5 ms·

It's perhaps a more limiting factor now than then. As the article notes most EVs at the turn of the century had a range of 40-70 miles. The model T of around 1

It's perhaps a more limiting factor now than then. As the article notes most EVs at the turn of the century had a range of 40-70 miles. The model T of around 1910, ten years later, had a range of about 90. Earlier ICE cars were down nearer EVs. A century ago battery and ICE technology were not that far apart. i.e. both fairly primitive. If electrics had been chosen and had 100 years of continual minor incremental improvements...

vvanders 7y ago
I've had the same thought about rotary motors, they're interesting beasts and I wonder what we'd see if they had the same R&D investment like we saw in piston engines. Alas I think that ship has sailed, aside from energy density the modern electric VFD wins along a whole range of design constraints(torque, size, latency/traction response, efficiency, etc).
- chmielewski 7y ago
  We have seen a significant long-term R&D investment but all the nice rotary engines are in prop planes. Edit: since you mention a ship, some use large opposed-pistol Diesel engines (two oppositely meeting pistons around the combustion chamber per cylinder which also allows the cylinder to be much wider)... don’t see these in either planes or cars... Hydrogen power?—- Hydrogen is difficult to keep contained because it escapes through anything over time unless we put heavy ceramic tanks in our cars.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    It's hard to tell, but op may be talking about Wankel rotary motors.
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    Unless you're talking about turboprops (jet engines with a gearbox) there really aren't any wankel engines in aircraft. Just a few experimental/EAB conversions out there.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    A rotary engine is not the same as a radial engine. Radial engines go in airplanes, rotary engines go in Mazdas.
    - perilunar 7y ago
      Actually... rotary engines did go in aircraft. [0] Wankels go in Mazdas. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
      - balfirevic 7y ago
        Oh wow. That is an internal combustion equivalent of electric outrunner motor!
    - elamje 7y ago
      Rotary engines typically end up in smaller aircraft, like kit-planes and such. But yes, I've heard the rx-8 uses one.
      - masonic 7y ago
        The entire RX series used Wankel motors.
smileysteve 7y ago
we're also omitting the steam car. Where the maintenance and dirtiness were their major detractors, refined fuels and new burners solve these. Steam engines can and could have been refilled at any gas station, could run on any multi fuel including biodiesel. They theoretically require less maintenance, no oil changes, no cooling system. They'd also have had greater range and greater top speed (though less acceleration without a hybrid design)
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Stirling engines have many of the advantages of steam, many of the disadvantages, but they lack the disadvantage of high pressure containment. It's likely that power density would have been too low, however.
- graycat 7y ago
  IIRC basic thermodynamics shows that ordinary steam engines can't be very efficient. So, don't get good MPG or miles per bucket of coal, or whatever fuel. IIRC the main reason for diesel-electric locomotives for trains and large ships was that it was significantly more efficient than just steam, at least steam with just a boiler and pistons. Of course, really large ships generate steam and then run it through a steam turbine -- no Diesel around.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    For trains diesel electric lets you really simplify the power-train. Imagine powering all those wheels mechanically, yeah, not happening.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      The most common diesel-electric locomotive today has 6 drive axles. The big steam locomotives designed at their twilight sported 6-10 drive axles, and the most famous and successful of them (the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy) ran 8 drive axles. Mechanical linkage of drive axles isn't what killed the steam locomotive.
graycat 7y ago
> If electrics had been chosen and had 100 years of continual minor incremental improvements... Battery technology is still basically just ordinary chemistry and, thus, hasn't made much progress in 100 years. E.g., we use a lead acid battery in cars now, and they had lead acid batteries back then. Just look at the periodic table, pick some elements, and make a battery. They did that 100 years ago also. If we do something special with graphene, high temperature superconductivity, maybe still with a capacitor of "doped barium-calcium-zirconium-titanate", etc., technology not known 100 years ago, fine, but these are all long shots, both as in risky and how long it will take to be successful or give up. Gas-electric hybrid involves essentially two engines instead of one but can do some amazing things, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZci9dUROM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZci9dUROM
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Sure, but lead-acid and zinc-carbon, both 19th century technologies, were the main - essentially only - types of batteries until the age of the Walkman in the 80s. Then we got Duracell alkalines and cute adverts. Until then there wasn't a lot of pressure to get better, so they mostly didn't and they wouldn't have sold anyway. Around the same time rechargeables got some development pressure in the form of mobile phones, and there was effort to do better than rubbish NiCds or heavy lead-acid. Even cell sizes remained constant for nearly a century. If there'd been more pressure there'd have been a lot more chemists thinking about improvements than just Ever-Ready, Duracell and Motorola. Maybe a global electric car industry working on the problem 4x longer than we have would have come up with something better, maybe not. Alternate time lines are never certain. :) Batteries aren't all of it though - how would personal transportation have evolved if every city and road network had electric distribution points for vehicles - as was planned in the 1910s - instead of filling out with petrol stations? The fast charger networks could easily have been something of the 1940s rather than the 2000's. We'd undoubtedly have standardised on a generic one that worked with every make of car by now. We'd probably have designed cities a little differently too.
  - graycat 7y ago
    Be careful: For the improvements, are close against some quite fundamental chemistry and physics. E.g., for fast charging, the battery has internal resistance, that is, gets hot when charging. Likely the amount of internal resistance varies, but charging as fast as filling a 20 gallon tank of gasoline might encounter something impossible due to the chemistry/physics. Fast charging is one of the reasons for the pursuit of capacitors instead of batteries, e.g., the EEStore effort with barium and titanium. The capacitors also typically are able to discharge much faster than batteries. IIRC, battery charging is a chemical reaction where have to move atoms around. A capacitor, first cut, just moves electrons around. But for research time, EEStore has been at it for some years now.

vvanders 7y ago

I've had the same thought about rotary motors, they're interesting beasts and I wonder what we'd see if they had the same R&D investment like we saw in piston engines. Alas I think that ship has sailed, aside from energy density the modern electric VFD wins along a whole range of design constraints(torque, size, latency/traction response, efficiency, etc).

chmielewski 7y ago
We have seen a significant long-term R&D investment but all the nice rotary engines are in prop planes. Edit: since you mention a ship, some use large opposed-pistol Diesel engines (two oppositely meeting pistons around the combustion chamber per cylinder which also allows the cylinder to be much wider)... don’t see these in either planes or cars... Hydrogen power?—- Hydrogen is difficult to keep contained because it escapes through anything over time unless we put heavy ceramic tanks in our cars.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  It's hard to tell, but op may be talking about Wankel rotary motors.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Unless you're talking about turboprops (jet engines with a gearbox) there really aren't any wankel engines in aircraft. Just a few experimental/EAB conversions out there.
- bdamm 7y ago
  A rotary engine is not the same as a radial engine. Radial engines go in airplanes, rotary engines go in Mazdas.
  - perilunar 7y ago
    Actually... rotary engines did go in aircraft. [0] Wankels go in Mazdas. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
    - balfirevic 7y ago
      Oh wow. That is an internal combustion equivalent of electric outrunner motor!
  - elamje 7y ago
    Rotary engines typically end up in smaller aircraft, like kit-planes and such. But yes, I've heard the rx-8 uses one.
    - masonic 7y ago
      The entire RX series used Wankel motors.

smileysteve 7y ago

we're also omitting the steam car. Where the maintenance and dirtiness were their major detractors, refined fuels and new burners solve these. Steam engines can and could have been refilled at any gas station, could run on any multi fuel including biodiesel. They theoretically require less maintenance, no oil changes, no cooling system. They'd also have had greater range and greater top speed (though less acceleration without a hybrid design)

stcredzero 7y ago
Stirling engines have many of the advantages of steam, many of the disadvantages, but they lack the disadvantage of high pressure containment. It's likely that power density would have been too low, however.
graycat 7y ago
IIRC basic thermodynamics shows that ordinary steam engines can't be very efficient. So, don't get good MPG or miles per bucket of coal, or whatever fuel. IIRC the main reason for diesel-electric locomotives for trains and large ships was that it was significantly more efficient than just steam, at least steam with just a boiler and pistons. Of course, really large ships generate steam and then run it through a steam turbine -- no Diesel around.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  For trains diesel electric lets you really simplify the power-train. Imagine powering all those wheels mechanically, yeah, not happening.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    The most common diesel-electric locomotive today has 6 drive axles. The big steam locomotives designed at their twilight sported 6-10 drive axles, and the most famous and successful of them (the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy) ran 8 drive axles. Mechanical linkage of drive axles isn't what killed the steam locomotive.

graycat 7y ago

> If electrics had been chosen and had 100 years of continual minor incremental improvements... Battery technology is still basically just ordinary chemistry and, thus, hasn't made much progress in 100 years. E.g., we use a lead acid battery in cars now, and they had lead acid batteries back then. Just look at the periodic table, pick some elements, and make a battery. They did that 100 years ago also. If we do something special with graphene, high temperature superconductivity, maybe still with a capacitor of "doped barium-calcium-zirconium-titanate", etc., technology not known 100 years ago, fine, but these are all long shots, both as in risky and how long it will take to be successful or give up. Gas-electric hybrid involves essentially two engines instead of one but can do some amazing things, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZci9dUROM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZci9dUROM

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Sure, but lead-acid and zinc-carbon, both 19th century technologies, were the main - essentially only - types of batteries until the age of the Walkman in the 80s. Then we got Duracell alkalines and cute adverts. Until then there wasn't a lot of pressure to get better, so they mostly didn't and they wouldn't have sold anyway. Around the same time rechargeables got some development pressure in the form of mobile phones, and there was effort to do better than rubbish NiCds or heavy lead-acid. Even cell sizes remained constant for nearly a century. If there'd been more pressure there'd have been a lot more chemists thinking about improvements than just Ever-Ready, Duracell and Motorola. Maybe a global electric car industry working on the problem 4x longer than we have would have come up with something better, maybe not. Alternate time lines are never certain. :) Batteries aren't all of it though - how would personal transportation have evolved if every city and road network had electric distribution points for vehicles - as was planned in the 1910s - instead of filling out with petrol stations? The fast charger networks could easily have been something of the 1940s rather than the 2000's. We'd undoubtedly have standardised on a generic one that worked with every make of car by now. We'd probably have designed cities a little differently too.
- graycat 7y ago
  Be careful: For the improvements, are close against some quite fundamental chemistry and physics. E.g., for fast charging, the battery has internal resistance, that is, gets hot when charging. Likely the amount of internal resistance varies, but charging as fast as filling a 20 gallon tank of gasoline might encounter something impossible due to the chemistry/physics. Fast charging is one of the reasons for the pursuit of capacitors instead of batteries, e.g., the EEStore effort with barium and titanium. The capacitors also typically are able to discharge much faster than batteries. IIRC, battery charging is a chemical reaction where have to move atoms around. A capacitor, first cut, just moves electrons around. But for research time, EEStore has been at it for some years now.