single company, there is no real incentive for them to innovate. What the hell, the money is in their hands. They don't have to do jack.

These things always look so good on the surface. But they will likely end up doing more harm than if they'd not given anyone any money. Hard not to be a cynic when you have some inkling how these things operate. UUUUGH.

Hey, I'm back again, and again I have nothing to add really, Luc said much of what can be stated.

It is a sad state of affairs the technologies of the world are in right now, with so much of it on what is called a "gag order", in other words, it "Threatens National Security"... give me a fucking break (pardon the language), but what a crock of shit (again...). I'm not sure how many here know this, but there is currently over 5000 of these 'gag orders' for various technological patents in the US, yes, that's just the US. I mean, just look at the impressive tech the millitary has which IS NOT on gag order, so, it occurs to me that if these impressive techs are non-disclosed, then what the F#$K do they have behind those doors.

In my opinion, I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the US, and other advanced countries (maybe many?) have technology that would set the people of the world free forever, and would advance our society to no end, indeed space exploration. We would have no need for batteries, or any energy storage, as we would have infinite abundance at our disposal. Some of you may think, how can that be, that would violate the laws of physics... well science tells us that there is an underlying infinite energy to the universe, the vacuum, the quantum vacuum, or the 'zeropoint energy'... we know it's there, the general scientific community doesn't know if you can tap it, but perhaps the shadow ops of the government does. Look at the amount of UFO sightings these days, it fits in well with rumor about the military gaining technological advances... I think many of the UFO's are military origin, and perhaps some extraterrestrial. Anyways, I'm blabbering, I'll stop there...

Japan officially has the 'water car' in production, which runs 100% on water, regular water, bottled, tap, or even tea they say. So all we need is a larger water-power gen. set, with a cap bank, and we are set for an SOB of an electric car. You could run an engine on the hydrogen, but i would rather have a electric propulsion system. :smile:

Cheers

You've seen the items I showed you. Think what could be done we more and more companies uses them and push the technology forward. Picture that same 5Ah+ cell I showed you in a 20Ah format. The military tested a 41Ah cell under normal to heavy load and got 120 miles out of it. No regen was used as they have other means to get electricity made to charge and run the electric propulsion. I know many companies that makes the set up you mentioned there zeropoint and it's really amazing. The problem is this, do you think the electric producing giants will let it become popular? It's one of the items I was planning on using to extend the range and plug into the house so it can power that or send electricity back to the grid. The other idea I have can basically give unlimited range. To many it seems unreal, but they don't do the research to find such technology.

Nice arguments and loved to read both point of views.

I'll put my take on the laptop batteries, as I used them in my rc's. The 18650 cells that I use put out a burst of 45A and go flat in 2-3 seconds. I can only get up to 5A continuous out of them in 1p configs. Tesla is just gay for using them in a car.

Another roadblock for EV's is the transportation industry, and the AG industry.

Those vehicles (buses/trucks/tractors) must be able to run for 18+hrs a day, and do it under much more demand than these passenger cars.
I for one was really disappointed that GM never really followed through with the hybrid diesel systems. I really believe that a Diesel fired generator would be ideal for my truck, and many of the farm/transportation trucks.

ps. Lutach - your argument is sound. But until you actually build it, test it, prove it, all it is is an ideal. Get us these "magic" cells, and we'll help you prove it!!!!

That is was I was trying to get at. If Tesla made a simple passenger car then they wouldn't need a great battery to make it go around and that 1000lbs. would last a while before needing a charge, but they claim the Tesla Roadster to be a sports car. I've been asking people what they think about the current EV and the answers are surprising. I asked one guy that does own a Tesla and he loves it, but I guess he doesn't know there are better technology available now that would make it such a better vehicle. Now with $520+ million of our tax money, would they change? I hope so, but so far I haven't seen much.

I knew you were going to come here as your laptop powered R/C looked nice.

I think someone in a Tesla did a little race from Chicago to California (Not 100% sure), but it took them quite a bit of time to get there. That is not a very good selling point or marketing tool I would let people know about if that was my car.

It can be done JThissen. Like you said, a hybrid diesel and a few hub motors or axle motors would be ideal.

All the things I've said and posted have been tested by not only our US Military, but a few race cars that got scrapped pretty quick. If the Military is using it in various vehicles then you know it must be good. The way this economy is going I need to make sure my little one will not fall short of the magic $$$$. If I had $100K to spare right now, I would get a nice pack made with the actual not magical cells and I can send you datasheets and military test results if you would like to see it. I've contacted a few folks in the race car community, but they don't seem to understand this technology yet. The problem that is keeping anyone from making an awesome EV are the big corp. companies. I can think of many advantages for going electric in general and still make the oil giants happy. It seems that nobody has come up with that pitch yet though lol.

Forgot to mention this again, but here goes. Tesla did not get started with their own ideas. They got the TZero from AC Propulsion as a loaner to get potential investors and they nailed one called Elon Musk, but now Mr. Musk took over and the founders (Not sure if only one is not with the company) are not there anymore. Now Tesla claims to have their own technology, but it's still the same old AC Propulsion technology, but they claim to have a version of the drive train that puts out more power.

I should loan a Prius load it with about 500lbs. of extra battery and show it to potential investors to see what would happen :rofl:. Tell them I have 500lbs. less then the Tesla and get an actual 200mpg to see if they fall for it.

Data sheets are fine for theory - I'm more interested in the dynamics of real world system tests. Stick these cells in a system, beat the living snot out of it - hopefully until they fail, and see where the down side is with them, then improve them, or build in the fail safes needed. Then compare it to what others have done (like Tesla).
There may be an upside to the lower C systems. I would liken it to the difference between Diesel and Gas powered vehicles. You can have a 400hp/600ft-lb gasoline motor, and a 300hp,600ft-lb diesel. The spec sheet on that car would be fantastic compared to the diesel - but I wouldn't pick the gas motor for towing.

Take your data to a respected automotive engineering college. I suspect you will have open ears (and minds) there. The downside would be give open liscense to a technology, for them to develop further. The upside is that it is good for all of us down the line.

Well... I won't start to argue with you guys :wink: PR and government support and big corporations and things are bad, mmmmmmkay :lol: We've all seen the "Who killed the electric car" documentary - it really pisses you off and frustrates, how things are done... but that's life, what can you do?! I think that documentary explaned very nicely what and why is happening.

It is an ongoing process. Tesla is a step in a right direction. Or maybe not. Time will tell. London is full of GWiz cars. It works there. Tesla IS the first real car that George or Matt can go, buy, enjoy and see that electric cars do work and make sense.

I think Tesla shows people that electric car can work. And Tesla puts the big car companies to work on the electric cars also although they dont't want to.

Only time will tell how we are charging our electric cars in 10 or 20 years.

Yeah! And get this, they fired some 100 employees by some email... an email!!! What the F#$K !? How would you feel if you got fired in such a manner? No one really knew that they were fired even a month after the emails were sent out, and IIRC, the guy who sent the emails was fired after as well! What a horrible company, that is another reason why I am boycotting them.

Not to mention they are a disgrace to the name Tesla. They should be destroyed. :diablo:

I don't mean to attack you, but please, please don't say things like that! It really grinds my gears when people say "that's just life, get used to it" :slap:

It's only life if you accept it to be that way.

word

Datasheets of real world testing, not just datasheets of the cells I mentioned. In fact, one of the cells was pushed even further then what the datasheet stated. Some tanks have a nice hybrid system. You think some of those jet powered tanks are actually propelled by the jet engine? No. One of the drive train I can get was meant for a 200mph+ race car, but the program was scrapped due to some fools testing out part of the system in another country and it caused some major damage mainly due to human error. The car itself was fully tested and would've made history if the program continued. All the stuff I talk about have been fully tested, but somehow never makes it and who knows the reason why. I've contacted major scientist in regards to very high C rate cells and they all said, the higher the C rate of the cell the higher charge rate it'll allow. The only upside so far of a lower C rated cell is the price, but things can change with new technologies. I like the power of a diesel and it has proven itself, but the addiction to gas seems much higher than expected.

Good thing you mentioned to take my data to respected automotive engineers and I have done that. Not only that I have given my data to most engineers that work for companies I sell Electronic Components to and they were amazed on how easy it can be. Most of the electronic engineers told me I can go from NY to CA and back to NY on a single charge. Now the automotive engineers told me it could never happen, but they were amazed on the data I showed them. The only things is, they don't know where to get the technology and my main ideas were not mentioned. Ford (Brasil), GM (Brasil), Fiat (Brasil), Toyota (Brasil), Mosler (USA) and a few more. They all listened, but they a seem brain washed except for Mosler who definitely showed an interest.

Now I said a 41Ah cell (Not as powerful as the others, but a medium power cell) was used in a voltage similar to the Tesla's voltage and that set up and they got 120 miles out of it. That same set up was also used in some race cars with similar results. So the technology is fully tested and not something I'm making up.

We here love to debate things so please don't think we are starting things. I like what you posted, but for this technology to be on par with petro powered vehicles, it needs to be compatible in every way possible. I like what Tesla did too for the EV market, but it could've been much better.

lutach - higher C-values make batteries A LOT HEAVIER also! This is not 5 or 10% but can be up to 30% or even 50%! This is from RC. I have places where 1C LiPos would be ideal. Sadly it is hard to get those low-C batteries. And on my 1/8th buggy I want to have 30-40C battery. Don't have the figures with me at the moment but the difference is big.

If Tesla's or any other electric car's battery weighs X with slow-charge battery that gives out enough energy. Then the weight would be 1.5x with fast-charge battery that gives out a lot energy (high-C). Because we don't have the infrastructure for fast charging "sockets" I'd go with the first just like Tesla has.

Not really. It really depends on who makes it, the technology used and how fine the materials are. Right now I'm looking way beyond R/C. The current 400C cell is very new, but as the materials and technology gets better, we can see some real potential from the cells. Example and I'll use the medium power 41Ah cell that is capable of 10C continuous discharge weighs 1kg Since it went 120 miles in a single charge it should be a good example. The Tesla uses 69 cells in parallel and each cell weighs 47g so we have a module that with cells alone weighs 3243g and 99 of those modules in series for a claimed 200+ mile range which have mixed results. Now if the 41Ah cell I mentioned did 120 miles under real testing done by our military then lets use 3 in parallel for a 3Kg module and 99 in series one could easily say it would give more range then the Tesla's pack. Tesla's cells can't be charged at 1C and the ones I mentioned can and a bit more and we would save 24kg or more since the 41Ah cells don't need a steel of whatever material Tesla uses to make their pack. Much safer technology and in reality only 2 cells in parallel would be needed.

Like I said before, the infrastructure is there, you have to look for it. A lot of industrial machines works on 400V plus and you can have that in gas stations as well as you house if you have a garage. An onboard charger can also be made, but it would be a little smaller and less powerful. It would work on 110V or 220V, but would be a more efficient charger then what Tesla offers. Now look at the Tesla chargers http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php. Do you think they can put out what they claim? Look at the price, even Brusa would be smiling after looking at that. Please, look at them. For the output it needs to put out, the unit would have to be a little bigger then that and have some sort of cooling (fan cooling) for it to work out.

But tell us some information about those super cells?
voltage -
capacity -
internal resistance - (graph not needed but some examples to get a sense)
weight -

We know these settings for regular LiPos, LiFePO4s, A123s and those that Tesla uses... I'd just like to see how those super-cells differ mainly in energy density and internal resistance.

Not to look down on anything here, but electric cars are a really bad idea. I say that they are bad, not because the idea is bad, but the usage is. Until we figure out a way to get electricity with burning stuff (nuclear?) and implement it 100% having an electric car that is powered by electricity made buy burning coal is not really doing us any good.

I am not aware of any of the cradle to grave studies on what kind of pollution electric cars make compared to gas one, but I can only imagine that it is higher.

Battery tech needs to go a long way before it can be implemented in large scale like an electric car needs. Having all of the "5 year" batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of is not good for the environment. And the cost to make these cars light and strong and all of the exotic materials just pushes the price and pollution/energy usage way up as well.

I just do not find all of this "jumping on the green bandwagon" socially responsible. People need to focus on cutting back "burning" to make the electricity, and that will stimulate the design of better batteries and a general increase in cleaner technology.

Not that I really care, as I will be dead inside of 70yrs and I doubt we will see much change (unless we have another world war).

Luciano, I applaud you for making all of this progress, and hope your electric car is a beautiful high performance supercar. Use the electricity like we do here, to make a stupid fast machine! Maybe the world will notice and reform the power production systems, then you can make an economy model, but until then it is just piss in the wind...

I can agree with almost 100% there linc. I will admit to being bipolar about this. For me it's not a green thing, it's being bored with 100+ year old "technology". Fer chrissakes the Garrett water carburetor was invented in the 20s. Look at the advancements made over the last 20 years with computers, and weigh that against conventional engine's 'progress' made in the last 120 years. No comparo. Speaking for only myself, I just want something different.

As for pollution, it seems to me that more components could be recycled, not sure on that one however. Much of that will depend also on how complex the mfr makes it. Tesla surely doesn't get much credit here due to the sheer numbers of cells alone.

I agree about the batteries as a potential problem, but again think about what a gasoline powered vehicle consumes in that same 5 year period, and the waste it will create in more forms than exhaust.

Not trying to preach here, just trying to see both sides better. If we could have something like a Gwiz here (maybe a little less pathetic tho) I would have one. A few years back, Corbin Seats made some 3 wheeled fiberglass cars. In the event of a collision, they would bounce off the other vehicle, was the theory at least. The point is, it is possible to make a small vehicle that is safe, and super efficient. The number of SUVs on the road at any given moment with one person in them is really stupid.

The cost, as pointed out on that Tesla vid, was "three pounds fifty" versus 40 pounds, per roughly the same mileage. Less than one tenth the cost. That's very attractive, and if we don't do something we'll continue to be raped by the petros. I could feel a lot better with the 'bang' being produced in a reactor. Versus some Arab in cahoots with top level politicians producing it at least...

I dunno, shit needs to change.

Well my idea wouldn't need much charging at all. Zeropoint and I know of many ways to make it happen. The idea actually came from Mr. Porsche and like Tesla, was another genius. If I do ever make a car, the petroleum would be used for something else instead of fueling the vehicle. I've always wanted to make a EV and the first one was going to be my kart back in Brasil. I just like electric things lol. I'm trying my best to get the attention of a certain few in the automotive industry and if they come to a conclusion that this is the way to go, then it's on.

Fully charged 4.15V (3.65V nominal), 5.5Ah at 1C and just above 5Ah at 400C, Impedance at 350A is around 0.60 mΩ (2000A 0.20 mΩ) and it weighs 340g. That's the latest power cell. I'll see if I can get more data for the medium power and the energy cells. Now the energy cell they have is 4.15V, 52Ah at 7C, don't have info on resistance, it weighs 1Kg and the best thing about it is that it gives a full 50Ah at 20C. The lowest voltage the 5.5Ah cell can go to is 1.5V and the 52Ah cell is 2.5V. How do you mach those stats to the Panasonic cell?

I really do wish those 100+ years was spent developing the EV. If that was the case, we would be in a much better shape now as we would have the technology to live oil free in almost all types of industry.

Amen!

To give some merit to Linc's point... if we could have a turbine engine with very high efficiency (inherently efficient anyways)running a compact generator, only need ~20kw at the most, so both would be quite small; that is your energy source... With a small powerful battery pack of between 10 - 20Kwh, made from the uber cells that Luc. has access to, would be provide a ton of power, and the whole power system would be quite light weight and would be very practical. You could have roughly 20-40 mile all electric range with the pack, then gen set kicks in, with 70% efficient turbine, running a 90% efficient gen., makes for a very good well-to-wheels efficiency, very, very good range, and is capable of going on long range trips, all day, same as an ICE car. Overall, this would be, if you factor in all costs, manufacturing, lifetime of components, more environmentall sound than an all battery electric EV with a mediocre battery... as soon as you replace that pack, the impact it has made has gone up.

If a system like this were developed for mass production, it would be very cost effective, and would be almost maintenance free.

I will admit, batteries are not an answer, but more environmentally friendly made batteries (ex. LiFe) are still better over their lifetime than ICE vehicles, several times over.

Linc. btw, I am not sure about in the states, but here in Saskatchewan, Canada, our power generation plants use a clean burning technique by grinding the coal and literally spaying it into the combustion chamber and all that comes out of the smoke stack is not much of anything, just a wisp of white smoke. Much of the power being generated is not used most of the time, so it would not contribute to much of anything. It bugs me when EV critics use that as there main excuse when they don't even bother to look at the numbers... not pointing fingers at you Linc. :smile:

Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

I thought my last e-mail included something special. I'll send it again, please check and let me know what you think.

+1 on this. This talk about "electric cars pollute the same" is just plain stupid. Many big cities have problems with smog and polluted air. Electric cars resolve this easily plus many other.