On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, Ed Lee wrote: > >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi effective range. > > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi effective range. > Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that?EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic.> I.e., how much has the *actual* (original) range been impacted? > > [If I have a 20 gallon fuel tank on a vehicle, I can almost > guarantee that I can get 20 * my_MPG out of that tank. > Can you really extract every last watt out of the battery > (in the ideal case)?]I have driven my Leaf down to 10%, but not recommended to do it often. The Leaf's batteries are sealed in plastic, metal can, then heavy metal casing in partial vacuum. All to stop the leaking electrolyte. The bolt batteries might be using more electrolyte to push for higher storage.
Bolt battery problem
Started by ●July 23, 2021
Reply by ●July 23, 20212021-07-23
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:57:00 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:> Cursitor Doom wrote: > > Ed Lee wrote: > > > >> GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 > >> miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 > >> miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf > >> batteries are inefficient but over-engineered. > >> > >> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/gm-issues-second-recall-of-chevy-bolt-evs-after-vehicles-catch-fire.html > > > > Jeez Louise. Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The > > technology just isn't there yet. > Isn't that how Elon Musk became a trillionair... > > Regardless of whether the technology is "there yet"... OBVIOUSLY a better > battery will be HUGELY profitable for anyone who makes it (or steals it). > Very likely MASSIVE money is going into battery research and development.Money has been being invested in battery research and development since Edison's time. Edison patented the nickle-iron battery and was disappointed that lead acid batteries got the car-starting gig. Nickel -cadmium cells are at least as old. The nickel-metal hydride batter is more recent - work seems to have started on it in 1967. Work on lithium batteries started in 1912 but commercial lithium batteries didn't show up until 1970, and they got a lot of attention int the 1980's . Lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries became commercially available in the 1990's. I'm sure that the work continues, and it's probably a whole lot more sophisticated now than it was earlier. Sadly, the amount of money that you can make out of a useful invention doesn't make much difference to the amount of spade work being put in to get our understanding up to the point where we might know enough to be able to make such an invention. Inventions aren't - by definition - obvious to those skilled in the art, which makes it difficult to direct the money to the right place. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 9:20:25 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:56:53 -0000 (UTC), John Doe <alway...@message.header> wrote: > >Cursitor Doom wrote: > >> Ed Lee wrote:<snip>> >> Jeez Louise. Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just isn't there yet.Cursitor Doom being as ill-informed as ever.> >Isn't that how Elon Musk became a trillionair... > > > >Regardless of whether the technology is "there yet"... OBVIOUSLY a better battery will be HUGELY profitable for anyone who makes it (or steals it). > >Very likely MASSIVE money is going into battery research and development. > > Yup, it'll be orders of magnitude more lucrative than striking gold or finding oil was in the early 20th century.Probably not. Not that striking gold makes money on the scale that the oil industry has. The oil industry has supplied a large chunk of our civilisation's energy needs for about a century. Better batteries aren't going to be able to match that. They may have a crucial role in smoothing out the supply of renewable energy (which isn't there when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing) but it's never going to be same kind monopoly based on actually owning the oil fields. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman) Bozo the Clown... -- Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7207:: with SMTP id a7mr6665218qtp.32.1627098542347; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:49:02 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e4c:: with SMTP id o12mr8041027qvc.18.1627098542170; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:49:02 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:49:01 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <kv7mfg941g01al6fqa0ro5hdgt2ubqbr8m@4ax.com> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.161.14; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi- > NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.161.14 > References: <f6200387-e646-43c2-99ae-480e88a42af5n@googlegroups.com> <kv7mfg941g01al6fqa0ro5hdgt2ubqbr8m@4ax.com> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <9f22d14c-f496-49b1-b5d7-9f0782cca906n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Bolt battery problem > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:49:02 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:637939 > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 6:01:54 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee >> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf batteries are inefficient but over-engineered. >> > >> >https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/gm-issues-second-recall-of-chevy-bolt-evs-after-vehicles-catch-fire.html >> >> Jeez Louise. Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just isn't there yet. > > Golf buggy's aren't as quick as a Bolt. The Bolt doesn't seem to embody state of the art technology. Rick C would argue that the Tesla incorporates more advanced technology, and I'd be inclined to agree with him. > > Cursitor Doom hasn't a clue about what the technology can deliver now, and doesn't want to know. What he wants is the kind of malicious misrepresentation that might get published in Zero Hedge - anything more constructive would set his teeth on edge. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney > > > >
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman) Bozo the Clown... -- Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:a37:8242:: with SMTP id e63mr7870857qkd.294.1627100402025; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:20:02 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1981:: with SMTP id bm1mr7836314qkb.454.1627100401867; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:20:01 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:20:01 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <1bjmfghjfijjg81tme054g5ctuv4ukopvv@4ax.com> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.161.14; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi- > NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.161.14 > References: <f6200387-e646-43c2-99ae-480e88a42af5n@googlegroups.com> <kv7mfg941g01al6fqa0ro5hdgt2ubqbr8m@4ax.com> <sdfdv4$5t4$1@dont-email.me> <1bjmfghjfijjg81tme054g5ctuv4ukopvv@4ax.com> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <2228f0fc-ce1e-4aa0-941c-651e420f2732n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Bolt battery problem > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 04:20:02 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:637944 > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 9:20:25 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:56:53 -0000 (UTC), John Doe <alway...@message.header> wrote: >> >Cursitor Doom wrote: >> >> Ed Lee wrote: > > <snip> > >> >> Jeez Louise. Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just isn't there yet. > > Cursitor Doom being as ill-informed as ever. > >> >Isn't that how Elon Musk became a trillionair... >> > >> >Regardless of whether the technology is "there yet"... OBVIOUSLY a better battery will be HUGELY profitable for anyone who makes it (or steals it). >> >Very likely MASSIVE money is going into battery research and development. >> >> Yup, it'll be orders of magnitude more lucrative than striking gold or finding oil was in the early 20th century. > > Probably not. Not that striking gold makes money on the scale that the oil industry has. > > The oil industry has supplied a large chunk of our civilisation's energy needs for about a century. Better batteries aren't going to be able to match that. > > They may have a crucial role in smoothing out the supply of renewable energy (which isn't there when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing) but it's never going to be same kind monopoly based on actually owning the oil fields. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney > >
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:>On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: >> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, Ed Lee wrote: >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi effective range. >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi effective range. >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? > >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic.Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these range figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I know someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that his advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 05:48:47 -0000 (UTC), John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:>"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman) > >Bozo the Clown...I think what Bill Sloman fails to understand is that someone is going to have to come up with something a hell of a lot better than lithium-based chemistry for a new power source. Just because something sounded fancy in Star Trek half a century ago doesn't mean it's genuinely a contender for the future of electric vehicles to a standard which would make them an obvious choice over ICE vehicles, and until that breakthrough comes, we are still looking at yesteryear's solutions. -- Britain: do the right thing and hand Australia back to China.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 8:53:22 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: > >> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, Ed Lee wrote: > >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi effective range. > >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi effective range. > >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? > > > >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these > range figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I > know someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that his > advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill > between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic.Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate. Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
Ed Lee wrote:> Cursitor Doom wrote: >> Ed Lee wrote: >> > Don Y wrote: >> >> Ed Lee wrote:>> >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi >> >> >> effective range.>> >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi >> >> > effective range.>> >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? >> > >> >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic.>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these range >> figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I know >> someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that his >> advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill >> between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic. > > Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding > (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i > use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate.Yes, hills are efficiency killers.> Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range.Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But Elon Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them must work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is supposed to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on battery power, probably not practical. Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless tool.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 9:28:36 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:> Ed Lee wrote: > > > Cursitor Doom wrote: > >> Ed Lee wrote: > >> > Don Y wrote: > >> >> Ed Lee wrote: > > >> >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi > >> >> >> effective range. > > >> >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi > >> >> > effective range. > > >> >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? > >> > > >> >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic. > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these range > >> figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I know > >> someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that his > >> advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill > >> between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic. > > > > Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding > > (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i > > use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate. > Yes, hills are efficiency killers. > > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range. > Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. > > Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But Elon > Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. > > Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them must > work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is supposed > to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on battery power, > probably not practical. > > Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless > tool.Until we get some special metals from our alien friends, we are stuck with around 4V cells. Leaf has 192 cells in 48 modules. Bolt has (estimated) 192 cells in 96 modules. Tesla has 5000 to 7000 cells in 4 to 6 modules. The reason for smaller cells is when one fails or leaks, there is less damage. Problem is that the battery packs are difficult to service.
