You Mock, but it may be closer to the truth than you imagine.There could be money in developing a mobility scooter which is capable of caravan towing by then....or maybe not!
This may be true, but its not comparing apples with apples, becasue you are including the manufacture of the motive power battery, for which there is no equivalent in a ICE vehicle. That is why you have to look at whole life considerations, and therefore you have to factor the costs of finding and getting fuel from the ground to the ICE car, and of course the costs of generating the electricity for EV's. When all these factors are taken into account the full benefits of EV's improve over time.
However time is not on the side of EVs as they have a limited life due to battery replacement. Therefore over time they deteriorate and do not improve.
Read my post. Thevrkectric motors get their power from diesel generators or gas turbine alternators. So the efficiency gain is because with electric motors you have less generators running and don’t need standbys in use. At times a ship can run on one generator.
He deserved a knighthood. IMO one of the top caravan accessories today. 👍👍You Mock, but it may be closer to the truth than you imagine.
I knew the inventor of the caravan mover, and his first prototype was based on the motors and gear boxes used for electric wheelchairs!
Saab by then had better build quality than Mercedes and did not rot either. On a good run solo we could get around 35-37 mpg with it being manual. About on a par with the current auto Subaru on a good day).
Thanks for the explanation. Not being an engineer I had no idea how they propelled ships using only electric.Yes they still use fossil fuel but far less of it. You may not be aware that the liner Queen Elizabeth was converted to electrical propulsion around mid life, and the liner QM2 was built with electrical propulsion. Its quite a common feature these days where ships have varying power demands, but not economic for the ships like large containers hips or car transporters that just go A to B at a fixed speed and back again. It enables ships to balance the requirements of hotel load, weapons load and propulsion. It also reduces the number of prime movers required. A Type 22 frigate would have had 2 Tyne GT, and 2 Olympus, or Spey GT for propulsion plus a very complex gearbox, and a number of diesel generators too. The major problems with whole ship integrated electric is that they make engineers redundant
In naval parlance a boat goes under the water and most except some very early derivatives and nuclear have been electrically propelled from battery or diesel virtually from the outset, excluding of course the US civil war craft The Turtle, which were underwater bicycles.
So as ships get bigger , some vessels that were too big to fit on ships when they were built , but now could fit one should be re categorised as boats?Depends who is talking about the vessel and to whom, e.g. If you want to "level" a pompous master.
My take is if it can also be used on non tidal waters, then it can't be a "ship", so is a boat. Somebody will now quiz me about using "ship canals"!
There is no real answer to this one. Ships are deep sea vessels too large to fit on another vessel. Then of course there are ship lift vessels designed to do just that
!
I dont think HMS Nottingham would wish to have been classed as a boat, although after hitting Wolf Rock off of Australia she had 160 ft gash down the side and nearly became "boat". She came back to Portsmouth on a heavy lift vessel for a £25m repair job.So as ships get bigger , some vessels that were too big to fit on ships when they were built , but now could fit one should be re categorised as boats?
Its like so many categorisations, as time goes by they become less appropriate. or more compromised
Facebook
Twitter