Electric cars

Yep.

Change: nickels, dimes, and quarters; variation.

Checks: safeguards; financial documents. Balances: counteracting forces; weighing instruments; account totals; residuals or remainders.

Puns suck when you explain 'em.

Grins, James Arthur

That works too, it's just unpopular. Somehow BIG has come to be important. Not to me, but to many.

Cheers, James Arthur

Presumably the vast majority of the occupants of those 600 private jets weren't asking for billions of dollars in bailouts?

Shooting all the Democrats does away with all the pols (snicker ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Ok, maybe I didn't make my point clearly, or everyone is saying forget that point, I think it works like this...

Lets say that you have a modular pack composed of 80 differernt modules. Each module has builtin control and SMPS style outputs so that even a single module could run the system, if only for a short time. the on-board electronics, both in each module and in the pack, monitors each pack for its health and status. If a module's performance drops to a certain point, it is flagged for replacement.

Now, maybe John is correct, and the individual cells all have close to identical lifetimes, so that they will all fail within a short period. If that is the case, then perhaps the single, monolithic pack makes sense. However, if there is much variablility in the lifetime of cells, then the individual modules make sense. You only need to replace the few non-performing units (which should then be easy to recycle/refurbish) and keep the entire pack up to standard.

So, the remaining packs may have a relatively short time to failure once units begin to fail, but there may still be months/years on them. There shouldn't be a single, massive failure of all the packs, which is a possibility in a mononlifhic pack...

Charlie

I want FAST and SAFE, which usually implies BIG ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Who knows what the battery chemistry might be for this kind of "module". But my experience with LiIon charging controls suggests that the multi-module approach might be best.

...Jim Thompson

There is special dispensation for rich Democrats ;-)

...Jim Thompson

BTW, Bob Eld, With transfer functions, it's "poles" and zeros, not "polls" and zeroes ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Then why do so? Because they're too obvious to acknowledge doesn't mean they have to be 'splained.

They were sure asking for something.

John

Now you are the one who is dreaming.

John

James Arthur wrote in news:tc7gl.2782$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

Part of it is "safety"(they want a tank),but part of it is sitting up high,too. They get to see over normal autos,but block the sightline of normal cars,and also overlook(miss) cars alongside of them.I've nearly been sideswiped many times by big SUVs because they don't see low sporty cars in the lane next to them,despite their side mirrors. Only MY attention has saved me.

But they trade that for less maneuverability,harder to park,easier to rollover;IMO,they end up being MORE dangerous than a regular car.

WRT aerodynamics,cars are all getting to be more and more alike in shape,and harder to recognize separate brands. They're all getting uglier,too.

I wish Honda would begin making Preludes and Integras again. Those were two great cars.

The transfer function approximations that folk are currently applying form many of the major variables.

Analyze that!

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

several Porsches and Mercedes are small,fast,yet safe. No car should be required to withstand fast collisions or off-road "shunts". IMO,people SHOULD be at risk;it will make them pay more attention to their driving,or thin out the gene pool.

IMO,good handling,braking and most importantly,the DRIVER,make a car "safe".BTW,"safety" also includes the damage your vehicle can do to other vehicles. IMO,having more SUVs and "light trucks" being commonly used as daily-driver passenger vehicles has DECREASED safety for everyone.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

DemocRATs are "do as I say,not as I do", "And don't question what I say or do.","Go along with our policies,because we won."

"give us your full support,even though we didn't do that when your guy won election".

And last;"don't listen to Rush Limbaugh".

Charlie E. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

no,there would be sequential failures,in an undetermiined time frame. Who wants to gamble on that?

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

of course,you also add extra expense with all those separate monitoring and "SMPS outputs",and the extra circuitry and complexity makes for more failures. Also violates the KISS principle.

Yes, there is probably a trade-off, but it also means that your 'power' electronics on each pack is a lot smaller, so you get a distributed system instead of just a few 'large' switching components. Also, you get an element of redundancy so that any single failure means you still have a working vehicle.

Charlie