EV Digest 2686
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) EVLN(Segway's weird back-and-forth oscillation)
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Wind turbines in Iowa?
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Motor, Surprise!
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: EVLN(State considers abandoning EVs for fuel vehicles)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) Re: Motor, Surprise!
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Buck converters (was Re: AC controllers)
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Escort EV limbo?
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: That time of the year again...
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EVLN(State considers abandoning EVs for fuel vehicles)
by "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Wind turbines in Iowa?
by "amadare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Motor, Surprise!
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Making the degree sign (was Re: Motor, Surprise!)
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Making the degree sign (was Re: Motor, Surprise!)
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Buck converters (was Re: AC controllers)
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Morad 1500 scooter
by "Seth Dallob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Motor, Surprise!
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: That time of the year again...
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: That time of the year again...
by "Eric Penne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) motors with no magnetic fields.
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: That time of the year again...
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: motors with no magnetic fields.
by Lonnie Borntreger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) RE: Outlets (was That time of the year again...)
by "Grannes, Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(Segway's weird back-and-forth oscillation)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://www.ceejbot.com:8669/blog/space/start/
[discussion area comments]
Segway
I just rode a >>Segway! Rubin bought one, of course. We've
had a succession of regular scooters, electric scooters, and
even an electric car (a Corbin Sparrow) here. The Segway was
inevitable.
He had it on the slow speed inside the building. People took
turns getting on and learning to move forward and backward.
Everybody stepped on and immediately went into a weird
back-and-forth oscillation. Bend your knees and you
stabilize. Lean forward to go forward. The more you lean,
the faster you go. Lean back to slow or stop. This part was
totally natural. Most people got it immediately. Turning was
very odd. I struggled with my motorcycle training: push left
to go left. But that's not how you turn! You move a ring on
the left handgrip. If the machine is stationary, you can
spin around in place rapidly.
It felt completely stable. This thing is not going to tip
over.
At $5000 a pop, this is not going to revolutionize urban
transport. But I can see how at $200 it would.
-
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As you probably know, Lee, there is a stall speed for those
blades (may be rather high - I'll have to go look at my notes
from my solar/wind class last spring, as we discussed the reasons
why people conclude wind gennies aren't doing much), and it may
be that it just hasn't been very windy when you've been driving
by. Does the wind pick up more in the evening or at times when
you have not been driving by?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Wind turbines in Iowa?
> > DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) A massive wind farm of 180 to 200 wind
> > turbines will be built across 200 acres of northern Iowa farm
fields,
> > a MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. official said.
>
> There is a huge wind farm near Willmar MN. I've driven by it
several
> times, and noticed that almost all of them are idle every
single time.
>
> A large windmill was installed on I-94 between Minneapolis and
St.
> Cloud. I've driven past it dozens of times, and have only seen
it in
> operation twice.
>
> I don't know what's going on, but they certainly aren't
generating much
> power.
> --
> 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 ---
Hi Andre,
Thanx for those links ...the third one says exactly what I have been saying
all along, almost using the same terminology.
So in case anyone missed it back emf IS current generated by a motor as it
spins.
All motors generate as they spin and it even says there that because back
EMF is so low at start up, resistors have to be used when starting to reduce
current draw and stop the motors coils from burning out until the output
rises and then the resistors are taken off line.
Funnily enough I was also saying that I had figured out a way to totally
remove back EMF in a motor and "claimed" that having done so, the motor
would have more power available for use at the shaft, rather than wasting it
to overcome the resistance of BACK EMF.
That is, in my words, more of the input power will be available as shaft
output power.
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Fuel cell powered car is nothing but an EV powered by taking hydrogen
from fossil fuel while on board the vehicle.
1)What is the percentage of energy in hydrogen divided by the percentage
of the fossil fuel it is being removed from ?
2) How does the mile per gallon of fuel decrease after reforming hydrogen
from fossil fuel ?
3)What is the cost of this Fuel Cell powered EV compared to a simple
battery powered EV ?
4)Does the public really think it will be any cheaper to buy or operate
than any other of the $ 40 K+ EVs put out by the big Auto Manufacturers
(RAV4, EV1, Ford Ranger, etc.) ?
5)What will be the new maintenance associated with an on board hydrogen
reformer and fuel cells ??
6) Fuel cell powered public transportation such as city busses would be
great and reduce pollution, but what will be the costs ?
Menlo Park III,
Bill
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:02:12 -0800 (PST) Bruce EVangel Parmenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> EVLN(State considers abandoning EVs for fuel vehicles)
> [The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
> informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
> --- {EVangel}
>
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ss
f?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?g9001_BC_MI--ZeroEmissions&&news&newsflash-m
ichigan
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> By BRIAN MELLEY The Associated Press 3/27/03 11:17 PM
>
> SACRAMENTO (AP) -- California's trailblazing effort to put
> drivers behind the wheels of battery-powered cars was nearly
> out of juice Thursday.
>
> The Air Resources Board considered whether to abandon the
> electric car in support of promising low-pollution
> gas-powered autos, as well as the fuel cell vehicle, a move
> that would lend strong regulatory support to a technology
> that's being touted as the engine of the future.
>
> The vote expected Friday comes after a fervent fight from
> environmentalists, electric car drivers, engineers and
> observers who supported the state's 1990 landmark regulation
> that has driven technological changes in the auto world.
>
> California Power Authority Chairman David Freeman, who said
> he has followed the progress of alternative-fuel cars for 25
> years, thinks the air board staff has been swayed by
> automakers to ditch the quest for the pollution-free
> vehicle. He said it was time to "catch the falling flag."
>
> "We are now worshipping at the altar of the craven image of
> the fuel cell," Freeman said. "Y'all are smarter and better
> than you think you are. You've just had too much time with
> the auto industry."
>
> Nearly two-thirds of the 79 speakers signed up to testify
> about the rule were expected to oppose the rewritten
> regulation, while only five were in favor. Automakers, who
> are opposed to any regulation and want innovation to be
> driven by consumer demand and competition, were among the
> roughly one-third that remained neutral on the proposal.
>
> Representing Honda, Ben Knight said technology not
> envisioned when the rule was passed in 1990 had produced
> startling results approaching 100 percent control of
> emissions in gas-powered cars.
>
> "This is the most effective path in improving air quality,"
> Knight said.
>
> While the state has continuously weakened the regulation
> that would have required automakers to sell 10 percent, or
> about 100,000, pollution-free cars in the state this year,
> the proposed rule would abandon that goal for 250 fuel cells
> vehicles by 2008. It would replace that quota with higher
> numbers of low emission gasoline-powered cars and
> increasingly popular hybrids that run on a combination of
> gas and electricity.
>
> One of the chief concerns is that the proposed new
> requirements do not require any nonpolluting vehicles to be
> produced after 2009, leaving that number to be set later. In
> the past, the board set quotas and then whittled them down
> as the industry fought back.
>
> "I am very interested in the numbers in the end game here,"
> said board member Matthew McKinnon. "I think we're asking
> for worse than the trouble we've had here along the way."
>
> Automakers resisted building a quota of battery-powered cars
> that were expensive and generally didn't travel more than
> 100 miles without a three- to six-hour charge. But critics
> claim the auto industry never made a serious attempt to make
> the cars attractive to buyers or to improve the technology.
>
> Last year, a federal judge in Fresno put the quota on hold,
> prompting the board to rewrite the rule.
>
> Air board staffers said the revisions were aimed at
> reflecting the limits of battery-powered cars and the
> promise of the fuel cell, which has been hailed by both car
> makers and the White House. Fuel cells produce electric
> power from a chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen
> that only emits clean water from tailpipes.
>
> "We are not backing down," board Chairman Alan Lloyd said
> about the quest for requiring the so-called zero-emission
> vehicles. "It is important to get to zero as fast as
> possible."
>
> Still, a group of die-hard electric car supporters were not
> convinced that the rewritten rule would achieve that goal.
>
> A caravan of electric cars left Vacaville in the morning and
> ringed the parking spaces around the state's Environmental
> Protection Agency building.
>
> They applauded when board members spoke in favor of the
> technology that powers their silent, purring engines.
>
> "I am not ready to close the door on that technology," said
> board member Dorene D'Adamo to the audience's resounding
> approval. "I'm real nervous about abandoning a technology
> that has continued to progress."
>
> On the Net: California Air Resources Board:
> http://www.arb.ca.gov Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All
> rights reserved.
>
> ===
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> MLive.com, MI - 1 hour ago ... The Air Resources Board
> considered whether to abandon the electric car in support of
> promising low-pollution gas-powered autos, as well as the
> fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Kansas City Star, MO - 1 hour ago The Air Resources Board
> considered whether to abandon the electric car in support of
> promising low-pollution gas-powered autos, as well as the
> fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Miami Herald, FL - 1 hour ago The Air Resources Board
> considered whether to abandon the electric car in support of
> promising low-pollution gas-powered autos, as well as the
> fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Wichita Eagle, KS - 1 hour ago The Air Resources Board
> considered whether to abandon the electric car in support of
> promising low-pollution gas-powered autos, as well as the
> fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Press-Enterprise, CA - 1 hour ago ... The Air Resources
> Board considered whether to abandon the electric car in
> support of promising low-pollution gas-powered autos, as
> well as the fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Press-Enterprise, CA - 5 hours ago ... The Air Resources
> Board considered whether to abandon the electric car in
> support of more promising low-pollution gas-powered autos
> and the fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> San Jose Mercury News, CA - 5 hours ago The Air Resources
> Board considered whether to abandon the electric car in
> support of more promising low-pollution gas-powered autos
> and the fuel cell vehicle ...
>
> State considers abandoning electric car for newer technology
> Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - 5 hours ago ... The Air
> Resources Board considered whether to abandon the electric
> car in support of more promising low-pollution gas-powered
> autos and the fuel cell vehicle ...
> -
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> ' ____
> ~/__|o\__
> '@----- @'---(=
> . http://geocities.com/brucedp/
> . EV List Editor & RE newswires
> . (originator of the above ASCII art)
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
> desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lee,
I don't know how to say this without offending anyone so im just going to
call it like I see it and if it gets me booted out then so be it.
Lenz law deals with voltages in the coil, so you are right, but this entire
thread is about motors which by definition have a closed circuit for the
entire 360 degrees ( one day I will figure out how to make that simple
degree sign and not have to type it all the time :) ), so I make a statement
regarding Lenz in a motor and you correct it utilizing its definition in an
open circuit, so in context both statements are correct.
I have had this type of discussion with Peter too and even though my grass
roots science is complete and sound he posts "I told you so" which tells me
he either didn't bother reading them or didn't understand them, yet he has
been very persistent at trying to help me understand all this in terms that
might make it easier for me to say what I say so that you will all
understand and it for that I thank him sincerely.
I made a couple of claims and have gone on to back up each one with good
school boy science while you guys cant seem to decide between you one thing
from another.
Peter started out saying you cant remove back emf, you started out with
that's how motors work and Rich who im told is another expert here asked
what I was on about.
Then, even though I figured I was wasting time and wouldn't post anymore, I
decided to try and explain it in one post which lead to questions requiring
a second post and I didn't get a reply, other than Peter's "I told you so".
Now if you thought I was a loony before this one will do it for you, but one
of the links Andre posted says "Once the motor has reached its normal
operating speed, these starting resistors can be switched out, since by then
the back emf has reached a maximum and has thereby minimized the current in
the coil."
And one of you said that back emf, which we know is current generated from
the motor as it is spinning, is equal to input minus losses.
So if you translate that into English, you find that a spinning motor at
peak speed short of the losses is actually generating almost as much voltage
as it is being fed from the power source, so why is it that instead of
writing this off as back emf and training you all to accept it as part of
"the way a motor works", that they aren't saying "hang on lets get this out
and use it to recharge a second battery" ?
(incidentally if the current going in is down here then that means that the
current going out is up by the opposite factor here so im not just talking
about a few volts with no substance behind them there will be plenty of amps
backing up this outgoing voltage.)
When you calculate efficiency of a motor it includes back emf in the
calculation, but what happens when you remove it from the equation .. I cant
do the math's cause I don't understand the theoretical motor I only know how
to work on the practical motor.
So to sum up every motor is a generator, every generator takes power to turn
it, if you take the generator out of the motor, the power that was lost to
turning the generator inside it, must be available as additional power at
the shaft.
The input power does not have to change to achieve this, but the way you put
it in will need to and in my reply to Rich I asked the question "would it be
easier to make a controller that always put out 12 volts at 100 amps than
one that is currently being made ? I believe the answer is yes, but then I
don't know anything about controllers.
Well that's me done I could tell you more about motor inefficiencies, but
somehow I don't think it would go over too well.
At least everyone got a good lesson in motor science from grass roots and
the technical point of view and I bet, like me, a few of you even learnt
something you thought you already knew :)
If there is anyone out there actively working on motors give me a yell I
need to be able to make this work with a standard motor and I need to know
how they are wired so I can figure out how to rewire them.
Less talk more EV for me :)
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter,
I'm really not trying to hassle you but I have to ask .....
you say "The net result is that power out(volts x amps) = power in minus
losses."
And I said what I thought was pretty much the same thing with shaft output
can be defined as
AV in minus AV out minus losses.
So I have to ask 2 questions here.
First how do you see the removal of power out (amps x volts ) effecting
shaft output in your scenario and second if you know that there is output
from a spinning motor what would happen to efficiency figures if you were
able to remove this usefully and use it to charge a battery ?
As a layman I cant help but note that if the power generated by the motor is
just about as much as the power being fed into it then the sum total of the
cost of running the motor can be found somewhere in the losses here.
I don't even see the need to break any rules or laws to do it.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what you are saying here im just
suggesting that just cause it has always been done this way doesn't mean its
the best way to do it.
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
i don't see your car in the trading post . Dose it have a working air
condictioning. ? I may know sombody interested but they want air.
Steve Clunn
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: Escort EV limbo?
> That's why I got an equity line of credit to buy mine.
>
> Low interest rate, and the interest is tax detuctable.
>
> James
>
> Quoting "Christian T. Kocmick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I think, at least for me, the biggest obstacle to purchasing an EV is
> > getting the bank to recognize the vehicle price for what it its. I mean,
> > the
> > Kelly Blue Book doesn't show anything for a conversion. Banks, being
> > conservative, won't finance a newly-converted older car at the new car
> > price. Some folks may have no trouble getting a signature loan for
> > $6,000,
> > or just paying out of pocket, but I don't know that most people can. If
> > the
> > banks were a bit more open-minded, I would have bough that EV VW Pickup
> > by
> > now.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> I solve this by winding it in a figure-8. For example, suppose you have
> two posts that you are winding the cord on. Instead of winding the cord
> clockwise around both posts, you wind it clockwise around one, and
> counterclockwise around the other. This results in no twist.
I'll give that a try
> 3. 120v outlets don't seem to be able to take 8 hours of 15 amps.
>
> My corded mower doesn't draw that much. It runs 10-12 amps in heavy
> grass, and I've never tripped the 15-amp breaker even when it hits heavy
> wet leaves or other debris.
I'm not talking about tripping the braker I'm talking about melting the plug
, This is probable just that the male part is a little dirty and heat get
started . I just seem funny to me as the electric code seems to alway be on
the safe side and these plugs are rated 15 amps . must be those bad boy
chargers .
Steve Clunn
mowing my way to another PFC-charger
> 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 ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fuel cell powered car is nothing but an EV powered by taking hydrogen from
> fossil fuel while on board the vehicle. 1)What is the percentage of energy
> in hydrogen divided by the percentage of the fossil fuel it is being
> removed from ? 2) How does the mile per gallon of fuel decrease after
> reforming hydrogen from fossil fuel ? 3)What is the cost of this Fuel Cell
> powered EV compared to a simple battery powered EV ? 4)Does the public
> really think it will be any cheaper to buy or operate than any other of
> the $ 40 K+ EVs put out by the big Auto Manufacturers (RAV4, EV1, Ford
> Ranger, etc.) ? 5)What will be the new maintenance associated with an on
> board hydrogen reformer and fuel cells ?? 6) Fuel cell powered public
> transportation such as city busses would be great and reduce pollution,
> but what will be the costs ? Menlo Park III, Bill
>
Regarding potential for hydrogen fuel cell EVs, please see:
http://www.econogics.com/ev/fcevreal.htm
Darryl McMahon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Not a farm, but every time I've been past the turbine downtown Fort
Wayne, IN I have seen it turning pretty well. American Electric Power
(AEP) has one erected at their facilities. It is a 10Kw unit and is
talked about on their website. Again, who knows, maybe it is only for
show and it is not even feeding their grid ? :/
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Roden
> (Akron OH USA)
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Wind turbines in Iowa?
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2003 at 20:50, Lee Hart wrote:
>
> > There is a huge wind farm near Willmar MN. I've driven by it several
> > times, and noticed that almost all of them are idle every
> single time.
>
> I've seen a few wind farms in travels out west -- I don't
> recall now exactly
> where, but almost all of them were idle, too. Makes me
> wonder if they were
> built just to get a grant or tax benefit, then left to rot
> unused. Another
> possibility: after a few years, some bean counter deemed them
> to costly to
> maintain and ordered them shut down. Or the only people
> trained to maintain
> them were laid off.
>
> OTOH, the ones I saw in the Canary Islands a few years ago
> were working
> hard.
>
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on
> vacation, or
> switch to digest mode? See http://www.evdl.org/help/
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
> 1991 Solectria Force 144vac
> 1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
> 1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
> 1974 Avco New Idea rider 36vdc
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Thou shalt not send me any thing which says unto thee, "send
> this to all
> thou knowest." Neither shalt thou send me any spam, lest I
> smite thee.
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I love how you selectively read that parts that support your false
theory and totally ignore anything that contradicts it.
You yourself say " All motors generate as they spin" yet you think your
can build a motor that doesn't.
One final time because you keep ignoring this
YOU DON'T WASTE POWER OVERCOMING BACK EMF. BACK EMF IS NOT A LOSS.
You can reduce the back EMF a motor produces, that is easy. All you
have to do is lower it's efficiency. You can NOT remove Back EMF and
still have a motor.
Drawing huge amounts of current all the time does not improve
efficiency, it lowers it. One of the biggest loses in a motor is I2R
losses. If you draw a huge amount of current when producing very little
power you will have huge losses due to I2R.
> All motors generate as they spin and it even says there that because back
> EMF is so low at start up, resistors have to be used when starting to reduce
> current draw and stop the motors coils from burning out until the output
> rises and then the resistors are taken off line.
>
> Funnily enough I was also saying that I had figured out a way to totally
> remove back EMF in a motor and "claimed" that having done so, the motor
> would have more power available for use at the shaft, rather than wasting it
> to overcome the resistance of BACK EMF.
>
> That is, in my words, more of the input power will be available as shaft
> output power.
>
> Garry Stanley
>
> Cable.net.nz
>
>
>
--
EVDL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> entire 360 degrees ( one day I will figure out how to make that simple
> degree sign and not have to type it all the time :) ), so I make a statement
Hold down the 'Alt' key and type 2 4 8 on the numeric keypad.
This works in MS Windows and DOS but not in most other operating
systems.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> entire 360 degrees ( one day I will figure out how to make that simple
degree sign and not have to type it all the time :) ), so I make a statement
Hold down the 'Alt' key and type 2 4 8 on the numeric keypad.
This works in MS Windows and DOS but not in most other operating
systems.
If you are on a Mac, hold down the "option" (also sometimes labeled
"OPT" or "ALT") key and type "k" (That's a lowercase letter kay).
None of that mucking about in ASCII codes for us! Heh.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in
sort of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand
naked women screaming and throwing little pickles
at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
- Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I'm really not trying to hassle you but I have to ask .....
>
> you say "The net result is that power out(volts x amps) = power in minus
> losses."
>
> And I said what I thought was pretty much the same thing with shaft output
> can be defined as
>
> AV in minus AV out minus losses.
Motors produce mechanical power output not electrical. AV is your term
to represent Amps * Volts, neither of which appears at the motors
output.
Watts are a unit of power equal to Amps * Volts. But Watts can also be
used to measure mechanical power.
1 Watt is approx 1/746 HP, or 746 Watts ~ 1 HP.
1 HP = RPM * Torque (in ft-lbs) / 5252
>
> So I have to ask 2 questions here.
>
> First how do you see the removal of power out (amps x volts ) effecting
> shaft output in your scenario and second if you know that there is output
> from a spinning motor what would happen to efficiency figures if you were
> able to remove this usefully and use it to charge a battery ?
>
No power out equals no power out, efficiency drops to zero Just because
a motor is spinning doesn't mean it is producing power. If the motor is
spinning with nothing connected to it is performing no 'work'. A
requirement of power is that it accomplishes some 'work'.
There is no free lunch in our universe. If you use the power to charge
a battery then you can't use the same power to perform some mechanical
'work'. You can tap some of the power to charge batteries, but it is
rather silly to put power into a motor just to take it back out to
charge batteries. This is because you will ALWAYS loose some of the
input power due to loses. Also running a battery to charge a battery
involves loses and you end up with less charge in the second battery
than what you removed from the first.
Now if you want to remove power from a motor so that you can use the
motor to slow your vehicle...this is a different story entirely. This
is called REGEN and is basically when you force a motor to act as a
generator instead of a motor. Of course if you have a low Back EMF
motor then you won't get as much power back as from a good high
efficiency motor, but then low back EMF motors suck as motors too.
> As a layman I cant help but note that if the power generated by the motor is
> just about as much as the power being fed into it then the sum total of the
> cost of running the motor can be found somewhere in the losses here.
>
It's not power. Back EMF is voltage. In a closed circuit with no other
source of power, back EMF creates current. However when you apply power
to the motor there can only be ONE current flow. This current flows
from higher potential to lower potential. If the Back EMF is higher
than the voltage from the pack you have a generator, if it is lower you
have a motor.
In a motor the Back EMF is creating no current because it is lower in
potential than the battery, so current flows out of the battery and into
the motor. Some of this power(batteries voltage x total current flow)
is lost due to I2R loses. The rest of the power becomes torque applied
to the motors shaft. This torque is equal to the current * some
multiplier (actual multiplier depends on the motor). The motor's RPM is
equal to the Back EMF * some multiplier (again depends on motor). No
Back EMF = no RPM (stalled motor)
Some of the power applied to the shaft iss also lost due to friction and
windage. And some is lost before it gets to the shaft due to magnetic
losses (eddy currents cause by less than optimum design and air gaps
etc.)
None of the power is lost due to Back EMF. Back EMF is actually related
to the total output power. No back EMF = no output power. Low back EMF
= low output power.
> I don't even see the need to break any rules or laws to do it.
>
There is no need to break the laws, in fact you can't break the laws.
This is what I have been saying all along. You however think that you
can "Sidestep the laws" (your words).
> I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what you are saying here im just
> suggesting that just cause it has always been done this way doesn't mean its
> the best way to do it.
>
If you stand naked in the middle of a large open field and jump up in
the air you will come right back down to the ground. It has been this
way for trillions of years and will continue to be this way until the
end of time.
This not "best" or worse. It simply is. Just because something has
been this way for all time doesn't mean that it is bad or that you can
improve upon it.
Motors work based on the FACTS of our universe (we call these facts
LAWS). The essence of a LAW is that it doesn't change, and in fact
cannot change.
Early motors worked but were low efficiency compared to some of the
motors produced today. It is possible (but expensive) to produce motors
that are 99% efficient. They do this by minimizing loses, like friction
and I2R. They do NOT do this by reducing or eliminating Back EMF. In
fact they OPTIMIZE back EMF and make it as high as possible.
Having a high Back EMF means that a motor draws minimal current when no
load is applied (I.e. spinning freely). The no load power input into a
motor represents the lowest power that you can loose in a motor. Once
you apply a load the total power lost in the motor goes up because the
motor draws more power (it has to draw more power because it is
producing more power). More power means higher current which means
higher I2R loses.
If the no-load power represents the minimum power lost in the motor,
then surely you can see that if a motor draws less no-load power it will
be more efficient that if it draws more no-load power?
No, probably not. This would contradict your theories and you refuse to
consider anything that contradicts your theories.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That has been there for a while - i sold it.
After about 2 months, one of the chargers broke, and one of the LED's on the
fuel gauge went out.
I would recommend that you buy the EVT 168 over the MoRad - they look
identical, but the EVT has bigger batteries, and user reports of that
scooter seem to say that it is put together better.
Seth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Morad 1500 scooter
> http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=441
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
garry wrote:
>
> Hi Andre,
>
> Thanx for those links ...the third one says exactly what I have
> been saying all along, almost using the same terminology.
>
> So in case anyone missed it back emf IS current generated by a
> motor as it spins.
The internet is a funny place. You can find anybody who will say
anything. You can find 10 answers for every question (and most of them
are wrong).
Back emf is a *voltage*, not a current. To a scientist or engineer,
getting this wrong is like confusing feet and gallons. If you do this,
people are not going to take you seriously, because it shows you don't
know what you are talking about.
> ...to overcome the resistance of BACK EMF.
You're still doing it. Back emf is a *voltage*, not resistance.
--
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 ---
1sclunn wrote:
>> 3. 120v outlets don't seem to be able to take 8 hours of 15 amps.
> I'm not talking about tripping the breaker I'm talking about melting
> the plug. This is probable just that the male part is a little dirty
> and heat get started. It just seem funny to me as the electric code
> seems to alway be on the safe side and these plugs are rated 15 amps.
> must be those bad boy chargers.
The electric code says nothing about quality. The made-in-Mexico
builder's special $0.29 outlets meet code. They are still junk. You get
what you pay for.
Look for a UL mark -- it means somebody actually tested it. There are a
lot of junky cord sets with either no UL markings, or even counterfeit
UL markings (meaning only the manufacturer knows what it's really good
for).
To try to prevent counterfeiting, UL now uses holographic metallic
stickers, like you see on credit cards, that are much more difficult to
copy.
--
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 ---
Don't just look for a UL mark. Look for a mark by a nationally recognized
test laboratory (NRTL). They do the same work as UL, same tests, same
results, and sometimes a higher quality. UL does safety testing which is
required sometimes by OSHA. A lot of it is marketing. Just like Lee
said, "Look for a UL mark...", if it's safety tested you are one step
closer to being sure of the quality. NRTL's are listed on the OSHA
website at:
http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html
Below is a list of OSHA NRTL:
* Applied Research Laboratories, Inc. (ARL)
* Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
(also known as CSA International)
* Communication Certification Laboratory, Inc. (CCL)
* Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL)
* Detroit Testing Laboratory, Inc. (DTL)
* Electro-Test, Inc. (ETI)
* Entela, Inc. (ENT)
* FM Global Technologies LLC (FM)
(also known as FM Approvals and formerly Factory Mutual Research
Corporation)
* Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA)
(formerly ETL)
* MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET)
* NSF International (NSF)
* National Technical Systems, Inc. (NTS)
* SGS U.S. Testing Company, Inc. (SGSUS)
(formerly UST-CA)
* Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)
* TUV America, Inc. (TUVAM)
* TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG)
* TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUV)
* Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL)
* Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (WL)
Thanks
Eric Penne
> Look for a UL mark -- it means somebody actually tested it. There are a
> lot of junky cord sets with either no UL markings, or even counterfeit
> UL markings (meaning only the manufacturer knows what it's really good
> for).
>
> To try to prevent counterfeiting, UL now uses holographic metallic
> stickers, like you see on credit cards, that are much more difficult to
> copy.
> --
> 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 ---
I was reading about the loses in a motor and one of them was Magnetic
Loses. I figured I could make a more efficient motor if I could
eliminate magnetic loses.
The best way to eliminate magnetic loses is to eliminate the magnetic
fields in a motor and I figured out how to do it.
What I do is use the "equal and Opposite" theory to eliminate the
magnetic fields. You see a magnetic field has a strength that is
measured in what I call Woggles. 1 Woggle is equal to the field created
by a coil with 1V @ 1A running through it.
I figured if I create two magnetic fields that are opposite of each
other and of equal strength they will cancel each other out. I tried it
and it works!!
You can see pictures of my motor at http://www.SomeStupidWebsite.ha.ha.
To make sure that the magnetic fields were canceled out I used a piece
of steel. Now we all know that steel is attracted to magnetic fields.
I first held up the piece of steel to the end of my motor with no power
applied and it didn't stick. I figured this would happen because with
no power applied the motor has no magnetic fields. Then I powered up
the motor and held the steel to the end again and it still didn't
stick. This is proof that there are no magnetic fields in the motor.
The motor only weighs about 50 lbs, but it's very efficient, in fact it
must be over 100% efficient. I know this because I attached the motor
to a shopping cart and climbed inside and it moved the cart around at
about 2 mph with what I guess was only 50 watts of power. Now we all
know that 50 watts of power simply isn't enough to move over 300 lbs
worth of me, motor, batteries, and cart, so it must be REALLY efficient.
And to prove it I felt the motor afterward and it wasn't even hot.
Pretty cool huh?
P.S. For those who are humor impaired the above was just an example for
Garry to show that if you don't understand how something works you can
easily misinterpret the results to prove that your theory, no matter how
ridiculous, is right.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Good point! UL isn't the only testing laboratory. They have maybe 90% of
the consumer business, but you'll also occasionally see ETL listings on
consumer products.
There are also international standards. Virtually every contry in the
world has a national testing organization (except the USA). So the CE
(Europe) and CSA (Canada) listing marks are also common on US products.
Eric Penne wrote:
> Don't just look for a UL mark. Look for a mark by a nationally
> recognized test laboratory (NRTL). They do the same work as UL,
> same tests, same results, and sometimes a higher quality.
> Below is a list of OSHA NRTL: [snip]
--
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 ---
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 11:57, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> What I do is use the "equal and Opposite" theory to eliminate the
> magnetic fields. You see a magnetic field has a strength that is
> measured in what I call Woggles. 1 Woggle is equal to the field created
> by a coil with 1V @ 1A running through it.
You know, the least you could do is to clarify for those who aren't
engineers.
1 Woggle = 1V @ 1A though a 1cm coil with 10 loops of 12g solid aluminum
wire.
Sheesh! Somebody might read your formula and assume that 1V @ 1A
through ANY type of coil would equal 1 woggle.
;-D
Lonnie
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee makes a good point:
> The electric code says nothing about quality. The made-in-Mexico
> builder's special $0.29 outlets meet code. They are still junk. You
get
> what you pay for.
After a year of charging my Rabbit in the garage from the same 120V
outlet, I noticed sparks when I plugged into the wall outlet. I shut
off the breaker, then pulled the outlet. It was a "builder's special
$0.29" outlet (which I admit I installed) and had started to melt and
char from the daily prolonged high currents (10-12A) running through it.
It could have started a fire with another few uses. Fortunately, I
caught it in time and replaced the outlet and started using a different
outlet.
Now I have a beefy extension cord permanently plugged into a different
outlet (with a timer), and I plug into the extension cord. This reduces
strain on the outlet from repeated insertions (which also may have
contributed to the other outlet's demise).
The moral of the story is that if you have an outlet that you use every
day for prolonged charging near the rated limit of the outlet, unless
you know it's a beefy well-built outlet, it would be prudent to pull off
the faceplate (after cutting the power, of course) and visually inspect
the outlet every so often (yearly?). Or consider replacing it with a
heavy-duty outlet.
Dean
--- End Message ---
