Yeah, 390kWh/kg is the energy to heat to 960 C, without recapture. Counterflow type setup would greatly reduce this (may see this at Gigapress sites).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Investor Engineering Discussions
- Thread starter MC3OZ
- Start date
Yeah, 390kWh/kg is the energy to heat to 960 C, without recapture. Counterflow type setup would greatly reduce this (may see this at Gigapress sites).
Can heat recapture be used in an electric furnace without incurring additional electrical load that would offset any savings?
It would need to be done past the casting stage, but would be near free. Basically new hot castings traveling one way and unprocessed aluminium surrounding the path going the other. Or vertical chimney convection.
right, but all those travelers/conveyers consume precious watt-hrs of energy just to save a few MJ of generated heat. It might still be net-positive, but that additional equipment isn't free.
Not to mention that depending on solar panels for power pretty much means a batch production process versus continuous flow, defeating much of the gain from heat recapture. In the end, you can make the process more energy efficient, but is the overall system worth it (versus a more compact less efficient process)?
Materials have to get transported anyway. Could batch transfer by putting new and old in the same room until the next run.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I think you meant km/s. A few m/s is my jogging pace, and I'm really slow!
"Where will we ever find room for panels here in the vast emptiness of Interplanetary space?"
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I don't think putting the panels any significant distance from such a station would be terribly useful though so that doesn't make a ton of sense?
Once you're out of the lagrange points you're now spending fuel/effort to keep them where you need them AND you have to find a way to get the power back to the Lpoint station too without suffering major loss-- and you've got to travel through said space for any maintenance.
Every one of those issues is vastly simpler on an actual planet, where you've also got all the room you need for as many panels as you need- vastly easier wired transmission options for said power, vastly easier battery storage for said power, vastly easier maintenance access- and gravity comes for free. as a bonus.
Did you miss my math showing that you need 1/12 the number of panels to do things in space versus Mars? Or have you seen pictures of the ISS and noted where the panels are placed? There's no need for a separate site for the solar panels. Have you even seen what toroidal space colonies are supposed to look like? They're NOTHING like the ISS!
For structures, the lack of gravity means less material wasted on support structures. And with 24/7 sunlight available, you don't really need batteries for anything other than occasional surges in power draw. Stop applying earth physics to Mars and space.
L4 & L5 are stable orbits, meaning they are self-correcting and don't need a "reboost". L1 is preferred, because of how close it is to earth though, but yes reaction mass is needed to maintain its position. That's only a drawback with the L1 point.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
FWIW I was addressing the other guys claim of just throwing out a bunch of panels into "interplanetary space", not locally attached ones at an L point.
None of which changes that an actual planet is a vastly better choice for "earth is f'd in the a and humanity needs a backup" than some tiny fixed # of space stations unless you want massive, permanent, population caps.
None of which changes that an actual planet is a vastly better choice for "earth is f'd in the a and humanity needs a backup" than some tiny fixed # of space stations unless you want massive, permanent, population caps.
even locally attached, Doggydogworld's point still applies. There's still infinitely more room to expand in "space" in L1, than there are on a planet with its canyons, mountains, and local weather.
We are probably targeting Mars because it is a relatively close by planet in our solar system.
When I saw the post I thought ... "What if there is a really good planet, but it took us 50 years of continuous space travel to get there?"
Babies born in outer space and humans living in out space for years would need some sort of artificial gravity.
If we had that, then perhaps someone born and raised on Mars could do special training in a "high gravity" environment for a return to earth.
We have similar problems on the moon or on a space station with lower gravity. A comet could take out the earth. moon and the space station in the one hit. Perhaps it could also take out Mars via a series of "snooker like" planetary collisions.
IMO Elon was right to pick Mars, but it just shows how difficult becoming multi-planetary really is for us humans..
Multi-planetary is much easier for Optimus..
Tesla connector rebranded North American Charging Standard and opened to all.
Tech docs accessible via link
Connector has 500V and 1000V versions (inlet cross compatible) and connector has been tested at 900A without liquid cooling.
Opening the North American Charging Standard
Tech docs accessible via link
Connector has 500V and 1000V versions (inlet cross compatible) and connector has been tested at 900A without liquid cooling.
Opening the North American Charging Standard
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Was it in here or the investor thread where someone kept insisting Tesla had already opened their standard to all years ago and refused to accept that wasn't true?
From what I recall they did, in that they (or Elon, anyways) publicly stated something to the effect that they would be happy to let anyone else us it, they just have to agree to their patent cross licensing terms (which would be true for using any of the Tesla patents, not just supercharger related stuff). Basically "you can use our stuff, if you let us also use your stuff, and nobody sues anybody" - which should be a win-win for everyone but of course that's not how most corporations would see that, they would see it as a loss of potential licensing revenue.
Perhaps the new "NACS" thing will be separating out the charging stuff, such that other companies can use it without such broad cross licensing (though perhaps in trade for a per-device licensing fee or something similar). I don't see any mention on whether it's a truly free license or merely freely available to all who want to pay for it. Comparisons licensing models might be for example DisplayPort (royalty free) versus USB (free if you don't want you're own Vendor ID and don't care about putting USB logo on your device, $5k+ depending on various things to get a Vendor ID and be able to use USB logos etc, but no per-device fees) or HDMI (10K per manuf. plus $0.04 per device).
This "NACS" proposal could also be a way to standardize and make more easily available to various smaller third parties access to using Tesla charging infrastructure (as there have been a few stating interests over the years but AFAIK so far none have really come to light). Hopefully the process will be such that you could theoretically buy an authorized NACS interface system to put onto your custom EV conversion (whether it be a car, truck, bus, or whatever).
I doubt they'll let just anyone roll their own though and use them on superchargers, they'll probably want to have only known designs connected to superchargers to ensure that they are designed in a literal fail safe manner. Perhaps by only recognizing and enabling power output to known NACS vendors with known vehicle IDs (which might be VINs for OEM integrated solutions, and some other unique ID for any aftermarket conversion NACS interfaces).
Reading the NACS Tech specs... seems likely that V2X is coming to Tesla
It's also stated (in the announcement blog post, but I haven't found it explicitly stated elsewhere) to be able to handle up to 1MW charging rate. Could Semi be using the 1000V version of the connector, rather than something larger (i.e. with extra current carrying pins)?
900A at 1000V only gets you to 0.9A, but that was with a non-liquid cooled vehicle inlet. If they have a liquid cooled inlet on the Semi, along with liquid cooled cables we already know of for Superchargers, then that could easily be pushing 1MW over the Tesla connector.
There is also a 1000V version of the interface specified. They are mechanically interoperable (you can physically connect a 1000V plug to 500V socket or vice versa, though obviously you might have problems charging a 1000V vehicle with a 500V charger, unless it has some internal mechanism to reorganize the battery from 1000V to 500V by splitting it in half and parallelizing the two halves)
It's also stated (in the announcement blog post, but I haven't found it explicitly stated elsewhere) to be able to handle up to 1MW charging rate. Could Semi be using the 1000V version of the connector, rather than something larger (i.e. with extra current carrying pins)?
900A at 1000V only gets you to 0.9A, but that was with a non-liquid cooled vehicle inlet. If they have a liquid cooled inlet on the Semi, along with liquid cooled cables we already know of for Superchargers, then that could easily be pushing 1MW over the Tesla connector.
I'm sure that the Semi will have a MCS connector, but my understanding is that it only handles DC charging, so the Semis will probably have a NACS connector as well for AC charging, and the ability to use Superchargers.
The 900 Amp reference was "Tesla has successfully operated the North American Charging Standard above 900A continuously with a non-liquid cooled vehicle inlet.", the 1 MW was "up to 1 MW DC charging", so either they tested at 1000 amps, or there is a thermal based time limit on 1MW.
As to V2X, that all lives on a different layer than the physical connection. As long as the signaling can pass through, any application is 'supported'.
Edit: the spec only has a temperature limit, not a current limit.
Last edited:
I think that's covered under
"The North American Charging Standard is compatible with “plug and charge” as defined in ISO-15118."
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My memory of the SC use was different, an OEM would have to chip in their share of building out the SC network, and it had nothing to do with the general open patents idea.
Ah, that does sound familiar. Presumably it would be something like for whatever the ongoing buildout costs were, other manufacturers would be on the hook for X% where X% is the percentage of all SC capable vehicles they have built. I had forgotten about that part. It likely wasn't a very desirable situation for them, since it's not a simple $X per vehicle, it's a varying $X per vehicle based on how much Tesla built out the network.
I am guessing NACS won't bother with that, since Tesla is charging everyone for charging now, they can just expand to meet demand and cover the costs from billing the people who actually use it.
Similar threads
- Marketplace listing
