Crown Bus Electric Conversion

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by kazetsukai

There are four data points from that precedent we need: Vehicle weight, battery bank capacity, motor specs, and average speed. And: was that run on actual roads or in a lab?

watch the videos - all that info is supplied

[Rivetboy]

Originally Posted by Iceni John

I think of electric cars in the same vein as bottled drinking water, or SUVs, or religion, or any of mankind's other scams and rip-offs.
John

Yes, plese sign me up for your newsletter..

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by Iceni John

And where does this hydrogen come from? It is not a naturally-occurring element, at least on this planet (even though it is abundant in the universe as a whole), so it therefore requires energy to produce it here. Factor in the energy cost to produce it and the resultant pollution, and all the hydrogen-fuelled vehicles then don't look quite so "clean" and green. Hydrogen is the faddish current darling of politicians and others looking to make a short-term advantage from its supposed benefits, but its overall reality is definitely not as environmentally-responsible as is claimed. In fact, most so-called "clean energy" solutions, including what's being promulgated by this thread's OP, are very unclean when all their energy costs are factored in; for example, all those misguided folk with their silly little Priuses and Teslas conveniently disregard what is needed to make their cars' batteries, such as the mining and extraction costs in Africa, the refining in Canada, the manufacturing in China, the shipping halfway around the world and back (ocean shipping is hugely polluting due to its heavy fuel oils' high sulphur content), etc etc, and this also does not include the eventual costs to recycle the batteries at the end of their short life. Green it ain't. Add in the pollution involved in making the electricity to then recharge those batteries (California gets half its electrons from stinking coal-fired power stations in Arizona), and the whole exercise rapidly disintegrates into a thinly-veiled sham and farce that's appealing only to those with no willingness to question its perceived "truth". I think of electric cars in the same vein as bottled drinking water, or SUVs, or religion, or any of mankind's other scams and rip-offs.

At least the OP didn't suggest covering the roof of his electric bus with solar panels to recharge its batteries, as has been seriously suggested on other forums! And why doesn't he want to make a battery-powered rally car - surely all that power would make him an instant winner wherever he races it?

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth . . .

John

surely you jest? --- water contains one hydrogen atom for every 2 oxygen atoms

refining in Canada? - that's a real political hot potato in Canada - not enough refineries and too much unrefined petroleum shipped to the US to be refined there

[JoeNesquik]

If OP watched the video on YouTube, he would know the bus isnt using Tesla technology. I’m not writing this direct to him, seeing as he never replies to useful replies anyway. Tesla May be a good electric CAR company, and proterra is a great electric CITY BUS company. If you plan on cruising down open freeways, think again.

[joeblack5]

sledd, sure a typo, the other way around.


Hope the OP has moved on to better information sources. Not much has to be gained further.


Moderator can we have a flame and political forum . I think many people would like to take the axe to each other. ..


Just follow the money and then you know why we are where we are.


I am sure the farmers inland and the insurance people at the coast are looking at this global warming "hoax" very careful .


With the 20+ hobby cars I own I really like my electric solectria from 1996 charged with sunshine.



Our country is way behind the rest of the " civilized world" including china and looss further with every next day. Musk and Tesla whatever you think at least has a " friendly" vision... that is not shared with the oilers and average car company.


It is just making a choice.... are you part of the problem or part of the solution.... polarization.. our current Fuhrer is good at it.


Johan

[HazMatt]

That is very true.
And they are attached by strong covalent hydrogen bonds.

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

surely you jest? --- water contains one hydrogen atom for every 2 oxygen atoms

refining in Canada? - that's a real political hot potato in Canada - not enough refineries and too much unrefined petroleum shipped to the US to be refined there

The energy needed, the heat of vaporization, is very high. Twice as much energy input as what was released on formation.
Sure it was a typo, but one O per two H.

[JoeNesquik]

Originally Posted by HazMatt

That is very true.
And they are attached by strong covalent hydrogen bonds.The energy needed, the heat of vaporization, is very high. Twice as much energy input as what was released on formation.
Sure it was a typo, but one O per two H.

So, I’m going into freshman, and in SIXTH GRADE we hooked up a nine volt battery to an electrolysis device. In 15 minutes we had a test tube full of oxygen, and another full of hydrogen.

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by joeblack5

sledd, sure a typo, the other way around.


Hope the OP has moved on to better information sources. Not much has to be gained further.


Moderator can we have a flame and political forum . I think many people would like to take the axe to each other. ..


Just follow the money and then you know why we are where we are.


I am sure the farmers inland and the insurance people at the coast are looking at this global warming "hoax" very careful .


With the 20+ hobby cars I own I really like my electric solectria from 1996 charged with sunshine.



Our country is way behind the rest of the " civilized world" including china and looss further with every next day. Musk and Tesla whatever you think at least has a " friendly" vision... that is not shared with the oilers and average car company.


It is just making a choice.... are you part of the problem or part of the solution.... polarization.. our current Fuhrer is good at it.


Johan

the fact that the climate is warming is no hoax - anyone with a few years under their belt is well aware that it's not just the weather, it's climate changing and it's steadily getting warmer fast -whether as much of it is being changed by human endeavors as claimed, or not might be debated, but no one can deny that we are fouling the earth - if we pay attention to the environment, we will see less plastic in the oceans, less air pollution, less water pollution, and we'll have a cleaner 'yard' to play in, which is a big win for everyone, even if humans bear little responsibility for the rapid climate change we are seeing - if we are responsible for a portion of the rapid changes, and we don't do something about it now, it will be too late to do anything if we leave it until later - personally, I'd much rather be driving a quiet, low maintenance, cheap to run, vehicle than a noisy, smelly, smoking, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair diesel, any day of the week and I look forward to the day that a practical electric or hydrogen powered vehicle is in my yard

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by JoeNesquik

So, I’m going into freshman, and in SIXTH GRADE we hooked up a nine volt battery to an electrolysis device. In 15 minutes we had a test tube full of oxygen, and another full of hydrogen.

I bet you, or 'they' didn't know that hydrogen could be separated from water by a type of photosynthesis back when you were in 6th grade - much like my comment, also uttered back in elementary school about the little carbon windmill inside of a sealed glass jar being propelled by sunlight, that 'it might prove to be a good energy source' was met by, 'not really, it's mostly just a toy and not of any practical use'

[kazetsukai]

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

the fact that the climate is warming is no hoax

The contested part is what humankind's contribution is to that, if any, of any significance. I don't see any representation of the other side in any of these discussions at all, so I'll do that here.

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

if we pay attention to the environment

Again, the dispute is over that "pay attention" means. Does it mean one side of the aisle unilaterally outlaws anything it doesn't like? Seems to be. That's why there's no consensus to be made. One side parades around like they are infallible, justified in anything and everything they propose and berates the other for not being on board with any and every extreme they come to.

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

we will see less plastic in the oceans

Thing is, those "islands of plastic" aren't not coming from Kansas. They're coming from California. Yeah, its more important that stops, but how do we do it in a way that most people can agree on?

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

if we are responsible for a portion of the rapid changes, and we don't do something about it now, it will be too late to do anything if we leave it until later

This is the same rhetorical strategy as above- "do something" - do WHAT exactly? The "pro-environment" folks always hide behind this kind of vague call to action because often the proposals are anti-human in nature.


What specifically does this mean? Outlaw things some people say are bad? Why? At what cost? Seems like the argument is that _anything_ is justified that could plausibly stop/slow down something we are entirely uncertain of, even outlawing wood stoves in the arctic. The coastal elite will vote for that kind of crap without a shred of care about the effect it has on the people that live there- not their problem after all. Doesn't cost them anything.

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

I'd much rather be driving a quiet, low maintenance, cheap to run, vehicle than a noisy, smelly, smoking, expensive to maintain, expensive to repair diesel, any day of the week and I look forward to the day that a practical electric or hydrogen powered vehicle is in my yard

So would I. The difference is, I'll pay for it when its merits outweigh the drawbacks. When it is worth the cost. Not before, using tax money or subsidies. When it stands on its own. And we are getting there.


I find it the pinnacle of idiocy that one political faction can blame the other for bad weather and not be laughed off of TV every time they do it. Society is truly insane.

[CHEESE_WAGON]

This may sort of be apples and oranges (a bus would have the space for truly efficient motors and batteries) but here is a good video to watch before attempting this endeavor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og1dEaDXbwg

[HazMatt]

Yup, I had the same gizmo! Bought on a field trip to Philadelphia's Franklin Institute, prolly 5th grade. I loved that dealie bob.
Four vanes, black & white on opposing sides, attached to a glass nipple that perched atop a steel needle, enclosed in a glass bulb under a strong vacuum.

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

I bet you, or 'they' didn't know that hydrogen could be separated from water by a type of photosynthesis back when you were in 6th grade - much like my comment, also uttered back in elementary school about the little carbon windmill inside of a sealed glass jar being propelled by sunlight, that 'it might prove to be a good energy source' was met by, 'not really, it's mostly just a toy and not of any practical use'

Likewise impracticable as an energy generation device. While there is virtually no drag, there is also only the tiniest bit of friction between the vanes and the shaft.
The globe would need to be ginormous and the vanes humongous to consider attachment to a generator.
Could maybe double the number of vanes, perhaps if their distances were staggered out from the axis. More than 4 in an orbit would result in the air molecules bouncing off of the black face impacting the trailing white, resulting in no net gain.

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by kazetsukai

The contested part is what humankind's contribution is to that, if any, of any significance. I don't see any representation of the other side in any of these discussions at all, so I'll do that here.



Again, the dispute is over that "pay attention" means. Does it mean one side of the aisle unilaterally outlaws anything it doesn't like? Seems to be. That's why there's no consensus to be made. One side parades around like they are infallible, justified in anything and everything they propose and berates the other for not being on board with any and every extreme they come to.



Thing is, those "islands of plastic" aren't not coming from Kansas. They're coming from California. Yeah, its more important that stops, but how do we do it in a way that most people can agree on?



This is the same rhetorical strategy as above- "do something" - do WHAT exactly? The "pro-environment" folks always hide behind this kind of vague call to action because often the proposals are anti-human in nature.


What specifically does this mean? Outlaw things some people say are bad? Why? At what cost? Seems like the argument is that _anything_ is justified that could plausibly stop/slow down something we are entirely uncertain of, even outlawing wood stoves in the arctic. The coastal elite will vote for that kind of crap without a shred of care about the effect it has on the people that live there- not their problem after all. Doesn't cost them anything.


So would I. The difference is, I'll pay for it when its merits outweigh the drawbacks. When it is worth the cost. Not before, using tax money or subsidies. When it stands on its own. And we are getting there.


I find it the pinnacle of idiocy that one political faction can blame the other for bad weather and not be laughed off of TV every time they do it. Society is truly insane.

don't get me wrong, I'm no tree hugger, in fact I've logged my own little forest 5 times in the last 50 years and I have more healthy, marketable trees standing that there was when I bought the property - as a synonym, clear cutting is what creates problems - logging in such a way that promotes growth and a healthy forest improves the environment - burning coal, even low sulfur coal to generate electricity is even worse than clear cutting a forest - a possible solution to that problem might be found in some of the new coal processing alternatives that greatly reduce emissions - the point I'm trying to make is that extremes cause problems and solve very few - outlawing the use of carbon neutral wood burning stoves does nothing for or against the environment - it's an extreme solution that solves nothing - use a filter to reduce flyash and burning wood becomes a viable carbon neutral method of heating - going one step further to extract the gasses from heated wood makes it a valuable source of carbon neutral energy - solar power is a clean option until hydrogen generation is perfected, but I don't see solar taking over the grid at anytime in the future, or wind power, or thermal power

[EastCoastCB]

Originally Posted by joeblack5

sledd, sure a typo, the other way around.


Hope the OP has moved on to better information sources. Not much has to be gained further.


Moderator can we have a flame and political forum . I think many people would like to take the axe to each other. ..


Just follow the money and then you know why we are where we are.


I am sure the farmers inland and the insurance people at the coast are looking at this global warming "hoax" very careful .


With the 20+ hobby cars I own I really like my electric solectria from 1996 charged with sunshine.



Our country is way behind the rest of the " civilized world" including china and looss further with every next day. Musk and Tesla whatever you think at least has a " friendly" vision... that is not shared with the oilers and average car company.


It is just making a choice.... are you part of the problem or part of the solution.... polarization.. our current Fuhrer is good at it.


Johan

most of the discussion has to do with politics or feelings. Its all science and reality vs ideals and brand pumping.

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by EastCoastCB

most of the discussion has to do with politics or feelings. Its all science and reality vs ideals and brand pumping.

it's unfortunate that politics and big business try to influence science - the fact that both big $'s and big Gov tried to sway the outcome of some pretty basic science is indeed unfortunate - it's also unfortunate that big names like Gore and Suzuki are making $millions by promoting climate change and it's effects - scientists in large part are more interested in the science of things than they are in politics or government - 'obsessive' might be a general description of most scientists - science based decisions are most often good decisions if not manipulated by outside forces - is the climate warming? - most definitely - is it solely the fault of humans? - not likely - is it partially human caused? most likely - should we do something to mitigate the problem? - certainly - but that doesn't mean extreme solutions are necessary

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by HazMatt

Yup, I had the same gizmo! Bought on a field trip to Philadelphia's Franklin Institute, prolly 5th grade. I loved that dealie bob.
Four vanes, black & white on opposing sides, attached to a glass nipple that perched atop a steel needle, enclosed in a glass bulb under a strong vacuum.Likewise impracticable as an energy generation device. While there is virtually no drag, there is also only the tiniest bit of friction between the vanes and the shaft.
The globe would need to be ginormous and the vanes humongous to consider attachment to a generator.
Could maybe double the number of vanes, perhaps if their distances were staggered out from the axis. More than 4 in an orbit would result in the air molecules bouncing off of the black face impacting the trailing white, resulting in no net gain.

our was all carbon - vanes were rough on one side and shiny smooth on the other side - it would really get spinning when held in the direct sunlight coming through the window - now they are using that same solar power to generate electricity, power robots on other planets, and even sails on space craft are being experimented with - that same solar wind is theorized to be able to propel a space craft through space at close to the speed of light - so far experiments have produced mixed results, mixed mostly because of the difficulty of getting the giant gossamer sail to unfold properly, I believe

[Iceni John]

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

surely you jest? --- water contains one hydrogen atom for every 2 oxygen atoms

refining in Canada? - that's a real political hot potato in Canada - not enough refineries and too much unrefined petroleum shipped to the US to be refined there

Making water give up its hydrogen atoms is energy-intensive. It doesn't do it without a fight. Ideally solar power could supply the electrons needed, but in practice it's often less-environmental sources of power that do the heavy lifting.

By refining, I am meaning the refining of nickel and the other metals used in batteries, not of petroleum!

John

[HazMatt]

Its unfortunate, but its the way of the world; whence, now, & thence. War without end, hey man.
Gone are the days when a curious mind could pursue an original insight to it's conclusion. Sometime the payout was pyrite, other times would glean gold.
Somebody, be it academia, industry or government, has to pony up the money for R&D. There are times when the researcher is told to take Square Peg One, and find a way to fit it into Round Hole Two. Targeted agenda are the standard, not the exception. It's the Golden Rule:
"Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Originally Posted by Sleddgracer

it's unfortunate that politics and big business try to influence science - the fact that both big $'s and big Gov tried to sway the outcome of some pretty basic science is indeed unfortunate - it's also unfortunate that big names like Gore and Suzuki are making $millions by promoting climate change and it's effects - scientists in large part are more interested in the science of things than they are in politics or government - 'obsessive' might be a general description of most scientists - science based decisions are most often good decisions if not manipulated by outside forces - is the climate warming? - most definitely - is it solely the fault of humans? - not likely - is it partially human caused? most likely - should we do something to mitigate the problem? - certainly - but that doesn't mean extreme solutions are necessary

Sometimes its evangelical con men, like that self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet, Algore. Find a hot button to panic the sheeple, and keep pushing at it like a Skinner rat, growing filthy rich in the process.
Living on a seismically active planet as we do, there are natural and ongoing events that dwarf human inputs. Most any volcanic eruption injects nearly inconceivable quantities of dust, carbon monoxide, and even more hazardous material into the atmosphere, miles high. And even the ones that don't so dramatically detonate, are continuously and steadily off gassing. Yellowstone is my personal fave of the latter type.
I'm not saying that we, as a species, don't have an impact on the global environment. I'm saying its being blown out of proportion. The data set is incomplete, and, like the square peg being forced into the round hole, it is sometimes manipulated to support a conclusion, not it's representative facts.
(See how I brought this back around to being on topic..?)
The Earth has gone thru heating and cooling cycles many times before, and did so all on it's only. No human inputs. More often then not, no humans.
We're much better served by acknowledging that there is so much more that we don't know, than what we do know, or think that we know.
There is a strong probability that the seasons of the Sun are largely responsible. Like the Earth, but causitively and not subjectively, it has cyclical patterns of cooling and warming, sun spot maxima and minima.
And to claim humanity is solely responsible for a condition that we may not like, and possibly have even less control over, is the acme of hubris.
Political forces controlling science? Old hat. Been there, done that, burned the tee shirt at the stake...
Just ask Galileo, who; under threat of excommunication, recanted his observations of Venus' phases, which supported Copernicus' heliocentic theory. Talk about hubris: it was unacceptable to the Vatican that Man, made in God's image, yadda yadda yadda, be displaced from the center of the Universe, as shown in the geocentric model.
Same sh1t, contradistinct century...

[Iceni John]

One more thing that nobody has mentioned:

Assuming that this absurd notion of powering a bus by electrons actually works for more than a few furlongs, I see one major problem. Why would anyone want a Crown that sounds like a household appliance or a battery-powered marital aid? At least you would have to have some really big speakers to fill the bus's interior and a considerable distance outside with the magnificent grumble of a 14-liter Cummins 855 or the banshee wail of an angry Detroit 2-stroke at full welly. Both those sounds fall firmly in the Better Than Sex category. Then, at least if you had the faux-Detroit soundtrack, you would also need a smoke generator, ideally one from maybe a naval ship or some large piece of military equipment, to produce the requisite trail of mosquito-fogger behind the bus. Now we're talking.

I still think it's a daft idea, but man has done plenty of dafter things than this since the dawn of civilization, so let our Pro Rally Driver indulge in his fantasy so we can at least have some light-hearted entertainment - better still have trumpy-boy endorse it, then it's guaranteed to produce mirth and ridicule everywhere on Earth. Yeah!

John, injecting some much-needed levity into this load of bollocks

[Sleddgracer]

Originally Posted by Iceni John

Making water give up its hydrogen atoms is energy-intensive. It doesn't do it without a fight. Ideally solar power could supply the electrons needed, but in practice it's often less-environmental sources of power that do the heavy lifting.

By refining, I am meaning the refining of nickel and the other metals used in batteries, not of petroleum!

John

got you on 'that' refining - petroleum refining and the ridiculous cost of fuel in Canada is a pressure point of interest here - nickle didn't enter my head - the method of employing the type of photosynthesis used in the two experimental methods is only slightly ( lightly ) described - as I understand it, both methods use solar power ( or light? ) to perform their magic