EV Digest 2838
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Electrify this.
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: html vs. txt (was watch your quoting)
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: OT: HTML in Emails
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Status of E-Cycle?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Sparky comments
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) eBay posting feedback, please
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: OT: HTML in Emails
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Sparky comments
by "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Status of E-Cycle?
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Status of E-Cycle?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: eBay posting feedback, please
by "The Levine Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Semiconductors wear
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Status of E-Cycle?
by "James Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Status of E-Cycle?
by "Peri Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Now THIS Sparrow looks worth it!
by "The Levine Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Status of E-Cycle?
by "Ed Koffeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Status of E-Cycle?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) OT:html vs. txt (was watch your quoting)
by Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Motor efficiency (was: Re: Status of E-Cycle?)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Henney problem.
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: OT: HTML in Emails
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: OT: HTML in Emails
by "Paul Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
by "Alaric G. Weigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
by "Alaric G. Weigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: EV Drag Bike
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: US Battery Life
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
29) Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I think a motor controller and batteries would be a bit of overkill
anyhow. How about a large spring with a wind up key hanging out the
back.
You know, I came up with a clock-work, windup recumbent motorcycle
for a friend's Steampunk roleplaying world a while back. Gigantic,
victorian kinda thing. It was an interesting design project. One big
leaf spring running longitudinally for front and rear suspension, a
mahogany body with sprung leather upholstered seat, big iron-spoked
wheels, brass gears, leather drive belt, and a giant winding spring
with key. You get on, release the cog brake and Hail Mary! Heh.
Utterly improbable. I still wanna build it. :-)
--
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 ---
keith bierman wrote:
> Tossing aside personalities, I was stuck by some of the claims made
> about size of postings. I did some local experiments, and found that
> simply changing from text to html, caused virtually no change in a 9K
> text message, that had some formatting information (bold, italic,
> underline, etc.). I crafted the test message using mozilla
> 1.4, set the options for the message to be html only, and sent it to
> myself. It was 9K. I "edited message as new" changed the option to
> "text only" and the result was also 9K.
Your experiment is flawed: there is no such thing as a plain text
message that has "some formatting information (bold, italic, underline,
etc.)". What you thought was a plain text message was already marked up
in "rich text" format (a non-HTML tag format).
Try a message that does not use any formatting at all, not even
different fonts and you should see the result that others have
described. If your mail client sends only the marked up copy rather
than both plain text and marked text, then the size may well be less
than double, but it will still be larger than the original plain text
message.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
damon henry wrote:
>> I guess that means I second the nomination. All those in favor
>> send a plain text aye!
__ __
|__| |___| |_ |
| | | |__ .
--
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 ---
The Levine Family wrote:
>> I wouldn't call the E-cycle approach 'bullshit'.
> Whatever architecture they choose, they still haven't delivered
> controllers to people who've paid them, some of whom have just the
> motors...and they've been showing us their one mock-up for how long?
> Not true vapor, but rather vaporous!
Ah, but that's Marketing bullshit. Very different smell from Engineering
bullshit! Marketing bullshit is much more concentrated, and very
expensive! :-)
--
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 ---
Nice comments Chris. Extending the frame and making room for a good motor
position and batteries low is a great idea. Cut, cut, cut. Make it just
big enough to fit all the components. It'll make all the difference.
Lawrence Rhodes....
> Hi Damon,
>
> I should start by saying I was a mechanic on an AMA Superbike team long
> ago, so I admittedly might be a bit more picky than others about how
> Sparky is shaping up. I do understand you're in the early stages of a
> long running project. I admire your willingness to experiment your way
> to success. Here's my take on how to stay on a productive path.
>
> Damon Henry wrote:
>
> > Here are a few shots of it stripped down. Note - the pictures are in
> > pairs, the second is a low resolution version.
> > http://home.attbi.com/~damonhenry/DCP_0033.JPG
> > http://home.attbi.com/~damonhenry/DCP_0033_sm.jpg
>
> OK, the first thing that leaps out is what the heck is the motor doing
> there? Doesn't an A89 weigh something like 50 lbs? Placing weight high
> and rearward is a bad idea on a motorcycle.
>
> > This is one 6 volt [NiCad] module sitting on the seat. I am trying to
> > figure out where to put 8 of them.
>
> My advice is to forget the NiCads. They're too big to fit enough of
> them. Even if you mount some in front of your knees (which you may have
> to do, regardless of what type of battery you use), you'll still have to
> carry several like saddlebags. Again it's that high and rearward thing,
> which is worse on a little bike like yours than it would be on a big
> touring bike.
>
> And then there's the fact that they're flooded. If any batteries aren't
> tucked within the frame tubes, they'll get holes ground in them if you
> go down. Do you want to be sliding on electrolyte-covered asphalt?
> That stuff might not be too bad on your skin if contact is brief, but
> it's a different matter entirely if you're talking about an open wound.
> This is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of lead AGMs. You can
> get surplus Hawker 13 Ah units for $20 each.
>
> > Here is a closeup of my motor mount and chain. I like the placement
> > of the motor as it leaves a nice area for batteries, but it has
> > caused me some
> > grief. I mounted the motor on the frame not realizing that
> > this would make
> > the chain go slack when the rear suspension compresses. I
> > can overcome this
> > by either redoing the mount so that it mounts off the pivot
> > point of the
> > swingarm, or taking out the rear suspension all together and
> > going with a
> > hard tail. Currently I am riding with the chain tension
> > tuned to my weight
> > and the suspension set as stiff as it will go. This works
> > fairly well, but
> > I am concerned about what this might do in the long term to my motor
> > bearings. I still do have an occasional chain falling off
> > event which
> > obviously I need to totally eliminate.
> > http://home.attbi.com/~damonhenry/DCP_0036.JPG
> > http://home.attbi.com/~damonhenry/DCP_0036_sm.jpg
>
> It may be possible to leave the motor where it is *if* you counteract
> its placement with batteries elsewhere. It's the final cg that matters.
> However, you're making things very difficult for the chain. I'm not
> sure what you mean about tuning the chain tension to your weight. The
> chain should *never* be tight - always at least a little slack, no
> matter what the suspension does. Adjust it at the point in the
> suspension travel where it's least slack.
>
> A jackshaft is probably your easiest solution, if a bit lacking in
> elegance. It will hurt efficiency a little. It may be the only
> practical solution - the motor's diameter prevents it from getting the
> sprocket close enough to the swing arm pivot centerline without
> redesigning the frame and swing arm.
>
> Don't even consider a hard tail. Motorcycles don't have hard tails,
> some two-wheeled fashion statements have hard tails. (Dear me - did
> that sound anti-Harley? Shame on me!) Think about it. Would you
> consider removing the rear suspension of your car? Even if oxcart
> technology was somehow considered cool? Besides, you'd hate the ride,
> even after you invested in a tall, soft 16" rear wheel and tire.
>
> If you stay with your current glider, you will have some difficulty
> fitting everything you need due to its size. (Or not, see below.) But
> then, starting from scratch with a new glider may take longer than
> fixing what you have.
>
> Be very careful with your cg placement. Too high and the wheels won't
> feel planted in a turn. (Like my old BMW 750 /5 - yes, they have a
> rather high cg contrary to the marketing blah-blah.) Too low and you
> have a bike so stable it won't want to change direction easily. (Like
> some of the old Ducatis.) Look at how the latest sport bikes are laid
> out, accounting for the relative weights of the various components. My
> gut tells me you want your cg a little below and forward of your shins
> while in a riding position. (I've seen no actual cg placement data.)
>
> IMHO, it's time to start thinking a little more boldly. It's really not
> that big a deal to whack off the whole bottom of the frame and replace
> it with a structural battery box. It would make putting things where
> you want them *much* easier. It would also help your particular frame's
> strength, because it currently has no direct connection between the
> steering head and swing arm pivot. Your type of frame was abandoned
> long ago.
>
> If you take this approach you'll need to consider things you might not
> otherwise. Like ground clearance, both vertical and during cornering
> (with bumps). How close can you get to the front wheel? (How much does
> the fork flex during max braking? You'd be surprised.) Cover those
> bases, plan your new battery box and start cutting. I think you'll have
> a much better bike.
>
> HTH, and please keep us posted on progress.
>
> Chris
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
IMHO:
Way too much chatter.
You are talking yourself out of a sale.
I agree, you need to have a web page with the lion's
share of the information and pictures. A web page would
allow you full control and could be quickly changed
(dynamic) when ever you want.
So, I would put one full view of your EV
200 x 300 pixel and a 'brief' description on the ebay
listing (ie):
Running Antique Electric Vehicle
Motor: xxxxxxx
Batteries: # xxxxxx, x years old
Controller: xxxxxx
Charger: xxxxxx
Accessories: xxxxxx ...
For more details and images see
http://www.xxxxxxx.com/xxxx/
Contact: xxx xxxxx
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
###-###-###
.
This seems very terse when compared to your listing.
But not everyone wants an EV, let alone a classic.
So, I am suggesting you cut to the chase, and get
to the meat.
The listing title should have:
model name electric vehicle
This will let it be found by those specificall
searching for your type of vehicle.
The description line should state it is running
(or not), and what type of EV it is (a classic
antique).
Then people will know right away what you offer,
and only those that are clearly looking for a
classic will continue.
ebay has limitations with their listing. Placing
a link to your web site allows you to put
what ever you want, when you want it, and how
you want it on the web site.
If you need a web site, there are free ones you
can use, until the EV is sold. Then delete it.
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
aye
and hopefully an end to a wasteful thread.
The EV List users have already decided plain
text is what they want, no: html or attachments.
-Bruce
: also an EV List user :
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> Don't even consider a hard tail. Motorcycles don't have hard tails,
> some two-wheeled fashion statements have hard tails. (Dear me - did
> that sound anti-Harley? Shame on me!) Think about it. Would you
> consider removing the rear suspension of your car? Even if oxcart
> technology was somehow considered cool? Besides, you'd hate the ride,
> even after you invested in a tall, soft 16" rear wheel and tire.
>
Ditto for me on this point. Even on a slow, simple vehicle like my EV mini
bike, my number one desire for future improvements is rear suspension. I
have to take speed bumps and drive way curbs at about 2 mph.
Mark T.
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/439.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
> The first-generation 1997-2003 Prius had a basic 6-transistor inverters
> for its motors. The second-generation 2004 Prius is adding an inductor,
> transistor, and diode in boost converter configuration, precisely to add
> the above-mentioned benefits.
>
> Any time you see increased circuit complexity, you have to ask yourself,
> "Why did they add those extra parts? What benefit did they expect to
> gain?" Often, there is a reason for them, not just bad design.
>
> So, I wouldn't call the E-cycle approach 'bullshit'.
Ok I see, to be using to high and heavy a hand, to the list Sorry....
Good points Lee. But still the approach is flawed for E-cycle, simply on
cost and complexity.
The other BLDC folks are doing what is needed, and rather well.
The approach for the Prius may have it's advantages, but they are 3 to 5
times to power range that the E-cycle is seeing.
They have missed thier market, over sold what they can't supply, and
abused some folks that helped them get the idea in the first place.
For a 5 Kw unit that has to make a $500 market with a motor, it is the
only way.
The power stage set up for a "classic 6 switch inverter has DC link
Ripple caps. Has to, this keep the batteries alive and the power stage
from blowing. So.. the ripple caps are there already. Well mine have
them. The RC folks have very little, and may one of the reasons they
can't do big amps for long.
So I learned some things here. I won't be using it.
On these little ones the ripple on the motor won't be much less than not
haveing the current source stage. The inductor between the Isource and
the inverter will be the govering device to reduce the ripple. Or having
the Isource switch at a REALLY high speed.
I don't like this idea because it complicates a simple elegant one.
I have seen every one of the issues ripple, torque ripple, noise heat,
unexplained power stage fails. And the fact that BLDC has not made the
massive inroads into EV drives that seamed to be evident just a few
short years ago. Getting a quality preformace from a BLDC motor is a LOT
harder than it looks. Fork truck are going induction, with higher losses
but simpler motors(no magnets),but more complicated controllers. The
Software gets more complicated but the power stage stays the same 6
switch setup.
I will read more on it.
I just lost my mouse driver, gotta reboot...
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>
> Here's the problem, Rich. If you are going to use the motor's inductance
> for your PWM, then the laminations in the motor have to be optimized to
> minimize losses at the PWM frequency.
>
> To synthesize a good sinewave, you need a high switching frequency. But
> this increases magnetic losses in the motor. You have to spend more on
> the motor reduce these high-frequency losses.
>
> If you lower the PWM frequency to reduce motor losses, then ripple is
> higher and your sinewave is worse. You can also run into acoustic noise
> if you lower the frequency too much.
Just wanted to tell That Siemens EV induction motors are so much more
expensive than plain 60 Hz industrial motors for these reasons above
(besides top quality).
> If you go for maximum motor efficiency, you'll want a PM (synchronous or
> "brushless DC") motor instead of an induction motor. They eliminate
> slip, but also get rid of most of your motor inductance. Now you
> essentially *have* to have external inductance anyway.
Example:
Induction 1PV5105WS12 is 96% efficient (at best point).
PM synchronous ACW-80-4 is double of that - 98% (at best point).
How much better can you get? Doubling efficiency is a great
effort, but at these levels saves just tens of watts.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> You need to find a new place for the pictures that won't cut your
bandwidth.
>
Yup! Got a picture host other than yahoo/geocities, so it should look better
now! I didn't change much wording, since I have all the specs listed in the
text, and I like coherent storylines!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>
> Lin Tse Hsu wrote:
> >> I hate to say it, but Victor is right. Wasn't there a nice
> >> analysis of Auburn controller lifetime that someone did in
> >> response to company-out-of-business-situation that was of concern?
> I haven't seen such an analysis, but it would be interesting to see.
There are 2 main reasons for an IC to fail (among other minor reasons):
1 - not using pure enough insulating materials and manufacturing
problems,
which affects gate insulation of MOS transistors. Sodium and other
contamination makes insulation very slightly conductive, and
with time concentrated impurities diffuse into the bulk of
insulation causing leakage and lowering breakdown voltages,
so even if parts operates within specification, transistors
short through a tiny pinholes in the gate insulation.
2 - something called electromigration -
effect of too high density electron flow dragging aluminum
grains (IC interconnects usually made of aluminum) along
the conductor thinning it on one end and piling up on the
other. The current density through thinned portion increases
which raises local temp making aluminum softer and exponentially
aggravate effect - at some point connection interrupts and
IC fails. Usually caused by poor design and allowances.
Bad news - there is nothing you can do to influence life time
of an IC once you start using it according to the spec.
This is primitive explanation but hope you get the picture.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Example:
> Induction 1PV5105WS12 is 96% efficient (at best point).
> PM synchronous ACW-80-4 is double of that - 98% (at best point).
> How much better can you get? Doubling efficiency is a great
> effort, but at these levels saves just tens of watts.
> Victor
That is a good point, and one that applies to all EV fields. We want all
our equipment, motors, chargers, controllers, etc. to be as good as is
possible, but where is the point that we say "This is good enough. Any
better, and it's not worth the cost." I know this will change a bit for
various applications, but for Joe Sixpack, what is "good enough"? Seems
like if you can answer this question you are a lot closer to producing EV's
for the masses.
James
James F. Jarrett
Information Systems Associate
Charlotte Country Day School
(704)943-4562
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I could be mistaken, but I believe that the higher the PWM frequency, the
less motor induction loss will occur. Think of it this way: if you have an
infinitely high frequency PWM, you would have a perfect sine wave and zero
induction loss. Alternatively, if you pumped in a pure square wave, you
would have huge induction loss as the coils draw current from a standstill
up to their capacity.
Mathematically, you can also think of it as throwing away the higher
harmonics -- a square wave is mathematically composed of a sine wave of the
same frequency (f) and amplitude (a) + (3f @ 1/3 a) + (5f @ 1/5 a) + ...
The motor wants only the sine wave and the rest get wasted.
This concurs with what Siemens says in their Siemens AC Inverters
Installation manual - section on Brief Theory of Operation. It also
corresponds with what remnants I remember from college.
Peri Hartman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Status of E-Cycle?
> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > Here's the problem, Rich. If you are going to use the motor's inductance
> > for your PWM, then the laminations in the motor have to be optimized to
> > minimize losses at the PWM frequency.
> >
> > To synthesize a good sinewave, you need a high switching frequency. But
> > this increases magnetic losses in the motor. You have to spend more on
> > the motor reduce these high-frequency losses.
> >
> > If you lower the PWM frequency to reduce motor losses, then ripple is
> > higher and your sinewave is worse. You can also run into acoustic noise
> > if you lower the frequency too much.
>
> Just wanted to tell That Siemens EV induction motors are so much more
> expensive than plain 60 Hz industrial motors for these reasons above
> (besides top quality).
>
> > If you go for maximum motor efficiency, you'll want a PM (synchronous or
> > "brushless DC") motor instead of an induction motor. They eliminate
> > slip, but also get rid of most of your motor inductance. Now you
> > essentially *have* to have external inductance anyway.
>
> Example:
>
> Induction 1PV5105WS12 is 96% efficient (at best point).
> PM synchronous ACW-80-4 is double of that - 98% (at best point).
>
> How much better can you get? Doubling efficiency is a great
> effort, but at these levels saves just tens of watts.
>
> Victor
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2418231243
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The key is that if you cut the losses in half, you can then probably choose to
use a motor of similar design that is only (first order approximation) 70% of
the weight, at the same efficiency as before.
If you keep it the same weight, you get to push about 1.4x more power through it
than before.
Usually, we want one of the above.
The actual amounts depend on where the efficiency increase came from. If it's
simple windage (air resistance) elimination or something like that, it's only
going to give you the direct few percent difference. But if it's from better
copper utilization (more copper) or better laminations so that less heat is
produced in the windings it can make a big difference in the power handling
ability.
Ed Koffeman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Jarrett
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Status of E-Cycle?
>
>
> > Example:
>
> > Induction 1PV5105WS12 is 96% efficient (at best point).
> > PM synchronous ACW-80-4 is double of that - 98% (at best point).
>
> > How much better can you get? Doubling efficiency is a great effort,
> > but at these levels saves just tens of watts.
>
> > Victor
>
> That is a good point, and one that applies to all EV fields.
> We want all our equipment, motors, chargers, controllers,
> etc. to be as good as is possible, but where is the point
> that we say "This is good enough. Any better, and it's not
> worth the cost." I know this will change a bit for various
> applications, but for Joe Sixpack, what is "good enough"?
> Seems like if you can answer this question you are a lot
> closer to producing EV's for the masses.
>
> James
>
> James F. Jarrett
> Information Systems Associate
> Charlotte Country Day School
> (704)943-4562
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peri Hartman wrote:
> I believe that the higher the PWM frequency, the less motor
> induction loss will occur. Think of it this way: if you have
> an infinitely high frequency PWM, you would have a perfect
> sine wave and zero induction loss. Alternatively, if you pumped
> in a pure square wave, you would have huge induction loss as
> the coils draw current from a standstill up to their capacity.
This might be true if the motor was an ideal inductor, but it is not.
The core losses go up with frequency. The coils also have a substantial
amount of capacitance, and your inverter has to drive this capacitive
loading, too. This is another loss that gets worse as you go higher in
frequency. Finally, the switching transistors themselves have higher
switching losses as frequency goes up.
> The motor wants only the sine wave and the rest get wasted.
Well, sort of. In a 3-phase motor, the third harmonic happens to cancel
out and has no effect. Other harmonics produce pulsating torque, or
torque in the wrong direction.
--
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: keith bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Tossing aside personalities, I was stuck by some of the claims made
about size of postings."
Your results were suspect.
My brother likes to send formatting; his new 'Office' encloses a file
that mail readers don't know anything about. The Listserv discards
HTML, so that should be enough reason to conform. It is amazing that
people join a list and don't read the rules they are sent thinking
they know what is right. Usually, I don't go into a nice restaurant or
a church wearing flip-plops and a tee shirt because it's bad manners.
"But, I can see where careful use of nice formatting, and even more
careful use of pictures could be helpful. An obvious approach would be
to split the list output, one which permits html, which would strip off
the pure text, and send only the html, and the other which continues to
strip out anything non-html."
"careful use"... you're kidding, right ? There are more than one
picture posting locations available to those who read the rules.
"Mail tools which provide the choice of sending text + html, html only or
text only would optimally be configured to send both, and the server
would separate out the two. pure text can just go to both. Pure html to
the html list only (with a marking, as now)."
Even if some dork would do the management of this, what would be the
purpose served. Gee, isn't your life busy enough ?
From: Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Now add the folks that never trim messages they respond to and you end
up with 128k messages that say "me too".
Amen
David Roden:
"Note: this will be my last post on this OT subject for a while. The point
is, list rules say "no html" for good reason. As long as posters comply
with the rule, the list doesn't have a problem and neither do I."
List rules ? They don't need no ...........
______________________________________________________________________
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Correction - more accurate numbers:
Siemens induction motor is 92% efficient and synchronous motor
is 96% efficient (at best point). This makes losses difference
between these two few hundreds watts.
Victor
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > Induction 1PV5105WS12 is 96% efficient (at best point).
> > PM synchronous ACW-80-4 is double of that - 98% (at best point).
> >
> > How much better can you get? Doubling efficiency is a great
> > effort, but at these levels saves just tens of watts.
> >
> > Victor
> >
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There could be a batterie wire that got lose or moved while doing the
brakes . I'll asume that when its charging its in the 80v set up . if that
so Here's a quick test . Put the charger on . now mususare with digital
meter set to millea volts ,from post to post on the batteries that are
conected together by the heavey batterit cables . It will look like your
musering the voltage drop of the wire and it should be in the milla volt
range unless you have a bad conection then it will read higher that the
others . You may have to push hard on the probes .Also is it charging like
it use to. if low amps when charging then this is also a sigh of a lose
conection.
SteveClunn
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: Henney problem.
> Hi all,
>
> I just got the Henney back from the brake place (a nightmare that will be
> related later) and was going to take her for her first road run.
>
> I know the batts in her are toast, so I don't expect much. I found the
receipt
> for this battery pack in the stuff the original owner sent me. They were
> purchased in 93!! No wonder they don't work well.
>
> BUT I think I have another problem.
>
> Ok, On the henney, there is a 3 "stop" relay system. If you put the car
> in "nutral" you can watch the volt meter as you "step" through the
voltages.
> When the key is off, the voltmeter shows the "full" pack voltage (close to
80v
> on this pack).
>
> As soon as you turn the key, you hear the relays "kick" and the voltage
drops
> to around 24v. As you press down the "gas" you eventually hear the relay
> switch and the voltage changes to about 40v. Push farther down, and it
> eventually switches to "full" (80 v).
>
> So I am 99% sure that my relays are working properly. BUT if I put the
car
> in "gear", when I press down on the gas, the voltage reads very low, about
20v,
> and never goes over that, no matter how hard I push the gas down. The car
> tries to move, but it is very slow, and unless I am no level ground I am
not
> moving to speak of.
>
> I hear it switch, but nothing seems to happen.
>
> I also noted that the car SEEMS to have more power in reverse than
forward.
> But there should be no difference between the two. I'm going to guess
that it
> is because my driveway has a very slight (about 1%) grade, and in reverse
I am
> going "with" the grade, and in forward, against it.
>
> So, does this sound like dead batteries, or is this signs of another, more
> serious probem? My funds are limited, and I dont' want to spring for a
new
> pack if I have to fix something else first.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> James
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All those in favor send a plain text aye!
aye
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Please unsubscribe me from this list.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: OT: HTML in Emails
> All those in favor send a plain text aye!
>
> aye
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've seen some discussion on the list of using SLADIS to interface with a
inverter using a USB serial port.
This won't work. Sladis makes direct int86() hardware calls to the serial
port, and as far as I know windows doesn't (and probably can't) translate
those, only open() style file i/o calls.
Sorry ;-(
S.
(p.s. has anyone tried runnign SLADIS under VMWare? ;-))
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Which is why I noted that one needs to be using an actual hardware 16550
UART (it seems to have problems with 16650 UARTs as well) COM port with
this software. As far I can tell it will not operate under anything
save for a native DOS boot. VMWare might work assuming the COM ports
are perfectly simulated, but I haven't tried this. Since we had my old
laptop PC laying around with DOS 6.22 it was just more efficient to use
that then to try getting it to function in a VMWare window under a more
modern OS. If I ever get to play around with another such system it
would be worth investigating, though. I'd certainly prefer to be able
to run an instance under Linux or WinXP than to multi-boot into DOS.
-Alaric
Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote:
I've seen some discussion on the list of using SLADIS to interface with a
inverter using a USB serial port.
This won't work. Sladis makes direct int86() hardware calls to the serial
port, and as far as I know windows doesn't (and probably can't) translate
those, only open() style file i/o calls.
Sorry ;-(
S.
(p.s. has anyone tried runnign SLADIS under VMWare? ;-))
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
in my tests it doesn't work on anything with a 'default-enabled' FIFO. I had
some success with disabling the FIFOs with a small program prior to runnign
SLADIS, but only on a few machines. For the most part, I've only had good
luck with 16450 and below.. fortunately, machines with these UARTS are
usually very, very cheap... ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alaric G. Weigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
> Which is why I noted that one needs to be using an actual hardware 16550
> UART (it seems to have problems with 16650 UARTs as well) COM port with
> this software. As far I can tell it will not operate under anything
> save for a native DOS boot. VMWare might work assuming the COM ports
> are perfectly simulated, but I haven't tried this. Since we had my old
> laptop PC laying around with DOS 6.22 it was just more efficient to use
> that then to try getting it to function in a VMWare window under a more
> modern OS. If I ever get to play around with another such system it
> would be worth investigating, though. I'd certainly prefer to be able
> to run an instance under Linux or WinXP than to multi-boot into DOS.
>
> -Alaric
>
> Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote:
>
> >I've seen some discussion on the list of using SLADIS to interface with a
> >inverter using a USB serial port.
> >
> >This won't work. Sladis makes direct int86() hardware calls to the serial
> >port, and as far as I know windows doesn't (and probably can't) translate
> >those, only open() style file i/o calls.
> >
> >Sorry ;-(
> >
> >S.
> >
> >(p.s. has anyone tried runnign SLADIS under VMWare? ;-))
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I should have qualified the 16650 comment. You need a 16550 not a 16550
A. Confusingly the 16550 A is identified by most operating systems as
just 16550. An original 16550 UART has a single byte FIFO/buffer and is
essentially a 16450 (which is architectureally similar to the original
8250) for all intents and purposes, but was fairly common in the 486
era. The 16550 A has a full 16 bit FIFO/buffer. The only OS I know of
that properly identifies the 16550A (which again is not what you want)
is Linux.
For anyone using this software to program their Siemens inverter it is
strongly recommended that you find a Goodwill or second hand computer
store and purchase an older laptop with a 16550 (non-A) or 16450 UART
(basically look for 386 and early 486 era PC's). As Jon noted you
should be able to find one for dirt cheap (I've seen them for $20-$50 on
eBay).
-Alaric
Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote:
in my tests it doesn't work on anything with a 'default-enabled' FIFO. I had
some success with disabling the FIFOs with a small program prior to runnign
SLADIS, but only on a few machines. For the most part, I've only had good
luck with 16450 and below.. fortunately, machines with these UARTS are
usually very, very cheap... ;-)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
Does anyone have any advice to offer regarding how to determine the optimum
neck angle (rake) for the front end of a drag bike? Or is there a good ROT?
This is for a special purpose drag only machine. I am also looking
for opinions
on the feasability of using a 17" x 1-3/8 rim for the rear of this machine and
where to find a decent high speed slick that is wide enough to handle the
approximate 15 HP peak motor output. TIA, David Chapman.
You could try asking on the motorcycle chassis design list. You can
subscribe here:
http://www.eurospares.com/maillist.htm
You might also try asking on the feet forward list, though we can get
a bit vociferous and off-track sometimes!
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/feet_forward/
If you want to spend some money, you could pick up a copy of Tony
Foale's seminal motorcycle design manual, "Motorcycle Handling and
Chassis Design". It's about 90 dollars with shipping from Europe, but
I've heard it's well worth it.
http://www.tonyfoale.com/
--
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 ---
Hi Dave, Bruce, & Mike,
US 145 is 820 cycles, US 250 is 725 cycles, US 250HC is 775 cycles
deep (80 percent depth of discharge) cycle life under electric vehicle
loads
(75amp up to 250 amp discharge rates) by Bill Glover from US Battery in
response to my inquiry the other day.
Menlo Park III,
Bill, Glastonbury, CT
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Gary discovered one more reason for modern computers difficulties
talking to SIADIS - too much physical RAM. He has little utility
to waste some (you should have about 4M expandable RAM available
to SIADIS, perhaps not too much more. Simple way to get rid of
extra ram is to create dummy RAM disk of appropriate size
prior to running SIADIS.
This may or may not have anything to do with W98 truing to
run 2 instances of SIADIS. Cliff almost certainly
must try COM1 and COM2, nothing else.
HTH
Victor
Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen wrote:
>
> in my tests it doesn't work on anything with a 'default-enabled' FIFO. I had
> some success with disabling the FIFOs with a small program prior to runnign
> SLADIS, but only on a few machines. For the most part, I've only had good
> luck with 16450 and below.. fortunately, machines with these UARTS are
> usually very, very cheap... ;-)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alaric G. Weigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:00 PM
> Subject: Re: SIADIS Inverter software question-Window 98 problem?
>
> > Which is why I noted that one needs to be using an actual hardware 16550
> > UART (it seems to have problems with 16650 UARTs as well) COM port with
> > this software. As far I can tell it will not operate under anything
> > save for a native DOS boot. VMWare might work assuming the COM ports
> > are perfectly simulated, but I haven't tried this. Since we had my old
> > laptop PC laying around with DOS 6.22 it was just more efficient to use
> > that then to try getting it to function in a VMWare window under a more
> > modern OS. If I ever get to play around with another such system it
> > would be worth investigating, though. I'd certainly prefer to be able
> > to run an instance under Linux or WinXP than to multi-boot into DOS.
> >
> > -Alaric
> >
> > Jon "Sheer" Pullen wrote:
> >
> > >I've seen some discussion on the list of using SLADIS to interface with a
> > >inverter using a USB serial port.
> > >
> > >This won't work. Sladis makes direct int86() hardware calls to the serial
> > >port, and as far as I know windows doesn't (and probably can't) translate
> > >those, only open() style file i/o calls.
> > >
> > >Sorry ;-(
> > >
> > >S.
> > >
> > >(p.s. has anyone tried runnign SLADIS under VMWare? ;-))
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--- End Message ---
