I'm interested in making contact with followers of the current 
return of the electric car.  Looking for names of owners,
manufacturers, associations, publications etc.  Any phone &/or 
address info would be great.  Pictures from the show in Frankfort???

80 responses total.

Ford has a program going.  I know a guy who is working on the
project.

Interesting to mee too.  I think steam also has some interesting 
possibilities in the future.

With fuel cells, & sufficiently efficient electric motors,
an electric car could well become interesting in the future.
I just saw a neat device on TV -- a portable elctric nail
driver powered with a fuel cell.  I think it's pretty clear,
though, that lead-acid and related technologies just don't
have the energy density to keep up with internal combustion.
External combustion, though, does have possiblities.

If you happen across an October,91 issue of Popular Science, pick it
up and look on page 39.  There is a 3/4 page of information on solar/
electric vehicles.  Another source for information is the latest issue
of Home Power (Not easy to find.)

There is actually going to be a surprising amount of choice in the 
matter in a couple of years.  Because of the move by California to 
cut their air pollution in the next decade all the major manufactureres at 
the Zurick show had prototypes of Electric or alternatively fueld vehicles.
New York is also going to implement the the California standards which 
call for a certain percentage of vehicles sold by manufacturers in the 
state to produce zero emissions.  Several European countries are looking
at it also.  Nissan has announced a battery that they have achieved 15 min
recharge times.  I'm in the process of getting more exact details on that
one; like recharge from what stage of discharge...etc.  In sweden or was 
it Norway(?) I have heard that they have urban transportation based on 
small electric cars owned by a city that recharge by the curb on special 
grids (like bumper cars?).  People insert their credit cards and drive 
off to where ever.  Parking at another recharging station and inserting 
their credit card again to establish the cost of the trip.  (Better details
for this story would be welcomed).  My impression  is that most of the 
offerings being worked on are going to be expensive.  Like NISSAN and their
luxery sports care EV.  The thing is...what we need is an Electric YUGO
since these things are bound to be 2nd or 3rd cars for people.  They should
be really basic.  Nothing extra and priced so all the people who have 
been wanting them for years can afford them.  The Mercedes Bensz and Porche
folks could care less about environmental impact (Is that an imflammatory
statement?) when it comes to THEIR wheels.

Hm.  Electric cars don't necessarily produce "zero" pollution.  It all
depends on how the electricity is generated.  In a lot of places,
it produces acid rain.

Supposedly GM is building an electric in the Buick Riatta plant.  The 
prototype looked feasible, but for some reason they made it a 2 passenger.

Said "zero emissions" not "zero pollution".

Re 7: They made it an impractical 2-seat sport coupe to help break the old
stereotypes of modified Le Car type vehicles as 'the car of the future'.

I saw a full sized van pulling out of the Industrial/Stadium Krogers with
the entire roof covered with what looked to be solar cells.  Looked
interesting, wish I would have had a chance to have a closer look and
possibly ask questions.

Yea..on the issue of polution from electricity generation.  I really want
to see Electrical cars happen on a large scale, but this means we have
to work fast and hard to get clean technologies in place very soon.  Its
probable that there will be an intermediate stage of hybrid systems.  The 
vehicle will generate electricity on the road via a natural gas or hydrogen
fuel cell driven generator.  Anybody know whats happening with fuel cell 
developement.  What is the environmental impact expected to be?

Fuel cells have at least the potential to be very clean, but it depends
a lot on the fuel and technology.  The ones on the shuttle are based on
hydrogen & oxygen, and burn *very* cleanly, producing potable water as a
byproduct.  Only problem is the cryogenic chemicals are kind of nasty to
keep around (and hydrogen is just plain nasty.)  For ordinary use, a
fuel cell burning alcohol, gasoline, or diesel fuel, and air, would be
the desirable technology, but that's harder to make work.  I seem to
recall that nox emissions were a problem, because of the use of air &
high temperatures.  I gather the technology is improving a lot, but I
don't know what its current state is.  (I saw a $200 book on this, which
I wish I wish I had had the money for.)

From my reading it seems that the size and weight of batteries per unit
of energy, i.e. energy density, is not conducive to portable operation.
The battery size/weight/cost/environmental issues have to be resolved 
before battery powered cars will truly hold an overall advantage over
the current gas powered auto.
The trick with any energy source is to make use of 100% of the available
energy.  If an internal combustion engine could be made to run at much
higher temperatures (400 degrees F+), fuel economy could also be greatly
increased while emissions could be greatly reduced. Also, the fewer steps
one has to go through to make use of an energy source, the better.  Why
burn coal to spin a turbine, to generate electricity, to be transprorted
several miles, to be stepped down, to be stepped down again in a battery
charger, to be stored in a battery, to be controlled by a commutation 
circuit, to spin an electric motor to be linked to wheels that propel a
car.  It would be less costly and more efficient to burn the coal in the
car.

I thought that NOx generation went up with temperature, counterbalancing
thermal efficiency.

NOx emmission does -- it's an unescapable fact of chemistry.
Nevertheless, moderate rises in temperature don't shift the equilibrium
that much-- 300 F cylinder wall temperatures, as achievable in air
cooled engines, is indeed helpful.  Really high temperatures have other
obstacles, our materials technology isn't really up to it yet (although
it is improving rapidly).  Improvements in ceramics could well spell the
difference here.  I vaguely recall that fuel cells for hydrocarbons
require similarly high temperatures -- that's the reason behind the NOx
problem there, & it's another materials technology puzzle.

I think it may be a while before we see fuel cells for coal.  (At
ordinary temperatures, pure carbon is surprisingly inert.) In the
meantime, the technology for coal isn't likely to change much from
today, or even 50 years ago.  There have been some interesting
experiments with magnetohydrodynamics, but pollution control problems
mean that's not likely to become useful for a while, if ever.
Unfortunately, most of the technology for coal seems to require large
sized plants before it becomes worth all the overhead.  On a small
scale, there are just too many hassles -- witness the virtual extinction
of coal fired domestic heating.  Besides, coal is not a renewable
resource, and the radioactivity released ought to give many people cause
for concern.

A more interesting technology might be corn.  Yup, ordinary dried corn.
Turns out it burns very nicely and "fairly cleanly" (especially compared
to wood), it's a renewable resource (of course), and it even burns with
an especially hot flame, which should given it an interesting efficiency
edge.  It also doesn't require any energy to pulverize (unlike wood or
coal) as it already comes in handy firing sizes, and it even comes
pre-packaged with a special rugged low-friction coating.  Yes, sir,
someday you and I may be pouring popcorn into our cars.

marcus, I hope you ask her permission first.

One point that I should probably make about burning a fuel within the 
vehicle versus burning a fuel at some central location such as a coal
plant.  It is much easier to control the emissions from one source 
rather than many millions.  The point was well taken however about the
inefficiency and waste.

Again, we need breakthroughs and commitment to new and clean technologies.
One possibility will be that photovoltaics will progress to the point
where cogeneration by the many millions mentioned above will become the 
norm.  I don't mean solar run cars but home based recharging stations that
are also tied into the grid.  All the parts are in place for this except
cultural and political resolve.

Major problems with solar power include expense & performance limits.
Expense is primarily the capital investment required, which is still not
competitive with more conventional solutions.  There are also some
interesting potential pollution problems - making the cells requires the
use of some pretty nasty chemicals, which you really don't want to dump
into the environment.  Performance limits are even more obvious -- solar
cells don't work at night, and current battery technology is mostly
pretty wimpy (as well as using still more nasty chemicals.)  And if you
want creature comforts such as heating & air-conditioning, both of which
tend be thirsty for power, good luck on keeping energy consumption down.
Basically, the technology is such that, if we wanted to do this today,
we'd have to accept some giant steps ``backwards'' in our creature
comforts and life styles.

Indeed, the gluttonous use of energy in this country is frightning.  When
I visited Germany a few years ago, I was impressed with the conservation
efforts ingrained into the people.  Air conditioning was almost extinct,
people would turn off their cars if they had to stand idle for more than
a couple of minutes.  Washing machines would spin so fast that the clothes
required only a third or less drying time.  Many houses were equipped with
thermal blinds.  Many of the auto bahn's had special radio transmitters
that could be activated by the local police to transmit alternate route 
very impressive system!)   

I think we'd have to take even larger and harder steps.  I note they
still have private cars, dryers, etc.  To take real advantage of soloar
power, private cars would have to become smaller less speedy vehicles -
basically, city run-abouts, not suitable for high speeds, accelleration
or distance.  Almost all inter-city transportation would change --
instead of attempting to baby your city car down the express-way, you'd
use it to get to the train station, and then take a solar powered train
to get elsewhere -- it would be much faster and energy efficient than
anything you could do with an automobile.  (The solar collectors would
probably live in giant fields in the middle of nowhere, not on top of
the train.) Dryers would mostly be replaced with clotheslines, and
perhaps wringers.  And so forth.

They also had an impressive rail system.  Trains between all cities and
rural areas, street cars, busses and subways in larger cities.  Lots of
people on bicycles and mopeds.  The respect the bicyclists received was
surprising.
Your point is well taken though Marcus.  Germany is a large energy
consumer and they too need to take more drastic efforts to reduce their
consumption.  But their conservation efforts went well beyond what I was
use to here.  (I may have a German name, but I was born and raised here
and have visited Europe only a few times.)

I'm not sure why we're assuming that all the electric is coming from solar
The keywords are cogeneration, clean and renewable.  I envision it as 
being akin to neuro networked processing (or how ever its spelled) in 
computers.  Houses and comercial buildings equipted with solar, wind, or 
whatever powered generators.  Feeding into the grid.  The storage if there
needs to be any.  Might be more centrally located.  Your right about millions
and millions of batteries being a problem.  But Its hard to imagine Electric
cars without them.  In fact there would probably be two sets per vehicle.
One charging for the next day while your off at work.  Or to feed the grid
during the night.

Other than individually owned banks of batteries there would have to be
some system for storing the excess electricity generated during sunny, 
windy, or whatever periods.  Or storing the potential to regenerate it.
I've heard of some experimentation with compressing air.  And there is
always the old standby; pumping water into reservoirs.  

The potential of cogeneration at millions of small scale sites is to me
very exciting.  For one thing the system could be practically indesctructable.
I'm not saying that large scale generating plants are out of the picture.
The only rule would be that they use renewable resources and that the 
environmental impact be the absolute best that we can achieve.

A truly global solar-generation "plant" is an interesting idea; since
it's always sunny *someplace* in the world, if you had enough generating
sites then it shouldn't be a problem if someplace is clouded over, or
if it's night.  Transmission might be a problem, though; I don't know
how practical transmitting electricity over tens of thousands of miles
is.

So far as I know, the answer to shipping electricity large distances is,
it isn't.  If we can come up with sufficiently cheap and practical
superconducting technology, that might change - the trick is, not only
does it have to be *cheap*, but it also has to have semi-decent current
characteristics.  A room-temperature superconductor that transmits
micro-amps of power per square meter is not likely to have much
practical use.  Interestingly, there's already concern about the health
risks from the altered magnetic fields surrounding particularly large
transmission systems.

Another scheme might be orbiting solar panel stations, using
microwaves to beam power down to land-based receiving sites located as
close to major metropolitan areas as feasible.  Of course, one doesn't
want to fry birds or people doing this, which makes it a bit tricky...

Conservation?  Efforts are better focused at production and efficiency 
of use.

We already move electricity thousands of miles (I've heard that we in 
Michigan even on occasion get it from Colorado).  Also, to break through
another bit of confusion I might add that wind is a good complement to 
solar.  Because, though it is also intermitent, it is often present at
night.  I think that the main obstacle is habits of thought.  Among these
is the that of investing in technologies that provide large immediate
profits and ignoring the long term cost.  The problem is really quite
clear if you compare our approach to the traditional Sioux way of 
making decisions.  We should be looking ahead 7 generations befor we 
implement (or allow the implementation by special interests of) new 
technology.  

Please!...don't nit pick this statement to death.  If nothing comes to
mind to add to or clarify it.  Just let it rest for now.  Thanks.

At present, utility companies and customers alike depend on
predictability.  So far as most customers are concerned, all they want
to do is turn on the lights (or whatever) and have them function.  Few
are going to be very happy with the idea that "sorry, honey, no hot food
tonight, there's not enough wind to run the microwave".  Utilities have
even greater concerns--if they blow it, they can really blow it - in
terms of trashed transmission lines and more.

Utilities generally depend on a tier of possible sources of energy, that
range from convenient, but expensive, to inconvenient, but cheap.
Inconvenient, but cheap sources generally represent hydro-electric &
nuclear.  Starting and stopping these monsters may be inconvenient, and
seasonal interruptions or required maintenance may introduce occasional
long outages, but generally speaking, when in operation they provide
steady streams of electricity, and the outages can generally be
predicted in advance, both as to severity & duration.  Coal and natural
gas tend towards the opposite extreme.  The worse case is probably a
natural gas fired turbine.  It can generally be started up almost on a
moments notice, & can provide largish amounts of energy fairly cheaply,
but nowhere near as cheap as a hydroelectric dam.  On the other hand,
construction costs are nowhere near as steep, meaning capital costs are
far lower, & it's not going to be stopped by a drought or an oops
involving a dropped screw-driver into the primary coolant loop.  At a
10% duty cycle, therefore, such a plant ends up being far cheaper.  On a
par with this would be electricity bought from other utilities, and
shipped from far away.  Even though the ultimate source of electricity
may be quite cheap, transmission costs and profit taking by the other
utility can boost the price quite a bit.  The goal of the utility,
therefore, is to have the minimal total amount of capital tied up that
will provide for (a) a base capacity of very cheap power, and (b)
secondary sources to provide peak load capacity.

Wind power doesn't really fit into either.  Even the largest wind plants
designed are relatively whimpy compared to a big hydro-electric plant or
nuclear plant.  It's a lot of capital tied up there, to design, build,
and maintain a wind driven generator.  It's certainly not suitable for
peak loads -- it all depends on mother nature's whim, not on man's
desire.  And, here's the real kille: most of the time, it's almost
guaranteed to be working far below capacity.  The energy in the wind
depends on the square of the velocity.  That means, if you can get X
energy from a 20 mph breeze, at 10 mph, you'll be lucky to get 25% of X
of the energy.  In fact, friction and other losses almost guarantee you
won't even get nearly that much--probably more like 15% if you're lucky.
Countrary-wise, if you get a 30 mph wind, you still will only get X, and
if you get a 50 mph gale, you start worrying about losing the generator
& maybe having to forego getting X to protect your hardware.  This is
why selecting the site for this is so important -- the difference
between 20 mph & 30 mph is like finding a waterfall more than twice as
high.  And, when selecting a site, the interesting question is "how may
days do I get a wind of at least X mph?"  (The other question is, of
course, in 20 years, what is the greatest wind I might expect?)

Thanks for a clear picture of utility operation and the effect
of market economy on the choices made.

I would like to point out that the use of windpower is proving its self
viable in a couple of states, most notably in California where they 
generate the equivalent of San Francisco's residential requirements with
wind.  This via some 15,000 wind turbines.  4,000 or so of these are
U.S. Windpower 100kW machines, which Vermonts 2nd largest utility Green
Mountain Power Corp. chose to install at Mount Equinox in 1990.  To date
they have invested about $300,000 on two machines.  These generate about 
200,000 kilowatt hours each annually.  Enough to satisfy the annual 
residential requirements of 60 homes.  This is a test site and they
have to deal with ice buildup during winter which is not experienced
in California.  This is a problem that has been solved in various ways
at the grass roots level and can be overcome on larger installations.

I still feel that I can ask the following:

What gives more negative weight to the problems of implementing wind and 
solar than is given to the degradation of environment by other, less 
whimpy sources?  

I thought that I should bring this back to the original focus
of the conference.  Namely Electric Vehicles.  So I offer the 
following:
-------
NISSAN UNVEILS PROTOTYPE OF PRACTICAL URBAN ELECTRIC CAR

From NISSAN news release # NNA-17-0891 
August 26, 1991 
Contacts: Takayoshi Yamada/Jim Gill  (313) 393-1893

Edited for LIONS ROAR - DANCING MAN by Barry McKay 09/25/91
(313) 482-0696  9600(V32), 2400, 1200, N,8,1 M-F 8am-6pm EST
(System available at other times by appointment:)

- Stylish electric car for the urban family.
- Can be recharged to 40% capacity in six minutes and 100%
  capacity in under 15 minutes.
- 2 + 2 coupe, with sufficient range for normal daily urban
  usage.
- Named FEV for Future Electric Vehicle. Specifically designed
  as an electric vehicle with completely original aerodynamic
  design.
- Heat-pump style air conditioning and heating.
- Heat-insulated, water beading windshield that blocks out
  ultraviolet rays, improves visibility.
- Driver and front passenger side airbags.
- Uses new "green" HFC refrigerant.
- High torque electric motor.  Top speed of 81 mph and cruising
  range of 100 miles at approximately 45 mph.
- Super Quick Charging battery system weighs half as much as
  conventional electric car batteries (editors note: Do they
  mean Lead Acid?).
- Nissan has formed a consortium with Tokyo Electric Power
  Company Ltd., Japan Storage Battery Company, Ltd., and Hokuto
  Denko Co. to actively study infrastructures and operating
  systems needed to expand the use of electric vehicles.
- Nissan's goal is to provide the consumer with a choice of
  environmentally friendly vehicles.  Recently provided a fleet
  of Flexible Fuel Vehicles to the California Energy Commission
  and is working with the University of Toronto on a natural
  gas-powered vehicle.
- They are also developing another electric car based on the
  Cedric/Gloria four-door sedan currently sold in Japan.  The
  prototype should be released in spring of 1992 for limited
  government applications.
- Since 1986 Nissan has sold the EV Resort, an electric car for
  use on the grounds of resorts and businesses.
- There have also been some electric vans and municipal trucks.
- Nissan is the world's fourth largest automaker.  They employ
  more than 8,700 people in North America.
- Specifications:
  Length:             157 in.
  Width:              67 in.
  Height:             51 in.
  Wheelbase:          96 in.
  Tread Front:        57 in.
  Tread Rear:         56 in.
  Curb Weight:        1,984 lbs
  Passenger capacity: 2 plus 2 (flat floor provides sufficient
                      space for four passengers (2 adults & 2
                      children)), plus luggage.
  Drive system:       Front-wheel drive, right & left wheel
                      independent
  Maximum Power:      20Kw x 2
  Battery Weight:     444 lbs.
  Recharging time:    40% charge in 6 minutes & 100% in 15 min.

"heat-insulated, water-beading windshield that blocks out UV rays"?
Like, glass?
Oooooh.
Heh.

One hopes it's safety glass, at least.

Those are certainly fast charging batteries.  It would be interesting to
know more about their technology though -- especially in terms of # of
deep discharge cycles it can withstand (lead acid turns out to be really
bad here, and NiCad's turn out to be better in some respects, and worse
in others -- it's actually a bad idea NOT to deep discharge them.)  Hmm.
If they can be charged that fast, sounds like they likely don't use a
water based electrolyte, since one of the limits to charging lead acid
is that, when nearly charged, much of the current goes to electrolysis
of the water instead.

They don't mention "range" -- it would be interesting to know how long a
charge will last in what conditions, and it would also be interesting to
know how the car's performance degrades as the charge is used, & also as
the battery ages.  Lead acid batteries, like most others, deliver less
power as the charge is lost.  NiCads are almost unique in having an
almost flat curve until the charge is almost completely lost (at which
point, they then drop very fast to almost nothing.) Almost all batteries
get worse as they "wear out", losing range and performance.

20KW x 2 means, presumably 40 Kw, or about 60 hp -- which means
relatively wimpy performance.  They don't list a top speed here, but it
can't be much past 100 km/h, if that.

They also don't mention how the motors are connected to the wheels.  One
common (and attractive) scheme is to mount the motors directly in the
wheels.  This completely eliminates a transmission, a desirable property
(the motor control logic can assume those functions) but traditionally
also means high unsprung weights, & hence a bad ride and handling.
Newer motors are much lighter -- just how much lighter would be fun to
know.

All in all, an interesting car, but in what they don't mention, sounds
like typical advertising hype.

Getting back to the wind power for a moment, 200,000 kW-h/yr works out
to 22.8 kW average capacity, or less than 25% of the presumable 100 kW
peak capacity.  This is not good for something we can presume was
running every moment it could be -- but quite typical of wind power and
its dependency on the physics of nature.

Two other interesting things about the electric car.  "green" HFC?  What
have we here?  I'm kind of interesting in what chemical they've found to
replace CCl2F2 & what its advantages are.

Also, Canada already seems to be doing a lot more with gaseous fuels
than we are in the states -- propane seems to be standard at many gas
stations already.  (It hisses like the devil too.)

Read it again, Marcus.  Top speed was listed as 81 mph with a range of
100 miles at 45 mph.

I may have misse it, but I don't recall seeing a $xxxx anywhere.

If your interest is sincere then perhaps you could talk to Mr. Hirokazu Hirano

the manager of Electric vehicles at NISSAN Research and Developement, Inc.
3995 Research Park Drive, Ann Arbor, MI  48108,  665-2044.    I haven't
talked to him yet because I wanted to get a little more background before 
taking his time.  You (Marcus) seem to have the background (if not the spirit)
maybe you could relate back to us what you learn.

Back on windpower for a second.   Accepting the whimpiness involved with
pacing ourselves to the rhythms of nature is the skill that has been lost.
The wisdom that would return when the skill is relearned is what would save
us.

Different refrigerants react differently withe ozone.  R-12, the stuff
used in most refrigerators and automotive air conditioning systems is
very violent.  R-22, used in most central and window air conditioners 
is far less harmfully.  The other problem with automotive air conditi-
oning systems is that the the compressors have shaft seals around the 
shaft supplying rotational energy to the compressor.  These seals 
always leak, some more than others.  Most other refrigeration systems
don't have this problem because the compressor and motor is sealed in
the same enclosure. i.e. Hermetically sealed.

#34  Are yous suggesting that we return to the days of horses and sailing
ships as well? Some folks do, and haven't got the foggiest idea of what
that would be like.

#33 I too would like to know the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price.
I suspect that it's some major portion of a B-2. I presume that when they
get up and running, peak on the learning curve, and obtain full economies
of scale, it will only cost a major portion of a B-1.

It would be fun to talk with them more, but sadly, I haven't the time.
Besides, in many respects, this doesn't sound like that big an advance.
The quick charge time on the batteries sounds like the most interesting
innovation -- 15 minutes instead of over-night.  The rest of it sounds
pretty typical.  We are talking about something very different from a
Porsche and perhaps more akin to a vw beatle.  An *old* beatle before
they souped up the engine.

I can believe that if it went into production it could be quite cheap.
The batteries don't sound heavy enough to cost over $1K.  The motors are
certainly far less complicated than a conventional gasoline IC plant.
And electric motors of all sorts have been in mass production for a
*long* time.  The rest of the vehicle sounds pretty pedestrian, and
judging from the weight of the vehicle, are probably rather spartan -- a
typical result of the ruthless weight trimming needed to get decent
performance on an electric.  If it went into mass production, I can
believe a sales price of $6K, and I suspect Nissan will be laughing all
the way to the bank to boot.

A few years back I was looking into water pumps.  I noticed that there
were two horse power ratings.  One for electric motors and the other
for for gasoline.  The electric rating was always much lower than the
gas rating.  i.e. 1/2 HP when used with an electric motor and 2.5 HP
when used with a gas motor for the same lift/output performance. Now
I thought that a HP was a HP, no matter.  Can anyone explain this to
me?  The torque/rpm curve for an electric motor is much different than
that for a gas motor, maybe that has something to do with it.  In
either case, maybe comparing electric cor HP to gas car HP is not
appropriate since their power curves are totally different.  Electric
motors produce the most torque when stalled, not so for a gas engine.

Actually, the torque depends on the kind of electric motor, although you
are right, a series DC motor will indeed produce a lot of starting
torque, indeed, the torque actually has to be deliberately limited,
principly because the starting current would otherwise be truely
excessive.  Various sorts of AC motors sometimes have quite low starting
torque.  Not that this should make much particular difference for a
water pump, which shouldn't present much of a load starting.

An "HP" is indeeed an "HP".  On the other hand, just because the motor
is rated for it doesn't mean it's producing it.  For an electric motor,
the "HP" is generally a continuous duty rating -- what the motor can
safely product without overheating.  Most such motors are capable of
much greater power output, for short periods of time.  (In fact,
automobile starters are a classic example of this type of service.)

For gasoline engines, the "HP" is generally the maximum the engine can
produce -- at open throttle and a relatively high speed.  Normally
speaking, if run continuously at this speed and HP output, the engine's
life will be severely shortened.  In the case of stationary
applications, the engine is usually derated using some relatively
simplistic formula.  (For example, "75% of maximum HP".)  In the case of
aircraft, the engine is put onto a high maintenance schedule where the
parts are replaced before they can wear out - and the engine is
specially made with redundancy in critical components.

In the case of the water pump, the electric motor is probably running
close to its maximum HP.  The gas engine is probably running at a
considerably lower speed & throttle setting, to maximize life & minimize
noise.  (And it sounds like the derating formula used didn't derate it
enough.) If the pump has a guaranted head that it will deliver a rated
volume of liquid against, you can calculate the "output" HP, which,
assuming a properly designed pump, will be not much less than the
"input" HP that must be delivered by the gasoline engine or electric
motor.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss