EV Digest 4228
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Battery controllers, was gliders
by Robert MacDowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Slightly off topic but of interest to many.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Texas to New York using just 12 batteries!
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Adapter Ideas
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Brag about your EV
by "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Brag about your EV
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) OT Re: Brag about your EV
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Brag about your EV
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) OT Re: Interesting electric vehicle statue in Arizona
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Brag about your EV
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Desirable amp hours
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Optima flavor question.
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Battery exchange, 1 is being designed! Re: Glider source
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: EV Efficiency
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: EV Efficiency
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) slightly OT: Oregonian EV legisl.
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: EV Efficiency
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: BB600 delivery
by Steve Gaarder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EV Efficiency
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) WOT (was Re: slightly OT: Oregonian EV legisl.)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: BB600 delivery
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
David Roden wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 at 9:59, Paul Wallace wrote:
One other thing to consider is battery pack leasing. I think that you
could get a local garage very interested in this.
I've been advocating this for years.
I've seen many, many used EVs for sale with the phrase "needs batteries."
The problem is that Joe or Jane average buys (eh, make that ^bought^ as
there's currently none readily available for sale) an EV for any one of
several reasons. The car comes with batteries, a charger, minimal battery
management hardware, and (maybe) a few words of instruction in the manual
(which nobody reads), and that's it.
The owner drives the car for a while, boasting that it costs him almost
nothing. With overcharging and overdischarging, the battery is soon kaput.
The owner discovers that a replacement costs, say, $1800! He's never spent
that kind of money on a 2-year-old gas car, but he swallows his annoyance
and buys the new battery.
[but won't do it twice.]
Sure. And that's the ultimate reputation wrecker for EVs.
The Oldsmobile 350 diesel was ruined in the marketplace
because its fuel injector demanded a $1000 repair every
80,000 miles.
Battery leasing would motivate the right thing, but I think
what's really needed is for the EV community to be as
brilliant at creating battery controllers as they've been at
creating motor controllers.
Right now, battery management is done ad-hoc, shared
between the charger and the motor-controller, right?
The motor-controller tries, but it's not like it's *designed*
to manage the pack and its unique peculiarities (sealed,
wet, chemistry, age, charge state, temperature, etc. )
Imagine a set of electronics whose sole job is to be the
guardian-watchdog of that precious battery pack. I mean
you wouldn't want another set of high current switches in
the circuit, but the battery controller could command the
motor-controller and charger to do what's needed for the
pack's health.
Obviously the battery controller would be configured for
its pack, but ideally, the signals it'd send the charger and
motor controller would be standardized, so any battery
controller could play with any motor controller and charger.
Seems to me it would simplify the design of motor controller
and battery charger.
It would also make regenerative braking design less scary
because the motor controller would be told how much it
could push back into the batteries.
And it would facilitate battery experimentation.
What do you think?
Robert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence, this is interesting, but it is not slightly off topic - it is
^wholly^ off topic. Anyway: please do not post any such material in the
future.
Thanks,
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EV List Assistant Administrator
Hmmm. These are the reasons I joined the list and started to build electric
vehicles. Each article was in some way related to vehicles or what they
need or where things are going. I didn't want to say OT because I thought
it was too strong. I thought many on the list would apreciate it and I did
say slightly OT. Should I have said OT. Is this considered political? It
is *not* intended to discuss either EV appropriateness or comparisons with
other transportation primary drive modes such as the venerable internal
combustion engine. Those "discussions" are best relegated to the appropriate
usenet newsgroup. Oops. Sorry if this information offended anyone.
Lawrence Rhodes.............
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From his own writing:
At all conditions tested, the input Power exceeded the output power. That
is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Rutledge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: Texas to New York using just 12 batteries!
motors. Joseph Newman find him on the web easy. You will be
enlightened.
OK I googled him and found this:
http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/contents.html
(The National Bureau of Standards was called in to prove this is not an
overunity device, because he insisted on trying to patent it.)
. _______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(_ | |_) http://ecloud.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__) | | \______________________________________________
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I looked into some of the details of the generic mountings that james
was talking about and i decided it looked ugly and actually added cost
to have extra holes.
I haven't got my quote back from the cnc shop yet but I can have 10
adapters made each with different hole patterns cheaper than 10 adapters
each with twice the number of holes per plate. If adding 2 holes gets
you a second pattern like some chev/pontiac versions then it works out
better to make just one plate. I am trying to standardize the motor bell
to work on the 8 and 9" but I don't have the 8" motor and the 9" motor
drawing I found doesn't match the motor anyway.
My idea is to use standard fixtures and the differences will be just in
the software we load into the CNC, The main profile will probably be cut
by a abrasive waterjet, it seems fairly fast and the first prototype was
$50, I picked up the 11" diameter, and took about .020 off of it, called
that zero then walked off the pattern. The CNC will register off this
hole and we just load a plate in the fixture and run the program.
http://cvevs.jfs-tech.com/
Another Idea would be to make our own end bells and motor shafts and
send them to netgain to have wound and assembled. The motor would have a
big enough flange to mount to the adapter and would provide an end like
a motor crank instead of a keyed shaft. this could save 1.4 inches of
overall length. If we also redesigned to have larger thru motor bolts,
then we could use the stock motor mounts on the diameter of the electric
motor.
I think there would be a huge benifit in open designs, we don't have to
agree on one design, we can instead each specilize and share.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well it's time to take it to the streets.
GM wants to crush the EV-1 and destroy all evidence it existed. Ford wanted to
crush the Th!nk and the Ranger. Its quite obvious the EV is an intrusive
technology and a threat to the Big Three's manhood.
Its up to us to promote our EVs and brag about them at every opportunity. With
rising gas prices and the Big 3 insisting on building more gas guzzlers we can
get our revenge by bragging that we don't need them anymore and $2.50 for gas
is a rip off. We can build our own cars, service them and juice them up
ourselves.
The EV Production group is a good start in getting this goal accomplished.
Our goal for this year should be to replace each one of those crushed EV-1s
with a new EV or conversion.
800 new EVs should be on the road by December 31, 2006. This includes getting
some of our long-term EV projects back on the road again. EVery EV, young or
old, makes a difference.
See ya,
Chip Gribben
NEDRA Webmaster - http://www.nedra.org
NEDRA Power of DC Webmaster - http://www.powerofdc.com
EVA/DC Webmaster - http://www.evadc.org
Riker Electric Vehicles Webmaster - http://www.rikerelectricvehicles.com
Heinzmann USA Hub Motors Webmaster - http://www.heinzmannusa.com
ScooterWerks Electric Scooter Repair - http://www.scooterwerks.com
SkooterCommuter Webmaster - http://www.skootercommuter.com
Suck Amps Website Designer - http://www.suckamps.com
DigiZone Designs Website and Graphic Design - http://www.digizonedesigns.com
144-volt Ford Escort
24-volt Dual Motor Schwinn Missile Scooter
24-volt Vego Scooter
36-volt Custom TidalForce Low Rider
36-volt Schwinn Spoiler Chopper
36-volt Stiletto Chopper
GE Elec-Trak E-10
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:26:32 -0500, "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> With rising gas prices and the Big 3 insisting on building more gas guzzlers
> we can get our revenge by bragging that we don't need them anymore and $2.50
> for gas is a rip off.
In reality, gas is just now catching up with reality.
I remember well when gas hit $0.50/gal in 1974. I'd just started a
new government job with a 70 mile round trip commute.
If we go to the government's official Consumer Price Index inflation
calculator here:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm
(about half way down the page in a javascript popup window) and plug
in the numbers, we see that the 50 cents I paid in 1974 is the same as
$1.95 today. Coincidentally, gasoline here yesterday (I didn't go out
today) ranged from $1.95 to $2.05.
In other words, we're paying the same price now as in 1974 in constant
dollars. In case it isn't obvious, gasoline has been at an all time
low price over the last decade or so. This is an amazing
accomplishment considering how much government meddling has gone on in
the interim.
I think that a lot of people intrinsically realize how much a bargain
gas has been (and still is) even if they don't actually think about
it, which is why there isn't the screaming and gnashing of teeth like
there has been in the past.
I'm in the camp that predicts that gas will be back down significantly
below the CPI by end of summer.
I suggest that your evangelical approach is exactly the WRONG way to
sell EVs to the typical driver who views his car as a transportation
appliance. That bleary-eyed "CONVERT, SINNER, CONVERT" approach will
cause most people to establish a new file in their mental filing
cabinets labeled "EV==fruitcake".
There is a central tenant in marketing that I was taught years ago.
It is "lead with benefits, follow with features."
In other words, to hook a prospect, you have to convince him that your
product offers benefits that he can't live without. Only after you
hook him can you close the sale with a feature list.
So let's list some hard benefits:
* cheaper to operate, particularly urban driving.+
* Instant on. No cranking, startup or warmup delays.
* Can be pre-conditioned (heated in winter, AC'd in summer) on shore
power at practically no additional cost.
* (with the right setup) instant acceleration exactly matched to urban
"squirt'n'go" traffic conditions.
* quiet.
* Is not harmed by those short milk runs that everyone has to do.
* No gas stations.
* No gas fumes.
* Never any fuel related problems (vapor-lock, water in the gas,
winter icing, etc)
* "fuel" at home.
+ we'll ignore for now that this requires an inexpensive used EV or
used conversion.
These are tangible benefits that anyone who operated a car can
identify with. Especially if you don't try to convince them that the
EV will replace their primary cars. Notice that the above list
contains no envirowhackery or politics. Inject either of those into
the conversation of most folk and that "ev==fruitcake" mental folder
instantly snaps open.
The main benefits for me are instant-on, pre-conditioning and no gas
stations. I think that everyone can identify with that.
The problem now with peddling EVs is, when the guy says "OK, so I'm
convinced. Let's go buy one", what are you going to say? "Oh, uh,
well, can I interest you in a 1983 Rabbit conversion?" Nah. Not
gonna cut it.
This is really the bottom line. Exactly what are you selling? How
are you going to answer that "let's go buy one" response when there's
nothing to buy?
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is really the bottom line. Exactly what are you selling? How
> are you going to answer that "let's go buy one" response when there's
> nothing to buy?
Yes. Frustrating. Illegal and hard to find. Awkward to promo, in the
Great White North.
Lock
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chip Gribben wrote:
>800 new EVs should be on the road by December 31, 2006.
>This includes getting
>some of our long-term EV projects back on the road
>again. EVery EV, young or
>old, makes a difference.
Mine will be on the road when I finally get the money to
finish it. Don't know when, but I'd hope by December 2006.
Being a college student though, I'm sure my workload senior
year may be too much to be able to be working on the EV.
That would be unfortunate. I hate getting raped at the gas
pump just for the privelidge of poisoning the air I and
others breath, all because by policy people are forced to
have a car to get to where they need to be. Bikes are good
and all, but riding 15 miles each way in bad weather is just
not practical due to the risks involved and time required.
Especially with snow and lots of traffic, and too boot no
adequate bike-specific roads other than what's in some
parks. Better off just walking in that case.
I know when I do have my car going as an EV, I'm going to
have a lot of fun attracting all the attention I can to the
car. I'm going to take it to get 'emissions tested' down in
Olivette, Missouri, park it at the local Quicktrip with its
hood propped open(already attracts tons of attention as a
gas car with peeling paint, stripped interior, and a cracked
windshield, just because its hood pops open the other way
and its absurdly tiny. Mistaken for a Jaguar or vintage
Ferrari regularly), race it by any means necessary in which
legality is of little concern but legal preferred, scare
friends and family members dumb enough to want a ride in it,
violate the speed limit by a factor of two or more when
traffic, road, police presence, and weather permit, show it
off at British Car Shows, show it off at Hot Rod shows, show
it off at Earth Day festivals, show it off at
environmentalist gatherings, show it off at protests, use it
as an ass-kicking tool for autocrosses, drive it to my
favorite shooting range in Highland, Illinois perhaps just
to piss off or astound some rednecks on the side depending
on their state of mind and if they happen to notice the car,
show it off at my University, show it off at my old high
schools so all the kids can drool over eco-friendly cars and
perhaps want to build/have one, even give presentations and
talks about the technology and its
implications/viability/history/politics, and perhaps even
form a St. Louis area electric auto association of sorts.
And last but not least, I want to humiliate the local
teenage to twenty something ricers with their fart can
Civics. The EV is the perfect vehicle to make them crap
themselves. They'll learn to avoid the electric car in no
time when they go prowling.
And in the case I can fit an 1,125 pound pack of Optimas in
this car and meet my constraints(< or = 2,600 pound weight,
adequate safety for autocross, ect.), AND achieve the
efficiency that I find I could have on paper(160 wh/mile @
60 MPH), I'll also be attempting some nice long trips, from
STL to Kansas City, and STL to Chicago, charging at friends'
houses or homes of EV enthusiasts on the way. With a 25-30
amp draw at 60-65, a 100 mile range on such a pack would be
within realm of possibility. A PFC chugging away would have
me charged from a 220 in no time. Wayland did such type of
long trip with Red Beastie from Portland to Seattle, an
overweight slug of a truck, maybe I might be able to do it
with an efficient lightweight, too agile for its own good
sports car. That would be cool to make such a trip and
gather with the KC EV enthusiasts. First thing is first
though, I need to get this car going as an EV and see if it
can do more than 20-30 miles as Rudman has sternly warned,
or maybe even start out with a lesser size pack like 240V or
so. Having too much fun doing minor body work and toying
with it as is. Next best thing to having a Lotus Elise, and
at 1200 bux at that. A steal. My dad's jealous because now
he thinks his Audi TT is too fat. It makes him even angrier
now that I've come into the habit of naming his porky
high-maintenance car 'Sugardaddy'.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Electric personal assistive mobility device"
That'd be "EPAMD"... the standard euphemism(?) for Segway... what their
legal teams "bring" to every new jurisdiction that they are selling.
>The police tend to "look the other way" and not enforce
>these laws; but let a kid try it with an electric
>scooter and they will ticket him.
or a middle-aged wasp accountant on same (e-scoot)
Lock Hughes
e-Legal on an e-scooter in Toronto, Canada... eh?
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Electric personal assistive mobility device" means a
> self-balancing
> >> two nontandem wheeled device with an electric propulsion system
> that
> >> limits the maximum speed of the device to fifteen miles per hour
> or
> >> less and that is designed to transport only one person.
>
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> > They mean an electrified wheelchair or self-propelled shoping
> > carts for disabled people.
>
> Surprisingly, no. At least in Minnesota, they specifically meant this
> law to apply to the Segway, and the Segway only.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Neon John wrote:
>In reality, gas is just now catching up with reality.
Ain't that the truth.
>If we go to the government's official Consumer Price
>Index inflation
>calculator here:
As for that CPI, it's interesting to note a new Pontiac GTO
in 1964 cost $15,000, and a new Corvette in 1953 cost
$25,000. And my GT6 cost less than $9,000 new in 2005
dollars when it came out in '69. Ouch. Well, people will pay
for new cars now days, for whatever the psychological reason
they feel justifies a good old fashioned butt-raping and 2x
or more cost...
>I'm in the camp that predicts that gas will be back
>down significantly
>below the CPI by end of summer.
I certainly hope your prediction is correct. Otherwise the
economy could be in trouble.
>I suggest that your evangelical approach is exactly
>the WRONG way to
>sell EVs to the typical driver who views his car as a
>transportation
>appliance.
Depends on who you're talking to. Politics, socio-economic
status, location, and personality of the person you're
trying to convince will play a large role in how you go
about it. My target audiences, being spend thifts, the
neighborhood locals, those with environmental and/or
political concerns that are currently driving hybrids, and
perhaps a few farmers, all have different desires, concerns,
needs, and turnoffs. For one group, the environmental
approach would work or have some sway, for another it would
make them ignore me and continue on, while the
environmentalists or those who have certain political
opinions may care less about the features and costs and more
about the fuel it uses. For the spend thifts, pushing crappy
low-cost Citi Pods may do the trick since they are so cheap
to operate, while for those in my neighborhood, pushing
full-size EVs decked out with all sorts of bellsand whistles
like preheating and a smooth quiet ride, while in the face
of rising gas prices would have a better chance. Whereas,
the farmer might need a workhorse of a truck that will save
him money in the long term or allow complete
self-sufficiency, instead of having to make a trip to the
gas station every few weeks or so so he can save himself
some extra time.
>So let's list some hard benefits:
>
>* cheaper to operate, particularly urban driving.+
>* Instant on. No cranking, startup or warmup delays.
>* Can be pre-conditioned (heated in winter, AC'd in
>summer) on shore
>power at practically no additional cost.
>* (with the right setup) instant acceleration exactly
>matched to urban
>"squirt'n'go" traffic conditions.
>* quiet.
>* Is not harmed by those short milk runs that everyone
>has to do.
>* No gas stations.
>* No gas fumes.
>* Never any fuel related problems (vapor-lock, water
>in the gas,
>winter icing, etc)
>* "fuel" at home.
Those are all the more reasons we should be driving them, in
my opinion. Not having these things in any car sort of keeps
things backwards from a technological standpoint.
>The problem now with peddling EVs is, when the guy
>says "OK, so I'm
>convinced. Let's go buy one", what are you going to
>say? "Oh, uh,
>well, can I interest you in a 1983 Rabbit conversion?"
>Nah. Not
>gonna cut it.
A Triumph Spitfire, MGB, Fiat Spyder, Datsun 1200,
Volkswagen Kharmen Ghia, VW Bus, Datsun Z car, and many
others certainly would cut it, however. Especially if the
buyer is willing to pony up $10k or more for a conversion,
as they could have a socket rocket, so to speak. Or if it
does have to be a Rabbit, follow Bill Dube's lead. The
devil's in the details, as they say.
A plain Jane EV will evoke some dissatisfied responses from
many unless gas prices get really out of hand, but a truly
custom car that looks beatiful and so much different than
everything else on the road could get them to think long and
hard, even if it's an '83 Rabbit.
>This is really the bottom line. Exactly what are you
>selling? How
>are you going to answer that "let's go buy one"
>response when there's
>nothing to buy?
Again, depends on the person. They may actually ask for your
opinion on why they can't buy one, or may ask you to point
them in the direction of research so they can build their
own, or perhaps even pay you money to build them one. I know
it won't be he majority of cases, if I even get any takes,
but I absolutely love the thought of someone building their
own car. People actually learning something on their own due
to your actions or words has got to be one of the greatest
things one could observe.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I guess the question comes down to which batteries deliver the best power
> &
> longevity cost wise? If you buy a $50 battery and it last a year vs $100
> battery lasts 2 years, what is the difference?
>
> Still trying to learn as much as possible.
>
Well, if you figure your own time as having no value, then the venerable
T-105 6V Golf Cart battery is the clear winner. However these take a
little maintenance, topping them up with distilled water once every month
or so, for example.
If you do calculate you time as having value, then , depending on how
valuable you feel it is, "maintenance free" batteries might be more cost
effective.
If you are willing to take the looong view and put out the cash for the
hefty price tag, NiCads /may/ be more cost effective in the long run (ten
years?) Assuming you don't murder them.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Perhaps it's just "this site" but the specs for the Optima Group
31 Yellow and Blue Tops are identical. Although the Blue has two
sets of posts? Now from what I've read one should use the YT
as opposed to the BT. Even the prices are identical, what gives?
http://www.remybattery.com/350/graphics/00000001/bluetop31.jpg
It just strikes me that the double terminal BT would be more
versitile. You could double the pack interconnects? Use one
set of the end of string posts for the controller and the other
for a high power charger or something? right? Maybe I like blue.
L8r
Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi David and All,
--- David Roden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2005 at 9:59, Paul Wallace wrote:
>
> > One other thing to consider is battery pack
> leasing. I think that you
> > could get a local garage very interested in this.
>
> I've been advocating this for years.
>
> I've seen many, many used EVs for sale with the
> phrase "needs batteries."
> The problem is that Joe or Jane average buys (eh,
> make that ^bought^ as
> there's currently none readily available for sale)
> an EV for any one of
> several reasons. The car comes with batteries, a
> charger, minimal battery
> management hardware, and (maybe) a few words of
> instruction in the manual
> (which nobody reads), and that's it.
>
> The owner drives the car for a while, boasting that
> it costs him almost
> nothing. With overcharging and overdischarging, the
> battery is soon kaput.
> The owner discovers that a replacement costs, say,
> $1800! He's never spent
> that kind of money on a 2-year-old gas car, but he
> swallows his annoyance
> and buys the new battery.
>
> Another couple of years go by and he hasn't learned
> to take care of the
> battery (indeed, there's no one to tell him how).
> Nor has he learned to put
> aside some money each month to cover battery costs.
> Now his battery is junk
> again. By this time the newness and novelty of the
> car has worn off. He
> parks the car "until I can save up for batteries."
> There it sits, beside
> the garage. Eventually he either sells it to one of
> us, or has it hauled
> away as junk.
>
> But suppose he leases the battery pack instead of
> buying it with the car.
> Now he has a regulary monthly or quarterly payment
> to cover battery expense,
> pretty much the same as the monthly credit card bill
> from the gas pump. He
> also has "free" regular maintence, "free" monthly
> inspections and tests, and
> "free" replacement of failed or weak modules. He
> always has a reliable
> battery with a predictable range - and no $1800
> surprises.
>
> Meanwhile, the battery vendor has a powerful
> incentive to use battery
> management, and to look for modules with long life
> and/or lower maintenance
> to maximize his profit.
>
> You might add some options to this scheme. For
> example, include road
> service: the battery dealer will send out a charging
> truck to give you a 10
> minute fast charge if you get stuck somewhere with a
> flat battery. If the
> user finds the battery's capacity is too low, he can
> upgrade to an advanced
> battery at any time for the incremental cost. I'm
> sure creative people can
> come up with even more.
This idea would go a long way to EV acceptance and
keep them on the road.
Though it does have the chicken or the egg
problem, which comes first.
Another good point is having all the batts in one
place thus allowing them all the same temp which for
most batts is nessasary as their chararistics change
with temp so best to keep them the same.
In my new composite 3wh EV design we are working
on in the EVProduction list, 73 members now, amoung
many other very interesting designs, it will have all
the batts in one place and be able to exchange in a
minute or 2 by several easy low cost methods. I think
this is worthwhile to put in even though it could be
yrs before the network will be available to use it
widely.
And as you said, a great thing about it is being
able to upgrade to better technology as it comes
available.
Something else is you could use a or your own say
lead/acid pack for most of your needs and pop in a
300 mile range Li-ion pack for long trips exchanging
them along the freeways as needed.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
PS, David, contact me offline please.
>
>
> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
> EV List Assistant Administrator
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> = = = = = = =
> Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while
> you're on vacation,
> or switch to digest mode? See how:
> http://www.evdl.org/help/
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> = = = = = = =
> Note: mail sent to the "from" address above may not
> reach me. To
> send me a private message, please use evdl at drmm
> period net.
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> = = = = = = =
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The grid efficiency isn't that bad. The major
> problem is that even though
> it's possible to build 60% efficient (or better
> using cogeneration) power
> plants, the majority of the power plants out there
> are older units.
> As of 2001 the average thermal efficiency of US
> power plants was 33%.
>
> THe distribution grid isn't so bad, but it's
> efficiency depends on the
> load, the system is currently heavily loaded and
> that has increased the
> transmission and distribution losses to about 9.5%
> (90.5% efficient).
>
> Battery chargers average about 80% efficient.
Many are better than that and any EV production
would be. About 90% or better.
> Lead Acid batteries are about 75% energy efficient.
That's more like batt and charger for lead batts.
With a good charger you can get 85-90% eff.
> Motor/controller average about 80% efficient.
> Transmission and drive train about 90% efficient.
Most factory built EV use direct drive so eff on
drive is about 95%.
>
> 33% * 90.5% * 80% * 75% * 80% * 90% =~ 13%
Where I'm at the average power plant eff is about
45% as many plants around the US have been upgraded in
the last 3 yrs to cut fuel costs so start with say
45% x 90.5%x 90%x 85%x80%x 95%= 22.5%
HTH's,
jerry dycus
>
> Note: simply improving power plants to 60%
> efficiency increases this to 23.5%
>
> Note2: EVs can run on sunshine, wind, and rain. The
> areas where EVs are
> currently most abundant are usually near
> hydro-electric powerplants (cheap
> electricity).
>
> Note3: Alternative (other) energy sources account
> for 2.8% of US power
> production, Hydro is 6.6% and Nuclear (clean? Not
> clean?) accounts for
> 19.9%. Fossil fuels = 70.7%: Coal 50%, Natural gas
> 17.7% and Petroleum
> 3%.
>
> Note4: Giggles and grins, assuming all non-fossil
> fuel power plants are
> 100% efficient, EVs then become 20.5% efficient.
>
> References:
> http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html
>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
>
>
> > Good question. I've heard it was low due to the
> fact that power
> > transmission on the grid is inefficient. Anyone
> have some numbers?
> >
> > Chris
> > Mike wrote:
> >> Does anybody know what the efficiency of an EV is
> with power generation
> >> facility efficiency and transimission losses
> factored in? I know that
> >> indeed alternative energy production exists, but
> that is only 1% of our
> >> total electricity generating capacity and thus
> the chance that our power
> >> is coming from a clean energy source is unlikely.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > Battery chargers average about 80% efficient.
>
> Many are better than that and any EV production
> would be. About 90% or better.
Where are you seeing anything like 90%? Maybe Rich can tell us what his PFC
series averages, because all the ones I've dealt with (and probably the
scrounged-up one's you use) can't average themselves out of the 70's!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From today's Oregonian. (Call your senators, if
inclined, and show your support for SB344)!
Another bold step on energy
Oregon should adopt California's tough new tailpipe
emission standards and
lead the fight against warming
Friday, March 25, 2005
W hen debate begins today on a bill in the Oregon
Legislature to combat global warming,
some voices will argue that tough new limits to
curtail auto emissions and conserve fuel
are unnecessary and too expensive.
Oregonians have heard that before. When the region
decided in 1980 to spend billions of
dollars to conserve energy, rather than build new
power plants, critics said the plan was
too costly, the benefits too uncertain. At the time
it seemed an enormous amount to spend
on conservation, but the region now earns back its
investment in energy savings every 18
months.
It's time now for Oregon to take another bold step
on energy conservation and join other
states and countries in requiring deep cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions. Today the
Senate Environment and Land Use Committee will hold
a public hearing at Portland State
University on a bill that would lead Oregon to adopt
California's new tailpipe standards.
The hearing, which will begin at 10 a.m. at PSU's
Smith Memorial Student Union, marks
the Legislature's first serious discussion about a
key recommendation of Gov. Ted
Kulongoski's advisory group on global warming.
By now, with the scientific consensus about the
existence and perils of warming, the
United States should have adopted strong new federal
standards on emissions that would
apply to every state. But the Bush administration is
showing no leadership on warming.
So the states, including Oregon, must lead.
Senate Bill 344 would direct the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality to impose
emission standards in place in California and likely
to be approved soon in Washington.
It would require cuts in greenhouse gases by 30
percent by 2016.
The automakers are suing California and claiming, as
they always do when forced to
clean up their cars, that they can't do it, or it's
too expensive. Yet just this week
automakers reached an agreement with the Canadian
government to reduce emissions in
that country by more than 5 million tons by 2010. It
will take an estimated 25 percent
increase in fuel efficiency to do that -- about what
California is demanding.
Yes, there will be an increase in the cost of
automobiles. But with gasoline selling at more
than two bucks a gallon, and certain to rise higher,
it wouldn't take long to make up a
$1,000 price increase in a car that burned 25
percent less fuel. Oregonians have made that
calculation about energy savings before -- and been
proved right.
The governor's advisory group has compiled
disturbing research showing how global
warming already is affecting the Northwest economy
and its natural resources. Average
temperatures are rising, snowpacks are shrinking and
the sea level is steadily rising.
It's not too late for Oregon to act. But it's not
too soon, either.
Over the years Oregon has become a national leader
in energy conservation, green
buildings and sustainability. If Oregon acts now to
control greenhouse gases, it could
gain a competitive edge in marketing and profiting
from the tools needed around the
world to address global warming.
The new emission standard is a difficult,
controversial step for the Legislature. It would
be easier for lawmakers to duck the issue, to sit,
watch and wait while others lead on
global warming. But Oregon has a lot to lose if
global warming remains unchecked. It
also has a lot to gain by once again showing its
leadership on energy conservation.
'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! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Hi Peter and All,
> --- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The grid efficiency isn't that bad. The major
>> problem is that even though
>> it's possible to build 60% efficient (or better
>> using cogeneration) power
>> plants, the majority of the power plants out there
>> are older units.
>> As of 2001 the average thermal efficiency of US
>> power plants was 33%.
>>
>> THe distribution grid isn't so bad, but it's
>> efficiency depends on the
>> load, the system is currently heavily loaded and
>> that has increased the
>> transmission and distribution losses to about 9.5%
>> (90.5% efficient).
>>
>> Battery chargers average about 80% efficient.
>
> Many are better than that and any EV production
> would be. About 90% or better.
Have you actually LOOKED at the figures from production EVs? The EV1
(supposedly the most efficient production vehicle ever) with PbA batteries
uses 248wh/mile, that's not a lot better than my converted pickup with a
light dimmer charger. I suspect the chargers (with inductive paddles)
were a mojor source of loss.
>
>> Lead Acid batteries are about 75% energy efficient.
>
> That's more like batt and charger for lead batts.
> With a good charger you can get 85-90% eff.
No, wrong. PbA typically requires a return of 110% of the amp hours taken
out !!!!AND!!!!! it charges at a HIGHER voltage than it discharges it
(2.25VPC in and 1.83VPC out = 82%). If you combine the two and look at
ENERGY efficiency, a PbA is a little under 75%.
Especially when you take finishing charge into account, all that gassing
is energy wasted .
Also I didn't take into account equalization charges which run at zero %
efficiency because you put energy in that you don't effectively get out
exept to keep the batteries healthy and balanced.
Finally, as they get closer to end of life their efficiency drops even more.
I was being generous.
>
>> Motor/controller average about 80% efficient.
>> Transmission and drive train about 90% efficient.
> Most factory built EV use direct drive so eff on
> drive is about 95%.
At this point, the MAJORITY of EVs on the road are conversions (or factory
conversions, i.e. Solectria, etc.) and currently NONE of the major
automakers are interested in changing that.
>>
>> 33% * 90.5% * 80% * 75% * 80% * 90% =~ 13%
>
> Where I'm at the average power plant eff is about
> 45% as many plants around the US have been upgraded in
I was giving figures for the national average. As I said, your local mix
can improve these.
> the last 3 yrs to cut fuel costs so start with say
> 45% x 90.5%x 90%x 85%x80%x 95%= 22.5%
If you can point to a source that reliably states that power plants are
now 45% efficient, great.
Instead of just making stuff up Jerry, why don't you try looking it up?
>From EV America's testing:
EV1 with PbA = 248wh/mile
EV1 with NiMH = 373wh/mile
Chevy S10 PbA = 470wh/mile
Chevy S10 NiMh = 794wh/mile!!!
Ranger EV PbA = 484wh/mile
Ranger EV NiMH = 485wh/mile
Solectria E-10 = 317wh/mile
Solectria Force = 318wh/mile
If these REAL PRODUCTION VEHICLES are using (as you claim) chargers that
are 90+% and batteries that are 85-90% efficient, then I'll eat my boots.
P.S. I'll admit that 90+% chargers are certainly possible, I just don't
see that many people using them yet. I haven't seen any EV batteries that
are 85+% energy efficient yet.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The lack of liquid is normal.
> You know how to do the first charge, right? Is isn't like charging
> regular batteries. The comissioning charge is a little different and
> scary.
> Whatever you do, get some directions, don't water them, and figure out
> how to do the commissioning charge.
The manual that Hump sent out says to charge at contstant current, either
15 amps for 3 hours, 11.5 for 4, 9 for 6, or 7 for 7. (I would question
the 9 for 6 entry, because that's 54 AH while the others are quite a bit
less). You can also do 15 A till 1.526 volts/cell, then 6 A for 2 hours.
There's also a constant-volatage option.
As I recall, someone said that they have to be prevented from
expanding/bulging while they charge, or there will be stress on the
seals. Does anyone know how sturdy the containment needs to be, and
whether this is on both the wide and the narrow sides, or on the wide
sides only?
thanks,
Steve Gaarder
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> > Battery chargers average about 80% efficient.
>>
>> Many are better than that and any EV production
>> would be. About 90% or better.
>
> Where are you seeing anything like 90%? Maybe Rich can tell us what his
> PFC
> series averages, because all the ones I've dealt with (and probably the
> scrounged-up one's you use) can't average themselves out of the 70's!
I was trying to be generous, obviously some folks are more generous than
others.
I was also assuming that high quality chargers, like the ones from
Solectria, Metric Mind, and Rich, were much better than my K&W.
Please don't think I'm dissing the K&W, it gets the job done and, other
than problems finding replacement fuses, it's been reliable. I just don't
consider it a very 'high tech' or efficient charger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What is it with all the totally off topic posts lately?
There was NOTHING in that entire post about electric vehicles.
This is the ELECTRIC VEHICLE discussion list, let's at least /try/ to
stick to the list charter.
For those of you who have forgotten, or didn't bother reading it, the list
charter states:
"The EV Electric Vehicle Discussion Mailing List is intended to
provide a forum to discuss the current state of the art and future
direction of electric vehicles. It is not intended to discuss either
EV appropriateness or comparisons with other transportation primary
drive modes such as the venerable internal combustion engine. Those
discussions are best relegated to the appropriate usenet newsgroup.
"An electric vehicle is any vehicle which uses an electric motor as
the primary or sole motive force. The energy storage device used to
drive said motor can use any technology including, but not limited to,
solar electric, electric battery, fuel cell, internal combustion
engine coupled with a electric generator (hybrids), or any combination
of these.
And, as I recall, the list voted to extend this to include Hybrids that
use electric motors.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The lack of liquid is normal.
>
>> You know how to do the first charge, right? Is isn't like charging
>> regular batteries. The comissioning charge is a little different and
>> scary.
>
>> Whatever you do, get some directions, don't water them, and figure out
>> how to do the commissioning charge.
>
> The manual that Hump sent out says to charge at contstant current, either
> 15 amps for 3 hours, 11.5 for 4, 9 for 6, or 7 for 7. (I would question
> the 9 for 6 entry, because that's 54 AH while the others are quite a bit
> less). You can also do 15 A till 1.526 volts/cell, then 6 A for 2 hours.
> There's also a constant-volatage option.
>
> As I recall, someone said that they have to be prevented from
> expanding/bulging while they charge, or there will be stress on the
> seals. Does anyone know how sturdy the containment needs to be, and
> whether this is on both the wide and the narrow sides, or on the wide
> sides only?
>
The military battery boxes that I bought mine in were stainless steel,
about th same guage as auto body steel though they did have some internal
reinforcement in the way of more SS of same guage used as dividers.
--- End Message ---
