EV Digest 4239
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Charger Shock - ground the car body??
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Charger Shock - ground the car body??
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: TdS Report #3: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
by M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Charger Shock - ground the car body??
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: TdS Report #3: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Charger Shock - ground the car body??
by russco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Travis Raybold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: TdS Report #3: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - getting silly here
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Adapter plate ideas
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) "Convincing" others that EV's are better
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Chain & Sprockets question.
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: "Convincing" others that EV's are better
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: "Convincing" others that EV's are better
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Adapter plate ideas
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Troubled Batteries (was: Flooded batteries max current)
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Troubled Batteries (was: Flooded batteries max current)
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Charger Shock - ground the car body??
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Troubled Batteries (was: Flooded batteries max current)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Flooded batteries max current?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Good article on clutches
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Troubled Batteries (was: Flooded batteries max current)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:09:27 -0500, Philip Marino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Others may know better about this than me, but I would think #10 copper
> would suffice for the grounding wire.
If I remember correctly, here the intention is that you use at least
the same size as the live conductor, and when that's likely to be less
than 6mm^2, you use 6mm^2 anyway for mechanical strength.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think it's 480kW * 1/60-hour = 8Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh, it's $0.80
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rush
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
Fast or slow charging aside, are those numbers correct? 480 kW's? That means
that from my elec co, (Trico, here in Tucson), at .1073 per kWH, it would
cost $51 to recharge for a modest 40 mile trip.
Forget EV's, I'm sticking with my diesel truck....
Rush
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov"
Subject: Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
> It may work for cell phones or laptops.
>
> Let see what it takes to charge an EV in one minute:
>
> Modest 40 miles range * 200Wh/mile consumption = 8kWh worth of
> electricity. With 240V mains this means 8000/240=33.3A
> to rechange in one hour. For one minute it is 60 times
> of that rate or exactly 2000A at 240VAC. 480kW power.
>
> Anyone got 2000A feed and service panel?
>
> Rich? When the next 0.5 MW cryo cooled PFC-2000 charger is due?
> Oh, it better be 100% efficient, because every percent
> of lost efficiency is 4.8kW of heat, so even 95% efficient
> charger will waste 24kW of power to heat (would be enough
> power to run 2-3 average houses at once)...
>
> Don't kid me about EVs Toshiba.
>
> --
> Victor
> '91 ACRX - something different
>
> David C. Navas wrote:
>
>>
>> It is interesting in the sense that it is becoming clear that
>> charge rates will go up, and that people working on chargers need
>> to plan for that future and not be all concerned about .3C
>> charge rates on certain lithium chemistries....
>> It is interesting in the sense that it is clear that battery
>> chemistries continue to advance, despite all the concentration
>> on fuel-cells
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or if no picture is available, what gauge wire is to be used
> from the vehicle body to the charger? I can imagine the wire
> attached to the body, now where exactly does it attach to the
> charger at?
Best to check with Rich regarding where to best connect the chassis
bonding wire to the charger. Presumably he does connect the earth line
in the input cord to the charger chassis.
Use at least the same guage as the green wire in the charger's AC line
cord.
> I still don't like the idea of hooking the charger up to the
> car body in this way... Just seems like it would be a bad idea.
UL thinks it is a good idea (it's a requirement of UL2202 "Electric
Vehicle Charging System Equipment"). ;^>
> Say for example somehow the box had a melt down or some sort
> of short circuit fault in it. Wouldn't it be better to have
> it contained in it's box instead of having a wire connecting
> it to the car body?
No. It is possible for the charger to fail such that the AC line is
connected directly to one of its outputs, without anything shorting to
its (hopefully grounded) chassis. If you don't have the vehicle chassis
tied to the AC earth connection, then you have a shock hazard. If the
charger completely melts down, it will probably result in an internal
short between the AC line and the charger chassis (box), and if the box
is earthed, this will force the AC breaker to open, removing power.
Having the box and vehicle chassis both earthed doesn't change this.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> From: Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :
> In 2000 there were over 20 electric vehicles.
> In 2004 there were 10. The trend is clearly toward hybrids or bio-fuels.
(and similar comments from others)
The Tour can only accept the entries it receives. If you want more BEVs, then
you need to enter more BEVs. I assure you they are not being pushed aside to
make room for the others.
> From: "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :
> The Tour de Sol used to be one of the premiere EVents. If I'm not mistaken,
> at one time they really lived up to their name, and required that all
> participants use solar power in some form. Now old Sol is just about
> forgotten, and they seem to be relegating even battery EVs to second-class -
> or lower - status.
I think it still is. But the emphasis is on the practicality of alternatives
to gasoline ICEs, not BEVs. It started as a Solar EV only event, and the
decision to accept plug-ins was taken very seriously. And Rule 10.7.3 states:
To promote the use of solar energy, all vehicles not in the Solar
technology group or Production division must have a solar array that
has an active surface of at least 1 ft2, permanently attached to the
vehicle. The array must fulfill a technically and economically
significant function but may provide energy to the ESS. A sign
explaining the function of the PV, which is easily readable from at
least a 2-ft distance, must be attached to the vehicle at all times
the vehicle is on display. The array must not exceed 100 Wp, and the
Tour officials reserve the right to test the power output of any
photovoltaic array.
> Although EVs seem to have only a bit part in this play, I trust that Michael
> Bianci will make sure that all of his TdS reports provide at least a modicum
> of worthwhile EV content. That'll make them at least acceptable under the
> list charter.
I don't write the Reports to meet the discussion list's charter. If the group
does not want to see reports on vehicles that are not EVs (by whatever
definition) the decision has to be whether the list gets all the Tour de Sol
Reports postings or none.
And if you want to see interesting and imaginative thinking in transportation,
on the hoof, I know of no better place that the Tour de Sol.
(Opinion)
I still own and drive, daily, a Solectria Force. I think the fastest way to
have the battery production quantities to make BEVs practical is to be making
so many hybrids that the price drops on the batteries and the electronics.
Then a "plug-in hybrid / engine and gas tank optional" will become part of the
mix.
--
Mike Bianchi
17th Annual Tour de Sol
May 13-16, 2005 in Saratoga and Albany, NY
Featuring New Events, Competitions, Activities Leading the Way to a
Sustainable Energy and Transportation Future, A Green "Car Show" and More
www.TourDeSol.org
www.Foveal.com/Tour_de_Sol_Reports.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
All right, to clear this up, show me a picture of a PFC charger that
is grounded to the car body.
Or if no picture is available, what gauge wire is to be used from the
vehicle body to the charger? I can imagine the wire attached to the
body, now where exactly does it attach to the charger at?
The PFC charger's DC output lead should be a three conductor cable, the
green lead is ground. and is tied to the metal box of the charger and
the incoming AC ground wire. Put a ring terminal on that green wire and
install it on one of the cars existing (12VDC) chassis ground screws.
If the PFC is kept off the car you will need to add a connector to the
green wire and a jumper to parallel the DC leads going into the car.
Say for example somehow the box had a melt down or some sort of short
circuit fault in it. Wouldn't it be better to have it contained in
it's box instead of having a wire connecting it to the car body?
A grounded metal box (or chassis) can be considered a shield. Any
electrical faults inside will be safely contained inside and channeled
to ground. Otherwise if anything bad happens inside of the case it is
possible power would end up applied to the metal case (or car chassis).
With nowhere else to go that current would pass thru anyone who touched
the vehicle or charger.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rush wrote:
Fast or slow charging aside, are those numbers correct? 480 kW's?
Unless I forgot how to multiply and divide,
40 (miles)* 200 (Wh/mile) = 8000Wh required;
8000Wh = 8000W of power * 1 hour time
if you want 60 times less time (1 min) you must
increase power 60 times to still deliver the same Wh, so
8000W *60 = 480,000 W
(Verifying: 480,0000W * 1/60 hr = 8000Wh of electricity
in one minute, all correct)
That means
that from my elec co, (Trico, here in Tucson), at .1073 per kWH, it would
cost $51 to recharge for a modest 40 mile trip.
Forget EV's, I'm sticking with my diesel truck....
Rush
Huh? The rate of charge doesn't matter for cost calculation
(neglecting efficiency losses).
You pay for kWh, no matter how fast you charge.
40 miles trip takes 8kWh.
So 8hWh * $0.1073/kWh in Tuscon = $0.8584 for 40 miles,
which for a truck with 20 miles/gal consumption and $2/gal
is $4 for 40 miles or 4.66 times more than EV in question,
but you're still welcome to stick with your diesel truck if you like...
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Have the Tzero tow longranger 150miles. Turn Longranger on and then off.
Get 5000 mpg. Win prize. The Tzero is basically a plugin hybrid with the
longranger. Lawrence Rhodes....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Merwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: TdS Report #3: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lee Hart writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> $10,000 in awards will be given to the most fuel efficient vehicles
> in the National Monte Carlo-style Rally this May. The prizes will
> be given to production hybrid or bio-diesel vehicles that travel
> a minimum of 150 miles, at an average of over 55 mpg. A $5,000 prize
> will be given to most fuel-efficient vehicle that breaks the 100-mpg
> barrier.
So, EVs are no longer even being considered as "fuel efficient
vehicles"? Not eligible for any prizes, no categories for them? Does
that make the TdS off-topic for the EV list?
Seems like it's close. In 2000 there were over 20 electric vehicles.
In 2004 there were 10. The trend is clearly toward hybrids or bio-fuels.
Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Travis Raybold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the 480kW is for the one minute recharge, so divide by 60 :)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we talking .85 cents per charge?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> David Roden wrote:
> Isolated power supplies can be safe or unsafe, depending on design. So
> can non-isolated systems.
> The non-isolated chargers are going to be the best choice for most
> EVers, but it is critical that they understand the dangers involved. (I
> think Rich really needs a manual for the charger that explains this)
RUSSCO "Safety Electric Vehicle Battery Charger Models SC18-120 and
SC18-120 SO, Operating Instructions":
Page 3, section 5: Connect the (power cord) wires to terminal block as
follows:...GREEN wire to TOP GREEN screw.
Page 10, section 3: Conect the supplied GREEN grounding wire from the
RUSSCO charger case to vehicle chassis.
This connects the car chassis to utility power ground.
Electrical apparatus either must be double insulated, such as a non
metallic enclosure and NOT require a ground wire. Example: plastic
cased electric drill has two wires, no ground. If the electric drill
had a metal case, as older models do, it will have a third ground wire
to ground the metal case.
The NEC, section 625, treats electric vehicles as outdoor portable
machines such as spas and swimming pools. A GFCI MUST be used to feed
the EV charger, whether the charger is isolated or not. No exceptions.
The designer and manufacturer of the Washington State charger should
review the Wendy's story regarding the finger within the chili.
Russ Kaufmann
RUSSCO Engineering
The other PFC charger with GFCI
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
depending on electricity rates, efficiency of the charger, etc... either
way certainly much closer to $.85 than $50 ;)
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Travis Raybold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the 480kW is for the one minute recharge, so divide by 60 :)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we talking .85 cents per charge?
.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Travis Raybold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the 480kW is for the one minute recharge, so divide by 60 :)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we talking .85 cents per charge?
1kWh moves you ~5 miles. He indicated in Tuscon electricity
is 10 cents per kWh, so 2 cents per mile. Go from there.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 29 Mar 2005 at 16:49, Harris, Lawrence wrote:
> Would that
> count as >100mpg or if you had to consume it maybe you could mount a small
> model airplane engine on the rear bumper and a pusher prop :-).
Kinda like the days when they required you to actually use solar power.
Most of the BEV teams just put a small PV panel on the car somewhere, on
the dashboard even, and hooked it to the 12 volt accessory battery.
There's something really out of kilter when you actually contemplate burning
fuel to no purpose, just to qualify. I really hope that we're missing
something,
and that EVs are as welcome as ever at the TdS.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You're right Victor, my error...
I meant the diesel as a joke...
Rush
From: "Victor Tikhonov"
Subject: Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
> Rush wrote:
>> Fast or slow charging aside, are those numbers correct? 480 kW's?
>
> Unless I forgot how to multiply and divide,
>
> 40 (miles)* 200 (Wh/mile) = 8000Wh required;
>
> 8000Wh = 8000W of power * 1 hour time
>
> if you want 60 times less time (1 min) you must
> increase power 60 times to still deliver the same Wh, so
>
> 8000W *60 = 480,000 W
>
> (Verifying: 480,0000W * 1/60 hr = 8000Wh of electricity
> in one minute, all correct)
>
>> That means
>> that from my elec co, (Trico, here in Tucson), at .1073 per kWH, it would
>> cost $51 to recharge for a modest 40 mile trip.
>>
>> Forget EV's, I'm sticking with my diesel truck....
>>
>> Rush
>
> Huh? The rate of charge doesn't matter for cost calculation
> (neglecting efficiency losses).
>
> You pay for kWh, no matter how fast you charge.
>
> 40 miles trip takes 8kWh.
>
> So 8hWh * $0.1073/kWh in Tuscon = $0.8584 for 40 miles,
> which for a truck with 20 miles/gal consumption and $2/gal
> is $4 for 40 miles or 4.66 times more than EV in question,
> but you're still welcome to stick with your diesel truck if you like...
>
> Victor
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roger said "
>
> The problem is that there aren't that many conversions being done,"
>
> And there won't be if I choose the 5 most popular also.
I wasn't suggesting ~only~ doing the 5 most popular, just suggesting
that 5 bellhousings might be a reasonable maximum for a single generic
adapter plate. So, adapter A fits 5 popular (or not) trannies, adapter
B fits 5 other trannies, and so on.
> I don't want to make a chevy s10 adapter, it is already done.
I thought that your goal is to both offer a better adapter than is
presently available and to offer it at a lower cost. Reducing the cost
of converting a vehicle will help to increase the number of conversions
being done. If you can offer adapter plates at a lower cost than other
suppliers, you will get the bulk of the business (you may even be able
to supply adapters to the other suppliers).
> When I needed a plug for my alternator, i went to or called
> 20 stores in town, ALL of them had the same 2 models, the
> "most popular" None of them made a sale that day, I ordered
> from the internet. They diluted themselfs out of the market,
> next year they will decide there is no profit in a few
> connectors a year and will stop caring them. These
> stores compete for only the most popular and try to share
> that, they all would make more money if one specialized in
> imports, another in domestic, yet another in newer cars. etc.
So by this logic you should make a killing by specialising in adapter
plates for Citroen DS conversions (just checking to see if Mike
Hoskinson is listening ;^) since nobody else does them. Of course, I'd
be willing to bet that you'd make more money with a good Ranger adapter,
even though others also sell Ranger adapters.
I think it makes sound business sense to at least start off by offering
adapters for the vehicles that people actually *are* converting.
> I see where you are coming from, i just do't want to make the
> cheapest and the same as everyone else, I would have nothing
> to offer.
While I agree that simply making the cheapest anything is not
particularly rewarding in the personal sense, I think that even if all
you were to offer were the same adapter as is available anywhere else,
but at half the cost due to volume, etc. I think you would have
something significant to offer.
If your adapter is also somehow "better", for instance, has the torque
reaction mounting ears or allows the motor to be removed without pulling
the plate, or reduces the adapter depth by an inch or more, or has
tapped holes, or is available anodised, etc., and is affered at the same
price as other adapters or less, then you definitely will have something
significant to offer.
> I don't know if it is cost effective, but i think it would be
> great to have an adapter that works without question or
> modification right out of the box
I think this is definitely the best goal, not least because that is the
present state of affairs (i.e if I order an adpater from any of the
popular EV parts suppliers, it works out fo the box without
modification). The possibility of allowing/requiring the end user to do
some non-precision finish work on the adapter was really to address the
issue of how to allow an adapter to support multiple vehicles without
looking generic once installed. If you are able to offer
vehicle-specific adapters for an insignificant premium over a generic
adapter, then forget the entire genric discussion ;^>
> Like I said, the clutch is the most controversial. but I am
> not without my reasons
> 1. "don't need the torque capability"? how many clutch
> problems on this list.
Very few, actually. Relatively few conversions are using Zillas or the
1200A DCPs and those that are appear to be able to address any clutch
shortcomings with a beefy replacement for the stock one (e.g. Bill
Dube's recommended "vill not schlip" pressure plate and disk).
I think most of the clutch related problems reports have revolved about
going with or without cluch and shifting difficulties, and tranny/clutch
problems related to unwisely eliminating the pilot bearing during the EV
conversion.
> 2. how many upgrading to a zilla 2k, even 1K would use a
> stock clutch?
Ask Otmar how many 2Ks he's sold before you overestimate the market. ;^>
I suspect that many stock clutches will handle a 1K, and that higher
performance aftermarket versions of the stock clutches will definitely
do so in the event that the stock clutch is lacking.
> 3. the racing clutch weather tilton,quartermaster, or a
> couple of other brands, is a standard
My objection is that it is not standard to any of the trannies in
vehicles that people tend to convert. Having to buy a new flywheel and
racing clutch and some custom throwout arm and bearing is extra cost and
disincentive for someone building a daily driver, especially if the
donor vehicle has a perfectly usable flywheel, clutch and throwout
bearing/arm available for free.
For someone building an EV that will be raced, the racing clutch and its
hassles make perfect sense.
> 5. The product of inertia was 1/10 of stock, 1/10! I don't
> want people complaining about shifting and giving EV's a bad rep.
I haven't heard anyone complain about shifting in an EV other than some
who have gone clutchless (or have retained the clutch but don't use it).
> I already solved my throwout bearing but have considered
> going from 3 plate 5.5 to 7" 2 plate to reduce clutch height
> so only a radius contact bearing $39 retail is needed; and
> they are cheaper. It is NOT possible to just space the tranny
> back furthor, the first clutch disk runs out of spline!
The problem is that now when you want to do an adapter for some other
vehicle you not only have to worry about the usual bellhousing bolt
locations, etc., but also about fabricating some special throwout arm
and bearing combo for that particular tranny. And you're a bit screwed
if the tranny's input shaft isn't long enough to accept your multi-disk
racing clutch (seems likely for some FWDs).
> Again, roger, thanks for helping me brainstorm this out,
No problem; I am enjoying hearing all the good ideas being thrown out
for discussion.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The other night, my parents fueled up their '98 Jeep Cherokee with an
inline 6. Costs right about $40 to fill it up. It's very likely it
gets filled up once a week. Some weeks, it's also very likely that it
gets fueled up twice.
For our estimate here, lets go with the once a week number. $2,080 a
year in fuel costs. If the vehicle was converted over to say a 144v
DC setup using either Optima's or AGM Exides, about how many years
could they be expected to last? 3 or 4?
3 or 4 years of fuel is $6,240 or $8,320 vs's ~$1200 for a new 144v pack.
Looks like an obvious solution right? Well here is the rub: The
upfront conversion costs. Any time I start to talk highly about
electric and how much better it is, I always get asked "how much will
it cost me to convert?". You all know how much it can be..
If they are sensible and once they get over the "sticker shock", they
start doing the math to see how many years it will take for the
conversion to pay for itself in fuel savings.
Anyone on this list doesn't need any convincing electric is the best
solution for multiple reasons. But for these people who apparently
don't much mind paying ~$2/gal and polluting the air, etc; is there
just no way to win them over short of having a real fuel shortage?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
ps. Here are some electric clutches rated for 75 ft-lb,
would an e-tek break one of these? I realize they use belts...
http://surpluscenter.com/sort.asp?numrec=25&sort=1&search=Clutch
Well, as I read the Etek torque-curves, it has a max output torque of
about 31 ft-lbs, so it /should/ be ok.
So, how does the gear reductions work into this, say I have a
4:1 reduction is that 31 ft-lbs multiplied by 4 for 124 ft-lbs?
L8r
Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Of course I realise it was a joke.
But seriously, if an EV truck doesn't cut it for you
(too much range needed etc), a diesel may be better
choice than gasoline one..
Victor
Rush wrote:
You're right Victor, my error...
I meant the diesel as a joke...
Rush
From: "Victor Tikhonov"
Subject: Re: Fast charge Li-Ion?
Rush wrote:
Fast or slow charging aside, are those numbers correct? 480 kW's?
Unless I forgot how to multiply and divide,
40 (miles)* 200 (Wh/mile) = 8000Wh required;
8000Wh = 8000W of power * 1 hour time
if you want 60 times less time (1 min) you must
increase power 60 times to still deliver the same Wh, so
8000W *60 = 480,000 W
(Verifying: 480,0000W * 1/60 hr = 8000Wh of electricity
in one minute, all correct)
That means
that from my elec co, (Trico, here in Tucson), at .1073 per kWH, it would
cost $51 to recharge for a modest 40 mile trip.
Forget EV's, I'm sticking with my diesel truck....
Rush
Huh? The rate of charge doesn't matter for cost calculation
(neglecting efficiency losses).
You pay for kWh, no matter how fast you charge.
40 miles trip takes 8kWh.
So 8hWh * $0.1073/kWh in Tuscon = $0.8584 for 40 miles,
which for a truck with 20 miles/gal consumption and $2/gal
is $4 for 40 miles or 4.66 times more than EV in question,
but you're still welcome to stick with your diesel truck if you like...
Victor
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:54:59 -0600, Ryan Stotts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The other night, my parents fueled up their '98 Jeep Cherokee with an
>inline 6. Costs right about $40 to fill it up. It's very likely it
>gets filled up once a week. Some weeks, it's also very likely that it
>gets fueled up twice.
>
>For our estimate here, lets go with the once a week number. $2,080 a
>year in fuel costs. If the vehicle was converted over to say a 144v
>DC setup using either Optima's or AGM Exides, about how many years
>could they be expected to last? 3 or 4?
>
>3 or 4 years of fuel is $6,240 or $8,320 vs's ~$1200 for a new 144v pack.
Your math doesn't work. $6,240 is 3,120 gallons of gas at $2/gallon.
Assume 20 mpg, that's 62,400 miles. At 60 miles/charge, that would be
1,040 charge/discharge cycles. (Actually many more cycles than that
since no one is going to run the pack flat each time before charging)
That would be 2, maybe 3 battery packs. From $2,400 to $3,600 in
batteries using your numbers. Add maybe $1000 for labor for three
changeouts and you're not far behind the cost of gas.
Worse, 1,040 cycles over 3 years would be 1.4 cycles per day, assuming
50 5 day work weeks in a year.
That is a quite optimistic calculation, given that very few people
would be comfortable running the pack all the way down each time. I
know that I get uncomfortable when my pack gets below 50% unless I'm
real close to home. So the costs would be significantly higher than
my ideal calcs would indicate. Money-wise, I think it would end up
being about even.
To get 60 miles/charge from those small batteries, one would have to
be talking about a small car. That doesn't compare very nicely with a
full size car or SUV.
Bottom line is, for about the same money I can drive a full size gas
car or small SUV or I can cram myself into a micro car and be tethered
close to home in the electric. I can't imagine anyone outside the
zealot community going for the electric option.
Now if you promote the electric car as the second, around-town car,
then you might get come converts as long as the car itself doesn't
cost too much.
>Anyone on this list doesn't need any convincing electric is the best
>solution for multiple reasons. But for these people who apparently
>don't much mind paying ~$2/gal and polluting the air, etc; is there
>just no way to win them over short of having a real fuel shortage?
>
Except for those who have long commutes, the increase in gas prices is
little more than an annoyance. If someone lived on the extreme
opposite side of my town from his workplace then he might have a 7 or
8 mile commute. More typical commutes would be less than 5 miles.
The marginal cost of gas is so low as to not matter to most people.
Certainly not enough to trade their comfortable gas vehicles for tiny
little electrics.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Looks like an obvious solution right? Well here is the rub: The
upfront conversion costs. Any time I start to talk highly about
electric and how much better it is, I always get asked "how much will
it cost me to convert?". You all know how much it can be..
Take a loan to finance up front conversion cost and paying back
every week (or month) is no different than filling up every week,
only cheaper and predictable.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Reverend Gadget, you are the king. Your method of handling the
flywheel is the best I have seen so far. I hated the fact that mine
ended up so tall, it costs me in adapter thickness. I even chose to move
it back a tad more to get the tranny shaft out of the warp 9's shaft so
a piot bushing failure won't take out the warp's shaft, of course I
thought the shaft was non changeable.?
What would you suggest if I wanted to avoid the heavy stock flywheel
? Wayland mentioned replaceing the motor shafts in his ADC 8:" I am
trying to find out if that can be done on the warp 9, if that isn't too
bad, or I can have shafts made and send them to netgain to have
incorporated into the motors, we can put a crank pattern on the shaft
and eliminate the taperlock entirely. Then I will concentrate instead on
a new motor end that is large enough to bolt to the tranny or bolt to
the tranny plate.
For the record, my plate is 5/8 thick. I chose 5/8 to have enough meat
for the dowels and the threaded holes and to handle torque reaction to
the frame
My spacer is a bell shape and that seems to be overkill, except it
allows me to put motor and clutch onto tranny without removing adapter
plate.
I have found Even 409 in a spray bottle works fairly well on aluminum.
It is a little too light on larger cuts.
The nissan had that 1/16 plate also and gave me the outside dimensions
and the holes, but not the relation to the center shaft. And the numbers
didn't come up "nice" and my confidence in them was poor. I then stuck
the tranny on the mill and used a right angle head as a cmm to get the
locations,That wasn't too bad but I transposed 2 digits and drilled ALL
the holes 1/2 a hole off, I was really embarased and pissed at myself,
Never work on a flipped pattern with low blood sugar. I wanted
confirmation of my numbers so I split the tranny (it has an integral
bell housing) and indicated the front bearing race and all the holes.
This gave me great numbers on the dowels and I saw the other holes
coming in "nice", since those were really sloppy casting holes, I
tweaked the numbers to wha's on my site, It went togather sweet.
I have a question about road vibration. Will the vibration be that bad?
My thought is that motor mounts serve 2 purposes in a ICE setup ,
protecting the occupants from the vibration from the ICE and protecting
the mounting points from vertical loads like potholes and torque loads
like from acceleration and deceleration.
The DC motor won't have the high freq vibration like the ice and the
potholes are unavoidable and same or less on engine than body. So just
the torque shock is of concern?
Is there an inexpensive way of measuring vibration?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Ok, I have sort of a random question here. I've noticed that if I shake
my Jeep a little side to side (like by opening and closing doors hard or
getting in/out), many of my batteries tend to "burp" or gurgle
momentarily. Is this normal? BTW, I'm not hearing the electrolyte
swishing; it is a distinct low-tone gurgle type sound that they randomly
emit when they get shook. Maybe it's perfectly normal? I'm just trying
to identify all the things they've been doing recently...
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Evan Tuer wrote:
when fully charged, the SG should be a good bit higher too I think.
Once you've charged them (as you normally do), let them sit overnight
and do the test the next day.
Is the idea to let them sit because the Specific Gravity of the cells
will decrease a little as the batteries come down to resting voltage? Or
does the SG rise as they settle?
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For the record, I have been shocked with sealed gel batteries and a
BRUSA charger. It hurt. The suspicion at Solectria was that a
capacitive coupling is what took place. I know there wasn't a GFCI, and
I do not know if it would sustain DC current (I quit touching the
vehicle).
I will say that I have seen over 100V on the shield of some switchmode
chargers. I think the current was in the tens of milliamps. Power to
the shield was significantly less than 1% of the power thru the charger
but it was a >10kW charger. That one wasn't a BRUSA. It was 3 phase and
transformer isolated.
Seth
P.S. this is a safety related issue. You are getting what you pay for
in (free) advice. I don't know exactly what the right thing is for this
situation, but I think many who have answered might have great
anecdotes or hunches, but the person who heeds the advice of an
internet "expert" should think twice about the cost of a mistake to you
versus to the advisor.
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Paul G. wrote:
If you are using GFCI then its safety will work without the frame
ground. GFCI measures the difference between the hot and neutral wire
(or between the 2 hots, or between the two hots and neutral for
240vac US versions.) If the difference between power in and power out
(from the wires that are supposed to be carrying it) is greater than
5ma (+/-1ma) it will trip. With a frame ground that results in NO
shock (its shorted to ground.) Without a frame ground you can get a
bite, it can be very briefly above the "safe" level, but if so it
will trip the GFCI.
This is all correct but too technical to be accepted by non-technical
users.
When my wife saw the car plugged in and I offered similar explanation,
she told me I speak Greek:
What is Frame?
What is mA?
What is Hot?
Don't lecture me about all this stuff, I won't comprehend as you do.
Just tell me if our kids *can possibly* ever get shocked, period?
I would be lying saying not a chance with non-isolated charger,
so I said it is unlikely but >0% chance.
So she asked to get rid of this thing (a charger) or get rid
of this car then. And, you know what? In her shoes she's right.
The more technical you get trying to explain and convince non-technical
people, the more frightened they get, because they must trust you.
So I use isolated BRUSA charger in ACRX (have PFC too in *lockable*
garage). And sleep better not only because it is safer, but also
because family PR are settled favorably, no arguing about EV safety.
If you consider a charger for others, it must not only be safe,
it must also provide that perception to a user to sell well.
If you will ever expose your EV to others while charging
and protection fails to prevent even small bite to a casual
by passer or a kid, you potentially set yourself at least for
a big and expensive legal trouble, not to mention relationships.
I've been known to lift my chargers ground to save the GFCI *In my
own closed garage!* (NOT in public.)
I have many hazardous stuff in my garage, like I don't always have
time to close a grease pit so my kid can fall in.
As you sooner or later *can* forget to unplug your EV before
talking off (wee hear such reports now and then), you can forget
to lock your garage.
You don't have to be paranoid, else nothing ever can be done,
but gauge the risk by real potential impact to yoy AND others,
not by convenient for you criteria. No one is perfect, but
electrons (and if that's not enough, lawyers too) don't care.
This is not aimed specifically to John, just thinking out loud.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nick Viera wrote:
> I got my hydrometer out tonight... The specific gravities were:
>
> Battery #1
> 1- 1.218
> 2- 1.225
> 3- 1.210
> 4- 1.218
>
> Battery #3
> 1- 1.225
> 2- 1.238
> 3- 1.210
> 4- 1.210
>
> Is it normal for there to be this kind of variation between cell
> gravities in the same battery?
No; that's more variation than normal. I'd expect no more than +/-0.010
(for example, average = 1.220, maximum 1.230, minimum 1.210).
1.210-1.238 indicates trouble in the low cells, or you aren't fully
charging, or the batteries need equalization.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris Zach wrote:
> I'm actually playing with a Basic Stamp 2 right now...
> My thought is to use 50 solid state relays and a single A/D
> converter with the relays controlled by banks of 4-16 MUXes.
This works. It's what I did in my Battery Balancer, though I used
mechanical relays (cheaper, less on resistance, more off resistance, but
they limit scanning speed).
A vital design requirement is that you make it *impossible* to turn on
two relays at once! Don't count on the software to do it. Don't assume a
relay will never fail.
> And you don't need an optoisolator either since the electronic
> relays provide the isolation.
No they don't! They switch your A/D converter right to the propulsion
batteries, which means your BASIC Stamp is also getting connected to the
propulsion batteries.
I used a digital multimeter with isolated RS-232 output as my A/D
converter. Quick, easy, accurate, and UL listed.
> For a display, instead of using an LCD I'm thinking about going
> with 50 bi-color LEDs...
You may not be able to see them in sunlight and/or will find them too
bright at night unless you somehow can adjust their brightness.
> the Stamp can strobe the 50 batteries and update the display several
> times a second.
Maybe. I found that the voltage readings you get when you sample this
fast are mostly "noise", so you have to average it back out to get
stable numbers. And if you're averaging it, relays are fast enough.
> http://genki.home.ionet.net/BattMon/BattMonArticle.html
That's another one. Not bad, but too many pots and hand-trimmed analog
circuits for my taste.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Says a spring less hub in the clutch disc reduces weight by 2 lbs and
virtually no chatter. In an EV with the clutch already engaged on
take offs, I don't think there would be any clutch chatter.
http://maximummotorsports.com/clutchtech.asp
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nick Viera wrote:
> Ok, I have sort of a random question here. I've noticed that if I shake
> my Jeep a little side to side (like by opening and closing doors hard or
> getting in/out), many of my batteries tend to "burp" or gurgle
> momentarily. Is this normal?
Yes, that's normal. It's the bubbles that got "stuck" between the plates
during charging being shook loose and rising to the top.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
