EV Digest 4006
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: DIY Controller? (DIY Motor)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Simple First Conversion Query
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Sundancer whereabouts?
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) DIY Controller
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) (re)introduction
by Frank Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Refining Hybrid truck
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: (re)introduction
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) ~OT - 500 amp load tester
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: (re)introduction
by "bholmber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: (re)introduction
by "John Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) KISS AC EV Drive System
by russco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Charging in an apartment
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Refining Hybrid truck
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: ~OT - 500 amp load tester
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Simple First Conversion Query
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Simple First Conversion Query
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: KISS AC EV Drive System
by Martin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: New 600-1,000 amp controllers, Was: Controller overvoltage headroom,
Re: TS cell info
by "Doug Hartley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: KISS AC EV Drive System
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Sundancer whereabouts?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Sundancer whereabouts?
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Fwd: Trying to locate all Chevrolet Electric S-10 & Saturn EV1
Dealers/service centers.
by Ivan Workman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Ni Cad Charging
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Sure, people do all kind of things. Lot of time for questionable
improvement (vs. buying a motor for the job) makes sense only
if that time worth little.
Or if you don't have the money.
Money is not relevant if the result cannot be achieved.
Of ciurse if the foal is "just do the best you can with
X dollars available" than *any* tiny improvement is better than
nothing and so you *always* achieve the goal to make something
better (and brag about it!).
If it would be that easy and effective, we'd see it being
done by now on regular basis. Why don't we?
Actually, you do! A city of any size has a shop that rebuilds motors.
I meand people on the list buying industrial AC motors and
rewinf/modify them the way you prescribe.
> It's the same as car mechanics. You can change your own oil; the oil and
filter is only $10 at Walmart. Or you can take it to the dealer, who
will charge you $50. Both have the same end result. Which do you want to
save; time or money?
The big difference is amount of knowledge you need to do it
right (right means outcome worth the effort). For your analogy
if the oil cap can only be undone by writing special code and using
special equipment/process (this is what AC drive making involves),
very few would be capable of doing that no matter how much they want
to.
If one would know how much calculation and tweaking of inter-related
parameters is happening in design stage (a software for the matching
inverter involved too, it must contain a model for *that* motor),
one would drop this idea.
Victor, I think you are making it sound a lot harder than it really is.
A plain old cheap off-the-shelf motor is going to be around 80%
efficiency. Or, you can buy an ultra-super state-of-the-art special with
every trick known to science that is 90% efficient -- for 10 times the
price. Is 10% more efficiency worth 10 times the price? Probably not.
Well, you make it sound a lot easier than it is. Yes, this motor
will move your car. Move "good enough". If this is the goal, you
are right.
BAck to basics: corollas move people "good enough", no slower
than BMWs and Mercedeses which are x5 to x10 cost. Why people
buy those? They may be reacher than average on this list, but
no one throws money away for nothing.
And, if you are willing to do the work yourself and do some
experimenting, you can get half the efficiency gain (85%) for maybe
twice the cost of a cheap motor. To lots of people, that is a good deal!
I'm not arguing that it is good deal, and would attempt it
if no alternatives I could afford would exist. So, as you said,
it is time vs money question, provided one is willing to accept
less than the/she wants.
If you shop for BMW and want it for $30k you have to decide
what gives if that is not possible. THey may offer it for $35k,
but offer Camry for $30k. In theory, you should not settle for
Camry since this is not what you really wanted. Drop the idea,
because having BMW for $30k is impossible.
IF you settle for Camry, then it doesn't matter what do you really
want in the first place, you're ready to accept "something" to move
you from A to B for under 30K. Nothing wrong with such compromise,
but my point is outcome of shopping has nothing to do with your
original shipping goal. Your efforts to achieve *your* goal yielded
nothing. And you accepted it.
Some won't. Some will.
I like this spirit, but from the engineering stand
point it is often just demonstration of ignorance.
Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge
is limited. Imagination encircles the world." and "Knowledge of what is
does not open the door directly to what should be. The only source of
knowledge is experience."
So, we do not want to rely on the "experts" that are building today's
motors to define what is possible. We need to do our own experiments,
and learn for ourselves. That is how new discoveries will be made!
Sure. If I only keep imagining something, I'd never drive.
When I started, I had 8" ADC in my CRX, Cirtii and 10 Trojan 27 TMH,
standard beginner's setup: http://metricmind.com/dc_honda/car.htm.
My goal was to drive EV. Not to have OEM grade EV, just EV.
Trust me, when I was done I was happiest in the city, I'd never
trade this poor CRX for latest Mercedes (even if from money
stand point Mercedes worth parts for 5 CRXes; didn't matter).
If my goal back then was to have AC EV with LiIon batteries,
I should have dropped this idea, because settling for less
(good enough), wasn't the goal. Whether original wish list was
realistic or not, is different issue.
Of course, in real life you must bend your wishes and *real* goals
aligning them with reality of your income, family, other unavoidable
aspects of life. How much to compromise original truly real goal
is up to you.
And up to those who will rewind that 60 Hz motor :-)
Victor
--
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I did that race once back in the early 80's. You start
behind a 20ft line with tools and jack in hand. at the
start you and you partner run up to the car, jack it
up, put it on stands, drop the motor, drag it behind
the line and back, put it back in the car,connect the
throttle and fuel line, raise the car, pull the
stands, drop the car, then start it up and back it
over the line. Luckily you dont have to hook up the
heater boxes. My best time was around 4 minutes 40
seconds. last time I checked it was down to 4 minutes
11 seconds. an electric motor should be a piece of
cake.
Gadget
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are contests to see how fast a team of two
> people can replace an air
> cooled vw engine. I think the record for just
> removing the gas engine is
> under 5 minutes. 4 bolts, gas line, a few wires,
> and don't forget the
> throttle cable :-)
=====
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was going to say that this is true for other chemistries,
but forgot. Yes, but I believe for PbA it is rather drastic
change. If you spend 25Ah out of optima and it is at min voltage,
another 25Ah (C/20 rating) are perhaps still there, but
C/20 is just 2.5A. So you cannot even move at 2.5A.
In You can perhaps use 30A to drive 10 mph to get another
5Ah out (get you less than a mile), than 10A for another
2Ah. The remaining capacity may be also there, but you
indeed can't take it out at any *still usable for driving*
rate. With LiIons this is more gradual process and you
can *drive* until last 5-6 Ah are there. Not that it is good
idea....
So, in strict theory you are right.
Victor
But in ther
Roger Stockton wrote:
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand by what I said: a TS cell capacity will not decrease
at higher discharge rate. That is differnt from what you're
implying (that at discharge must sease when you hit 2.7V per
cell). This is true, but if by then you spend only 20Ah out
of 100Ah cell and it is already at 2.7V under your load so
you cannot drive anymore (will happen at -20'C) that doesn't
mean you don't have remaining 80% capacity in that cell.
The cell haven't lost it, you just cannot take it out at
the rate you wish. If you discharge slower, you WILL take
all the Ah out, which proves that you haven't *lost* any.
Yes, too bad you can't drive at that rate, so you may argue
that "for all practical EVer's purpose" you don't have Ah
available. Well, not quite true - you still can creep along
at 25 mph for another may be 50 miles! You wouldn't be able
to do that if capacity is truly lost (energy just not there).
This is all true, Victor, however, it is just as true for the Optima YT
or any other battery: a YT (or other PbA) cell also does not *lose*
capacity at higher rates; you simply cannot take it out at that rate.
Decrease the discharge rate and you will find yourself able to pull
almost the full C/20 rated capacity from the battery. There is no
difference with a TS cell in this regard.
The only differences may be that the TS cell shows less reduction in
available capacity at a given rate (e.g. 100A) than does a YT (but is
this because of the different chemistry or just because 100A is C/2 for
a 200Ah cell and 2C for a 50Ah one?), and the TS cell is *ruined* if you
exceed the recommended end-of-discharge voltage while a YT *may* be
wounded by discharging it below the normal 'safe' limit.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
McCulloch? Would this be the company that I know of that
makes chainsaws or another company? If so, how did they get
involved in EV's?
http://www.mccullochpower.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Do you get more torque with higher slip and a wound rotor than reducing
slip on a cast rotor? I was under the impression that rotor design is
always a compromise basically designed for an RPM,; although because of
differing penetration you can make the design sesitive to rpm so it is a
deep bar at low freq but is a teardrop or T shape to increase eff at
higer rpm which has a shallower field.
Does it make a controller easier to build if it only has to vary the HZ
over a smaller range? or perhaps 6 set frequenies and a slip energy
control in between each "gear"
How much different are AC wound rotors and DC wound rotors , instead of
comm-bars at each coil junction, it is 3 phase windings every third one
to the same slip ring
Slip rings don't "commute" so they would really last.
Have you ever seen a small one? do they make them? I think they would be
the best motor for EV drag racing allowing optimum characteristics at
every rpm.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been a member of this list before, and after heading over to the
Dark Side for a couple of years (playing around with AWD turbo Mazdas)
I'm messing around with EVs again.
Between the holidays I put together my Three Wheel Dork Mobile, a
little electric scooter that'll hopefully go up on the EV photo album
soon. It's a mountainboard (basically a skateboard on steriods) with
the rear truck hacked off and replaced with a hub motor mounted in an
old BMX bike fork. It's got force sensors under the front and back of
the deck that control the acceleration and braking, so you steer it and
control it with your feet, leaving your hands free to wave at all the
people laughing at you. Right now it's slowly moving from "traveling
science project" to "potentially useful vehicle." I'm toying with
riding it to work, except that it's supposed to snow tomorrow. That and
the turing radius is something like 40 feet (anyone have experience
giving skateboard trucks a "quicker" ratio?).
I've also got a '69 Volkswagen Fastback sitting in my parents' garage
waiting to be media blasted and painted, but that'll have to wait until
I unload my current ICE project car. It's going to get parts from some
previous and ultimately ill-fated conversions, namely an XP-1263 motor,
Curtis Whiner controller, Zivan charger and 144V of some kind of SLA
batteries.
Looking forward to catching up on the state of the art...
-Frank
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
small clarification, 96 and newer.
I just happen to own a 95 grand am which is the "bastard" year 8192 baud
ALDL ,not obd-II, it was what GM thought OBD-II was gonna be. Even our
dealer didn't have the scanner for the car
I believe he federal government enforeced OBD-II starting with the 96 models
I can't buy a scanner from autozone or whatever, but it is simple to
build. For those of us with 95 and older GM's
http://www.techedge.com.au/vehicle/aldl8192/8192hw.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (re)introduction
>That and the turing radius is something like 40 feet
>(anyone have experience giving skateboard trucks a
>"quicker" ratio?).
See the "kingpin"?
http://www.skateluge.com/atruck.gif
Loosen it and it will turn sharper.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Maybe this could be of use to someone that does testing and
R&D work on controllers? Maybe even chargers too?
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Frank,
What if you put the drive wheel in front, then you could maybe use the rear
of the board to pop the front up and whip it around. I guess weight might
be an issue there though. Loosening the trucks will allow you to carve a
little more, but will get real scary due to oscillation if you get going too
fast. I almost lost it on my downhill board doing about 30-40mph, that was
pretty damn scary.
Brett
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Frank Schmitt
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:42 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: (re)introduction
I've been a member of this list before, and after heading over to the
Dark Side for a couple of years (playing around with AWD turbo Mazdas)
I'm messing around with EVs again.
Between the holidays I put together my Three Wheel Dork Mobile, a
little electric scooter that'll hopefully go up on the EV photo album
soon. It's a mountainboard (basically a skateboard on steriods) with
the rear truck hacked off and replaced with a hub motor mounted in an
old BMX bike fork. It's got force sensors under the front and back of
the deck that control the acceleration and braking, so you steer it and
control it with your feet, leaving your hands free to wave at all the
people laughing at you. Right now it's slowly moving from "traveling
science project" to "potentially useful vehicle." I'm toying with
riding it to work, except that it's supposed to snow tomorrow. That and
the turing radius is something like 40 feet (anyone have experience
giving skateboard trucks a "quicker" ratio?).
I've also got a '69 Volkswagen Fastback sitting in my parents' garage
waiting to be media blasted and painted, but that'll have to wait until
I unload my current ICE project car. It's going to get parts from some
previous and ultimately ill-fated conversions, namely an XP-1263 motor,
Curtis Whiner controller, Zivan charger and 144V of some kind of SLA
batteries.
Looking forward to catching up on the state of the art...
-Frank
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: (re)introduction
> the turing radius is something like 40 feet (anyone have experience
> giving skateboard trucks a "quicker" ratio?).
For a while I was designing an EV skateboard that could be
used off-road, and also for things like cruizing around in a warehouse
taking inventory. I realized that it would have to be able to make
a tight turn at low speed, so leaning was out. What I came up with
was a pivoting front truck, (lockable at the center position) driven
through gear reduction from a detachable, flexible steering shaft
extending straight up from the front deck, topped with a knob
equipped with an unlocking button for the truck. Let it snap
back to center and you could take off at full speed, leaning through
the turns. Remove the steering shaft when it's not needed.
Another, probably better way, would be to make it all electronic
with a small motor driving the pivoting of the truck while limiting top
speed. Driven into a hard lock at the center would re-enable full speed
operation and leaning turns.
Let us know when you get pictures posted in the album!
....John (can pull a VW engine in 20 minutes) Bryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart presents no nonsense ideas that are easy to understand and use
the KISS (keep it simple) philosophy.
About five years ago Lee posted a simplified AC drive system for an
electric vehicle. No comments were given to Lee’s idea. Instead of a
complex vector control variable frequency AC drive, Lee’s proposal was
basically to use a rewound four pole induction motor, feed it with a six
step inverter and use an automatic transmission. Upon examination, this
approach should be easy to accomplish.
The motor would be a 7 1/2 or 10 hp Grainger type two or four pole
motor rewound as a four pole, 1/4 voltage machine. Base speed at 60 hz.
would be 1800 RPM; 2-1/2:1 field weakening would produce a maximum speed
of 4500 RPM at 150 hz.
This motor would be coupled to an automatic transmission with the torque
converter. The adapter would be simple, no clutch or taper lock hub
required.
With the use of a transmission for torque gearing and the torque
converter for torque multiplication, the inverter can a very simple 1990
vintage six-step type. Starting frequency would be in the range of 20
hz. at idle, which would be 600 RPM. The automatic transmission would
not move the vehicle at this idle speed. Top speed would be 150 Hz.
Without using a PWM voltage control modulating the six step inverter,
the low switching frequency can easily be accomplished with six old
fashioned Darlington modules connected in a three-phase H configuration.
For voltage control the battery pack would be connected in
parallel/series using Albright contactors. For a 120 volt system,
battery voltage will be 60 volts in parallel and 120 volts in series.
Logic control is easily accomplished with a couple of CMOS 40XX series
chips driving six isolated drivers, one for each Darlington module.
In operation, when the ignition is switched on, the parallel battery
contractors close, connecting the batteries for 60 volts, and the
inverter time rates up to 20 hz., 600 RPM in one second. Upon
accelerator movement, the frequency is increased, and the torque
converter couples the motor to the transmission and the vehicle moves.
At 900 RPM, which is half speed, the series battery contractors close
and the battery voltage jumps to 120 volts, where it stays up to base
speed of 1800 RPM. Above base speed, the frequency is increased to 150
Hz. while the voltage stays at 120 volts resulting in a constant hp.
Six step inverters have poor low speed torque, but with the idle speed
of 20 hz., the six step system should work well. Linear voltage
control would be nice as well a true sine wave output. However, I feel
with the torque converter, idle speed setting, and transmission, this AC
setup should give adequate performance, I already have designed the
inverter. Is this system for you?
Russ Kaufmann
RUSSCO Engineering
The Other PFC Battery Charger Company
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:15:43 -0700, Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It turns out the outlet I used can't dish out the full 20+ amps the PFC
>>>>charger wants. I have to turn the dial down some. If it is all the way
>>>>up, the breaker will pop after about 10 minutes. I even replaced the
>>>>breaker with a new one. It didn't seem to help. I verified that there
>>>>were no other loads on that circuit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can safely install a larger breaker. The NEC ampacity tables are
>>extremely conservative, allowing for extreme conditions such as the wire
>>being embedded in the insulation in an unvented attic. When the wire is
>>exposed or buried in earth, much more current can be handled without
>>overheating.
>>
>
>What about the GFI outlet? It is only rated for 20 amps. Is this a
>conservative rating too?
>From the GFI's I've taken apart to analyze (see the paper on my web page),
I'd have to give an emphatic NO! If anything, the things are OVER-rated.
It seems that most of the GFIs available now are clones of one another.
The contacts are so flimsy that I have concerns about them welding during
a fault, rendering the GFI inert.
You could seek out an industrial rated GFI outlet but I think I'd drop
back to a GFI breaker if I needed to go above 20 amps.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:07:07 -0800, Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>small clarification, 96 and newer.
>
>I just happen to own a 95 grand am which is the "bastard" year 8192 baud
>ALDL ,not obd-II, it was what GM thought OBD-II was gonna be. Even our
>dealer didn't have the scanner for the car
>
>I believe he federal government enforeced OBD-II starting with the 96 models
>I can't buy a scanner from autozone or whatever, but it is simple to
>build. For those of us with 95 and older GM's
>
>http://www.techedge.com.au/vehicle/aldl8192/8192hw.htm
>
Correct, but some OBD-2 PCMs showed up in late 95 models in the GM line.
I know they did in the B-body (Impala, caprice) and corvette lines, the
ones I specialize in tuning. One has to be careful when buying a 95 car
to tune, lest he end up with an OBD-2 PCM that is un-tunable by us mere
mortals.
For ALDL scanning I use a homemade interface like the one you cited and
FreeScan by Andy Whittaker, http://www.andywhittaker.com This isn't the
most powerful ALDL scanner but it's adequate for most things and it's
free.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have one of those with a major brand name on the label. Unfortunately
I paid a LOT more for it than that.
It is a fair unit. The carbon pile is quite small. It's temperature
coefficient is quite high. One can set a 100 amp load and over the next
few seconds the current will drift up to over 500 amps if one does not
"ride the gain" on the load knob.
There are two heavy ribbon resistors in the unit that sit almost
underneath the electronics board. They are red hot at the end of a full
500 amp run. I can't imagine that being very good for the electronic
board.
The one glaring omission is a load switch. One has to terminate the test
by screwing out the carbon pile screw, a task that requires many more
turns than when the pile was cold. A switch would make the operation a
lot more convenient.
Mine is useful for the stated purpose of testing a battery but it doesn't
cut it as a useful loading tool.
John
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:18:43 -0600, "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe this could be of use to someone that does testing and
>R&D work on controllers? Maybe even chargers too?
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
>
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roy LeMeur wrote:
Over the years, I have had a '60s bug motor out and on the ground in
less than ten minutes with just me, a floorjack and two jackstands.
Re-install doesn't take much longer than about fifteen to twenty if
all is nominal (as if that ever happens :^)
Boy, I remember that. "That was easy. Check it again; I must have
forgotten *something*."
Something always went wrong. Usually minor, but never less than 30
minutes of futzing.
Good times.
Judebert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This site is great. I read every page of it!
http://www.socalev.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
russco wrote:
Lee Hart presents no nonsense ideas that are easy to understand and use
the KISS (keep it simple) philosophy.
About five years ago Lee posted a simplified AC drive system for an
electric vehicle. No comments were given to Lee’s idea. Instead of a
complex vector control variable frequency AC drive, Lee’s proposal was
basically to use a rewound four pole induction motor, feed it with a six
step inverter and use an automatic transmission. Upon examination, this
approach should be easy to accomplish.
I like the idea, but like most ideas I'd like to see it working first.
My primary interest is in motor controls (I'm an EE student) so maybe I
can study it and do something with it eventually.
--
Martin K
http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jerry,
Another interesting one was 1,000 amps at 48vdc!
That may be a newer replacement for the model I have?
My SRE SC325 doesn't have regen and that is one feature I really like to
have.
SRE's specialty, I believe, is low voltage controllers that are more
efficient than typical, because they replace diodes with synchronous
rectification (MOSFETS with timed switching).
Regards,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerry dycus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: New 600-1,000 amp controllers, Was: Controller overvoltage
headroom, Re: TS cell info
Hi Doug and All,
--- Doug Hartley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was refering to an SRE SC325 900 Amp programmable
I looked but couldn't find a 900 amp model of
theirs, SREcontrols.
Did find some interesting units though including
600 amp, 72-96vdc units which also have dual motor
support for about $850 from Cloud Electric?. They
don't know much about them though.
Another interesting one was 1,000 amps at 48vdc!
Anyone using any of these?
They sound like worthwhile units for us.
Especially those of us who want good power from lower
voltages. And the dual motor support has me intrigued.
Thanks,
jerry dycus
controller. I don't
know if other models have similar over-voltage
limits. This limit is
probably set as one of its safety features. Lots of
parameters could be
re-programmed, like low battery cut-off, but I
didn't see this one in the
manual.
Regards,
Doug
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "russco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:52 PM
Subject: KISS AC EV Drive System
> However, I feel with the torque converter, idle speed
> setting, and transmission, this AC setup should give
> adequate performance, I already have designed the
> >inverter. Is this system for you?
Sounds interesting. I'd like to see a "quick and dirty"
"proof of concept" demonstration vehicle.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
>
> McCulloch? Would this be the company that I know of that
> makes chainsaws or another company? If so, how did they get
> involved in EV's?
>
> http://www.mccullochpower.com/
It's been a *long* time; but yes, I think it is the same company. They
had an engineering division, McCulloch Engineering, that designed motor
drives and controllers. They built an EV to try out ideas and serve as a
"demo" project.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee,
I got curious about this and looked back in my e-mail logs, found a url for
the original E-bay listing and the e-mail was titled "McCulloch prototype
EV". I had been looking at buying the car in partnership with an associate
and I am sure that this subject header was taken directly off the E-bay
listing. Unfortunately the listing has been purged from the site but as I
remember the car looked like the front end of an Avanti grafted onto a
Mustang II Ghia rear clip. All fibreglass. Had the battery pack in a tunnel
and it pulled out the front thru a "flap" type grille panel. GE motor and
controller IIRC. Seller indicated the car had never been titled and it did
not appear to have the necessary eq to make roadworthy. I really wonder if
this is not in fact the "Sundancer" you are talking about. I would almost
bet it is unless the seller was mistaken or there was another prototype
built for McCulloch. Oh, I seem to remember the seller saying it was built
by a well known racecar design/fab operation but for the life of me I can't
remember who it was. Got my curiosity bump itching, I will keep looking
around for any more info in my archives. I know I have a copy of the photo
somewhere. Maybe the person that bought it is on the list and will chime in.
Regards, David Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: Sundancer whereabouts?
Ryan Stotts wrote:
McCulloch? Would this be the company that I know of that
makes chainsaws or another company? If so, how did they get
involved in EV's?
http://www.mccullochpower.com/
It's been a *long* time; but yes, I think it is the same company. They
had an engineering division, McCulloch Engineering, that designed motor
drives and controllers. They built an EV to try out ideas and serve as a
"demo" project.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The 3 amp bypass is being applied to only a few monoblocks in the string.
All the others are still charging at the full rate. This allows the fuller
monoblocks to remain at a safe terminal voltage while continuing to charge
the other ones at the higher rate.
If the high ones top off 1 ampere hour earlier than the lower ones, the
three amps bypass regulators will need to be active for 20 minutes to allow
the lower ones to come up to voltage.
The bypass current allows the lower voltage monoblocks to continue charging
after the higher voltage monoblocks have reached 100% SOC.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
> Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> More to the point, what I was asking you is to explain what benefit
> other than tapering at 3A greater current does equipping the pack with
> full-featured regs provide vs equipping it with simpler, cheaper voltage
> sensors since either one provides exactly the same feedback capability
> to the charger? That is, if I put a reasonably simple voltage monitor
> on each battery such that if any of the batteries exceeds the voltage
> setpoint the charger is told to yank back the output current, then how
> does the ability to bypass 3A around any module buy me anything other
> than the ability to charge at 3A higher current?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm going to simplify my Nicad Pack Charging. I saw some DeWalt 24v
chargers on Ebay. 30 bucks each. 5 would do the trick for a 120v pack give
or take. I could add a couple of batteries or subtract a couple or find
chargers that equal 120v. Would that fix my charger problem? Lawrence
Rhodes.....I'm goin one string in a recumbent MC. Lawrence Rhodes.......
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The give he alludes to is the ability to charge to a higher pack voltage
once the first monoblock reached gassing voltage.
For instance, if one monoblock (of 20) comes up to 15.0 volts while the rest
of the string is sitting at 13.5, then the pack would read 271 volts. If the
charger was controlled by the individual monoblock voltages, the charger
would taper back and finish charging with only one monoblock fully charged.
This was the condition of Rich's Orbitals when first installed.
With regulators installed on each monoblock, the 15.0 will be clamped to
~14.5 to keep it from gassing excessively while the other monoblocks
continue charging at 3 amps. This allows all the monoblocks to reach ~14.5
volts and to all be full and to have a pack voltage of 290 volts. This is
the condition of Rich's Orbitals now.
Please keep in mind two things are going on here: 1)The 3 amp bypass is used
for equalization. 2) The voltage sense is used to allow safe fast charges. A
monoblock can get in a lot of trouble real quick at 60 amps.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
> Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I still don't understand what this 'give' is that you believe the regs
> provide, nor why it should be required once you have the regs tied into
> the charger such that it is going to yank back the charge current when
> the regs start screaming. I do appreciate you trying to explain it to
> me, and hope you don't give up quite yet ;^>
>
> Is it perhaps a function of how your PFC charger control loop
> behaves/interacts with the regs that causes you to believe that you need
> this 'slop' in the system for it to work well?
>
> > In fast charging... the ability
> > to move the overecharge energy out of the way, is the limit
> > of how fast you can get then all filled right.
>
> No argument here. I just question how much effect on charge time that
> extra 3A provided by the regulators really has. When your charger
> outputs just 10A, 3A is a lot, but when you start talking about 80-200A
> of fast charge, +/-3A gets to be a small difference and is only applied
> through part of the charge cycle. Remember, what I was questioning is
> what the real benefit of using full-featured regs vs simple voltage
> sensors to yank back the charger output is, not regs/sensors vs nothing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
PFC chargers are current source devices. The current changes very little for
a very large change in voltage. In last night's test, the current was
varying about an amp and a half whereas the pack voltage was varying about
15 volts. The voltage was varying because when a regulator fires and turns
on the load, the battery voltage drops about a volt because the Orbitals
have such a high internal impedance when they get so close to full. We have
not fully analyzed the data because some of the variance can be feedback
through the charger control loops.
The chasing LEDs occur when the battery is so close to being fully charged
that just a slight variance in the current can push the voltage over the
threshold and turn on the bypass load. Using a voltage regulated power
source exacerbates the chasing reg problem making it happen at a much larger
variance in the state of charge.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
> Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. The current in the series string is the
> same at all points. If the act of a reg switching on/off were to cause
> a current pulse, then that pulse is experienced by every battery in the
> string, including the one whose reg just switched.
>
> If the reg switches a FET+load across the battery to divert (up to) 3A
> of charge current, then the current through the battery drops by (up to)
> 3A, but the total current continuing through the string remains the same
> since the current bypassed by the reg is added back to that passing
> through the battery before it continues to the next module in the
> string. Other than a bit of transient noise at the on/off transitions,
> I don't really understand how/why there should be any current pulse...
> at least not due to the reg specifically.
>
> I suppose that if the charger is in constant voltage mode and a reg
> fires to reduce one module's voltage slightly, then the battery pack
> voltage appears to have decreased slightly and so the charger's output
> current may increase briefly. However, even for this to happen depends
> on the regs being relatively slow to respond to an over-voltage
> condition, or for them to require a fair amount of overshoot before
> firing. That is, if the reg begins bypassing as soon as the module
> reaches 14.8V, then the total pack voltage remains unchanged from the
> charger's perspective, and so it will not provide any current pulse.
> If, however, it fires only after the module hits 15.0V, then the pack
> voltage will drop by 0.2V and the charger's output current may increase
> (causing the reg to have to bypass even more current, unless it is
> already at its max, in which case the module voltage will spike up
> despite the reg).
>
> > So if it is a low Battery, it sees a current pulse, and
> > it's voltage jumps. If this is a low one, it just eats
> > it, and adds to that batteries stored power.
>
> And, if the battery is one whose reg is already bypassing all it can,
> then it still sees the current pulse and its voltage jumps over the
> desired limit.
>
> > I have seen a very stiff pack do the "chasing
> > Christmas tree light effect". One pulse starts a cascade of
> > Reg pulses. If it goes from one end of the string to the
> > other, I would say that pack is done rather well.
>
> I don't doubt what you have seen, I just question if you are seeing it
> for the reasons you think. I have seen a similar effect when doing the
> manual regulator dance on YTs, but what I observed is that as soon as
> you bypass current around the highest voltage module, one of the others
> that was previously fine spikes up; bypass it, and another 'good' one
> spikes up. It seems to me that when you apply a constant voltage to a
> series string the voltage divides across the modules at least in part
> based on the internal resistance of each module. When you bypass a
> module the total voltage remains the same, but now there is a little
> more of it to be divided amongst the remaining unbypassed modules, and
> one of them typically pops up a little higher than the others. If the
> string is well-balanced, then all of the modules are going to be near
> the 14.8V level of the one whose reg fired, so the one that pops up
> higher will likely fire its reg. And so on.
>
--- End Message ---
