EV Digest 4139
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: AC vs. DC / 100 mph club with AC?
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Question: Max efficiency charging with 3 phase alternator
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: AC vs. DC / 100 mph club with AC?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: 3 phase PM
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: 3 phase alternator-why not an induction machine?
by "djsharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: AC vs. DC / 100 mph club with AC?
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Question: Max efficiency charging with 3 phase alternator
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: 3 phase PM
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: 3 phase alternator-why not an induction machine?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Datsun Minitruck Mania!
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: 3 phase PM
by "Raymond Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Jet Electra Van manual
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) more about Nagashima's EVs
by "ProEV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) NEDRA rule changes
by "Raymond Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: EVLN(World's fastest EV, Nakashima's Super Elexceed exceeding 350 kph)
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: 3 phase PM
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23) Re: 3 phase PM
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: AC vs. DC / 100 mph club with AC?
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle.asp?section=opinion&xfile=data/opinion/2005/february/opinion_february55.xml
How not to depend on oil BY FAREED ZAKARIA 28 February 2005
THE most important statement made last week came not from
Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush but from Ali Naimi, Saudi
Arabia’s shrewd oil minister. Naimi predicted that crude prices
would stay between $40 and $50 throughout 2005. For the last two
years Opec’s official target price has been $25. Naimi’s
statement signals that Saudi Arabia now believes that current
high prices are not a momentary thing. An Asian oil-industry
executive told me that he expects oil to hit $75 this decade.
We are actually very close to a solution to the petroleum
problem. Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following
speech: "We are all concerned that the industrialised world, and
increasingly the developing world, draw too much of their energy
from one product, petroleum, which comes disproportionately from
one volatile region, the Middle East. This dependence has
significant political and environmental dangers for all of us.
But there is now a solution, one that the United States will
pursue actively.
"It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a
combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with
petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is
going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that
in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles
per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see
cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon. This
revolution in energy use will reduce dramatically our dependence
on foreign oil and achieve pathbreaking reductions in
carbon-dioxide emissions, far below the targets mentioned in the
Kyoto accords."
Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many calls for
Manhattan Projects and Marshall Plans for research on energy
efficiency and alternate fuels. Beneath the din lies a
little-noticed reality — the solution is already with us. Over
the last five years, technology has matured in various fields,
most importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars that
are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except that they run
on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid technology is
the answer to the petroleum problem.
You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and
petroleum. The next step is "plug-in" hybrids, with powerful
batteries that are recharged at night like laptops, cellphones
and iPods. Ford, Honda and Toyota already make simple hybrids.
Daimler Chrysler is introducing a plug-in version soon. In many
states in the American Middle West you can buy a car that can use
any petroleum, or ethanol, or methanol — in any combination.
Ford, for example, makes a number of its models with
"flexible-fuel tanks." (Forty percent of Brazil’s new cars have
flexible-fuel tanks.) Put all this technology together and you
get the car of the future, a plug-in hybrid with a flexible-fuel
tank.
Here’s the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless, and independent,
advocate of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get
around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75
miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel
tank that can run on a combination of 15 per cent petroleum and
85 per cent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500
miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don’t get 500 miles per gallon
of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum.
And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel
costs would drop dramatically.)
If things are already moving, why does the government need to do
anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies
— in the oil and automotive industry — have vested interests in
not changing much. There are transition costs — gas stations will
need to be fitted to pump methanol and ethanol (at a cost of
$20,000 to $60,000 per station). New technologies will empower
new industries, few of which have lobbies in Washington.
Besides, the idea that the government should have nothing to do
with this problem is bizarre. It was military funding and
spending that produced much of the technology that makes hybrids
possible. (The military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All
new naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are big
diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the West’s reliance on
foreign oil is not cost-free.
Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the
move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion. That is
what we spend in Iraq in about three months.
Smart government intervention would include a combination of
targeted mandates, incentives and spending. And it does not have
to all happen at the federal level. New York City, for example,
could require that all its new taxis be hybrids with
flexible-fuel tanks. Now that’s a Manhattan Project for the 21st
century.
Fareed Zakaria is the Editor of Newsweek International ©2005
Newsweek, Inc. © 2004 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.
-
=====
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What about four 72V packs of Orbs and four motors for [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even
two packs of buddy paired Orbs for [EMAIL PROTECTED] amps into two motors?
Granted it'd be expensive, but that's part of the problem with voltage classes.
Tim
------
> From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:10:17 -0800
>
> Dave Cloud is one of only 16 people in the Roger Hedlund 100 MPH Club and he
> did it with relatively high voltage (192) and very low bucks. Note: He did
> not do this on 72 volts. I do not think Dave is a lunatic but I will go
> ahead and print this and wait for a year to see an 8 second, 72 volt car.
> Horsepower is still watts and watts is volts times amps. Let's see, to make
> a 600,000 watt car you divide by 72. That is over 8000 amps. Show me the
> batteries. Drag racing is still horsepower per pound. You can only build a
> car so light before you are pushing safety limits. Rich, please pass on to
> Dave.
>
> Roderick Wilde
> "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> www.suckamps.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
AWD with a 72 V system on each wheel, and 6 batteries for each wheel,
I could believe this.
Alternatively, gang up four motors like Silent Thunder did, and run
each on its own controller and set of batteries, and voila 288V
levels of power on "72" volts. You might optimally have to do some
motor rewinding.
> > Dave wrote:
>
> > I believe the potential quarter mile time difference between a
> 72V system and a >360V setup is less than 0.5 seconds.
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Dave has Comcast now... better connections than I have.
> So he is listening but in Digest mode...
I suggest getting a free Gmail account:
http://isnoop.net/gmail/
Looks like this:
http://img238.exs.cx/img238/1217/gmailev9hw.gif
It's better then using digest mode. With 1000 megs of storage, just
archive all the messages. It's searchable, you can browse all the
messages using your browser instead of a email program. I really like
it.
That screenshot shows a thread of emails. It's really not as
confusing to use as that screenshot might make it look.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>Rich Rudman wrote:
>
> At a 10sofK$ for AC inverters that can make 600 amps per phase... it's not
> cheap or easy to pull it off.
I remember a while back Otmar mentioned on this list making an AC
inverter... What if some people payed in advance for it? Would that
get it into production this year?
I want a Zilla style AC controller. Keep it simple and not a fancy
~$30,000 item. ;)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Add a zero to that sixty volts, Rich. Cree makes 600V Schottky SiC
diodes. A spinoff of making all those blue LEDs...
How about that in a motor controller. Forward voltage drop still isn't
great, but they burn less power switching off.
Caveat Emptor on these, as I haven't used them (much at least), but
they are available in Otmar's favorite package, the TO-247.
Seth
On Mar 1, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Rich Rudman wrote:
OK Lee...
Schottkys can only be gotten up to about 60 volts, The voltage spikes
ring
higher than that while boosting.
Good fets usually have good body diodes or are co-packed with better
diodes..
Yup... unless you can't use Schottkys then fets are your only choice.
I predicted a full Fet bridge was going to be better. Switching the top
allows you to reduce rectification losses. A ON fet is a LOT lower
than
even a Schottky.
They staid with diodes on the top side. ...I think. We had long
arguments
about what was doable and what was right and cost effective. Yea to do
topside sync rect they needed encoders,
Not cheap and easy. Doing this with BEMF sensing and a DSP... Would...
allow for cheap commutation control.
Then again they didn't want to use a expensive Micro, they used a
MicroChip
of some sort.
So... there are ways to suck Trons from small sources... elegantly...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Question: Max efficiency charging with 3 phase alternator
Rich Rudman wrote:
The best in the Buisness are PM windturbine power sections.
They use FETs and Diodes. The top of the 3 phase bridge is Diodes,
Low voltage, low conduction losses. Ultra fast soft recovery.
Who cares if they are fast or soft recovery? We're only dealing with
low
audio frequencies. I would think they would choose the diodes based on
forward voltage drop (probably schottkys).
The bottoms are FETS that can be PWMed. This allows normal
rectification when there is enough windblowing.
Presumably by using the MOSFET's body diode? This is a high-drop
diode.
When there is not sufficient wind for conduction into the Batteries,
but there is voltage, they switch the bottoms Fets as a boost
converter.
Clever.
Fet can be better than a diode, if switched properly.
True, but if they are using ~1v drop body diode and non-schottkys,
there
goes efficiency.
--
If you would not be forgotten
When your body's dead and rotten
Then write of great deeds worth the reading
Or do the great deeds worth repeating
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is this something Otmar referred to as "buying a win"?
Victor
Rich Rudman wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:59 AM
Subject: AC vs. DC / 100 mph club with AC?
Can AC "run the number"?
Yea AC can run the numbers.
Nobody that can afford a AC drive had taken it drag racing...
At a 10sofK$ for AC inverters that can make 600 amps per phase... it's not
cheap or easy to pull it off.
Because of the cost of the silicon... really high voltages and modest Amps
is the best way to get the most watts into a AC motor. So you see 450 volts
and 300 amps, instead of 240 volts and 2000 amps as in the DC world. Still
it's cheaper to make a 2000 amp controller and use the brushes to invert,
that it is to pony up for 600 volt 1200 amp 1/2 bridge modules.
A couple of us Sure would like to try...Flat torque out to 6000 rpm is to
kill for in racing. And frankly when one of us does get it done...It's going
to change how "fast" fast will be.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> We've tried 60amp and 100amp alternators.
> Neither put out much more than 20amps at full-out steam rate.
> And while we could boost the steam pressure and rate, the engine's already
> going like a bat-outta-hell to drive the generator fast enough.
> We increased the belt drive ratio also, from perhaps 1:4 to 1:6 -- my
> guess.
> We can probably do 2400RPM at the alternator, but not much more.
> At much over 300RPM the steam engine gets loud.
Find an alternator with an external regulator. Get as high a drive ratio
and wind the steam engine up as far as you are comfortable with. Then
build buy and adjustable external regulator and dial in almost any amount
of current you want.
The current output is basically controlled by the voltage set point on the
regulator, more voltage = more current.
At some point you'll get a peak current because you can't drive the field
voltage any higher, but that should end up WAY over 20 amps.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In defence of my series hybrid proposal, I selected running the Diesel
at its most efficient revs (best specific fuel consumption). The Diesel
engine displacement is much less than one you would have in a straight
IC car. So there is less friction losses etc. You need only have so much
power as is needed to move at legal speeds plus some for charging. Every
time you stop or slow you gain more charging Ahrs. For hill climbing
battery reserves are used, for down hill regenerate if you've got it or
use neutral gear.100mpg is not unrealistic. My Peugeot Diesel 406 HDI
auto wagon does 50mpg (I converted to US gals for the benefit of US
folk) at highway speeds and I once got 20% better than this by driving
at no faster than 50mph. In this time of dwindling fuel reserves some
compromises will be needed & running at lower speeds will have to be one
of them.
I cannot understand why the Toyota & Honda hybrids are not Diesels.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lee Hart
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 6:10 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: 3 phase alternator-why not an induction machine?
>> At continuous driving speeds, series hybrids will NEVER exceed
>> the mileage you could get by directly connecting the ICE to the
>> wheels (first law of thermodynamics), in fact the second law of
>> thermodynamics states that you won't even match it.
Not true. Consider the Toyota Prius. If you drive at a constant 30 mph,
you only need a few horsepower. The ICE won't burn much gasoline, but it
isn't very efficient at this low power level. You get a fuel economy of
something like 50 mpg.
But with the hybrid system, the ICE cycles on and off. When off, the car
runs on purely electric power and consumes zero gasoline. When on, it
runs at a more efficient higher-hp level to both drive the car and
recharge the batteries. Now you get more like 60 mpg average.
The key to making this work is that the efficiency of the ICE when
operating at higher HP has to be enough greater than that at lower HP to
compensate for the losses in the electric drive system.
--
If you would not be forgotten
When your body's dead and rotten
Then write of great deeds worth the reading
Or do the great deeds worth repeating
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
> unless you are also running more than rated current.
Is it rated at 2,000 amps? ;)
> With what inverter? What battery current?
I'm not yet familiar with the available inverters. As far as
batteries, I'm currently fond of the Orbitals. Optima's if there was
a convincing or convenient reason. Is there anything else? I've
never been a proponent of flooded's just from all the corroded battery
terminals and battery trays on ICE cars I've seen over the years.
> Maybe you should consider building an AC/DC hybrid. Use an AC drive for
> efficient, long-range cruising. Use a brute-force DC series motor and
> contactor controller for racing.
Well.. for the past ~11 years I've been into 5.0 Mustangs and drag
racing. For me, it's not at all about racing against someone else and
winning. It's about "the numbers". It's my impression there are two
types that are into drag racing. Those into it for "competitive
sport", and those that are into "numbers".
In my case, I want a certain amount of hp/tq and run a certain 1/4
mile time. I'll use a chassis dyno for one and the track for the
other. What's in the other lane doesn't matter too me, I just want my
numbers! That's partly how I derive satisfaction from it. The mind
just seems to love working on little puzzles. How do I... What if
I... How about...
Small block, big block, strokers, nitrous, turbos, blowers... An
infinite number of ways to have any number of hp/tq and 1/4 mile time.
But they all have drawbacks and none of them are ideal. Plus, for
some reason, all the excess pollution as a result started to trouble
me(and it should) and the complexity and maintenance of the internal
combustion engine I don't care for anymore.
What really appeals to me about electric vehicles is their
"simplicity". Motor, controller, charger, battery pack. That's
pretty much it minus the incidentals.
Also something about how quiet they are. Full throttle and the entire
town can't hear it. And I'm able to do it all without pumping out
massive cubic tonnage of pollution.
I wasn't there for the '73 "oil crisis", but for some reason, I feel
compelled to separate myself from "needing" to buy fuel. Maybe just
for peace of mind.
That will be quite a sight if that happens again and we're all out
cruising around in our electrics while everyone else is trying to buy
some ~$20/gal gasoline for their 12mpg suv..
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Sync rectigication with lousy body diodes in MOSFETs isn't worth
> the effort. You must use conduction of the mosfer itself to take
> advantage of it. Regular Si rectifier will yield beter efficiency
> that synchronous with body diodes (not that anyone would do it
> that way).
>
Well Duh!!
I didn't mean they were using the MOSFET body diodes for synch
rectification (that wouldn't be synch rectification anyway) I meant they
were using the MOSFETs as MOSFETs and doing "synchronous rectification" or
at least as close to synchronous rectification as you can get when the
other side of the bridge is a standard diode.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The reference to the "Air 403" is to SouthWest Windpower's alternators. I
> know they will make real amps at low RPMs.
> But... isn't the "403" only a 400 watt device?
Supposedly 400 watts at rated wind speed (25 mph?) but from I've read it
only really does about 300 watts at 25 mph.
It can, however, put out over 1000 watts at high wind speeds (higer RPMs)
though I don't know for how long.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>> At continuous driving speeds, series hybrids will NEVER exceed
>>> the mileage you could get by directly connecting the ICE to the
>>> wheels (first law of thermodynamics), in fact the second law of
>>> thermodynamics states that you won't even match it.
>
> Not true. Consider the Toyota Prius. If you drive at a constant 30 mph,
> you only need a few horsepower. The ICE won't burn much gasoline, but it
> isn't very efficient at this low power level. You get a fuel economy of
> something like 50 mpg.
>
> But with the hybrid system, the ICE cycles on and off. When off, the car
> runs on purely electric power and consumes zero gasoline. When on, it
> runs at a more efficient higher-hp level to both drive the car and
> recharge the batteries. Now you get more like 60 mpg average.
>
Do you really think the Prius engine is so much more efficient at the
higher power level that it makes up for double conversion losses AND NiMH
charge efficiency?
Besides, the Prius isn't a series hybrid, it's a series/parallel hybrid.
When the Engine is on, and you're moving, it's driving the wheels (more or
less) directly and not going through double conversion losses.
If you went double conversion *always* plus charge efficiency for when the
motor is off, you'd have to be about three times more efficient at the
high power level compared to the lower power level ICE only setup
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm curious. Why all this effort into making a non street legal drag racer
that is slower than the street legal drag racer you already have? Is this
only the first configuration you are planning with this truck?
damon
From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Datsun Minitruck Mania!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:53:34 -0800
The current 'MC/D' class record is 18.2 seconds at close to 72 mph. I'm
expecting Purple
Phaze to run 14's pretty easily, at the low 90 mph area...sorry William :-)
The 'SC/D'
class record is safe since this truck won't be street legal, but at a quick
14.779 @ 87.58
mph out of Father Time's hot Z Car, even though it’s street legal (all the
more
impressive), I've just gotta beat that time and speed! How could I hold my
head up, if my
race only MC class minitruck can’t beat his street legal machine? Speaking
of Father Time,
his insane narrowed bug might race in the same class...hmmm, looks like a
fun racing season.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> Horsepower is still watts and watts is volts times amps. Let's see, to
> make
>> a 600,000 watt car you divide by 72. That is over 8000 amps. Show me the
>> batteries. Drag racing is still horsepower per pound. You can only build
>> a
>> car so light before you are pushing safety limits. Rich, please pass on
>> to
>> Dave.
Hold on here, watts is still watts too. If you have a pack that can
deliver 600kW it can do it whether or not you wire it up in series for
360V or in parallel for 72V.
Of course your I2R losses go up at the higher amp level, but you can fix
that with bigger conductors. Then again, bigger conductors weigh more and
weight is always a concern on drag racers.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Myles Twete wrote "Maybe...who knows?
We've tried 60amp and 100amp alternators.
Neither put out much more than 20amps at full-out steam rate.
And while we could boost the steam pressure and rate, the engine's already
going like a bat-outta-hell to drive the generator fast enough.
We increased the belt drive ratio also, from perhaps 1:4 to 1:6 -- my guess.
We can probably do 2400RPM at the alternator, but not much more.
At much over 300RPM the steam engine gets loud.
Ideally, I'd like to see it spin much less.
Hence, driving an ETEK at (13.2v+.025*60amp)*(75RPM/volt) = 1103RPM ,
we should expect (with 1:6 belt drive) a steam engine speed of only 183RPM.
That'll be much better---even if we have to increase the steam regulator
pressure, which I doubt we'd have to do.
Now, if I can only get my friend to cough up $400 for an ETEK..."
Ok, finally someone mentions plain old alternators. This is where I can
finally run my mouth, LOL. I specialize in these, have been for 25 years on
and off (family shop, electrical version of the OCC). Anyway here are some
units you might consider:
CS130ACSE 55amps @ 2000 shaft rpm, 70amps @ 2250shaft rpm, 120-130amps max,
cost $100.00; CS130ACSE Thunder Series 50amps @ 2000 shaft rpm, 75amps @
2250shaft rpm, max. 160+amps, cost $130.00. These are small frame units and
true one wires. You only hook the output post to the battery, it does the
rest. Come with 70amp avalanche diodes and are about 55% efficient
(average).
If you want lots of power we also have: 10461104 85amps @ 1800 shaft rpm,
115amps @ 2000 shaft rpm, 250+amps max, cost $550.00, again one wire, load
dump, etc. Need more, 10478101 202amps @ 1800 shaft rpm, 236amps @ 2000
shaft rpm, 350amps max, cost $1000.00 or 10478202 69amps/24volt @ 1600 shaft
rpm, 136amps/24volt @ 2000rpm, 250+amps/24volt max, cost $1200. These are
one wire brushless alternators, very HD.
Then there is the EcoAir at 240amps @ 1650 shaft rpm, 260amps @ 2000 shaft
rpm, max 310amps and starts producing at about 600 shaft rpm, cost around
$1100.00, also available in 24volt. This unit is proven 74% efficient, the
average ambulance using these sees a 5.9% increase in gas mileage. It is a
one wire as well.
There are just a few examples of what I have available. There are plenty in
between. Just thought I would let you know what is available.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all:
I have a Jet Electra Van Model 600 maintenance and repair manual that does
nothing for me. It appears to be complete, is bound, and not yellowing too
bad. If anyone in interested in it please contact me off list. I figure it to
be worth the $5.00 needed to ship it to you.
Jim Donovan
Westwood, KS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Look at this EV(behind the bondage babe).
http://www.carview.co.jp/tas/2005/car/html/zero_sports/super_elexceed/01.asp
Website here.
http://www.zero-ev.com/index.asp
I don't see any specs in English.
Also for his mini car, but I hope they don't mean the top speed is 45 MPH.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?intAsvPageCurrent=3§ion_id=31&article_id=9123
Cliff
www.ProEV.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The only rule I want to see changed is including of all zero emissions
vehicles into the running, or at least the addition of hybrid in the sense
of electric/and other zero emission fuel, to be eligible for records. You
will need to save this email for at least two years though, as that project
is still awaiting financing. But it is coming, a 7 second daily driver, at
under 96volts.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
350 kph is a long ways from the record, the electric land speed
record right now is 504 kph (315 mph). They could claim the fastest
street legal electric, perhaps.
--- bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EVLN(World's fastest EV, Nakashima's Super Elexceed exceeding 350
> kph)
> [The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
> informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
> --- {EVangel}
> http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050228wo11.htm
> Entrepreneur speeds toward dream record
> Kentaro Kajiura / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer
>
> Tokushi Nakashima, 38, is obsessed with his desire to produce the
> world's fastest electric car.
>
> "Speed can be used to measure technological advancement," he
> said.
>
> In Tokyo, his car, the Super Elexceed, attracted a lot of
> attention at an auto show last month for its streamlined body.
>
> The Tokyo Auto Salon 2005 was held at the Makuhari Messe
> convention center in Chiba on Feb. 14 and 15.
>
> Nakashima, who developed the Super Elexceed himself, is calling
> for contributions from businesses to finance his dream--creating
> an electric car capable of speeds exceeding 350 kph.
>
> The current world record of 311 kph was set in April 2001 in
> Nardo, Italy, by an eight-wheel-drive sedan called KAZ, or Keio
> Advanced Zero-Emission Vehicle.
>
> In 1994, Nakashima, 38, established the car parts manufacturer
> Zero/Sports Co. in a rented warehouse in Gifu.
>
> Four years later, he launched his project to create the fastest
> electric car.
>
> "Electric cars were still in their infancy (at the time). I
> believed I could bet my fate on their future," he said.
>
> He was scorned by engineers at major automakers, who said he
> would need an enormous amount of capital, which could only be
> raised by large manufacturers.
>
> But he has proved them wrong.
>
> In December 2000, his first attempt called Zero EV Formula, in
> which EV stood for electric vehicle, recorded a speed of 276.6
> kph, setting a national record.
>
> He marketed his second vehicle, Zero EV Elexceed RS, in March
> 2003, as a fashionable sports car.
>
> His third vehicle, Zero EV Celo View, a truck, was released in
> July 2004.
>
> Both are priced at about 2 million yen.
>
> "They are selling fairly well," he said.
>
> Cars that are poorly balanced will never reach top speeds, even
> with the best-performing engines, he added.
>
> Reflecting on his youth, Nakashima said he failed university
> entrance examinations.
>
> "I changed my way of thinking and decided to go to work before my
> peers," he said.
>
> He found his first full-time job with a machinery manufacturer,
> but he quit shortly after to run his own business, which later
> developed into Zero/Sports.
>
> The firm recently has moved to Kagamihara, Gifu Prefecture, and
> has about 40 employees on its payroll.
>
> Despite his successes, the road has not been easy for Nakashima,
> who suffered health problems from overwork and faced funding cuts
> by banks.
>
> No matter what obstacles he encounters, Nakashima still believes
> that electric cars are the future and noisy engines will no
> longer be an option sooner rather than later.
>
> And so he forges ahead with his dream, getting closer to
> achieving the world record for the fastest electric car.
>
> Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter suggested:
> ...and wind the steam engine up as far as you are comfortable with.
> Then build buy an adjustable external regulator and dial in
> almost any amount of current you want.
Sure---if the owner was willing to implement a higher gear ratio---which he
doesn't seem inclined to---hence the desire for a low-RPM solution like the
ETEK.
I wouldn't even bother with a regulator----we have 8 batteries in parallel
and we can dial whatever steam rate we want into the engine----i.e. increase
steam flow, watch the electric current meter needle rise to whatever desired
rate, then leave it be----there's little chance of overcharging these
batteries while underway, steaming and drawing 40amps.
-MT
> The current output is basically controlled by the voltage set
> point on the
> regulator, more voltage = more current.
> At some point you'll get a peak current because you can't
> drive the field
> voltage any higher, but that should end up WAY over 20 amps.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 3/1/05 2:30:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Subj: RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
Date: 3/1/05 2:30:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brown, Jay)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
I wouldn't typically post to this kind of thing but this one gets to me
because I am considering trying to actually race eventually.
Fundamentally I disagree with the claimer system...
I will NEVER...EVER... show up for an event if someone has the
possibility of buying my sweat and blood out from under me once I win...
If I was rich I wouldn't care because I would just pay someone to build
me another one. This is not the case however. I will be in my small
garage sweating for months with lots of elbow grease and ingeniuty to
try and win. My sweat is worth a lot of money to me but that won't go
into the price of the vehicle which someone could purchase at what would
be a MAJOR discount... >>
I SUPPORT THIS ABOVE STATEMENT>I would never put the CE in this position
Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
More pole count more magnets, Same shaft speed.
You are getting close to find the difference in Steam HorsePower and Shaft
and electrical.
If your Steam Hp is really HP then Even a 600 watt alternator is going to
suck it down.
A old story from my Youth, a friend of mine's Dad owned the Steamer the
Virgina V. It still prowls the Puget Sound. One night a bunch of Drunk
Boeing Slide rule types started guessing the Hp needed to push the hull
through the water at design speed, the Arguments ranged from 800 to 2000 hp.
The V5 is NOT a slug! The Captian infomed the Engineers that the Name plate
said 200 Shaft HP. They all climbed down into the Bilges to read the
polished tag. Of course the V5 is direct drive direct reversing tripple
expansion real good old stuff engine.
It seams that the rating system is a LOT different that what adds up to
clean Physics.
The stick rubbers rounded things down to 200 shaft Steam, 200 shaft drirect
drive electric, 450 Hp Gimmy diesel and 800 + Gasoline Big block street car
numbers. The funny thing is the Steam and the slow speed electric where
given even billing.
One of the really neat old derilicts on that ship was a 2 cyclender gear
driven Genset that made 120 VDC. It was not working, but it clearly was a
serious geared step up from the steam to the Gen set. The engine was
punny!!! the Generator cage was about 18 inches across and a foot long or
more. Small steam hooked to BIG set of copper and brushes. I would love to
get that unit back on line. The hunch is it was a rather slow speed
generator, but had some real Amps .
Guys.... If you can find the right Generator... NOT alternator...they were
more eff, but need a higher RPM to make any amps. The alternators came on
harder at lower RPM, but were very lossey.
The permag high magnet count altermators are what you want.
The Fiero just drove home on 96...er 85 volts... I have two running EVs.
Goldie goes over to the shop for a battery up grade....Goldie on 240 volts
of FRESH lead.... Droool!!!.....oh boy....
I think the Fiero need the old Raptor... the wheel standing one....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: 3 phase PM
> Rich suggested:
>
> > Why don't you spin the Alternators a bit faster???
>
> Did I say this is a steam engine?
> A fully enclosed 2-cylinder steam engine w/overhead slide valves
> (e.g. Stuart Models 'Sirius': http://tinyurl.com/3ur3k ) could happily and
> quietly do 2000-2800RPM.
>
> An open-frame 2-cylinder 2-cylinder 1.5HP Tiny Power arrangement like my
> friend's gets noisy above 5cps (300RPM) and loud at 10cps (600RPM).
> With about a 6:1 belt gearup, this limits the alternator max speed to
> between 1800 and 3600RPM. I'd like to keep it under 1800.
> There are "low speed" alternators out there.
> We tried one---a 100amp job that was "low speed".
> It didn't do any better than the 60amp one---guess "low speed" is
relative.
> The PMA alternator claimed low speed performance as well---NOT!
>
> But you're right, Rich----the best thing to do is spin the damn thing
faster
> and use a regular alternator. It's just not a pretty option in this
> case---unless he bites the bullet and adds another belt gear-up stage.
>
> Andre asked:
>
> >Is is possible that the steam engine is giving all it can at the
> > pressure and speed you are running?
>
> Not a chance.
> The alternator loads the steam engine down very little even at max steam
> rate---a rate of steam and speed that is higher than I'd consider good
quiet
> and efficient design. The engine should be loaded down at least 2-4x what
> it now sees from the generator.
>
> >Is the 1.5HP a calculated or measured value?
>
> It was my guess based on size and operating pressure.
> I see from the Tiny Power site that it may only be rated for 1HP steady.
> I believe that his steam engine is essentially this one from Tiny Power:
> http://www.tinypower.com/store.php?crn=56&rn=251&action=show_detail
> Gene Goebel claims there that it's good for charging 12v with 50amps.
> Given the 600watt claim, and given the inefficiencies in the engine, I'd
say
> the 2-cyl steam engine absorbs 1.5HP to deliver that 600watts.
>
> >...guessing you know how fast the torque can drop off at high speeds...
>
> Sure...thanks.
>
> -Myles
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Is this something Otmar referred to as "buying a win"?
I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly. I was specifically referring too:
"and I hope that someday I can offer a 150 HP AC drive for about $3000."
Full text:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otmar"
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: AC Motors and Reverse
Take my most popular Zilla, the 156V rated Z1K-LV that sells retail
$1975. That's 160 HP. Try finding a 160 HP AC controller for under
$2000. I think you'll have a hard time finding that. A quick look at
the Grainger catalog shows the largest one they sell being 125 HP,
and costing from $15,000 to $20,000. But to be fair, most AC drives
can do 2X overload for peak power so lets compare to a 75 HP drive.
Those range from $9600 to $15,000. Still at least 5 times the cost
of the Zilla DC drive.
Or take the top of the line 348V 2000A Zilla that sells for $4900.
That's about 700 peak HP at the shaft if you had the batteries to
drive it. This comes to about $7.14 per HP. Try finding that in a AC
drive of any sort.
I have built both AC and DC systems and of course I pay a lot of
attention to cost. I agree that the development cost is higher for AC
drives, but even when that is fully amortized (or as is more common
in this industry, given away!) the AC drives do cost more.
AC controllers are quite a bit more expensive per KW to build. They
have 6 times the gate driver circuits, more than twice the processor
power, three times or more the cost to measure current and the power
section (which includes the heatsink in my calculations) costs 2 to 4
times as much as a similar DC controller. Resistors don't matter on
the price, but power devices, current measuring, gate drive and
heatsinks sure do.
Of course all these effects are highly dependent on the particular
design and application. The best representative case that I know of
was one where I was asked to replace a DC controller that I had
designed with a AC one. The application was identical and *very* cost
sensitive. In the end I worked the AC controller down to 140% of the
cost of the DC controller. This was for a very high volume design so
the development costs were next to nil. I think this is a reasonable
target, and I hope that someday I can offer a 150 HP AC drive for
about $3000.
The difficulty in comparing EV controllers that you can buy on the
market today is that they are optimized differently. The Siemens
controllers, like many AC controllers, try to keep the controller
cost down by raising the system voltage. This makes sense if you are
trying to make a cheaper controller, but the economics become worse
if you look at the balance of the system. You are now severely
handicapped by requiring a high voltage battery system. This of
course increases costs quite a bit, and theoretically reduces
reliability. You can thankfully run them at lower voltage, but then
the power is closer to that of a Curtis.
Still, I understand their logic because building a high power low
voltage AC controller really showcases the increased cost of the AC
controller.
Don't get me wrong, I drove AC for many years, and I like it a lot,
but one thing it's not is "less expensive".
Now, if you take the motor into consideration then the argument can
become much closer. When you start producing hundreds of thousands of
AC systems (motor and controller) the situation gets much closer
because the AC motors are much cheaper to make than the DC motors.
The AC system still costs more, but it's not that much more and as
power electronics slowly get better the argument for AC gets better
as well.
Have fun!
--
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
--- End Message ---
