The posting that seems to be in response to my comments about the airconditioning load is so far off the topic that I wonder if it was supposed to be in a different publication. Not really related at all. "Cheap Nike shoes"??? Not even sort of close.
The large power requirement of vehicle AC is exactly my point. Back in the mid-1970's era the specified chassis dynomometer road load for a medium sized car was about 15 HP, as I recall. The road load for a current vehicle should be a bit less, since there have been quite a few advances in reducing drag since then. But the thinner and lighter vehicles probably have less insulation, and so would need even more heat removal power.
So what would serve best is a bit more truth about the actual vehicle range with the accessories in use. Just as published gasoline mileage is based on ideal conditions, and actual conditions produce lower mileage, the specter of range halving due to AC use should be made known. It could easily be the show-stopper that alters the whole picture. Is there any published information that anybody has seen?
That's an interesting point. The first time I worked on a climate control system we had an auto mock-up and I was shocked to see this enormous 7.5HP motor that was used to drive the relatively small AC compressor with the tiny 5 inch pulley.
There is an unfortunate problem that is being overlooked in many projections, which is the reduction in distance per charge due to running automotive air conditioning. No matter what the battery type, the vehicle AC system will cut available miles by about a third, possibly a lot more, since the cooling will be running even when the vehicle is stopped and not consuming any power for driving motors. Probably that will kill the EVs deader than any other challenge. And it is a pity, since at one time it was a luxury that most folks did without, and got by quite well.
Patent 4,829,225 gives a quick overview. Company holding patent is still in business, "Advanced Charger Technology", based out of Atlanta but looks to be focused primarily on radio batteries. In the past they had worked on Lead acid batteries as the patent mentions.
I am working on a 6KW battery charger design driven by a small wind turbine for use in charging 1000~2000 AHr 48 volt batteries as used in mobile phone (or cellular phones!) base stations. Wind is much cheaper than diesel, at least when you have some wind.
I have seen many apocryphal references to the process you describe yet many of the battery manufacturers (mainly lead acid) have either never heard about the process or say that it is a load of bunk ( or some such comment; usually far less polite!)
I have as yet to find someone who practised the "black art"; that is until now.
Charging batteries from the wind is a precarious affair as usually there is either far too much energy or almost no energy available with sporadic availability (the usual state of affairs) somewhere in between. It is this latter region that you need to "grab" whatever energy is going and make best use of it without shortening the life of the battery. The process you describe has great potential (excuse the pun) to increase the efficiency and reduce the charging time in the "sporadic region". At 2000AHr the currents flowing in the system could have spectacular results if we get it wrong.
I would be very interested in any information or experience you could pass my way about this "pulse charging method"
I agree that that other discoveries could come from this, bonjengr. This, in itself, was a little bit of a surprise discovery. Virtually all reserachers have focused on changes in chemistry as a means of boosting energy and cutting cost. I'm encouraged by it, but I do wonder how the general conservativeness of auto companies will play into it. Auto companies are very frightened by the idea of warranty problems and they often prefer to build in big factors of safety to head off potential issues. The idea of operating a battery so close to its limits could be scary for them.
One of the possibilities that might occur from this effort is discovery of technology unconsidered at this time or previously. R&D sometimes gives us much needed but unforeseen new products. I certainly agree that four to five years is time enough for a changing landscape--politically and economically but I suspect the overall effort will yield value added.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.