EV Digest 2412
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Is the solar evergy free? (OT)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Seattle EV Association Nov 12th Meeting
by "Steven S. Lough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Is the solar evergy free? (OT)
by "Ralph Merwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Is the solar evergy free? (OT)
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Reality Check on Nimh Batteries
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Reality Check on Nimh Batteries
by josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Is the solar evergy free? (OT)
by Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Rudman reg madness
by "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Toyota Celicas
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) EVDash (was: Emeter and Palm devices)
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Theoretical range/performance
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: EVDash (was: Emeter and Palm devices)
by "Dave Stensland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Sparrow down again (still?)
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Theoretical range/performance
by Matthew Muelver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Is the solar evergy free? (OT)
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Theoretical range/performance
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Sparrow down again (still?)
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Sparrow down again (still?)
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Rolling Resistance When Wet?
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Hey - are hybrids a "crock"?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Toyota Celicas
by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: evercel
by "Cliff Rassweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Hardware for regen/dynamic braking set up?
by "Cliff Rassweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Cheap switchmode supplies- Ferro mod.
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Reality Check on Nimh Batteries
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: LED Low Voltage was (Red: Cheap LCD Voltmeter)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Hardware for regen/dynamic braking set up?
by "Cliff Rassweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: Reality Check on Nimh Batteries
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29) Re: LED Low Voltage was (Red: Cheap LCD Voltmeter)
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
30) A familiar SAD story makes it to AUTOWEEK MAG.
by "Steven S. Lough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
The hardware to produce the energy is not free (yet), no question.
Once purchased though, the energy itself is free because it cost you
no more to waste it all day long vs. not spending a single Wh of it.
And the beauty of it is if you waste it all day long, no more
earth resources consumed vs. if you waste nothing.
You recapture light which otherwise is wasted in your roof anyway.
Like a car - you bought it for $20k, and *driving* (vs. not driving)
is free now (except consumables/maint/wear) - you're still the same
$20k short and can save nothing by driving more, less or not at all.
What am I missing in *concept* (no nit picking please)?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
We will be again be meeting at Chuck Bensons house at 7pm on Tuesday
evening, the 12th ( directions for newbies - at -
http://slough1.home.mindspring.com/seva-m.html )
Our member John Wagner, is lining up a guest speaker from a Hybrid/Bus
program.
Also, I will have pictures from the Seattle International Auto Show,
where I helped out with
Alastair Dodwell of SpitFire Motors (Sparrow)
See all the North West'ers there...
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 396-9189
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://slough1.home.mindspring.com/seva.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov writes:
>
> The hardware to produce the energy is not free (yet), no question.
>
> Once purchased though, the energy itself is free because it cost you
> no more to waste it all day long vs. not spending a single Wh of it.
>
> And the beauty of it is if you waste it all day long, no more
> earth resources consumed vs. if you waste nothing.
> You recapture light which otherwise is wasted in your roof anyway.
>
> Like a car - you bought it for $20k, and *driving* (vs. not driving)
> is free now (except consumables/maint/wear) - you're still the same
> $20k short and can save nothing by driving more, less or not at all.
>
> What am I missing in *concept* (no nit picking please)?
People either buy as much of a PV system as they can afford or they size
their system according to their requirements. If the latter, the system
will be smaller and cost less if your equipment is more efficient (assuming
that you don't spend as much on more efficient equipment as you would on a
larger system).
Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The hardware to produce the energy is not free (yet), no question.
Once purchased though, the energy itself is free because it cost you
no more to waste it all day long vs. not spending a single Wh of it.
And the beauty of it is if you waste it all day long, no more
earth resources consumed vs. if you waste nothing.
You recapture light which otherwise is wasted in your roof anyway.
Like a car - you bought it for $20k, and *driving* (vs. not driving)
is free now (except consumables/maint/wear) - you're still the same
$20k short and can save nothing by driving more, less or not at all.
What am I missing in *concept* (no nit picking please)?
1) The initial cost, which also might be paid over a long time with a
loan, is an ongoing expense. If I own a more efficient car, I can
purchase less capacity and therefore pay less every day. Would you
buy a $40k car if it appeared and performed the same as a $20k car? I
think not. It's the same for renewable energy.
2) My solar array, like many others like it, is tied to the utility
grid. Excess energy goes in to the grid and offsets energy produced
by other means.
I believe the whole cause for EVs is made by looking at the big
picture, the life cycle costs. It's the same for renewables, the fact
that all the costs are up front does not change the fact that PV
solar power still costs more than grid electricity.
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com
Mailto:otlists@;evcl.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> But it's not free. I don't know why many people come up with this idea.
>
> I have $18,300.00 worth of solar system on my roof. Considering the
> time value of money, those "cost" about $1000 a year.If you like you
> can see the system here http://evcl.com/solar
It's "free" in terms of it doesn't cost you *extra* every day or every
year because inefficient charging.
You already pay $1k per year to depreciate it, that's given, even if
you charge nothing.
So if you start charge *something* it's free electricity comparing
to charging nothing (and still paying deprecation).
So my point is it's not free in terms of dollars you pay for it,
it's that once it in place, switching to less efficient charging
(so you have to spend more electricity now) is free.
Victor
Whoops, looks like you've split this thread into two.
My point is that if you change to less efficient charging, you will
need to increase the size of your system to handle the load.
This is not free.
If you don't have to increase the size, then that only proves that
the system was oversized to begin with.
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com
Mailto:otlists@;evcl.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:01:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>>From what I found, the charging efficiency of Nimh is
>only about 66%, minus the energy needed for cooling.
>This is an extremely low number! Assuming everything
>else is 100% efficient, we are only getting 66% of the
>energy we put in them. In my opinion, this is
>unacceptable! If the power station is 50% efficient
>(on the high end), this means we are actually getting
>only about 33% of the total energy content of the fuel
>source.
>
>Although this is still much better than the 18.2% we
>get from a modern ICE
>(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml), it is much
>lower than I thought, especially after I learned that
>a fuel cell is about 60% effecient and a Honda Insight
>is close to that. Did I get my numbers wrong
>somewhere?
>
>Ed Ang
I'm not sure, but I think the number you site for "a" fuel cell is a
bit higher than what I would have thought of as the average, unless
some sort of cogeneration is assumed (i.e., using the excess heat to
heat the interior of a car?). I was surprised to find, a year or so
ago, that many fuel cell efforts fall below the 50% efficiency area,
though they can be much higher, depending on chemistry, etc.
While ICE engines are often less than 30 or 40% efficiency, I'll have
to go to that link to check where you got the 18.2%. I assume before
I go that this is not representative of diesels, which are somewhat
higher than gasoline ICE efficiencies (though not at all near where we
need them to be to start really valuing the energy enough to satisfy.
I heard from an EV1 owner that there are many anti-efficient aspects
to trying to use NIMH in those cars, so I am faimiliar with the basic
problem that you allude to, but perhaps, in a better-designed gen2
effort, some of these inefficiencies would be dealt with?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>What am I missing in *concept* (no nit picking please)?
Victor;
What I see missing is the factor that a $20k automobile has basically a
zero return-on-investment. It is going to either wear out or rust out
regardless if you drive it or not. Most likely, it will be old and
out-of-sytle before it's paid off.
Solar has a large up-front investment, but (AFAIK) *never* wears out, runs
down or goes out of fashion. Manufacturers are offering 25 year warranties,
which they wouldn't do if the PV's were likely to have a short lifespan.
Solar modules in space (a very harsh environment) have been cranking out
the amps on some ancient satellites for 40 years or more.
Additionally, if you buy a car that is too small, you have to sell it (at a
loss) and buy one that is large enough to suit your purposes. With solar, a
small system can be expanded by adding modules to the existing system with
no loss of operating functionality. Try that with an SUV.
Describing the power PV's produce as "free" is a misnomer, and one that
opens the door for naysayers to attack the principle. My 1.8 Kw solar array
will *never* produce enough power in my lifetime to pay for itself (at
least not at today's power rates). Each Kw pumped back into the utility
grid cost me up front in equipment and installation expenses. So why do I
do it? Because it's the right thing (for me) to do with disposable income.
Some guys have boats, dirt bikes, race cars or other expensive
energy-wasting hobbies. My hobby is *producing* energy, not consuming it.
-S
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't know how these motors compare, but typical inrush for an industrial
high efficiency induction motor is around 800% of full load amps while
running. These motors could see a similar inrush. However, since the fan
presents little load at low speed, the duration will be shorter. It could
be long enough to pull down the voltage at the Reg, though, and turn it off.
(See Joe's post)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Rudman reg madness
> At 07:40 PM 11/6/2002 -0800, Joe Smalley wrote:
> >What do the draw for the first 10 milliseconds when the rotor is stopped?
>
> Of course I don't have a clue for that. But they are tiny fans.
>
> --
> John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar@;CasaDelGato.Com
> Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Clunn wrote
Thanks for the info . after looking there I fine its not a Celica bat a
tercel which is 830kg ( cel was all that was left of emblem) which is better
as lighter . so 1905 might really be the weight . I need another project
like a hole in the head but this car is in great shape .owned by an old
man( one of my lawn customers) who took very good care of it . I got a
friend who also wants to start a conversion biss ( seeing how well I'm
doing, ha ha ) and he's out in the country with plenty of room. something
about a light car with good body / interior and a blown motor that makes you
want to get your hands dirty.
what do you think would sell better
9" net gain / with air conditioning
15 golf cart / baby dcp $8,000
13 yellow tops / big dcp $9,500
twice as far vs twice as fast
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walker, Lesley R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: Toyota Celicas
> Have a look at the Tokoyo Motor Show database:
> http://db.motorshow.or.jp/cgi-bin/car_history/top_en.html
>
> It has an entry for the first year of each model, so for the Celica
> you can find the models from these years:
> 1970, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1993
>
> According to that site, the 1985 model weighs 1110kg which is approx
> 2500lb. They should all be similar up to the 1988 model.
>
> Here is the record for the 1985 model:
>
http://db.motorshow.or.jp/cgi-bin/car_history/detail.pl?style=en&id=1985008
>
> At one stage I was thinking about a Celica but people told me "oh,
> they're too heavy". They have a reputation for a very strong (heavy)
> gearbox. But they would have been talking about the more recent
> models. (The 1989 type is 1400kg = 3000lb).
>
> I'm puzzled as to what "wt-l-bhp 1905" would mean. It's not close to
> the weight figures, and I'm pretty sure it isn't brake horsepower!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 1sclunn [mailto:1sclunn@;msn.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2002 19:42
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Toyota Celicas
> >
> >
> > I just picked up a nice 88 Toyota ( I think calicos) Its got the blown
> motor
> > and I think it would make a nice conversion . got manual tran and looks
> very
> > light also its body/inside is in great shape . I didn't see any of these
> > cars in the album though and was wondering why . title say wt-l-bhp 1905
> .
> > guess that means 1905 lbs ?
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Where can I get a copy of EV Dash?
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
When the discussion turns to range estimates, I always chime in with:
MPG x (lb of batteries)
Maximum Range = ---------------------------------------
500
Where Maximum Range is in miles, and MPG is the miles per gallon the car
had before conversion. This assumes an ordinary ICE, typical vehicle,
ordinary lead-acid batteries, and a well set up conversion with low RR
tires and good alignment. This seems to predict range pretty well. While
far from perfect, this formula will give you a good enough answer to size
the battery pack for your conversion.
Keep in mind that your typical commute should not drain the pack more than
about 50%, maybe a little more. This makes the pack last a while, and
leaves room for cold days and aging batteries. Thus, you really don't need
to calculate the range better than about +/- 20%.
Of course, some folks will argue that this method is not as accurate as
other, more complicated methods. For some, it is more fun doing lengthy
calculations than actually building something and driving it. :^)
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.ohler.com/palm/EVDash.html
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-ev@;listproc.sjsu.edu] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: EVDash (was: Emeter and Palm devices)
Where can I get a copy of EV Dash?
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Clunn wrote
I would think just replace the one bad bat. funny you (and others )
are having more trouble with your "from the ground up" , factory built EV's
than most people have with home make conversions. You don't get the range I
would expect from your car weight/bat weight either. Maybe down the road
when you have made all these improvements you can say " it was a Sparrow
but I converted it " . I'm happy that your not selling it and giving up on
EV's . The improvements are the fun part , trying new stuff , seeing what
help and how much . Of course you aren't in it just for just the fun but
depend on it to get you to work and when it doesn't ,that's not good . I
have never seen a Sparrow on the road but if I did I would sure be looking .
They are some sharp looking cars .
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:01 PM
Subject: Sparrow down again (still?)
> Well, I took my Sparrow for another test drive tonight of about 15
> miles. Found I have 1 battery that seems to be weak. After the 15.8 mile
> run it was 11.2v, while all the others were around 12.5v. sigh.
> It was really helpful to have the LED's for the MKII"s in the cab, as that
> is what told me that something may be wrong. Just the one low-volt LED
> came on. They are currently set for 10v indication.
> This kind of puts me out of commission, as I can't make my
> commute. AAARRGGHHH!!!
>
> I need some Evercells!
> (and a PFC-20 with Enhancer of course)
> --
> John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar@;CasaDelGato.Com
> Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 10:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MPG x (lb of batteries)
Maximum Range = ---------------------------------------
500
Thanks Bill! According to this easy method my estimates were at least
in the ball park, 50-60 mile max range with a 500-600 lb lead acid
pack. I'm assuming that this rule of thumb is for floodeds, and I'd be
running Optimas, so the range would decrease a little. Just makes me
want to get those NiZns even more!
The Evercell NiZns are like, $240 each, right? Sorry, I haven't been
paying too close of attention to the recent threads. How much are
SVRs? $60? That would make my 156V hybrid pack just under $4000. For
a 100 mile range (assuming double the range with NiZn), with
tire-scorching performance, I think I can definitely handle that!
Later,
Matt
--
My Favorite Quotes:
"God Bless America." - President George W. Bush
"Let's roll." - Todd Beamer
"From my cold dead hands!" - Charleton Heston, NRA President
"Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!" - President Ronald Reagan
"Words mean things." - Rush Limbaugh
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That's a fine hobby . You would make a good neighbor
>
> Describing the power PV's produce as "free" is a misnomer, and one that
> opens the door for naysayers to attack the principle. My 1.8 Kw solar
array
> will *never* produce enough power in my lifetime to pay for itself (at
> least not at today's power rates). Each Kw pumped back into the utility
> grid cost me up front in equipment and installation expenses. So why do I
> do it? Because it's the right thing (for me) to do with disposable income.
> Some guys have boats, dirt bikes, race cars or other expensive
> energy-wasting hobbies. My hobby is *producing* energy, not consuming it.
>
> -S
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Clunn wrote
I have found this to be pretty close to true for 50/55 mph driving
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Theoretical range/performance
> When the discussion turns to range estimates, I always chime in with:
>
>
> MPG x (lb of batteries)
> Maximum Range = ---------------------------------------
> 500
>
> Where Maximum Range is in miles, and MPG is the miles per gallon the car
> had before conversion. This assumes an ordinary ICE, typical vehicle,
> ordinary lead-acid batteries, and a well set up conversion with low RR
> tires and good alignment. This seems to predict range pretty well. While
> far from perfect, this formula will give you a good enough answer to size
> the battery pack for your conversion.
>
> Keep in mind that your typical commute should not drain the pack more than
> about 50%, maybe a little more. This makes the pack last a while, and
> leaves room for cold days and aging batteries. Thus, you really don't need
> to calculate the range better than about +/- 20%.
>
> Of course, some folks will argue that this method is not as accurate as
> other, more complicated methods. For some, it is more fun doing lengthy
> calculations than actually building something and driving it. :^)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
> \'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> =(___)=
> U
> Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Now what, John? Are you planning to replace just the
bad battery or is it time to consider a new set of 13
new Optimas? As I recall you were having battery
problems before your Sparrow was laid up for the
rear wheel bearing replacement job.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:01 PM
> Subject: Sparrow down again (still?)
>
>
> > Well, I took my Sparrow for another test drive tonight of about 15
> > miles. Found I have 1 battery that seems to be weak. After the 15.8
mile
> > run it was 11.2v, while all the others were around 12.5v. sigh.
> > It was really helpful to have the LED's for the MKII"s in the cab, as
that
> > is what told me that something may be wrong. Just the one low-volt LED
> > came on. They are currently set for 10v indication.
> > This kind of puts me out of commission, as I can't make my
> > commute. AAARRGGHHH!!!
> >
> > I need some Evercells!
> > (and a PFC-20 with Enhancer of course)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 09:47 PM 11/8/2002 -0800, Thomas Shay wrote:
Now what, John? Are you planning to replace just the
bad battery or is it time to consider a new set of 13
new Optimas? As I recall you were having battery
problems before your Sparrow was laid up for the
rear wheel bearing replacement job.
I'll probably just replace the bad one (I found that the dealer may be
willing to do it under warranty!). I'd like these to last me long enough
to get some good batteries. (say, Evercells)
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar@;CasaDelGato.Com
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A recent discussion with a friend raised the question about
how rain affects rolling resistance. I'm sure that heavy rain
does increase drag, but I don't know how much.
Has anyone seen objective data about this?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think for the reliability. The other two systems are reliable but
electric has the advantage of using NiMh which in the backs of the Japanese
mind are being considered for EV use in the future and having the packs in
the hybrids will eventully drop the price when bigger packs need to be used.
Lawrence Rhodes..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon "Sheer" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Hey - are hybrids a "crock"?
> I don't find this to indicate that hybrids are a crock at all. If you can
> save 10 mpg (20%+) energy by using 3% of battery storage, more power to
you!
> The reason they don't deep-cycle those batteries is that they want them to
> last 10 years. This seems a reasonable strategy to me..
>
> I still wonder if a hydraulic or pneumatic system wouldn't end up being
> cheaper and more efficient than electric - but nonetheless, my point
> remains. If by using a very tiny amount of energy stored in a battery you
> can avoid wasting a large amount of energy stored in dead dinos, then by
all
> means you should do it.
>
> S.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> According to that site, the 1985 model weighs 1110kg which is approx
> 2500lb. They should all be similar up to the 1988 model.
The specs on a 1990 Celica show a weight range of 2500 lbs. to 2696 lbs., depending
upon the style.
A good place for vehicle specs is Edmunds < http://www.edmunds.com/ >
After you click through the Manufacturer, the year, the model, and the style, there
will be a "Specs & Safety" hotlink in the left-hand
column, providing Weight, Wheel Base, overall Dimensions, and more.
Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ralph,
I have detailed a pretty easy, not too expensive way of making short but
flexible cables on www.ProEV.com. Look under Electric Imp, Work History, Nov
11-building the battery connectors. The car is not running yet, so I do not
have experience with how they work long term, but they are basically copied
from techniques others have used and posted to the list.
Cliff
>
> Individual cells also have the disadvantage of many more user-installed
> interconnects (about 120 for a 120v pack). These will likely be solid
> buss bars unless you have a good solution for very short but flexible
> cables. If you use solid interconnects you now also have the problem
> of rigidly mounting 120 cells.
>
> Ralph
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David (and Ed),
> On the 3.9 gearing: My assumptions are based on my understanding that
> Victor's motors are constant torque to ~ 5000 rpm, and then constant
> power 5000 to ~ 10k rpm (numbers may be a bit off, but will still
> illustrate my points).
The power graphs I recieved show the motor at constant torque until about
5000 rpm. There is a horsepower peak at 5500. The torque drops off sharply
and the horsepower drops off more gradually.
> My other assumptions are that motor windage
> and diff viscuous losses are small. If this is true, then you'll be
> faster to run in the constant power region as much as possible. I
> know this is counterintuitive, as the torque does "fall off."
> Practically speaking, this means you'd gear so that the highest
> anticipated speed occurs at the max rpm (about 10k rpm, as I recall).
>
> The basic equation is:
>
> v_5000rpm = vehicle speed at 5000 rpm.
> v = vehicle speed above 5000 rpm.
>
> Torque at the wheels = Power / v_5000rpm (below 5k rpm); and Power /
> v (above 5k rpm).
>
> If you plot the above equation (or by inspection), you'll see torque
> is maximized by the lowest gear ratio that doesn't make the motor fly
> apart. You get more "area under the curve." Below 5000 rpm, torque is
> multiplied by a lower (higher numerically) gear ratio. Above 5000
> rpm, it doesn't matter if the motor turns 5000 or 10000 rpm, the
> wheels get the same torque.
>
> So I'm curious about your sim, did the car hit max rpm on that track?
No. When I gear it to hit max rpm at the end of the longest straight, the
car 'runs out of steam' at higher speeds and lap times are slower.
> If not, I'd be curious what different assumptions you might have
> made. I assume you could enter a torque vs. rpm table?
Yes. The simulation allows me to enter the torque curves Victor gave me. The
only obvious fudge was that I had enter my starting torque as 0 and could
not put in my max torque until 500 rpm.
> I'd be curious
> to see it and check it matches the constant torque / constant power
> assumptions.
If you have not done so, go to the simulator page. www.ProEV.com, Electric
Imp Project, Work History, June 22-building a computer simulated car. The
race car program Sports Car GT is probably $15 now. All the links you need
to modify cars are on the page. You can also download a virtual Electric Imp
to drive yourself. There are links that can help you find a lot of other
cars like the Porshe 911 and make the changes in weight and engine torque to
try out your ideas. You can even download autocross tracks to test on as
well as traditional courses. Warning: While not very technically difficult,
like all computer things, set up is incredibly time consuming!
>
> I am converting a car (slowly) that I want to race, so I have a
> vested interest in all this stuff. I doubt I'll be the fastest, but
> I'll definitely have fun. I'm 4 bolts away from dropping the motor on
> a Porsche 911, but thanks to your post opening my eyes I'll do a
> little more math before I do anything tough to reverse.
Great! We would love to have more cars to race with.
> Sounds like
> you are a long ways from Utah, but if you ever do the Salt Flats or
> autocross here, let me know and I'll volunteer to be crew to help.
Thank you. I will take you up on your offer if we ever race in Utah.
Cliff
www.ProEV.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "jerry dycus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While we're on chargers I have a 50amp/12vdc nom
> ferro charger/ maintainer for yachts.
> The problem is I want to use it for quick
> charging at 25+ amps/28vdc but is a couple volts
> short.
> Can I disconnect the cap ?
> If I do I want to put a switch to switch it in
> and out to use it for high and safe charge rates. What
> kind of voltage rating would it need?
First, I assume you are changing from a 2-diode center-tapped secondary
to a full bridge to raise the output voltage from 12vdc to 24vdc.
The AC capacitor is part of the regulating circuit. You don't want to
disconnect it completely, or you'll have almost no output. But you can
adjust its value up/down a bit to adjust the output voltage. A little
more capacitance will raise the output voltage.
However, this also degrades regulation. If you only need 1-2 volts more,
you could also use Schottky diodes for the bridge rectifier; they have
about half the voltage drop of silicon diodes, and so would raise your
output about 1 volt. This has the side effect of *improving* voltage
regulation.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> From what I found, the charging efficiency of Nimh is
>> only about 66%, minus the energy needed for cooling.
>> This is an extremely low number!
They're not that bad. 80% efficiency would be more typical, and they can
be as high as 90% efficient if you charge and discharge at lower
currents and stay between 25% and 75% SOC.
Most of the inefficiency comes as they near full charge. The voltage
goes up considerably, and they start producing a lot of heat. Unlike
lead-acid, heat kills nimh, so the batteries may need to be actively
cooled to survive.
josh replied:
> I heard from an EV1 owner that there are many anti-efficient aspects
> to trying to use NIMH in those cars, so I am familiar with the basic
> problem that you allude to, but perhaps, in a better-designed gen2
> effort, some of these inefficiencies would be dealt with?
Yes. The EV1 wasn't designed for nimh batteries (or apparently lead-acid
batteries, either). They didn't think about battery temperature
management, and packed them tight with no insulation or provisions for
heating or cooling.
With lead-acid, this meant the car was unusable in cold climates. So,
they just avoided taking them anywhere that it got really cold.
With nimh, the car was unusable in hot climates. But GM had already
committed to providing the EV1 in Arizona and California where it *does*
get hot. They dealt with this problem by cooling the batteries with the
car's air conditioner while charging.
A second problem has to do with the Magnecharger. It is not particularly
efficient, either. The nimh EV1 thus pays a double penalty in charging
efficiency, due to an inefficient charger and having to run the air
conditioner while charging.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>> If you want an LED that turns on when battery voltage drops, there
>> are "low battery" LEDs with built-in voltage detectors. For example,
>> a Lumex SSL-LX5093LBI-SRD (Digikey 67-1195-ND, $1.11 each) turns on
>> when the voltage across it drops below 2.5v. For a 10.5v threshold,
>> put an 8v zener in series.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would like to do this for my current and future battery pack. I
> want to set up a box with the 18 leds on my dash, with room to add a
> few more. The diodes and any other stuff would be remotely in a box
> next to each of my 3 battery box. What else do I need besides the
> LED's and Zener diodes of the appropriate types?
The circuit will work with nothing but the low-voltage detect LED and
zener diode. However, you may want to include a small trimpot in series
so you can adjust the precise voltage at which the LED turns on. You
would use the next lower voltage standard zener, and make up the
difference with the trimpot.
For example, standard zener voltages are 6.8v, 7.5v, 8.2v, etc. The 7.5v
zener plus the 2.5v LED gives you a 10v threshold. For a 10.5v
threshold, the series resistor needs to drop an additional 0.5v / 3ma =
166 ohms.
> The amp draw on the spec sheet is 3ma for each battery so it seems a
> waste, or worse, to have a master switch and relays to switch them all
> off.
I agree. 3ma is so low that the batteries will die from self-discharge
before this low current will run them down. The low-voltage detect LED
also draws less current when it is off.
> But do I need to have fuses on each pair of wires between the box and
> the LEDs in the dash rated to break full pack voltage
Yes, you want a fuse or fusible device in each wire. Not so much because
the zener or LED might fail, but because the wires themselves may get
accidentally shorted. Real fuses are expensive. For applications like
this, where the exact fusing current and time aren't important, you can
use #30 wire as a fuse, or put a 1/4 watt resistor in series with each
lead.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor,
> Cliff, since one inverter controls front wheels regen and another - rear
> wheels, and both take input from common regen pot, think of possible
> adjustments
> you may need to implement, if front of the car regens harder (or softer)
> then
> the rear.
When the DAQ system is up and working, we plan to take the signals from the
throttle pots, read them in the computer and output seperate signals to the
controllers. This will allow all sorts of modifing of the signal. Combined
with the wheel speed sensors, we can do a form of ABS and traction control.
A totally mechanical back up Emergency Disconnect within reach of the driver
allows us to overrule the computer if there is a problem.
For early testing, I have been thinking about a trimpot between the throttle
pot and one controller. This might allow us to bias the regen front to rear.
Cliff
www.ProEV.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Perhaps under laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Several
manufacturers have produce NiMH versions of vehicles that were also
available with PbA. They ALL use far more electicity than the PbA
varsions, some times almost twice as much for the same distance.
Besides, what is the point of having NiMH batteries if you always keep
them partially discharged? You example (25%-75%) would mean that you
were only using 50% of their capacity. If that's the case use PbA for
your normal trips and rent a Ferrari with the money you saved on those
occasional longer trips.
From what I found, the charging efficiency of Nimh is
only about 66%, minus the energy needed for cooling.
This is an extremely low number!
They're not that bad. 80% efficiency would be more typical, and they can
be as high as 90% efficient if you charge and discharge at lower
currents and stay between 25% and 75% SOC.
Most of the inefficiency comes as they near full charge. The voltage
goes up considerably, and they start producing a lot of heat. Unlike
lead-acid, heat kills nimh, so the batteries may need to be actively
cooled to survive.
josh replied:
I heard from an EV1 owner that there are many anti-efficient aspects
to trying to use NIMH in those cars, so I am familiar with the basic
problem that you allude to, but perhaps, in a better-designed gen2
effort, some of these inefficiencies would be dealt with?
Yes. The EV1 wasn't designed for nimh batteries (or apparently lead-acid
batteries, either). They didn't think about battery temperature
management, and packed them tight with no insulation or provisions for
heating or cooling.
With lead-acid, this meant the car was unusable in cold climates. So,
they just avoided taking them anywhere that it got really cold.
With nimh, the car was unusable in hot climates. But GM had already
committed to providing the EV1 in Arizona and California where it *does*
get hot. They dealt with this problem by cooling the batteries with the
car's air conditioner while charging.
A second problem has to do with the Magnecharger. It is not particularly
efficient, either. The nimh EV1 thus pays a double penalty in charging
efficiency, due to an inefficient charger and having to run the air
conditioner while charging.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would like to do this for my current and future battery pack. I
want to set up a box with the 18 leds on my dash, with room to add a
few more. The diodes and any other stuff would be remotely in a box
next to each of my 3 battery box. What else do I need besides the
LED's and Zener diodes of the appropriate types?
The circuit will work with nothing but the low-voltage detect LED and
zener diode. However, you may want to include a small trimpot in series
so you can adjust the precise voltage at which the LED turns on. You
would use the next lower voltage standard zener, and make up the
difference with the trimpot.
For example, standard zener voltages are 6.8v, 7.5v, 8.2v, etc. The 7.5v
zener plus the 2.5v LED gives you a 10v threshold. For a 10.5v
threshold, the series resistor needs to drop an additional 0.5v / 3ma =
166 ohms.
-snip-
Yes, you want a fuse or fusible device in each wire. Not so much because
the zener or LED might fail, but because the wires themselves may get
accidentally shorted. Real fuses are expensive. For applications like
this, where the exact fusing current and time aren't important, you can
use #30 wire as a fuse, or put a 1/4 watt resistor in series with each
lead.
How about combining the 1/4 resistor and the trim pot with a simple low
cost solution?
Use a 1/4 resistor of about 150 ohms or so. Take a triangular file and
slowly file a notch in the center of the resistor. This will remove
some of the carbon and increase it's resistance (and lower it's short
circuit current capability). When it gets to the right value stop
filing and cover the notch with some fingernail polish.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this isn't very precise, but you don't need a high
degree of precision for an idiot light.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A freelance auto writer friend of mine, Terry Parkhurst sent me this
"heads-up" . Although we are all aware of this on the EV Discussion
List already, and lots of bandwidth has been taken up discussing it, I
am glad it made it to the auto press.
Terry's message follows:
Steve ! Read this; it is just unf#@%$ingbelievable. I can't understand
why GM
won't let these folks buy their EV1s. I hope as many people as can,
ship them outside the states. Reading this made me lose all respect
for GM management. There's really no guts there. It's all about
short-term profit. You were probably better off never to go back to
Detroit, Steve. - Terry
Article snippit:
Pulling the plug: GM’s decision to end electric vehicle leases comes
as a shock to EV1 enthusiasts
Greg Hanssen’s story is a familiar one. He leased his dream car. He
drove it all over the country and documented his trips on his Web
site. He made friends because of the car. He worked on it, tinkered
with it, and improved it. He even leased a second one. The car
became a part of his identity. But tragically for Hanssen, it isn’t
a 911, a Mustang or a Miata for which his passion burns, but General
Motors’ electric car, the EV1. In February, GM notified EV1 lessees
that it wouldn’t be extending their leases when they begin expiring
this winter.
Full article and pictures can be seen at:
http://autoweek.com/cat_print.mv?content_code=03541646
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 396-9189
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://slough1.home.mindspring.com/seva.html
--- End Message ---
