Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

Morgan LaMoore wrote:
>
> Force of air drag times distance equals energy required
> .5*Cd*A*rho*v^2*d
> The lowest Cd I found for a Dodge Caravan was .35, and the lowest area
> was 30 square feet.
> .5*.35*30ft^2*1.3kg/m^3*(55mph)^2*150miles
> 25.7 kWh
>
> Energy in 16 T-105's (using 6 hour rate even though he's at 3 hour
> rate, ignoring Peukert's effect):
> 16*6V*205Ah
> 19.7 kWh
>
> He's only 20% short! However, you have to add in rolling resistance
> losses, he'll be farther behind. It would take a really deep discharge
> to go 150 miles, and you'd be destroying the batteries.
>
> That said, it was a lot closer than I expected, so if there was even a
> downwards slope of a few percent, they might be able to do it.
>
> And yeah, the magnetic shocks make sense, if you could get big enough
> magnets. I don't know how they'd help range, though.
>
> -Morgan LaMoore
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Magnetic-Shock-Absorber---EV-tf4578896s25542.html#a13079765
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

Click to expand...