EV Digest 5040
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: 2006 Elections
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Need to ask a general question about torque converters
by Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site - voting
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Ampabout ... Dude, that's so Old School!
by bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) I had interesting talk with Air resources Board today.
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: 2006 Elections
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Auburn Grizzly factory manual wanted
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Need to ask a general question about torque converters
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Need to ask a general question about torque converters
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Need to ask a general question about torque converters
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: I want to build a PWM DC motor controller
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Capacitors
by =?windows-1252?Q?Jukka_J=E4rvinen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: 24ah 240vdc Li Ion pack.
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jukka_J=E4rvinen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: 2006 Elections
by Jimmy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: 2006 Elections
by "Dave Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Monster Garage Electric Chevy runs a 14.53 @ 93 mph!
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Monster Garage Electric Chevy runs a 14.53 @ 93 mph!
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Ampabout ... Dude, that's so Old School!
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Monster Garage Electric Chevy runs a 14.53 @ 93 mph!
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Bella Da Red - what's under the hood????
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site - voting
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Need to ask a general question about torque converters
by mike golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Bella Da Red - what's under the hood????
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Electron flows and heating
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) RE: Valence (was: 24ah 240vdc Li Ion pack)
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Me neither.
Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmmm, come to think of it, I never even got
one...
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Kennedy"
To: "EV List"
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:39 PM
Subject: 2006 Elections
> Fellow EAA members,
>
> Am I the only one to get my ballot for the new Board of Directors on Friday
> the 30th of Dec.
> and have to have it postmarked , not later than Dec.31 a saturday and the
> P.O.s in my
> county are closed! Gee, wouldn't an earlier mailing or a later deadline
> have been more
> appropriate?
>
> Sorry for the rant, Doc Kennedy SW Virginia
>
>
>
Later,
Ricky
02 Insight
92 Saturn SC2 EV 144 Volt
Glendale, AZ USA
---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have voted too, for both vehicles.
Rod, I think you should of mentioned that voting consists of
clicking on URL you specified and just clicking once on the
button labeled "Vote" right in the middle. That's it.
No registrations, no asking for names, email addresses, etc.
I must admit if the site would ask me for bunch of personal info
and/or to fill some online forms just to vote "yes/no", I wouldn't
bother. I'm glad they made the process so effortless.
People, please do it. Takes 5 seconds of your time. Impact on gassers
of having an EV within top 100 vehicles will be significant, well
worth your 5 sec time spent for 2 mouse clicks - they will do
all the expensive publicity for us!
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
Roderick Wilde wrote:
I also made a comment as a response to a comment from someone else. John
votes have almost doubled since this morning. He is currently at 82
votes. We still have a way to go to get him on the front page. To vote
for John's car go to
http://www.dragtimes.com/Datsun-1200-Timeslip-7484.html, to vote for
Matt's car go to http://www.dragtimes.com/Nissan-240SX-Timeslip-7382.html
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone tried using a transmission fluid or an additive with greater
viscosity in order to increase efficiency?
Mark Freidberg
Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> If I was to place a torque converter in place of the clutch and use a
> standard transmission, how would that work/notwork?
It's basically a fluid coupling. Lots of slip. Even inefficient for
gas powered vehicles. If the motor did not have to idle, I'd bet they
wouldn't even use them.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Victor, you made a very good point at just how easy it is to vote and
do a small part in changing people's perceptions about electrics. Your post
must have done some good. It has been fun to watch the numbers go up today.
It is now at 94. 100 is just around the corner. Keep them coming!
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
I have voted too, for both vehicles.
Rod, I think you should of mentioned that voting consists of
clicking on URL you specified and just clicking once on the
button labeled "Vote" right in the middle. That's it.
No registrations, no asking for names, email addresses, etc.
I must admit if the site would ask me for bunch of personal info
and/or to fill some online forms just to vote "yes/no", I wouldn't bother.
I'm glad they made the process so effortless.
People, please do it. Takes 5 seconds of your time. Impact on gassers
of having an EV within top 100 vehicles will be significant, well
worth your 5 sec time spent for 2 mouse clicks - they will do
all the expensive publicity for us!
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
Roderick Wilde wrote:
I also made a comment as a response to a comment from someone else. John
votes have almost doubled since this morning. He is currently at 82
votes. We still have a way to go to get him on the front page. To vote
for John's car go to
http://www.dragtimes.com/Datsun-1200-Timeslip-7484.html, to vote for
Matt's car go to http://www.dragtimes.com/Nissan-240SX-Timeslip-7382.html
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 12/29/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 12/29/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You can vote once per day, so I voted again today and
also
voted at my friends computer.
Rod
P.S. Maybe the computer savy guys know how to vote
even more times in a given day?
Rod
--- Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Victor, you made a very good point at just
> how easy it is to vote and
> do a small part in changing people's perceptions
> about electrics. Your post
> must have done some good. It has been fun to watch
> the numbers go up today.
> It is now at 94. 100 is just around the corner. Keep
> them coming!
>
> Roderick Wilde
> "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> www.suckamps.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
>
>
> >I have voted too, for both vehicles.
> >
> > Rod, I think you should of mentioned that voting
> consists of
> > clicking on URL you specified and just clicking
> once on the
> > button labeled "Vote" right in the middle. That's
> it.
> > No registrations, no asking for names, email
> addresses, etc.
> >
> > I must admit if the site would ask me for bunch of
> personal info
> > and/or to fill some online forms just to vote
> "yes/no", I wouldn't bother.
> > I'm glad they made the process so effortless.
> >
> > People, please do it. Takes 5 seconds of your
> time. Impact on gassers
> > of having an EV within top 100 vehicles will be
> significant, well
> > worth your 5 sec time spent for 2 mouse clicks -
> they will do
> > all the expensive publicity for us!
> >
> > --
> > Victor
> > '91 ACRX - something different
> >
> >
> > Roderick Wilde wrote:
> >> I also made a comment as a response to a comment
> from someone else. John
> >> votes have almost doubled since this morning. He
> is currently at 82
> >> votes. We still have a way to go to get him on
> the front page. To vote
> >> for John's car go to
> >>
>
http://www.dragtimes.com/Datsun-1200-Timeslip-7484.html,
> to vote for
> >> Matt's car go to
>
http://www.dragtimes.com/Nissan-240SX-Timeslip-7382.html
> >>
> >> Roderick Wilde
> >> "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> >> www.suckamps.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 -
> Release Date: 12/29/2005
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 -
> Release Date: 12/29/2005
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah, the Holidays are here and the colder temperatures are too. I
won't go into who has it rougher, but by SF Bay area standards, its
cold. Frost on the windshield in the morning told me it was time to
turn on the battery plate heaters I had installed.
The pack read 54 F' on the thermostat's LCD display. I had the knob
in the same position as last year: for 90 F'. But the next morning,
my pack was at about the same temperature. I think my plate heaters
are dead. I will have to replace them at some time in the future.
Without a warm pack, I will have less capacity and performance, and
I will need to change the finishing voltage setting on my PFC-30
charger.
I already have a reduced range capacity by using US125's instead of
the US145's I had previously. Now, with a colder pack temperature,
I will have even less range.
A reduced range does not impact my commute much as it is only a few
miles. My range will need to be recalculated since I have a colder
pack, and any long trips that use my most of that range will need
to be planned for.
I saw this coming as one of my online College courses required the
final be taken on campus (kind of odd to have an online course that
wants you to do a paper final?!?)
I had previously obtained permission to 'plug in' at the College,
but after I faxed a copy of the permission letter to the campus
Security, they said it was too old (from 2003) and those people who
approved it, no longer work at the College.
I contacted the right people, got the permission renewed and had a
copy sent to the campus police. I told them where I would be parked
and that I would plug in to the outlets that used to be used by the
soda machines. They have three separate 110 VAC 20 amp duplex
outlets. In the past I was able to plug in three of my 120 VAC
chargers and pump 30 Amps into my pack (pretty cool!).
The evening of the final, I got there found a parking spot as close
as I could get to the outlets. Good thing I have a 100' extension
cord in the back seat. I also found two of the outlets were behind
two huge soda machines. But one outlet should be enough to put back
the AHs I would need to get home.
I set my PFC-30 to push 10 amps of the charge current while I was
gone. When I returned after finished the final, the air temperature
was cold to the bone, but I had pushed 30 AHs back into my pack.
Its good that I had a charge, I used almost all my capacity getting
home.
Looking at the usbattery.com FAQ page:
http://www.usbattery.com/pages/usbspecs.htm
[Charge batteries] at C÷10 amperes, (where C = the 20 hour capacity
of the system expressed in Ampere Hours) until the battery voltage
rises to 2.583 Volts per cell (i.e. 7.75 volts for a 6V battery).
Hold this voltage constant for 2 to 4 hours, and stop charging.
A similar method would be to charge at the following upper limits
and terminate the charge when the time limit is reached:
* Charge Current = C÷10 Amperes
* Charge Voltage = 2.583 Volts per Cell
* Charge Time = 10 Hours Battery temperature adjustment: reduce the
voltage by 0.028 Volts per Cell for every 10°F above 80°F, increase
by the same amount for temperatures below 80°F.
My pack is made up of 22 US-125 batteries (66 cells). Originally
when I set my PFC-30 it was for an 80°F pack temperature (66*
2.583)= 170.478. Now, my pack is in the 50°F range. That is 30°F
cooler.
I made an equation to calculate the new finishing voltage:
(66 * (2.583 + (((80-50)/10) * .028))= 176.022
176 VDC will now be the voltage I should set the charger to for a
50°F pack. So I changed my finishing voltage from 171 to 176 VDC.
My US-125 batteries are rated at 235 AH (20 hour capacity) 235/10=
24 Amp charge current is recommended. I do not have that charging
ability at home off a skinny outlet. So I charge at what rate I
can, a 10 Amp charge current. This means the pack voltage may not
rise in the same way as a C÷10 charge rate and I will need to
adjust the finishing charge voltage on the PFC-30 slightly to fit
my needs.
The morning after the change in my finishing voltage change, I
found my charger had reached the voltage and did not shut off. But
checking the emeter, it showed only a slight over charge had
occurred.
With the nighttime temperatures varying between the 40s and 50s,
I dont think I want to run out and adjust the chargers set point
every night, guessing what the nighttime pack voltage will be.
Would it be nice to have a charger that you would set the pack
voltage and it would adjust the finishing voltage for you depending
on the pack temperature?
Now that I have better charge, the pack seems stiffer, and more
power. I truly saw this as last weekend I went south to Cupertino
and used half my range. On the drive down, I set my EV to draw 100
Amps holding a pack voltage of 125 VDC, I had my typical 55 mph
speed and got 2.2 AHrs per mile.
Before changing the charger finishing voltage I did not achieve
this, my range was less and performance was mushy. Looks like I
needed a good charge to get the most out my pack.
I charged at an EAA members house for the hours I was there, while
I rebuilt the PC he blew up (he has a black thumb). Afterward with
a recharged pack, I did some shopping before heading north on Hwy
101 to go home. The performance was still much better.
When I stopped and parked at a store, while walking the parking lot
toward the entrance, a couple of teenage boys were back behind me
also heading in. Although my EV no longer has the ELECTRIC decals
in multiple places, one of the teenagers must have seen the HOW
sticker.
He yelled at Hey is that Electric? I nodded yes with smile and
turned back to head in. He then yelled, Dude, that is so Old
School! and began talking trash about how there are cars that when
you smell the exhaust it smells like French fries.
I am pretty sure that he no only was dissing my EV for being
old-fashioned, but I was also sure that he was not an authority on
any AFVs.
Happy New Year
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
i vote yesterday, today and will vote tomorrow and more...
:^)
cordialement,
Philippe
Et si le pot d'échappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
Forum de discussion sur les véhicules électriques
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
> I have voted too, for both vehicles.
>
> Rod, I think you should of mentioned that voting consists of
> clicking on URL you specified and just clicking once on the
> button labeled "Vote" right in the middle. That's it.
> No registrations, no asking for names, email addresses, etc.
>
> I must admit if the site would ask me for bunch of personal info
> and/or to fill some online forms just to vote "yes/no", I wouldn't
> bother. I'm glad they made the process so effortless.
>
> People, please do it. Takes 5 seconds of your time. Impact on gassers
> of having an EV within top 100 vehicles will be significant, well
> worth your 5 sec time spent for 2 mouse clicks - they will do
> all the expensive publicity for us!
>
> --
> Victor
> '91 ACRX - something different
>
>
> Roderick Wilde wrote:
> > I also made a comment as a response to a comment from someone else. John
> > votes have almost doubled since this morning. He is currently at 82
> > votes. We still have a way to go to get him on the front page. To vote
> > for John's car go to
> > http://www.dragtimes.com/Datsun-1200-Timeslip-7484.html, to vote for
> > Matt's car go to
http://www.dragtimes.com/Nissan-240SX-Timeslip-7382.html
> >
> > Roderick Wilde
> > "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> > www.suckamps.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It turns out that a car manufacture for electrics has to have his
vehicle tested through the same FTP drive cycles(30 mile dyno loop) as
the gas vehicles and using a formula based on california's avarage
emmisions per watt the energy per mile is used to get grams of emmisions
per mile. He aggreed electrics are penalized in this way while the
external emmisions for gas(refining and transportation) and hydrogen
are ignored. He also pointed out that if durability testing is added,
that an electric car company would be able to sell emmision credits to
companies that wanted to buy them, and that the temporary lull in
alternative fuel vehicles will see a turn around in 2010 when some
regulations come into effect.
So an electric car company startup could actually get some of it's
financing from Chevy(just an example) if Chevy wanted to continue
makeing a high percentage of SUV's than econmoy cars, they can purchase
emmision credits from the Low emmision manufacturer( LEV2)
Hummmmm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Be happy ;)
I didn't get any ballot at all.
Michaela
> Fellow EAA members,
>
> Am I the only one to get my ballot for the new Board of Directors on
> Friday
> the 30th of Dec.
> and have to have it postmarked , not later than Dec.31 a saturday and the
> P.O.s in my
> county are closed! Gee, wouldn't an earlier mailing or a later deadline
> have been more
> appropriate?
>
> Sorry for the rant, Doc Kennedy SW Virginia
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Folks,
I have a customer looking for a factory installation manual for an Aubrn
Grizzly controller. These were the 192 volt version with a purple case. You
can contact me off list.
Roderick
Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
Your Online EV Superstore
www.evparts.com
1-360-385-7082
Phone: 360-582-1270 Fax: 360-582-1272
PO Box 834, Carlsborg, WA 98324
108-B Business Park Loop, Sequim, WA 98382
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 12/29/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Freidberg wrote:
> Has anyone tried using a transmission fluid or an additive with greater
> viscosity in order to increase efficiency?
Considering these converters have been in use for over 50 years now..
If there was some magic fluid that worked, I'm sure the racers would
be using it.
If anyone ever wants to know if things like the Tornado and fuel
magnets work, just see if anyone with any sort of race car uses one...
http://www.tornadoair.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>You would waste A LOT of energy by using a torque converter. You don't need
>torque multiplication - DC motors have plenty of starting torque. Just use
>a regular stick shift transmission and couple it directly to the motor or
>use a clutch. Either way it will work fine.
It can't be a huge amount of energy difference or automatics would get a hugely
different fuel milage than they're stick couterparts.
This seams to be less difference in modern cars than older ones, did they get
better at building torque converters?
Even in an EV, if you set the gear ratio to what is good for highway, it will
pull a lot of amps from a dead stop. For those people who just can't drive a
stick or (handicap, can't use clutch) I was thinking of this setup.
>> If I was to place a torque converter in place of the clutch and use a
>>standard transmission, how would that work/notwork?
Does the torque converter need a pump or can it be filled and plugged.?
>>Could I set the controller for an idle rpm to run accessories and then
>>just step on gas to accelerate from a stop. In this way leaveing it in
>>say 3rd gear since the torque converter would give me some
>>multiplication off line and then perhaps lock in the TCC if above x mph
>>and < y throttle?
>>Could I shift or would I get a bad whirrrr-bang?
like to get reverse.
Couldn't this make a conversion where we lock the tranny lever such that it
can only go from 4th to reverse and doesn't pull huge amps from a stop and also
allow use of motor for alternator and air conditioner. This aspet would be
selectable, ie if AC is off and regulator on alternator is off then motor stops
idleing. It seems like it would simplify conversions made for other people.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> It can't be a huge amount of energy difference or automatics would get a
> hugely different fuel mileage than they're stick counterparts.
> This seams to be less difference in modern cars than older ones, did they get
> better at building torque converters?
Newer transmissions have lock up style torque converters.
http://carcraft.com/techarticles/80098/index3.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sounds to me that you'd need a transformer to supply *isolated* power
to the driver circuit (one transformer with multiple isolated secondaries
if you need to have independent drivers like on an AC system)
and opto-couplers to actually pass the driver signal, they are fast and
can transfer 0 - 100% duty cycle, but you need to feed the signal into
driver transistors to get the levels to feed the power transistor gate.
Hope this helps,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Lee Hart
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I want to build a PWM DC motor controller
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> Could we just uncouple the gate drive? Let's say we have the mirco
> drive a signal transformer and then a simple diode and cap circuit
> to rectify the gate voltage and drive the bridge of the FET drive
> or a voltage to freq converter chip or somehow use the frequency.
First, a micro is not designed to drive an inductive load like a gate
drive transformer. You would need a driver IC to convert the micro's
logic-level output into enough drive for a gate drive transformer. The
gate drive transformer can have enough drive for relatively large
MOSFETs.
These transformers provide excellent isolation and high drive power.
However, gate drive transformers have problems when the duty cycle gets
outside the range of 10-90%, so they aren't really practical for PWM
motor controllers (which you want to go from 0-100%).
> If the micro fails with the pin on or off, gate drive goes to zero
> and FET shuts off, or the PWM freq goes to 0%. This also isolates
> the gate drive and allows for high side drive if desired.
You can just let the gate float when you want it off. At the very least,
you need a resistor or other circuit to pull it to the 0 volt "off"
state.
And, the gate has substantial capacitance. You want the MOSFET to turn
off *fast* if you expect it to survive! You can't get a fast turnoff
with just a gate resistor.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have in my (sadly have to admit i have one )ICE 6x 5000F Nesscap
supercaps instead of lead. Car is 1.9 TDi Seat Toledo.
I have to say that cranking is from other planet now. It starts in a way
I wished I could toss the ICE away ... starter has 1,8kW printed on
it.... :)
Normal start takes around 80 amps and 2 sec. I can start over 60 sec
before I need to charge from Lions. If it does not start there is
something too wrong to try again.
It is a tricky still with such tape-n-glue way the whole system is put
together... I really like tinkering with the EVs more then this ICE stuff..
120 A altenator cries after start... full power for several seconds.
-Jukka
p.s.- I just measured the trunk... Hmm... maybe 30 cells in trunk and
rest in front... hmm... oo .. here is a good spot for Zilla...
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
I did try it. It won't work as a storage battery (very little
Ah stored). Since I only need enough energy to boot up
an inverter, I can afford to maintain the voltage
on the caps with weak DC-DC. Also good for absorbing
transient loads. But more expensive and bulky than
small 6.5Ah lead battery (in my case 6.5Ah is plenty
as 60A DC-DC satisfies all my 12V needs).
Victor
mike golub wrote:
Has anyone used any of these large capacitors to be
there 12volt auxilary "battery?"
Which model?
--- Mark Dodrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maxwell Technologies
http://www.maxwell.com
Epcos
http://www.epcos.com
Nesscap Co.
http://www.nesscap.com
On 12/21/05, mike golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Who sells the 150F and larger capacitors?
Thanks!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Mark
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to
write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lions are extremely flammable ? I have torn apart several TS cells, put
them under flame thrower, tossed gasoline over and done horrible deeds
on them. Not even single one from few hundred cells have "blown" or
burst in apocalyptic way. All predictable so far.
Driving with reversed cell on string with 200 amps and 30 km. hot and
swellen cell. no external damage on next cells in string. Stupid but safe.
Sure .. over charging a cell for hours, not using thermal disconnect
mechanism, neglecting safety in general.. you will have trouble. Do we
ususally check the fuel amount in the ICE with lighter ? how stupid is that?
I've now been litterally sleeping with TS cells for three years. Their
Li-Co cells are safe and I have no trouble to get sleep while they are
under my pillow.
Jukka
p.s.- My promise for 2006 is more EVs again on EU roads. Lion powered
that is.
Danny Miller wrote:
Now keep in mind there's another issue than cost that keeps Li-Ion down
as a high capacity storage system.
Li-Ion is extremely flammable. That can occur through improper or just
nonideal charging procedures, mechanical damage (collision/vibration),
or mfg defects in cheapo cells. The problem gets more severe as the
battery size is scaled up. I don't think many smaller cells are better
either, the failure potential of any one cell is of course multiplied by
the number of cells. Not that this necessarily means all the cells are
on fire at that point but there is a cell on fire in the middle of the
pack. The bad part here is that there's no good way to properly charge
this many cells and a hokey charge procedure is almost doomed to failure.
There have been incidents of cell phone batteries bursting into flames
in normal duty, often for no apparent reason. The mfgs like to say it's
all due to cheaper aftermarket battery replacements.
Of course there are big cells designed for EVs. There's that one mfg
mentioned here several months ago that modified the technology to be
nonflammable. That would make sense. Of course the problems of cost or
even availability are pretty bad.
Danny
Don Cameron wrote:
Lawrence, you had me going a bit crazy. The subject of the email said
"240V" $4600 for 24Ah 240V would change the face of EVs overnight!
Don
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just got mine today,Dec 30th! I wonder what chapters
had plenty of time to vote - conveniently nullifying
all of us late voters? Boy, if I believed in
conspiracies this might be one of them.
Jimmy in AZ
From: "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2006 Elections
To: [email protected]
Hmmm, come to think of it, I never even got one...
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:39 PM
Subject: 2006 Elections
> Fellow EAA members,
>
> Am I the only one to get my ballot for the new Board
of Directors on
Friday
> the 30th of Dec.
> and have to have it postmarked , not later than
Dec.31 a saturday and
the
> P.O.s in my
> county are closed! Gee, wouldn't an earlier mailing
or a later
deadline
> have been more
> appropriate?
>
> Sorry for the rant, Doc Kennedy SW Virginia
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I got mine yesterday, sent it out in today's mail. Hope it got
postmarked...
Dave Davidson
Glen Burnie, Maryland
From: Doc Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: EV List <[email protected]>
Subject: 2006 Elections
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:39:55 -0400
Fellow EAA members,
Am I the only one to get my ballot for the new Board of Directors on Friday
the 30th of Dec.
and have to have it postmarked , not later than Dec.31 a saturday and the
P.O.s in my
county are closed! Gee, wouldn't an earlier mailing or a later deadline
have been more
appropriate?
Sorry for the rant, Doc Kennedy SW Virginia
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
OK, I just got off the phone with a slightly happier Madman. Before I go
on, I need to correct an omission. Along with Rich and Milwaukee Power
Tool's John, our own Shawn Lawless was also part of this latest
ordeal....sorry for leaving you out, Shawn, but it's all Rudman's
fault...he didn't tell me you were there, too.
OK, here's the scoop. They got 5 runs in. The first run was a bust, as
all four of the 250 amp circuit breakers let go! The team did a
quadruple bypass around the breakers, and the car was ready to run
again. 2nd run....the tranny slipped out of gear :-( 3rd and 4th runs
had severe traction problems, this, on a very sticky track! The 5th run
was the best, and even after burning both rear tires for 200 feet, the
4700 lb. beast ran a strong 14.53 @ 93 mph! The LiIon cordless tool
batteries rocked, giving the best time after 5 runs without a single
recharge! The 426 Hemi? Sadly it ran a 13.5 and beat the EV :-(
I'm sure Shawn and Madman will give a much better, more informed report,
but the guys wanted me to post something for everyone right away.
Would've been fun to sneak onto the track with a certain little white
Datsun I know of...spank, spank Hemi :-)
See Ya....John 'Monster Garage rejectee' Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What kind of tires did it have?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bruce wrote -
> I already have a reduced range capacity by using US125's instead of
> the US145's I had previously. Now, with a colder pack temperature,
> I will have even less range.
>
What sort of reduction did you see between the 2 batteries without the cold
factored in?
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John Wayland wrote:
Hello to All,
OK, I just got off the phone with a slightly happier Madman....
Almost forgot, there was some 'excitement' on that 5th run, when the
front motor caught on fire!
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich, John and crew,
I am very curious as to the specs for your dragster.
>From what I understand from all the postings:
name - bella da red
donor car - 1962 Chevy
motor - ??
controller - ??
batteries - (384) 28V 3Ahr Lithiums from Milwaukee cordless tools wired for
a total of 96 Ahr @ 336V nominal
tires - Nitto 555D
gearbox - ??
contactors - ??
vehicle weight - 4500lbs
inquiring minds want to know!!!
thanks
Don
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Wayland
Sent: December 30, 2005 6:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Monster Garage Electric Chevy runs a 14.53 @ 93 mph!
Hello to All,
OK, I just got off the phone with a slightly happier Madman. Before I go on,
I need to correct an omission. Along with Rich and Milwaukee Power Tool's
John, our own Shawn Lawless was also part of this latest ordeal....sorry for
leaving you out, Shawn, but it's all Rudman's fault...he didn't tell me you
were there, too.
OK, here's the scoop. They got 5 runs in. The first run was a bust, as all
four of the 250 amp circuit breakers let go! The team did a quadruple bypass
around the breakers, and the car was ready to run again. 2nd run....the
tranny slipped out of gear :-( 3rd and 4th runs had severe traction
problems, this, on a very sticky track! The 5th run was the best, and even
after burning both rear tires for 200 feet, the 4700 lb. beast ran a strong
14.53 @ 93 mph! The LiIon cordless tool batteries rocked, giving the best
time after 5 runs without a single recharge! The 426 Hemi? Sadly it ran a
13.5 and beat the EV :-(
I'm sure Shawn and Madman will give a much better, more informed report, but
the guys wanted me to post something for everyone right away.
Would've been fun to sneak onto the track with a certain little white Datsun
I know of...spank, spank Hemi :-)
See Ya....John 'Monster Garage rejectee' Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Rod Hower wrote:
You can vote once per day, so I voted again today and
also
voted at my friends computer.
Rod
Thanks everyone for voting, last count it was up to 123 votes, and an
electric car is # 57 of the top 100 favorite time slips! Let's do it
again tomorrow and build it up higher. Tell your friends with computers,
too.
I think we've gotten the attention of those who run the site, as I got a
nice email from Brooks, telling me he had put up links to a Zombie
video and the Plasma Boy racing site...cool!
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I know www.synlube.com claims 5-7% increase in
efficiency on their synthetic oils.
I use the stuff in my ICE.
Once I get my ev project done, I'll probably change
the lubes.
I wonder how it would help if your tranny is 5% more
effecient?
--- Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone tried using a transmission fluid or an
> additive with greater viscosity in order to increase
> efficiency?
>
> Mark Freidberg
>
>
>
>
> Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Shanab wrote:
>
> > If I was to place a torque converter in place of
> the clutch and use a
> > standard transmission, how would that
> work/notwork?
>
> It's basically a fluid coupling. Lots of slip. Even
> inefficient for
> gas powered vehicles. If the motor did not have to
> idle, I'd bet they
> wouldn't even use them.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!
> Shopping
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don Cameron wrote:
Rich, John and crew,
I am very curious as to the specs for your dragster.
From what I understand from all the postings:
I've added what I know, from what I've been told:
name - bella da red (not offical, just Rudman's idea)
donor car - 1962 Chevy (Belair)
motors - twin 12 inch GE
controllers - twin Godzilla (not Zilla) 1800 amp controllers
batteries - (384) 28V 3Ahr Lithiums from Milwaukee cordless tools wired for
a total of 96 Ahr @ 336V nominal
tires - Nitto 555D
gearbox - 2 speed Power Glide automatic
contactors - Kilovac Bubba
vehicle weight - ~4700lbs
When Rich and Shawn return, I'm sure they can give more accurate and
more detailed info.
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Doug Weathers wrote:
> electrons circling in a conductor, with electrons moving one direction
> and "holes" moving in the other. Clearly everything is symmetrical
> and there shouldn't be an asymmetrical increase of heat anywhere.
Ah, but there *are* assymetric temperature variations in a conductor!
The Peltier effect, for example, causes a temperature change between two
different conductors when a current flows between them. The Seebeck
effect says there is a temperature difference between the two ends of a
conductor with a high current flowing in it.
> If I'm understanding aright, my question is answered: there are two
> separate phenomena here. One is the heating effect that occurs when
> an electron enters a conductor (and the corresponding cooling effect
> when it leaves one), which explains the hotter positive brush and arc
> welding electrode. The other phenomenon is something electrochemical
> happening in the battery. The (third) cooling effect of evaporating
> electrode material probably won't have much impact on DC brushes
> since we know that they last much, much longer than a welding rod
> and therefore can't be losing very much material.
Correct! That's the simple explanation, anyway.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Osmo - very interesting "guaranteed for 2000 cycles" !!
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Osmo Sarin
Sent: December 30, 2005 3:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Valence (was: 24ah 240vdc Li Ion pack)
> 4) Valence batteries are half the energy density and approx 30% more
> in cost than Kokam batteries. Their literature suggests 2000
> lifecycles, but no hard data has been found for EVs - more
> investigation is required.
Here is a little piece of information about Valence I got from a canadian
company called Les Industries Alternativ Inc. I´m sure they don´t mind
sharing it.
Osmo Sarin
-----
"We are using Valence li-ion batteries since july 2004. We do think those
are the safest on the market and the least injurious for the environment.
We also did our own tests in the safety department : we had a car crash in
march with one of our converted vehicle. We hit a loader in a snow storm and
the result was great. The car was heavily damaged but the batteries did
great. A few cells were damaged but there was no leak, fire, smoke or
anything else. We just had to replace the damaged cells to make them work
like before our little incident...and find a new vehicle to transfer the
batteries in !!!!! The batteries reacted exactly like Valence expectations.
About the price issue, Valence batteries are expensive but we are truly
satisfied with the product we have in hands. Their properties make them
worth the extra money.
...the batteries we are using are guaranteed for 2000 cycles and yes they
seems to be really realistic till now."
28.12.2005 kello 23:55, Don Cameron kirjoitti:
Yes there are "bad" manufacturers of cheap Li-Ion cells. There are some
> "good" ones too. I suggest that before implying that all LiIon
> batteries are unsafe, shop around and investigate. Get to know the
> safety standards and their limitations.
>
>
> A few points to make:
>
> 1) Kokam batteries are lithium polymer.
>
> 2) Kokam batteries have passed six standardized tests for fire and
> explosion under the standards SBA G1101 and UL1642. This includes
> overcharge, heating, crush, impact, forced discharge.
>
> 3) Cliff at proev.com is currently evaluating Kokam batteries in
> autocross racing applications. Although his information will largely
> be anecdotal, it will be useful to see the battery lifetime under
> these conditions.
>
> 3) You may be referring to Valance U-Charge using their "Saphion"
> technology. These batteries, as well, passed the UL1642 tests.
>
> 4) Valence batteries are half the energy density and approx 30% more
> in cost than Kokam batteries. Their literature suggests 2000
> lifecycles, but no hard data has been found for EVs - more
> investigation is required.
>
> 5) Valance states that UL1642 is a poor standard as small, liquid
> lithium batteries can pass the test. Others suggest that this is a
> difficult test for large cells to pass. Not sure if this is FUD from
> Valence or factual information - more investigation is required.
>
> You may want to investigate the archives. There was a great thread
> between Jukka and David Lalonde about testing of Thundersky batteries
> and these standards.
>
>
> YMMV - investigate before committing.
>
>
>
>
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
> www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Danny Miller
> Sent: December 28, 2005 11:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: 24ah 240vdc Li Ion pack.
>
> Now keep in mind there's another issue than cost that keeps Li-Ion
> down as a high capacity storage system.
> Li-Ion is extremely flammable. That can occur through improper or
> just nonideal charging procedures, mechanical damage
> (collision/vibration), or mfg defects in cheapo cells. The problem
> gets more severe as the battery size is scaled up. I don't think many
> smaller cells are better either, the failure potential of any one cell
> is of course multiplied by the number of cells. Not that this
> necessarily means all the cells are on fire at that point but there is
> a cell on fire in the middle of the pack. The bad part here is that
> there's no good way to properly charge this many cells and a hokey
> charge procedure is almost doomed to failure.
>
> There have been incidents of cell phone batteries bursting into flames
> in normal duty, often for no apparent reason. The mfgs like to say
> it's all due to cheaper aftermarket battery replacements.
>
> Of course there are big cells designed for EVs. There's that one mfg
> mentioned here several months ago that modified the technology to be
> nonflammable. That would make sense. Of course the problems of cost
> or even availability are pretty bad.
>
> Danny
>
> Don Cameron wrote:
>
>> Lawrence, you had me going a bit crazy. The subject of the email
>> said "240V" $4600 for 24Ah 240V would change the face of EVs overnight!
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>
--- End Message ---
