EV Digest 4102
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: transmission problems
by Electro Automotive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
by "Klemkosky, Mark A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif
by Steven Lough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Fwd: Re: More water dreams...
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: More water dreams...
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: More water dreams...
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) LB-20 Isolated?
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: LB-20 Isolated?
by Andrew Letton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: transmission problems
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Your math (OT) (was Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: LB-20 Isolated?
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: RE Current Eliminator News.
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) She's dead Jim
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: What are the upper voltage limits of DC motors?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Ev-1
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21) MAX712 IC to control NiCad charging.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Ironic conversion, was RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23) RE: More water dreams...
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I don't really know another reason not to do so, tinkering with lead or
cadmium happens to be toxic, acids too, so maybe people don't want to get
into that area, you would need to make a small foundry in your garage, store
and handle hazardous chemicals, risk fires and explosions, maybe it's not
just "I don't want to", maybe it's more like "I won't risk it", or "I
can't".
But as you said, if someone really wants to, he can.
Ivo
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nombre
de Peter VanDerWal
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2005 15:05
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: 42-volt starting batteries
So how are your experiments in battery building going? Oh, you're NOT
building anybatteries...why not?
You can't come up with an excuse why you aren't doing it that doesn't
prove my point.
Give one good reason why someone, anyone, isn't building their own
batteries at home even though they see an clear, overall, advantage to
doing so.
I don't think it's pessimistic to say the truth. People have been
building motors in their garages continously for over a hundred years,
ditto with controllers in one form or another. I don't know of anyone
that has tried building EV batteries in their garage in the past 1/4
century, there must be a reason. Seems to me that the most likely reason
is that it's just not worth it (no advantage).
The fact that nobody is willing to try it, pretty conclusively proves my
point that nobody is willing to try it. I'm not saying they can't do it,
and I'm not saying the shouldn't do it. What I'm saying is the fact that
they aren't doing it is pretty strong evidence that they don't want to do
it. If someone saw a real advantage to building them at home, then I'm
sure that someone would be building them at home.
If you have another reason why they aren't doing it, I'd like to hear it.
Attacking my reasoning simply because you don't like it, isn't very
productive.
Basically it looks like to me that we have a few folks on this list trying
to convince someone else to do it. You can't be bothered to waste your
time/money/whatever, but you're sure that someone else should.
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:37:46 -0700 (MST), Peter VanDerWal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Saying something is impractical for
>> >> a hobbyist simply because you can't do it the way major manufacturers
>> do
>> >> it is both overly pessimistic and misleading.
>> >
>>
>> I'm going to go with Victor on this. People build their own EVs because
>> they can't buy them. Even though motors and controllers are readily
>> available, people build their own motors and controllers. They do this
>> because they see some advantage in doing it themselves.
>>
>> If there was /any/ kind of advantage in building your own batteries
>> /someone/ would be doing it. Is anyone doing it?That's pretty coclusive
>> evidence that their is no advantage to doing it.
>
> Peter, that's a wee bit pessimistic. You could have said the same
> thing about DC motors, not so long ago, and there was a time when a
> 400A Curtis was state of the art, and no-one had got around to making
> Zillas and T-Rexes. Even chargers - people have wanted a light,
> powerful, universal voltage charger for years, and did people tell
> Rich Rudman that "if it hasn't been done already, that's a good enough
> reason not to bother trying."?
>
> Or are you saying that the lead-acid batteries available now meet
> everyone's criteria, and there's simply no advances to be made? I
> really don't agree with that!
>
>> If some of you folks think differnetly, well quit arguing about it and
>> go
>> out do it. If your excuse for NOT doing it is ______ (fill in the
>> blank)
>> then you've pretty much made Victor's point.
>
> Why, is there something different about making batteries that makes
> them special, and the exclusive domain of Exide or whoever? Just as
> we had EV enthusiast / electronic engineers design and build useful
> products on their own, why couldn't there be an electrochemist who is
> also into electric drag-racing? That's probably all it would take :)
>
> Regards
> Evan
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Way back when I was in highschool, I had an instructor show us that 3 x
1/3 does NOT equal 1.
Basically 1/3 = 0.333...(repeating) and 3 x 0.333... = 0.999...
I'd rate your chances of convincing GM to change their mind as roughly the
same as the difference between 1 and 0.999...
However, I will wish you all the luck.
Cheers, Pete.
> Lets see...
>
> Option A: 70 additional revolutionary electric cars, the likes of
> which we might not see again for a long time (and certainly not from
> GM), crushed in the Arizona desert, or...
>
> Option B: Those same vehicles back on the road in private hands,
> reducing smog. Or in universities around the world, inspiring the
> next wave of electrical engineers.
>
> Anything would be better than Option A. That's the point,
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:28:18 -0600, Michael Hurley mephit-at-mac.com
> |vehicle/1.0-Allow| <...> wrote:
>> Umm... What's the point?
>> --
>>
>> 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 ---
At 07:10 AM 2/16/05 -0700, you wrote:
Well, I was able to put the motor my little 1974 Beetle without doing
anything drastic. After taking the transmission out, and finding that it
won't be put back in with the motor attached, I put the transmission back
in, and then put the motor in, with help. After connecting things up
again, I tried the gears. I could get the transmission to go in every
gear except reverse. At least it seemed like every gear. Then I decided
to apply 12V and check every gear. As I did so, I noticed that the wheels
turn in every gear, and neutral, at the same speed. And I still can't get
it into reverse. I did some playing while the transmission was out, by
pushing the rod in some of the gears, as I was testing the adapter plate
and connection. I also noticed that some of the fluid was leaking out a
breather hole. Would the suspected idea behind why things aren't working
right, be because I played with it while it was out? Or could it be that
too much fluid came out? What should be!
Are you running with a clutch? If so, does putting the clutch in make the
wheels stop turning? If you don't have a clutch, there's some kind of
transmission problem, probably in the shift housing in the front of the
transmission. If you have a clutch and disengaging it doesn't make the
wheels stop turning, you might have a condition where the transmission
mainshaft is butting up against the motor shaft and held there by the
pressure of the mounting bolts. The reason you can get in in the 4 forward
speeds is they have synchronizers, and can be shifted without a
clutch. Reverse is a square cut gear set, and you need to have the clutch
and be at a complete stop to shift into reverse. Check the condition of
the shift coupler than connects the shift rod to the front of the
transmission to make sure it's in good condition and there's no play in
it. If you want to talk about it, call me.
Mike Brown
Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113 Telephone 831-429-1989
http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos * Since 1979
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
(Nerd mode on)
Your instructor was wrong for a number of reasons.
By the way, 0.9999 (repeating) does equal 1.
The proof is very simple. Any number subtracted
from itself is known to equal zero. So, take 1 and
subtract .9999 (repeating) from it. The answer
is .0000 (repeating).
(Nerd mode off)
--Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wed Feb 16 11:01:25 2005
Subject: Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
Way back when I was in highschool, I had an instructor show us that 3 x
1/3 does NOT equal 1.
Basically 1/3 = 0.333...(repeating) and 3 x 0.333... = 0.999...
I'd rate your chances of convincing GM to change their mind as roughly the
same as the difference between 1 and 0.999...
However, I will wish you all the luck.
Cheers, Pete.
> Lets see...
>
> Option A: 70 additional revolutionary electric cars, the likes of
> which we might not see again for a long time (and certainly not from
> GM), crushed in the Arizona desert, or...
>
> Option B: Those same vehicles back on the road in private hands,
> reducing smog. Or in universities around the world, inspiring the
> next wave of electrical engineers.
>
> Anything would be better than Option A. That's the point,
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:28:18 -0600, Michael Hurley mephit-at-mac.com
> |vehicle/1.0-Allow| <...> wrote:
>> Umm... What's the point?
>> --
>>
>> 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 ---
What's the POINT ! Look what happened when the MEDIA got hold of the
"car-In" sit in, on behalf of the Ford Ranger PU EV's just last month.
I think the EV1 deserves at least as much fight. I concede, that if the
cars are already OUT of the leasees possession, one has yet another
hurdle to overcome, but ...on the other hand ANY EV publicity is
better than none...
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://www.aquapro.net/aquapro_how.html
>
They look great but has anyone found a reasonably priced source for these? I
saw them for about
$11 US each. I'm trying to find a solution for BB600s and these would end up
costing more than the
cells, not in my budget.
Dave Cover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris Zach wrote:
> Still, the airgap is a good idea. Wonder if it's possible to
> work with
> some small-lot plastic vendor to run off a thousand little caps with
> plumbing and the siphon type thingies. Or buy them from SAFT.
Hi Chris,
A watering system looks pretty simple, but it's really not. I've read
through the description of the Saft system
http://www2.ald.net/~roden/ev/pages/saft.htm "adapted from the Saft manual"
and it doesn't completely make sense to me. (Example: what's "plunging
siphon"?) What I can determine is that you're dealing with extremely low
pressure differentials to make water flow, and then stop flowing at the
intended time. This is a very subtle science, not at all like buckets and
funnels. It can be tricky business if you want it to work consistently and
reliably, and the consequences of it failing can be expensive. (What
happens if one cell overfills and you don't know it?) Note that the Saft
system puts a limit on how fast you can fill and the "relative internal
pressure"(?). They don't say what happens if you exceed those limits.
After getting a quote on a Watermaster system that knocked my socks off, I
thought about rolling my own. It quickly became apparent that coming up
with a design that would work reliably in practice (as opposed to in theory)
would be a challenge. If you use floats and seals they *must* be
glitch-free and seal every time. If you want a no-moving-parts system
you're dealing with the very low pressure differentials, which require
extensive testing.
I think it would be a mistake to assume you could lift the Saft system and
drop it into another pack without any surprises. Or have someone run off
copy of them. Even things like the surface energies of different materials
will affect how water flows through small gaps at low pressures.
For flooded lead-acid, my take on this is to avoid watering systems unless
you have a special situation like your pack being in the tunnel of a
Tropica. Or a commercial operation where the cost of labor to water cells
is high. Someone once mentioned that getting to know your batteries is a
good thing. Make the watering process easier with a garden sprayer (with
the sprayer nozzle cut off) and get personal with your batteries. They'll
be better off and you'll get more use from them.
But then, these are NiCads which need watering more frequently(?) and there
are lots more cells. I'd look at some of the commercial watering system
that aren't designed for a specific battery. Example:
http://www.phlsci.com/Water_Injectors/Overview/overview.html
Expect them to not be cheap. There's probably a reason for that.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Right, and I would expect that function #1 of this solution would be to
have the water drain out of the tubes at the end of a filling (with
compressed air or gravity)
An interesting side question is that H2S04 is apparently known to
"creep" into tubes and make short circuits over time. The question open
right now is if KaOH will do the same.
Chris
Lee Hart wrote:
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Why do you think it won't short from one end of the string to the
other? There is definitely a higher potential, and the higher the
potential the more likely it is for current to flow. And it's
water *directly* in contact with KaOH which means it *will* get
contaminated, which means that it will conduct electricity.
Yes, it will conduct. However, it is a resistor; not a short circuit. It
causes a leakage path that will discharge the batteries over time. So,
it is tolerable on a short-term basis, but has to be blocked long-term.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm still trying to decide whether to bid on Jeff's K&W BC-20; the auction
ends in a couple hours. The charger comes with an LB-20 transformer, for
which I found a manual on the Internet that says:
"The LB-20 will handle the maximum 20 ampere charging current of the BC-20.
It consists of a transformer whose isolated secondary provides a 20 VAC
voltage which is connected in series with the primary input voltage to the
BC-20 just before the coil, thus raising the BC-20 input voltage to 140
VAC."
This seems to indicate that the LB-20 is an isolated transformer, not an
autotransformer. Am I reading that correctly?
Thanks.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Com'on, dont think like a calculator, 1 - 0.9999 would be 0.0001
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nombre
de Klemkosky, Mark A
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2005 16:18
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
(Nerd mode on)
Your instructor was wrong for a number of reasons.
By the way, 0.9999 (repeating) does equal 1.
The proof is very simple. Any number subtracted
from itself is known to equal zero. So, take 1 and
subtract .9999 (repeating) from it. The answer
is .0000 (repeating).
(Nerd mode off)
--Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wed Feb 16 11:01:25 2005
Subject: Re: EV1 vigil in Burbank, Calif.
Way back when I was in highschool, I had an instructor show us that 3 x
1/3 does NOT equal 1.
Basically 1/3 = 0.333...(repeating) and 3 x 0.333... = 0.999...
I'd rate your chances of convincing GM to change their mind as roughly the
same as the difference between 1 and 0.999...
However, I will wish you all the luck.
Cheers, Pete.
> Lets see...
>
> Option A: 70 additional revolutionary electric cars, the likes of
> which we might not see again for a long time (and certainly not from
> GM), crushed in the Arizona desert, or...
>
> Option B: Those same vehicles back on the road in private hands,
> reducing smog. Or in universities around the world, inspiring the
> next wave of electrical engineers.
>
> Anything would be better than Option A. That's the point,
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:28:18 -0600, Michael Hurley mephit-at-mac.com
> |vehicle/1.0-Allow| <...> wrote:
>> Umm... What's the point?
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As I understand it, (and I may be wrong) a transformer that is used as a
boost transformer with a BC-20 or similar charger must be an isloated
transformer -- otherwise you'd get in to trouble putting the output in
series with the input.
The boost transformer input and output are isolated, but that does NOT
get you an "isloated" charging system, since you're putting the output
of the boost transformer in series with the non-isloated output of the
BC-20.
I installed such a transformer on my Mom's EV when raising the system
voltage from 108 to 144. You have to also change a fixed resistor in the
BC-20 (easy - it's in a socket) to match the new nominal pack voltage.
Worked great.
hth,
Andrew
Bill Dennis wrote:
I'm still trying to decide whether to bid on Jeff's K&W BC-20; the auction
ends in a couple hours. The charger comes with an LB-20 transformer, for
which I found a manual on the Internet that says:
"The LB-20 will handle the maximum 20 ampere charging current of the BC-20.
It consists of a transformer whose isolated secondary provides a 20 VAC
voltage which is connected in series with the primary input voltage to the
BC-20 just before the coil, thus raising the BC-20 input voltage to 140
VAC."
This seems to indicate that the LB-20 is an isolated transformer, not an
autotransformer. Am I reading that correctly?
Thanks.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Probably what you did is that you engaged a gear, and then disengaged your
linkage from it, so if you shift, you are doing nothing, it happens in
manual trannies sometimes, so the tranny probably is shifted in third (lets
say), when you move the shifter it really does nothing, because your "fork",
is disngaged from the shifter.
Ivo.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] nombre
de Electro Automotive
Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2005 15:18
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: transmission problems
At 07:10 AM 2/16/05 -0700, you wrote:
>Well, I was able to put the motor my little 1974 Beetle without doing
>anything drastic. After taking the transmission out, and finding that it
>won't be put back in with the motor attached, I put the transmission back
>in, and then put the motor in, with help. After connecting things up
>again, I tried the gears. I could get the transmission to go in every
>gear except reverse. At least it seemed like every gear. Then I decided
>to apply 12V and check every gear. As I did so, I noticed that the wheels
>turn in every gear, and neutral, at the same speed. And I still can't get
>it into reverse. I did some playing while the transmission was out, by
>pushing the rod in some of the gears, as I was testing the adapter plate
>and connection. I also noticed that some of the fluid was leaking out a
>breather hole. Would the suspected idea behind why things aren't working
>right, be because I played with it while it was out? Or could it be that
>too much fluid came out? What should be!
Are you running with a clutch? If so, does putting the clutch in make the
wheels stop turning? If you don't have a clutch, there's some kind of
transmission problem, probably in the shift housing in the front of the
transmission. If you have a clutch and disengaging it doesn't make the
wheels stop turning, you might have a condition where the transmission
mainshaft is butting up against the motor shaft and held there by the
pressure of the mounting bolts. The reason you can get in in the 4 forward
speeds is they have synchronizers, and can be shifted without a
clutch. Reverse is a square cut gear set, and you need to have the clutch
and be at a complete stop to shift into reverse. Check the condition of
the shift coupler than connects the shift rod to the front of the
transmission to make sure it's in good condition and there's no play in
it. If you want to talk about it, call me.
Mike Brown
Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113 Telephone 831-429-1989
http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos * Since 1979
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neither Victor nor I have claimed that it's impossible for a
> hobbiest to build a battery in his garage.
Perhaps I misunderstood your claims then.
> > By your (and Peter's) logic, before the first guy converted
> > an EV in his garage, that was impossible/infeasible too.
>
> While that doesn't follow our logic, it is a true statement.
> The first vehicle to be converted into an EV was done (I
> suspect) in some hobbiest shed shortly after the required
> components (motors, batteries) were invented.
Not at all. It is a completely untrue statement. It could only be true
if it were the case that ICE-vehicles were available for conversion
before required EV components such as batteries or motors were
discovered/invented. Electric motors appeared about 1830 and lead-acid
batteries about 1860; the Otto cycle engine didn't appear until 1876 and
the first practical ICE-powered automobile until 1885.
> I'll ask you the same basic question I just asked Evan, how
> /specifically/ is my logic wrong? Give me one reason why
> people aren't building batteries at home if they see a clear
> advantage to doing so.
Insufficient motivation. The specific case I was proposing is that EV
drag racers have very specifc needs that *may* not be met by any readily
available commercial product at this time. A sufficiently
motivated/competitive racer could 'blueprint' a set of batteries or at
the extreme, build himself a set.
I don't think anyone would argue that it makes competitive sense to haul
around a stack of 40lb Orbitals when power-to-weight is key and racers
are having difficulty sustaining more than 1000A load on the batteries,
and a stock 10lb 13Ah Hawker will survive 750A for nearly long enough to
make a full run. A stock 23lb 26Ah Hawker might be an off-the-shelf
solution, but if the 13Ah's weak point is its intercell interconnects
then blueprinting this battery so that it can survive a full run would
be closer to optimum.
It is one thing to recognise that there is an advantage but quite
another to be motivated enough to pursue it. For instance, a string of
26Ah Hawkers stands a good chance of making the Zombie quicker, but
Exide is willing to sponsor John with a set of Orbitals, so there is
little motivation for John to spend $1000's on a pack instead of seeing
what he can wring out of the Orbitals. Likewise, it is quite possible
that upgrading to a Z2K would make the Zombie more competitive than its
present Z1.4K+bypass, but John can get sponsored for his SCR-bypass
instead of forking over larger amounts of hard-earned cash for a new
controller so, once again, there is little motivation to try the
probably advantageous alternative. (Not meaning to single John out here,
the Zombie is just a convenient example.)
> > it might be more practical to
> > take a mostly suitable battery, like the 13 or 16Ah Hawker, saw the
> > lid off and beef up the cell interconnects to address their
> > shortcomings, and then reseal the battery.
>
> Let us know how that works out.
I've made the suggestion in case it hadn't occurred to those who
actually could use greater current capability from light batteries, but
have also made it clear that I have no need for such at present and so
am unlikely to do this myself.
At the same time, I do have a 42Ah Hawker with a dead cell, and could
open it for curiousity's sake and document what the cell interconnects
look like. I could then attempt to beef them up and measure what effect
that has. However, there is no assurance that interconnects of the
smaller models have the same shortcomings, so the value of this exercise
would be questionable. Certainly, the exercise would provide no benefit
to me, and I have numerous other projects of greater priority so if this
happens it probably won't be soon ;^>
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pete, I have news for you and your school instrustor:
1/3 does NOT *equal* 0.33333...(repeating), it is only
infinitely approximates it. He should now better.
Sometimes good formal education pays off.
I guess too late to dispute your high school's info :-)
Victor
Way back when I was in highschool, I had an instructor show us that 3 x
1/3 does NOT equal 1.
Basically 1/3 = 0.333...(repeating) and 3 x 0.333... = 0.999...
I'd rate your chances of convincing GM to change their mind as roughly the
same as the difference between 1 and 0.999...
However, I will wish you all the luck.
Cheers, Pete.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks, Andrew. I guess I'm confused about the word "isolated" then. What
does it mean? I've always thought that it means that the charger is not
directly connected to the AC power.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew Letton
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:46 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: LB-20 Isolated?
As I understand it, (and I may be wrong) a transformer that is used as a
boost transformer with a BC-20 or similar charger must be an isloated
transformer -- otherwise you'd get in to trouble putting the output in
series with the input.
The boost transformer input and output are isolated, but that does NOT
get you an "isloated" charging system, since you're putting the output
of the boost transformer in series with the non-isloated output of the
BC-20.
I installed such a transformer on my Mom's EV when raising the system
voltage from 108 to 144. You have to also change a fixed resistor in the
BC-20 (easy - it's in a socket) to match the new nominal pack voltage.
Worked great.
hth,
Andrew
Bill Dennis wrote:
>I'm still trying to decide whether to bid on Jeff's K&W BC-20; the auction
>ends in a couple hours. The charger comes with an LB-20 transformer, for
>which I found a manual on the Internet that says:
>
>"The LB-20 will handle the maximum 20 ampere charging current of the BC-20.
>It consists of a transformer whose isolated secondary provides a 20 VAC
>voltage which is connected in series with the primary input voltage to the
>BC-20 just before the coil, thus raising the BC-20 input voltage to 140
>VAC."
>
>This seems to indicate that the LB-20 is an isolated transformer, not an
>autotransformer. Am I reading that correctly?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Bill Dennis
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 2/13/05 7:42:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: RE Current Eliminator News.
Date: 2/13/05 7:42:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Feb.13 The CE makes 8 passes down speedworlds qt.mile,racing the az.drag
racing assoitions 2nd race of the year.In the 1st race of 05 the ce went to
the
qt.finals.Today limping along on batteries that last week put out 3 amp hr.I
did
not expect to get past the 1st round.Instead the CE drove through every ICE
all the way(killer competitors)to the round leading into the final.I had
such a
great package(a .003 lite with 12.12 dialed in an ran 12.122)that I got the
bye run.All day long I was in the right lane so I knew what the car was
doing
there I chose the left lane for that free run...She ran a 12.097 a
breakout.So
I had the info I needed to run in the left lane. My competitor in the
final run, ran in the left lane all day.A "heavy hitter" dragster from
Tucson
probaly did not have too much info on the right lane so I made him flip for
lane
choice,I wanted to put him in the right lane and did so.In that final run I
dialed to 12.07 so I got the 1st lite about half way down the win lite in my
lane
came on so I ran CE out the back door knowing the other guy red lited.The CE
overran its predicted et buy .05 but it did not matter at that point we had
already WON. This is a series of races for all super pro cars in
arizona.You
can follow my points at the adra website.After todays runs we maybe in the
points lead,ck it out on thursday. Dennis Berube 4000+ EV
qt.
miles in 15 years >>
>The current eliminator is now in 2nd place in the super pro class in
arizona.On march 26 in tucson I will again try to make enough points to gain
the
lead. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
I'll ask you the same basic question I just asked Evan, how
/specifically/ is my logic wrong? Give me one reason why
people aren't building batteries at home if they see a clear
advantage to doing so.
Insufficient motivation. The specific case I was proposing is that EV
drag racers have very specifc needs that *may* not be met by any readily
available commercial product at this time. A sufficiently
motivated/competitive racer could 'blueprint' a set of batteries or at
the extreme, build himself a set.
So this proves Peter's poing that in last 25 years there were
NO SINGLE racer morivated sufficiently enough to try even though
outcome could be winning race which is highest priority.
That's odd. Must be other reasons.
Or you also *Require* that the battery will be cheap enough so
anyone could do it for mere price of existing batteries?
If yes, manufacturer's would do it long ago.
If no, buy Kokam's LiIon cells - as stiffas your hawkers
(if not, add ultracaps) and far lighter.
Or, use primary cells.
Or you also require that it must be lead chemistry?
And also rechargeable?
I don't think anyone would argue that it makes competitive sense to haul
around a stack of 40lb Orbitals when power-to-weight is key and racers
are having difficulty sustaining more than 1000A load on the batteries,
and a stock 10lb 13Ah Hawker will survive 750A for nearly long enough to
make a full run.
Objective of a racer as I understand is win a race. Not to stuff
10000A in the controller. If you can't do it, there are other
trivial ways to increase HP - dual/tripple systems, highewr voltages,
different chenistries, different ways to store energy (caps), or
any combination of above. In fact, since these things HAVE been tried
before (unlike building batteries) apparently they promised more
advantages OR more practical (less effort/cost for the same outcome)
than building batteries.
It is not lack of motivation Roger. It is because other [than building
your battery] ways to succeed take less effort and more predictable/
calculatable *for plain mortals with limited resources* competing here.
Victor
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My Alltrax controller just blew up. It was quite a surprise. I had just
headed out of my neighborhood on a beautiful 50 degree day to test out my
new battery arraingement, when I heard a fizzing noise and looked down to
see sparks and smoke shooting out of the back of my controller. I cut the
power and pulled off to the side of the road then pushed my motorcycle back
home.
I sent an e-mail to Alltrax to see what comes next. I can't see that it was
anything I did and I just bought the controller last summer so hopefully it
is a warranty repair type of deal. If not it may be time to start selling
off components and move on to a different hobby.
damon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have two almost identical electric vehicles pound for pound. The Aspire
with an 8"ADC and the Electravan with the Big GE motor. Both 120v systems.
The narrow powerband but powerful GE motor just tears out and up hills the
the Aspire with almost the same battery pack and controller just can't do.
I suspect highly that the gear ratio has something to do with it. I get
defined power bands on the Electravan. up to 15 in first is powerful to 25
in second. 35 in 3rd and fourth above that. It has good hill climbing
torque and never goes higher than 150 amps ever. I just don't understand
it. The Aspire should be quicker but I have burned up a controller on a
hill the Electravan doesn't sweat on. I have a feeling the Aspire needs a
Granny gear. Lawrence Rhodes........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: What are the upper voltage limits of DC motors?
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Are these DC motors as advanced as they are ever going to get?
Pretty much.
(and I would add) ...because people have assumed there is no room for
improvement, and so have stopped trying.
About what year did these motors peak out at?
Hmmm, 92 maybe 93? That of course would be 1892.
No; it's not that bad!
-snip-
Most recent improvements have come from better materials. Much better
magnets and magnetic alloys, much better insulation, etc. This allows
modern motors to be much smaller for a given horsepower, because they
can run hotter without damage.
I was under the impression we were discussing series wound motors. I
doubt you will see anything new in series wound motors in the near future,
except (very unlikely) possibly using super conductors. They aren't going
to get much more efficient and they won't get much smaller (power to
weight) that the current ADC type motors.
I agree that they have made a lot of progress lately with PM motors and
probably will make more progress, but I doubt it will be anything earth
shaking except /possibly/ in reduced costs. Realistically speaking there
are some pretty darn good PM motors available now for fairly reasonable
costs.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just got back from Burbank. I woe my Suck Amps t shirt. If we do
nothing who will? I expect to see more rally's. I do Know that will be someone
at
Gm watching the cars until they are crushed!
Larry Cronk 72 Datsun Elec tk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone know how to use this IC to control NiCad Charging? The MAX712.
That would be for flooded NiCads.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
<<< Not at all. It is a completely untrue statement. It could only be true
if it were the case that ICE-vehicles were available for conversion
before required EV components such as batteries or motors were
discovered/invented. Electric motors appeared about 1830 and lead-acid
batteries about 1860; the Otto cycle engine didn't appear until 1876 and
the first practical ICE-powered automobile until 1885. >>>
This brings up a thought: has anyone ever converted a Model-T? It's a fact that
Mrs. Ford drove an electric (Baker, I think), and it would be in her memory that
one would do it, not her husband's!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Chris Zach wrote:
>
>> Still, the airgap is a good idea. Wonder if it's possible to
>> work with
>> some small-lot plastic vendor to run off a thousand little caps with
>> plumbing and the siphon type thingies. Or buy them from SAFT.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> A watering system looks pretty simple, but it's really not. I've read
> through the description of the Saft system
> http://www2.ald.net/~roden/ev/pages/saft.htm "adapted from the Saft
> manual"
> and it doesn't completely make sense to me.
They aren't that complicated, though the drawing does make it a little
difficult to figure out what's going on.
They key is to look for the little, teeny, tiny arrows showing the
direction of water flow.
The water flows down the inside of the plug, makes a U-turn and flows up
near the edges of the plug and exits the side of the plug just below the
top of the case. The air flows up the tube in the center.
Once the fluid level blocks off the air tube, no more air (gas as they
call it) can escape from the chamber. This creates a back pressure that
stops the water from flowing out the sides of the plug. With nowhere else
to go the water fills up the cavity at the top of the plug until it flows
out the tube on the other side and goes on to the next plug.
The science isn't all the subtle or precise, more along the lines of
simple and effective.
The only complicated part would be making the plug air tight everywhere
except where the air/water is supposed to go.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So this proves Peter's poing that in last 25 years there were
> NO SINGLE racer morivated sufficiently enough to try even
> though outcome could be winning race which is highest priority.
If that was Peter's point, then I would agree that my opinion supports
this. Nothing is "proved", of course ;^>
> Or you also *Require* that the battery will be cheap enough
> so anyone could do it for mere price of existing batteries?
>
> If yes, manufacturer's would do it long ago.
No. Manufacturer's are not going to develop/produce a product for which
there is no market, and there is essentially no market for EV drag
racing optimised batteries.
Cost does enter into anyone's decision as to which of several competing
alternatives they will try to pursue. EV drag racers are hobbiests; by
and large they have to pay their own way, so of course they will pursue
the options that offer ~them~ the greatest bang for the buck (where buck
includes time/effort, since EV drag racers do tend to have day jobs).
It certainly doesn't help that there is *no* financial incentive in the
form of prizes to encourage EV racers to push the envelope: EV racers
finance their own ventures out of their love of the sport with no hope
of ever recovering any of the investment.
> Or you also require that it must be lead chemistry?
> And also rechargeable?
No; I don't require anything. I suppose that any battery that satisfies
NEDRA's rules is fair game. I also agree that I think that there are
commercial batteries available that would satisfy EV drag racers' needs.
The issue comes back to cost: if suitable batteries are too expensive
but relatively cheap stock batteries can be blueprinted to yield a
suitable pack at a bearable cost it is still a reasonable option.
> Objective of a racer as I understand is win a race. Not to
> stuff 10000A in the controller.
Yes, an astute observation.
In practical terms, however, every competitive EV drag racer is
presently running a DC system, and some, though not all, of those
systems are already at the voltage limits of available controllers. EV
drag racing classes are based on voltage, and so within a given voltage
class, once you hit the max voltage you can only increase power by
increasing current.
> If you can't do it, there are
> other trivial ways to increase HP - dual/tripple systems,
> highewr voltages, different chenistries, different ways to
> store energy (caps), or any combination of above.
I think any number of EV drag racers who have actually tried to improve
their performance would argue your use of the word "trivial" here.
Voltages are already pushed to the limits of available controllers (sure
there may be 600V AC systems, but no racer has tried them, so I suppose
we must assume that is an infeasible/impractical approach ;^). I'm
aware of exactly one drag racing vehicle that has attempted to use caps
(Bringham Young's EV1), and I don't believe it has exactly yielded
competitive performance.
> In fact,
> since these things HAVE been tried before (unlike building
> batteries) apparently they promised more advantages OR more
> practical (less effort/cost for the same outcome) than
> building batteries.
Yes, I would agree. However, as these "easier" approaches are
incorporated into the race vehicles only the greater effort,
lower-bang-for-the-buck approaches remain.
It would have made little sense for someone to worry about
building/blueprinting their own batteries 10-ish years ago when
controllers simply weren't available that could push the batteries
beyond their limits. Today with 2000A controllers readily available it
could be a reasonable option.
> It is not lack of motivation Roger. It is because other [than
> building your battery] ways to succeed take less effort and
> more predictable/ calculatable *for plain mortals with
> limited resources* competing here.
We'll just have to disagree. A sufficiently motivated (and resourced)
racer will exhaust any and every means at his disposal to be more
competitive. If resources are limited, the motivated racer will attempt
to build/improve things themselves rather than buy them. For instance,
very few ICE racers build/blueprint their own engine because they think
they can do a better job of it than a professional shop (and even if
they think this, in the vast majority of cases they would be wrong ;^);
they do it because they can't afford the price of a professionally built
engine but can get an acceptable fraction of the performance for an
acceptable fraction of the cost.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
