EV Digest 4103
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Ev-1
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) Re: Fwd: Re: More water dreams...
by Chris Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Fwd: Re: More water dreams...
by Chris Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: LB-20 Isolated?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: She's dead Jim
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) World's First Solar-Powered Drag Race
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: MAX712 IC to control NiCad charging.
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Ev-1
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: LB-20 Isolated?
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Motor Chart and perdictions
by "Raymond Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: transmission problems
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: 42-volt starting batteries (ACRX)
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: transmission problems
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Gearing musings.
by James D Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: What are the upper voltage limits of DC motors?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Vas: Re: Vas: Re: Hydraulic eff.
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Battery boxes
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: LB-20 Isolated?
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Gadget's Conversion
by Robert MacDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Frank Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Battery boxes
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: GM exec(?) comments about EV-1
by "M.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
30) Re: 42-volt starting batteries
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- 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 >>>
I thought they were all crushed by now - are there still some intact?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, $11 a cap for 250=$2,750 which is just right on the noggin of the
cost of a pack o' Hawkers :-)
$6k for a pack that lasts more than 3 times a Hawker pack is kind of a
bargain.
Chris
Dave Cover wrote:
--- [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 ---
Another thought: Would a serious bulk order (say 4 people for a
thousand) drop the price somewhat?
Chris
Dave Cover wrote:
--- [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 ---
>
> "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?
>
Since the secondary of the LB-20 is wired in series with the BC-20 and
directly connected to the line, the whole thing ends up being
non-isolated.
In fact, the way it's wired up, one side of the LB-20 primary is directly
connected to one side of the LB-20 secondary (defeating your isolation).
The other side of the LB-20 secondary is connected to the BC-20, with the
other side of the BC-20 directly connected to the remaining side of the
LB-20 primary.
Hmm let me give some of this ASCII artwork a try.
LB-20
----------+---+
*P S
P S
P S*
----------+ +----BC-20--+
| |
+---------------+
Anyway, the net effect is that the LB-20 functions as an autotransformer.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> 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
You didn't say an 'ICE to EV conversion', you said an 'EV conversion'.
Robert Anderson built the first EV in the 1830s and (as I recall)
converted a horse drawn carriage.
> 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
If it's not enough of an advantage to pursue it, then it's not much of an
advantage. You are just proving my point, nobody is doing it because it
isn't worth doing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If the e-mail doesn't do it, 541.476.3565 is the
number of the lab.
Best of luck,
--- damon henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
>
=====
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
------ Forwarded Message
From: "White, James A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:07:36 -0800
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Invitation to World's First Solar Drag Race
Greetings everyone.
You are invited to attend and/or participate in the world's first solar
drag car race to be held in Wenatchee, Washington on June 18th, 2005.
Solar-only drag racers will go head-to-head over a 1/4 kilometer
straight track. Vehicle power must come exclusively from the sun during
each race heat. No batteries or other pre-charged energy storage
devices are allowed. There are three race divisions: Open, College, and
High School.
For additional rules and information you can check out the web page at:
http://users.applecapital.net/~jim/solardragrace.htm
Jim White, P.E.
Senior Energy Services Engineer
Chelan County Public Utility District
327 North Wenatchee Ave.
Wenatchee, Washington 98801
(509)661-4829
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
World's First Solar-Powered Drag Race
http://users.applecapital.net/~jim/solardragrace.htm
This is the first race of its kind. Division winners on June 18, 2005 will
set the 1/4 kilometer solar drag racing world record. Solar drag racers will
go head-to-head over 1/4 kilometer distance powered only by the sun. Unlike
other solar races, no batteries or other pre-charged energy devices will be
allowed.
When: June 18th, 2005 11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m.
Where: Confluence Technology Center 112 Olds Station Road Wenatchee,
Washington
Rules
1. Solar-only powered dragsters will race head-to-head using only solar
electric cells and electric motors.
2. Batteries, capacitors, flywheels, or energy storage devices (if any)
must be completely de-energized and in an uncharged state prior to the start
of each race heat.
3. Race will be over a ¼ kilometer straight track running west to east.
4. Driver must weigh at least 170 pounds, or include enough weights to
bring the driver weight up to 170 pounds.
5. Dragster dimensions cannot be wider than 7 feet, greater than 20 feet
long, or be over 6.5 feet high.
6. All solar arrays and concentrating devices must be attached to and
travel with the dragster.
7. Dragster must have at least four wheels, a working steering system,
and be self supporting.
8. Dragster must have brakes capable of stopping the vehicle within a
safe distance.
9. Drivers must have a valid driver's license.
10. Each member of the race team must sign and agree to the terms stated
on the liability release form.
11. Additional rules/clarifications will be provided by the Solar Drag
Racing Committee and will be posted on this web page.
Roy LeMeur
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cloudelectric.com
http://www.dcelectricsupply.com
Cloud Electric Vehicles
19428 66th Ave So, Q-101
Kent, Washington 98032
phone: 425-251-6380
fax: 425-251-6381
Toll Free: 800-648-7716
Roy LeMeur Olympia, WA
My Electric Vehicle Pages:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html
Informative Electric Vehicle Links:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html
EV Parts/Gone Postal Photo Galleries:
http://www.casadelgato.com/RoyLemeur/page01.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Did you try googling MAX712?
I did and one of the first responses shows a circuit diagram.
> 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 ---
> <<< 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 >>>
>
> I thought they were all crushed by now - are there still some intact?
>
I thought they were going to refurbish a few and lease them in NY (or
somewhere on the east coast) to meet the ZEV mandate out there.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
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.
This brings a point I made a while ago - if voltages allowed
are limited per classs of racing vehicles, so should be battery
type/chemistry and amount of money put into the vehicle.
Else it is largely a competition who is richer - if I can buy
Lithium metal batteries I win (provided the drive system is
the same as competitor's), no matter how hard or motivated
competitor using lead battery is.
Can I win Woodburn race next year? No problem, just plunk
me half mil for it. There is no NEDRA requirement to make it
within some money limit, right?
If I'm not mistaken, Tzero can outrace anything Woodburn
has seen so far (in street legal class), but they didb't bother
to participate. What's the point to set the records between
usual participants if everyone *knows* faster car really
exist, it is not entitled as such just because didn't
physically demonstrated it the way NEDRA wants, but everyone
knows technical wise it is capable.
Point is, it was funded sufficiently. Limit AC Prop to the income
of John Wayland, and suddenly Tzero wouldn't exist. So,
money talk there, not enginuity (as much). So to make it more fair,
equate as much as possible, not just voltages.
BAck to battery business - a class with standard batteries
with no more than ____ kg weight should be different from the
class of self-made batteries class.
Solar car racers already have this restriction - I think
25kg worth of LiIon batteries, no more. Else - it is money
talk.
Now, I realize sponsorship restrictions would be difficult to
imp[ossible to enforce, this is different issue though.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 16 Feb 2005 at 15:20, Bill Dennis wrote:
> I guess I'm confused about the word "isolated" then.
> What does it mean?
In this case it means ONLY that the boost transformer's secondary is
isolated from its primary. That's the only way it could work in this
application.
If the charger had an additional transformer inside, one with fully separate
primary and secondary, it woiuld be an isolated charger. But it doesn't, and
it isn't.
IMO, the BC20 is a serviceable charger for some purposes. It doesn't weigh
much, so if your main charger is heavy and offboard, a BC20 would be good
to have on board the vehicle for opportunity or emergency charging. But it
isn't isolated, so if your batteries are a little dirty, you can get safety
issues
combined with nuisance tripping of the GFI. Besides, it has a really lousy
power factor and trips house breakers if you try to get any decent amount of
current out of it.
I might buy one used if it were in good shape and cost, say, $50 or $75.
That's based on my own experience with one. Others might think it's worth
more or less than that, depending on their experiences.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I finally got some real world test results of the motors I was planning on
using. I am very disappointed with the test sheets, as these motors have
tested to over 10hp in the past. The figures in the charts will be bare
minimums anyway. If I get more I will be all the happier. The tester did not
measure below 400rpm as well. I am fairly certain it produces between 75 and
100ftlbs when it first starts to move. Anyway here is the chart.
RPM Torque HP Current Volts
400 56.94ftlbs 4.82hp 2285amps 7volts
600 50.89ftlbs 6.03hp 2075amps 7.2volts
800 43.14ftlbs 6.96hp 1925amps 7.5volts
1000 38.35ftlbs 7.5hp 1770amps 7.9volts
1200 32.82ftlbs 7.89hp 1570amps 8.5volts
1400 28.44ftlbs 7.89hp 1440amps 8.7volts
1600 24.33ftlbs 7.49hp 1275amps 9.2volts
1800 20.65ftlbs 7.10hp 1150amps 9.5volts
2000 15.49ftlbs 6.29hp 900amps 10volts
My question is what can I expect when I run this motor at 24volts, with
batteries that have a combined CA rating of 1875amps (3 x 625). This was an
electronic test, the case states 300amps. The test was done at room
temperature.
Also what can I expect when running the same motor at 48volts with the same
batteries, 4 strings instead of 2.
And for the future what about 96 volts with just single 625ca batteries.
Also I am open for suggestions on gear ratios, the bike is going to weigh
about 500lbs with rider. Thanks in advance for any comments, suggests, and
help. Raymond
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Brian 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!<<
Did you have the shifter out? Often it is removed when removing a transaxle
and must by carefully adjusted when its reinstalled. If its location is off
it can either go into reverse when you want second or refuse to find
reverse.Worn shift linkage parts can make shifter adjustment a real touchy
thing (impossible if bad enuf). There is a bushing under the shifter and a
coupler at the transaxle. Playing with the hockey stick (shift rod) when the
transaxle is out does not cause any problems, its trapped in the shift rod
slots.
Fluid seepage around the breather hole is normal. It will puke oil if
overfilled, or if the transaxle is turned on its side when out. The correct
level for the gear oil (GL-4 only, never use GL-5) is to the bottom of the
oil add plug on the side of the gearbox. These transaxles are often a bit
low.
The transaxle generally runs 90wt gear mud. The tires will turn in any gear
or neutral if they are off the ground and the input shaft is turned. Finding
reverse will make them turn the other way and it can seem quite stiff if you
are turning the input shaft by hand. They are a pretty crude and tough gear
box but very reliable (except reverse - don't abuse it).
Paul G.
http://evalbum.com/125.html
http://paul-g.home.comcast.net (the Pickup has been sold)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You didn't say an 'ICE to EV conversion', you said an 'EV
> conversion'.
Fair enough. I would have thought that any rational reader of the EVDL
would have understood that from the context, but I did not explicitly
state it (so you got me on a technicality ;^).
> Robert Anderson built the first EV in the 1830s and (as I
> recall) converted a horse drawn carriage.
A horse drawn carriage is hardly a motorised vehicle, so it a bit of a
reach to say it was "converted" to an EV. Probably more accurate to
state that he built the first EV based on a horse drawn carriage.
Either way, the fact remains that there was some point after which all
required EV components existed but before anyone had built an EV
conversion, and during this period, the fact that no one had yet
attempted a conversion did not make it impossible to perform one.
The example was merely intended to help explain that inaction does not
prove impossibility.
> > It is one thing to recognise that there is an advantage but quite
> > another to be motivated enough to pursue it.
>
> If it's not enough of an advantage to pursue it, then it's
> not much of an advantage. You are just proving my point,
> nobody is doing it because it isn't worth doing.
Not at all. I don't know what avenues have or have not been explored by
EV drag racers. I am reasonably sure that the present big names
(Wayland, Wilde, Rudman, Dube, etc.) have not attempted to blueprint
their batteries (although Dube came close with his use of individual
Bolder cells instead of the JCI Inspiras, which were nearly identical
but suffered from weak intercell connections), but this doesn't prove
nobody has tried (or is doing it). It is in fact, exactly what I would
expect Dave Cloud to eventually do. ;^> (Picture batteries with large
supplementary copper busbars on the outside of the case fastened in
parallel with the intercell connections using screws driven through the
case...)
I think that the advantage of dropping one's pack weight to 1/2 or 1/4
that of a stack of YTs or Orbitals is fairly obvious and substantial. I
also think that nobody is going to undertake this sort of
labour-intensive and risky (in the experimental sense) project until
they have exhausted other easier or better bang-for-the-buck options. I
am definitely suggesting that nobody may have explored this approach yet
because there were other more attractive options (such as Bolder cells,
and JCI Inspiras, etc.), but that the disappearance of these options
along with other advances (Z2K, etc.) may soon make battery blueprinting
attractive enough that some racers will attempt it.
And, let's be clear on what my assertions were so that this thread can
die a quiet death:
- it is *possible* for one to build their own lead acid batteries
- it is *possible* for one to build or blueprint lead acid batteries to
have greater current carrying capacity than commercially available
batteries they can reasonably afford
- a clean room environment is *not* required to construct lead acid
batteries
- that we are unaware of anyone who has attempted to do so does not make
it technically impossible to do so
- that we are unaware of anyone who has attempted to do so does not
prove that there is not a (perhaps significant) advantage to doing so
I have never [intended] to assert that anyone *should* be building their
own batteries, or that there was such a significant advantage to doing
so that it should be attempted prior to any of the other options racers
could explore. Indeed, I have suggested that there are commercially
available options for racers who choose to pursue them, and that
blueprinting stock batteries is likely a more sensible option than
ground up construction.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From: "Victor Tikhonov"
>Can I win Woodburn race next year?
I would really like to see the ACRX in the "100 mph club"
this year. Can it do it as it is setup right now? If not,
what does it need to be able to do it?
March 4 &11:
http://www.portlandraceway.com/drags.asp
http://www.portlandraceway.com/location.asp
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They are a pretty crude and
> tough gear box but very reliable (except reverse - don't abuse it).
And except for the brass shift forks... take it easy on speed-shifting
or keeping pressure on the shifter to force the gears to engage.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This brings a point I made a while ago - if voltages allowed
> are limited per classs of racing vehicles, so should be
> battery type/chemistry and amount of money put into the vehicle.
>
> Else it is largely a competition who is richer - if I can buy
> Lithium metal batteries I win (provided the drive system is
> the same as competitor's), no matter how hard or motivated
> competitor using lead battery is.
>
> Can I win Woodburn race next year? No problem, just plunk
> me half mil for it. There is no NEDRA requirement to make it
> within some money limit, right?
Right. There is no doubt in my mind that if one were prepared to throw
enough money at their car they would take any NEDRA record they wanted.
It might not happen the first time out, mind you, but eventually it
would.
> If I'm not mistaken, Tzero can outrace anything Woodburn
> has seen so far (in street legal class), but they didb't
> bother to participate.
Nope. The T-Zero has never run the 1/4mi that we know of, it is always
the 1/8th mile. AC Propulsion is very careful to never run the car
against any gas competition in a standard 1/4mi venue because the T-Zero
would be soundly beat.
The T-Zero should be able to make a respectable showing at Woodburn, but
it is not at all guranteed that it would outrace the top cars. Of
course, the T-Zero would most likely be in a 'production' class, so
would not even be competing with the top EV racers since they are
conversions.
> What's the point to set the records
> between usual participants if everyone *knows* faster car
> really exist, it is not entitled as such just because didn't
> physically demonstrated it the way NEDRA wants, but everyone
> knows technical wise it is capable.
I suppose the same could be argued for most amateur drag racing; why
bother if you know that you can go out and buy a Viper or twin-turbo 911
and beat most of the other cars?
The point in the specific case of NEDRA is to provide a forum where it
can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that EVs do *not* have to be slow
and underpowered (like everyone but Rod Wilde's golf carts ;^). By and
large, the only EVs available are those built by hobbiests, and so
hobbiests have risen to the challenge and have come out to demonstrate
the EV performance they can achieve even on seriously limited budgets.
You have been taking the ACRX to Woodburn, Victor; just for fun this
year, why don't you run it? It doesn't matter if you are competitive or
not, no EVer is going to look down on your showing, but it would
certainly give you a different perspective on the challenge of setting a
respectable time in this competition. You've got a light car,
ultracaps, AC drive, LiIon pack, all the bells and whistles; it should
do OK... but I think you may suddenly understand the satisfaction that
someone else may have if their EV outperforms yours in this venue for a
fraction of the investment, and/or using more 'ordinary' or 'crude'
components.
No EVer would laugh at the performance of the T-Zero should it ever show
up at a dragstrip and run a full 1/4mile, however from the looks of
things that won't happen because AC Propulsion realises that suddenly
there would be a yardstick by which Joe Sixpack could readily determine
that this expensive EV could be matched or bested by much less expensive
stock ICE vehicles.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>So when I swap in the electric motor, any guesses on which
>might be the "ideal" gear to have in the differential if
>using say 26" tires?
Let's take your two extremes as examples.
overall ratios 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
tranny 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63
2.73 diff 8.054 5.296 3.658 2.730 1.720
4.10 diff 12.095 7.954 5.494 4.100 2.583
Next, we'll find the motor rpm's in each gear for, say, 40 mph. A 26"
diameter tire rotates 775.7 times in one mile. Thus, 40 times gear ratio
times 775.7 divided by 60 equals motor rpm.
40 mph 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
2.73 diff 4165 2739 1892 1412 889
4.10 diff 6255 4113 2841 2120 1336
Now, we'll use the peak torque curve of an ADC 9" motor to find
approximately how much axle torque each gear would have at 40 mph.
http://www.evparts.com/shopping/products/mt2119/mt2119torquecurvebyus.PDF
(don't forget to multiply motor torque by overall ratio)
40 mph 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
2.73 diff 209 381 519 491 404
4.10 diff 109 207 374 504 483
Let's run the math again, this time at 20 mph.
20 mph 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
2.73 diff 966 969 841 663 451
4.10 diff 568 1010 988 853 638
From this, we notice that the geared torque maximum occurs around 2000
rpm for this particular motor. Thus, the "ideal" gear ratio becomes
taller as your highway speed increases. In practice, what you want to do
is choose a differential ratio that runs the motor at the geared torque
maximum rpm in 4th gear at the highest speed you plan on driving at,
leaving you the first three gears for economy driving and passing at
lower speeds. 5th gear should be avoided as it is usually not strong
enough to handle sustained high-torque usage.
David Thompson
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 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 superconductors.
> 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 doubt it will be anything earthshaking except /possibly/ in reduced
> costs. Realistically speaking there are some pretty darn good PM
> motors available now for fairly reasonable costs.
PM motors probably outsell series motors by 1000:1. So, 1000 times the
R&D is going into PM motors. Thus, you see the benefits of automation
and improved materials in PM motors first. Here are some examples that
come to mind:
- The Lynch/Lemco/Etek PM motors have a simplified, lower cost
commutator.
- There are lots of PM motors with printed circuit rotors; no
iron and no windings in the armatures.
- Aluminum instead of copper is used in some high-volume motor
windings. Besides being lighter and cheaper, windings can be
cast in place rather than wound.
- Newer insulation classes higher than 180 (class H) are being
used in some very high performance motors.
Any of these could be applied to series motors. I'm just not aware of
anyone bothering to do it.
In a related area, I wish we had more choices in separately excited
motors. Brushed DC motors with adjustable fields and interpoles can do a
very good job with very simple controllers.
--
"The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Seppo Lindborg wrote:
>> The low speed, and consequently high torque needed complicates
>> motor design. A low-speed high-torque motor is generally larger
>> in diameter, heavier, and costs more than an equivalent
>> high-speed low-torque motor of the same horsepower.
> Yes, so I have understood. But this as such is not yet a show-stopper.
> Larger diameter could be a worse problem. The motor is between the
> wheels. Increase in diameter would eat away the ground clearance of
> the car.
This is what was attractive about the GE twin-rotor motor. You only
needed one set of gears (to reverse the rotation of one rotor) to get a
motor that eliminated the differential and in effect doubled the motor
speed and halved its torque.
However, I think it has worked out better to use a high-speed low-torque
motor and a gear reduction. Golf carts (whose makers are absolutely
rabid about cutting costs) are all done this way.
--
"The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> So how are your experiments in battery building going? Oh, you're NOT
> building any batteries... why not?
Because I (personally) don't need to. My talents are in other areas, so
I spend my time where it can do the most good.
But I *have* built batteries in the past. I could do it again if I so
desired.
> 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
Peter, your reasoning is flawed. You are taking an egocentric view, and
assuming that everyone's situation is just like yours. If you don't do
it, no one can do it. If you don't know how, no one knows how. If you've
never heard of anyone doing it, then it's never been done.
This is the very same kind of reasoning people use on our EVs. Joe
Sixpack says EVs will never work because *he's* never built one, and he
doesn't know anyone who has.
--
"The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm putting together some battery boxes for my triumph
conversion. Does anybody have an exide orbital to take
some dimensions from? The manufacturers info says that
the battery has a footprint of 7" X 11.21" with a
height of 8.12". does that include the side terminals?
and does the height include the top terminals or is
that just the case height? I seem to remember some
discrepancies the last time I used them but don't
remember exactly what they were, nor do I have access
to them anymore. I won't have my batts for a week and
want to procede. I need to have this thing running by
the end of the month. Thanks
Gadget
=====
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the picture. I understand now. So would it work to replace the
LB-20 with a real boost transformer?
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:59 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: LB-20 Isolated?
>
> "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?
>
Since the secondary of the LB-20 is wired in series with the BC-20 and
directly connected to the line, the whole thing ends up being
non-isolated.
In fact, the way it's wired up, one side of the LB-20 primary is directly
connected to one side of the LB-20 secondary (defeating your isolation).
The other side of the LB-20 secondary is connected to the BC-20, with the
other side of the BC-20 directly connected to the remaining side of the
LB-20 primary.
Hmm let me give some of this ASCII artwork a try.
LB-20
----------+---+
*P S
P S
P S*
----------+ +----BC-20--+
| |
+---------------+
Anyway, the net effect is that the LB-20 functions as an autotransformer.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ralph Merwin wrote:
Maybe you're thinking of someone else? I have a '93 Geo Prizm
(aka Boring Jelly Bean with a Boring Interior with a Boring
Curb Weight of 3200 lbs (projected)). Hi John ;-)
Here's a question. What was its curb weight _as a glider_?
Or, what's the weight of the batteries, motor & controller?
Robert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nope. The T-Zero has never run the 1/4mi that we know of, it is always
the 1/8th mile. AC Propulsion is very careful to never run the car
against any gas competition in a standard 1/4mi venue because the
T-Zero
would be soundly beat.
If my math in the last post was correct, it might be a 13-second car if
it could pump 150kW into accelerating its 1111kg mass for a full
quarter mile.
AC Propulsion's page says 13.24s -- not bad for a production car (for
sufficiently small values of "production" ;).
You get the same thing with the cheaper sport bikes: crazy fast 0-60
times (all in first gear) but quarter miles that are only slightly
quicker than a Viper.
-Frank
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From: "Reverend Gadget"
>I'm putting together some battery boxes for my triumph
>conversion. Does anybody have an exide orbital to take
>some dimensions from?
Do you have an Exide dealer or distributer nearby? Maybe
you could get an empty Orbital used for display purposes in
stores to use for mock up?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
You have been taking the ACRX to Woodburn, Victor; just for fun this
year, why don't you run it? It doesn't matter if you are competitive or
not, no EVer is going to look down on your showing, but it would
certainly give you a different perspective on the challenge of setting a
respectable time in this competition. You've got a light car,
ultracaps, AC drive, LiIon pack, all the bells and whistles; it should
do OK... but I think you may suddenly understand the satisfaction that
someone else may have if their EV outperforms yours in this venue for a
fraction of the investment, and/or using more 'ordinary' or 'crude'
components.
To answer your (And Ryan's) question:
I can sure participate the racing. I times myself a couple of times and
it was somewhere between 12 and 13 seconds, close to 13 I think.
I show the car and craftsmanship every year to demonstrate what
I cave done, how it can be done, because I believe it looks good.
IT is hopeless to compete in 336V class because ACRX is not optimized
for racing, it most likely will loose against John or Otmar, and
it is expected and predictable, so I don't see the point.
Let's compete for range! Then, John will loose to just about
any normal car with 5 miles range, so certainly will have
no interest to compete for parameters which his car is not
optimized for.
Or, let's compete who sips less Wh per 1/4 mile provided
minimum speed is maintained. I WILL participate, because put
efforts to optimize ACRX in that respect.
If I would put enough low capacity Kokam's cells to have
6-7 miles range but light car, I'd have a chance to compete
for acceleration on 1/4 mile.
Other things:
If I do it, I will stress tranny components and battery
(and I use the vehicle to run to work everyday, can't afford
down time). I don't have another specifically racing vehicle
for this. When I have free funds and time for another experimental
CRX, you may see it on the track. Sorry, not before then.
Unlike John, I don't enjoy blowing things up, twist shafts and
strip gears, then fix it all just to blow again. Nothing wrong
with this sport, I am just not that type. Sorry, I'd rather
spend money on BMS development (which *might* benefit people
more than satisfaction of seeing ACRX win).
I have lost 6 LiIOn cells (read 0V right now) due to my mistake -
I reversed them (I think) by sagging below allowed limit at cold
temp, even though SOC was high enough. I have no BMS installed yet,
so had no way of knowing details.
If I race, I may ruin few more cells and the rest will unable to move
the car without being overloaded: even with ALL working cells
my pack is marginally undersized for the job. To me satisfaction
of showing off moving ACRX on the track (and loose) is not worth
consequences of potential damages. Has nothing to do with
sporty spirit of competitive nature or excitement/satisfaction
on the trrack Roger talks about, just boring calculated reality.
Neither ACRX nor I are ready, so why bother?
I think sometimes what it would take to put together winning
AC powered car, similar to Cliff's on the track for 1/4 mile
drag racing. It is expensive, but not out of reach. So I do
not exclude such possibility in future; but not with current
ACRX I must depend on every day.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This wont help the situation. We will be still relying on BIG OIL!
Mike G.
Now, our source said, GM is trying to prod the oil companies into
installing the infrastructure necessary to sell ethanol, biodiesel or
hydrogen for those fuel cells. General Motors, he said, is particularly
worried that if it doesn't move quickly, the Japanese will get a jump on
the alternative fuels market.
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
This is "Pittsburgh Auto Show" week. A friend of mine went to the
show, and he claimed the highlights were getting to talk to a GM exec.
Note the attributed comment about the EV-1.
http://mckeesport.dementia.org/blog/000239.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From: "Frank Schmitt"
>You get the same thing with the cheaper sport bikes: crazy
>fast 0-60
>times (all in first gear) but quarter miles that are only
>slightly
>quicker than a Viper.
Just some numbers for perspective:
250 Ninja: mid to low 14's
500 Ninja: mid to high 12's
600 Ninja: high 10's
1000 Ninja: low 10's.
The bigger Ninja and the Hyabusa run 9.8 or 9.9 in the 1/4.
So says the magazines..
The newer liter bikes will do 0 - 100 mph in first gear!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Peter, your reasoning is flawed. You are taking an egocentric view, and
assuming that everyone's situation is just like yours. If you don't do
it, no one can do it. If you don't know how, no one knows how. If you've
never heard of anyone doing it, then it's never been done.
Sorry, Lee, I have to disagree. Peter may correct me, but I don't
think he implied what you're describing. His reasons have nothing
to do with his personal abilities or desire to do it.
You wrote:
> Because I (personally) don't need to. My talents are in other
> areas, so I spend my time where it can do the most good.
Wrong, if you have EV you WANT more range longer life cheaper
battery. You can't not wanting it if you're daily EV driver.
And, if it would be easily enough doable, you or someone
would. Your best talents are in different areas, but someone
else's talents are in battery building. Must be among thousands of
brightr engineers during last 25 years.
*Everyone* wants better battery just like better electronics.
*Many* attempt improve electronics with different degree of success,
but we don't hear many or even few attemps to improve a battery
in a garage, and we're looking for such info.
It can be done, no one argues with that.
As Roger thinks, it isn't too expensive. May be.
It doesn't require clean room. More for it.
It may be cheaper than OEM and better in critical parameters.
He made it sound like we all are overlooking great opportunity!
The fact remains, it isn't being done.
One can't take advantage of outcome - weak controller.
Other has insufficient motivation.
Third has talents in other areas.
Fourth...
See the pattern?
If it would take you 1 hour and $100 and result guaranteed,
I'm sure suddenly your talent Lee would be in this area too :-)
And Roger's and everyone else's on this list. We all want
that to be the case.
We don't do it simply because we *know* this is not the case.
And *far* from it.
Comparison with Joe-Sixpack saying that EV is not possible
because *he* has never built it doesn't hold water Lee.
Joe has no idea what's involved. But people on this list
is very well aware what it may take to built the battery, they are
not ignorant and many are very sharp. In fact, this awareness
is precisely why it is not done.
Victor
--- End Message ---
