EV Digest 6496
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
by Bill Dube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Tango lane splitting
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Toyota pedal /plug in
by "jmygann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Various Controller Thoughts (was RE: Contactor controller control?)
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Compressed air as battery?
by "Brandon Kruger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Compressed air as battery?
by xx xx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Various Controller Thoughts (was RE: Contactor controller con
trol?)
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Toyota pedal /plug in
by Juergen Weichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Well, how is the AltairNano Pack working?
by Ray Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Compressed air as battery?
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: EV competition classification question
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Compressed air as battery?
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
A123 Systems cells have more power per pound than any other Li-Ion cell.
I am always amused when folks compare the cost of A123 cells to
ordinary laptop cells. It is like complaining that diamonds are so
much more expensive than coal. :-) They are both made of carbon, so,
somehow, they should cost the same.
Bill Dube'
At 05:44 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
These are the ones with A123Systems Lions in them, correct?
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-DeWALT-DC9360-36V-Li-Ion-Battery-
Pack_W0QQitemZ220087783449QQihZ012QQcategoryZ20794QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
So a 36v pack I assume means 10 or 11 cells in there, ~$10/cell is
about right. But $10 for 7.6Wh = $1.30/Wh.. ouch, that's almost 3x
the cost of mainstream lithiums!
Although I guess since they can deliver 50C+, you could argue that
the power per dollar is not too bad.
-Ian
On 02/03/2007, at 2:14 AM, damon henry wrote:
That's easy since you can buy them. In Dewalt tool packs they cost
~$10 a cell or you can buy the new A123racing RC packs
(www.a123racing.com) which are priced at ~$15 a cell. Since this
is the only way we can get them, this is the cost to get started.
Add on top of that, assembly, BMS, and charging and you can see
that if this is what you really really really want for Christmas
you can have it, but for most on this list it is still just too
expensive.
damon
From: "C. Dreike, Advantage Automation, Inc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Subject: Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:51:45 -0800
I'm sure the A123's are not cheap. Could you give us a flavor for
the cost of 800 batteries?
Thanks,
Chris Dreike
_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these
few simple tips. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/
PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 01:34 PM 2/28/2007, Lee Hart wrote:
Rick Woodbury has done lane sharing with his Tangos; indeed, I
believe he had a video of it somewhere. He was driving side-by-side
with a motorcycle.
Make sure you are talking about the same thing.
Your Subject line refers to Lane Splitting (going between 2 lanes of
cars - usually they are essentially parked.)
You message body refers to Lane Sharing, where 2 bikes ride
side-by-side. (Actually, the bikes usually ride in stagger file
formation, so they aren't actually side-by-side, just alternating
sides of the lane.)
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Don and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:34:10 -0800
>Jerry, But as I
>stated in my postings, I was not at all criticizing or
>commenting on the safety of your vehicle (one way or the
>other), nor was I commenting about your work with E-woody
>or freedom EV. All I was pointing out was Doug's comment
>stating that it did pass a "crash test", which I
>wholeheartedly disagree with. He also implied that this
>"real world data" demonstrated a level of crash worthiness
>- not in the least. It could have been luck. This was an
>accident in completely uncontrolled environment. Proof of
>anything is purely speculation.
I like real world data to test data in many cases.
Crash testing is no garranty either of car safety.
Is a 35-45 mph test as many of them are really
realistic? And they only do front, side and rear and the
cars, ect, vs the many angles, speeds in real life and are
designed to pass the tests more than real crashes to get the
higher crash ratings so they can advertise them.
Now Saab and Volvo really do it right by checking
many real world crashes rather than relying on test data
alone which is a much better way to do it.
It's kinda like my non dam hydro generators, like
windgens in tidal/river currents, where I built 10 of them
that worked great from the first one and probably still are
20 yrs later yet at least 30 projects to build them by
'experts' have yet to keep one running for more than a
month. But I lived on, in the water so understood what the
'Experts' still can't seem to figure out.
Test data will only get you so far though worthwhile.
Real life data is much more important.
Jerry Dycus
>
>
>
>Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just liked the frame and motor/wheel design. Maybe just 1 rear wheel
like the Freedom EV would be sufficient.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Randii and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Randy Burleson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Subject: Various Controller Thoughts (was RE: Contactor
controller control?)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:58:13 -0800
>> Answered last year Aug 29, see the copy from the archives
>> below Randii's question.
>Thanks for digging, Cor.
>
>> The 1912 Detroit uses a large drum with heavy copper
>> contacts and carbon brushes. As the drum is rotated by
>> the throttle lever (not peddle) it changes the battery
>configuration.
>
>So basically, it is was just a simplified mechanical way of
>making and breaking contacts...
Yes, on can do it linear or a disc version too.
>
>Obviously a pulse-width modulating controller is more
>linear and gentler to all parts of the circuit, but *IF*
>the driver avoids "shifting" under power, is a contactor
>controller otherwise robust (assuming a redundant emergency
>shutoff)?
I shift under power as long as you don't do too big
a jump. Best is to let the motor run up before switching to
keep amps down.
>
>As I research more into controllers, I am pleased at the
>prices and functions that I see for lightweight vehicles --
>I guess the number of golf carts is pretty useful in terms
>of economies of scale.
>http://www.electricvehiclesusa.com/category_s/156.htm
>
>Are there rules of thumb for pack size vs. vehicle weight
>vs. controller? If I stay at or near 1K pounds (plus 40%
>for passengers), am I being realistic to think of a 48V
>pack, pushed through a simple 300A controller?
No. I'd go either a 600-100 amp 48vdc controller
which are still fairly cheap. Though a CC will match them in
power for much less money. And remember if it's a Curtus,
you are getting only about 225 real amps on a 300 amp
controller. Go Altrax for much better quality that meets
their specs or more at about the same price.
For just a little more weight I'm using a 72vdc,
450 amp is about the minimum for good performance. But still
considering the 1000 amp 48vdc as an econo version, about as
fast with less range from fewer batts.
Jerry Dycus
>
>Randii
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"I find this discussion a little ridiculous"
your argument is ridiculous. We may as well throw out all crash testing,
sounds like is useless...
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------------------
See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
Check the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cor van de Water
Sent: March 1, 2007 5:58 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Hmmm,
I find this discussion a little ridiculous, for I have seen very few crashes
that complied to DOT specs, on the Highway.
The statistics on a single sample are not good enough to draw general
conclusions from, it is indeed just a single occurrence and it may have been
luck that it stayed together the way it did.
But you can have a DOT compliant crash-tested vehicle that is still very
unsafe and kills 10x more passengers per crash than the average new family
sedan. In fact, such vehicles are promoted for their safety and robustness,
which is misleading at best and to my opinion bordering on a crime, but many
automanufacturers do this.
Since the ONLY place where it matters is in an actual crash and the crashes
that you and I (hopefully not) will be involved in do not follow DOT
regulations, there is _only_ anecdotal evidence of _each_ individual crash.
When several actual crashes have occurred, a statistic can be drawn to see
if the passengers are more likely to be injured or die in the crash with
such a vehicle or not, but for small series this does not happen until many
years after the production.
DOT crash testing is just a model, which will tell you the relative
*expected* safety of a vehicle, compared to test standards.
Like other standards, it does not give you the actual picture, though they
do their best to approach it, same as with EPA mileage classification.
So, until Jerry builds a batch of e-woody's and they all get into a crash on
a bad day, we will never know if it was a generally safe vehicle or that
Jerry was just lucky.
The fact that you are going to die if your truck flips, is that on your mind
every time you get on the road?
Do you think all those concerned moms and dads who buy the biggest SUV they
can afford to protect their kids, care enough to investigate the actual kill
rate on SUV accidents and worry about their rate of rubber-side-up fatal
crashes?
The number of obese vehicles on the roads tell me otherwise.
/rant off
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Cameron
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:34 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Jerry, I am not sure of Mark's motivations. But as I stated in my
postings, I was not at all criticizing or commenting on the safety of your
vehicle (one way or the other), nor was I commenting about your work with
E-woody or freedom EV. All I was pointing out was Doug's comment stating
that it did pass a "crash test", which I wholeheartedly disagree with. He
also implied that this "real world data" demonstrated a level of crash
worthiness - not in the least. It could have been luck. This was an
accident in completely uncontrolled environment. Proof of anything is
purely speculation.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------------------
See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
Check the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerryd
Sent: March 1, 2007 5:13 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Hi Doug, Mark, Don and All,
Are we here for arguement or helping make EV's better?
Mark brought up this red herring and said things I never did like it's safe
because I guess he's mad at me. Otherwise he would have changed the EV
bashing subject line many posts ago. There is no such thing as safe, only
relative safety including Mark's EV.
I've never said the Ewoody was safe, in fact aways have said
it was a mistake, just illustrating on A safety aspect that other 3wheeler
EV's might find useful in their designs which is the rear raising up from
hitting the rear wheel so the car crashing in the rear slides under it, thus
lowering forces greatly, allowing me to walk away unharmed in what could
have been a fatal accident. Now had the other car been taller like an SUV
instead of a compact car, it would have been different probably. I was going
40 mph and estimated the car was going 65mph when it hit me as I watched it
happen, thought he would go around me.
If you could have seen the damage to the other vehicle, you would
have been amazed, I was. You can take this for whatever you want but it
proves at least 1 good result. But it's these kind of things that are needed
to build a archive of methods to chose from and what this list is for.
Without such 1 data point data, you could never get enough to learn anything
as you have to start somewhere.
But as a MC which it is, it is diffenitely safer than other
MC's and I call it a safety MC. I did design in as much safety as I could
and did well considering it was my first design of a 3wh car 12 yrs ago. And
if one compares it to early and even some newer SUV's, pickups, which
regularly kill people all by themselves in 1 car rollover accidents simply
from their very bad handling. It's not that unsafe comparatively if driven
correctly. And it has proven almost impossible to rollover, unlike many
'safe'
vehicles. If a car driving under it won't make it roll, not much will. Now
add it's excellent handling, braking makes even better.
My experience with it, my experience building high tech boats,
stresses, composites, studying many crashes, crashed vehicles, ect has I
believe allowed me to design a fairly safe vehicle. I've never said anything
but I think it is, as I only have my judgement on that. But I'm betting my
life on it just like Mark bets his life on his EV and his MC driving skills.
Personally I'll take the Freedom EV safety wise with it's good
crush zones, 4 point seat belts, fantastic handling, braking, composite roll
cage, ect over Marks overweight, can't get out of it's way, fairly bad
handling pickup EV.
Have you crash tested your EV Mark? Why not? You infer that it's
not safe or you can't say it's fairly safe unless you do. And no way you can
consider your EV the same safety as a stock ICE one as they are very, very
different vehicles, and the stock one isn't that safe anyway, in some ways
better, but others worse as an EV.
More weight just means a vehicle hitting it just goes deeper into
it, hitting it harder, where my Freedom EV just gets knocked around being
light and strong like a bumper car. A vehicle only needs to be as as strong
as it's weight to avoid getting crushed unless it gets between two objects.
I think front airbags are not that safe for many reasons, much
better to use a 4 point seatbelt though I'm looking for side airbags that
can be useful and not kill people, especially small adults, kids like front
airbags do regularly.
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: EV bashing, RE: T-105 Sitcker Shock
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:07:31 -0700
>On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Mark Brueggemann wrote:
>
>> When the EWoody passes a crash test, I'll be a believer.
>
>The eWoody *did* pass a crash test. Someone rear-ended him , and Jerry
>was unhurt and the eWoody was easily and quickly repairable, even
>though the other car was badly damaged (totalled?).
Exactly. My point though was one can design safety in a light
vehicle and one way to do it amoung many. And certain materials are very
inexpensive, easy to repair.
In Japan, the Kei cars, the old Honda 600, Subaru 360 from the 70's
were that class, are the safest cars in Japan!! Not because they stand
crashes well, but because of the way and the places they drive. So safety
comes in many forms.
>
>No, this is not the same as a DOT certification, but it's real-world
>data. Jerry designed the eWoody to survive this type of crash, and it
>did.
Yes.
>
>When he can afford it, he may get an official crash test.
>On the other hand, if he can afford it, it means that he has made
>millions of dollars selling FreedomEVs that haven't been officially
>crash-tested.
I do plan on crash testing it. But some of the safest vehicles out
there are the F1, Indycars, ect, that are built much like mine and use the
same methods for crash safety at up to 220 mph. Only I have much larger
crush zones added to their methods like using the tires as energy absorbers,
foam, racing seatbelts, ect.
>
>We'll just have to see how many Americans will buy vehicles without
>crash certifications and air bags. Certainly,
>some of them will. Jerry doesn't need or even want to
>sell to Joe Sixpack and Susie Soccer Mom at this time.
>He's only planning to build tens of cars per year at this point.
Exactly. But look at how many drive MC's? I only need to sell 1%
of car buyers to be rich beyound my wildest dreams. And I think 1% would
easily want to drive a Freedom EV! But I won't sell to others that EVer's
until I get a good handle on it and design a whole new Freedom EV for them
from what I learn.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
>--
>Doug Weathers
>Las Cruces, NM, USA
>http://www.gdunge.com/
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
Has anyone thought about using compressed air to store energy as a
replacement to batteries? After seeing the "aircar" on Future Car, I think
compressed air has some potential for energy storage. Depending on the
weight of the tanks (aircar used carbon fiber) and the energy being stored,
it could definitely yield a higher energy density then lead-acid. Using a
motor to drive a generator, it would be possible to electrically recharge
the car and it would deliver life cycles many times higher than and battery
of today. I made a diagram of how I imagined this vehicle.
http://bmk789.dyndns.org/pics/aircar.png It could work as a serial PHEV.
Compressed air tanks could also potentially be refilled quickly. Is there
some obvious problem with this idea or am I overestimating the amount of
energy that can be stored as compressed air?
Brandon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But you are still carrying around a motor, even if
it's air powered, and it still has maintenance issues
and inefficiencies. They really oversold the aircar on
Future Car.
John
--- Brandon Kruger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone thought about using compressed air to
> store energy as a
> replacement to batteries? After seeing the "aircar"
> on Future Car, I think
> compressed air has some potential for energy
> storage. Depending on the
> weight of the tanks (aircar used carbon fiber) and
> the energy being stored,
> it could definitely yield a higher energy density
> then lead-acid. Using a
> motor to drive a generator, it would be possible to
> electrically recharge
> the car and it would deliver life cycles many times
> higher than and battery
> of today. I made a diagram of how I imagined this
> vehicle.
> http://bmk789.dyndns.org/pics/aircar.png It could
> work as a serial PHEV.
> Compressed air tanks could also potentially be
> refilled quickly. Is there
> some obvious problem with this idea or am I
> overestimating the amount of
> energy that can be stored as compressed air?
>
>
> Brandon
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Randii,
Randy wrote:
> Are there rules of thumb for pack size vs. vehicle weight vs.
> controller? If I stay at or near 1K pounds (plus 40% for
> passengers), am I being realistic to think of a 48V pack,
> pushed through a simple 300A controller?
Depends what performance you expect.
This vehicle is quite a bit heavier than an ordinary golf cart
and you increase voltage by only 1/3 so if you are impressed
with the performance of the Golf cart you start with, then the
end result may be satisfactory, but most people will likely
find it slow - unless you start modding it in other ways,
such as bypassing the controller for a top-end boost and
changing the gear ratios, but hat was not your question.
Regarding weight versus power: if you ignore friction losses
then it is easy to calculate the acceleration from a certain
fixed amount of power to the wheels.
For example the Curtis (assuming 225A real life at 50V for
easy calculation) can deliver 11kW and subtracting 1kW for
inefficiency in motor, gives a max optimal 10kW to the wheels.
The energy of the vehicle moving (flat road) cannot be larger
than the energy that the motor puts out, the kinetic energy
is defined as 1/2*m*v^2 (half the Mass times Velocity squared)
while the energy to the wheels is 10kW * time.
If you want to estimate the acceleration time to 35 MPH then
you first calculate the kinetic energy:
1/2 * 1400lbs * 35mph but need to convert to metric:
1/2 * 650 (kg) * 15 (m/s) = 73 kJ = 73 kWs (kiloWattsecond)
Since we assumed you are feeding the wheels with a constant 10kW
you will need 73/10 = 7.3 seconds to reach that speed from stop
but in real life there is friction, the motor builds up a
back-EMF which will eventually reduce the current at a certain
speed and voltage, while at low speed the current will be max
while motor voltage will be limited, so you will have a hard time
to get the 10 kW from a standstill.
Doing 0-35 within 10 seconds will be a challenge with this setup,
but as I said - it all depends on your expectations.
Hope this helps,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
jmygann wrote:
I just liked the frame and motor/wheel design. Maybe just 1 rear wheel
like the Freedom EV would be sufficient.
Got one here - under construction:
http://www.acclivity.ca/velomobile/
Still to finish: chain, steering controls, nose-cone, fabric covering.
Will have brushless hub motor in rear.
Juergen
Juergen Weichert
613-746-7685
Acclivity Solutions
www.acclivity.ca
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The key point with the exclusivity agreement is the requirement for Phoenix to
buy $16M in batteries from Altair in 2007 to keep the exclusivity in the US.
They were talking about an order of 500 batteries which works out to $32,000
per pack for 35kwh or about $0.91 per wh.
Phoenix already paid Altair almost $8M for 10 working packs that have been
delivered and installed in 10 vehicles, but I understand most of the cost was
for design and tooling.
Altair also gets a 16% ownership into Phoenix as part of the agreement.
Did anyone attend the Phoenix test drive in Los Angeles today, March 1 with
Ed Begley Jr at the Peterson Automotive Museum.
Ezesport
Carl Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In case nobody has mentioned it, I believe Altair Nano has an exclusivity
agreement with Phoenix so if I understand correctly they won't be selling
anyone else batteries for at least 3 yrs unless Phoenix doesn't meet an
agreed-upon volume.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/altairnano_clos.html
---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I suggest you do the math on the amount of energy stored in tanks.
The MDI Yahoo group has a paper from an Opel engineer that did a short
analysis of energy content of compressed air. (AEA.Opel.pdf)
(Notes are in German, paper is scanned and quality-challenged)
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/mdiaircar/files/
(Since the group is more or less dead since 2003, half the files and
messages from the last years have nothing to do with MDI)
The short is that you will be able to store about the same energy as in a
lead acid pack, though the weight may be reduced, but the complexity has
certainly increased.
The big catch (and often overlooked) is that it assumes decompression at
equal temp (Isotherm), while this requires a large amount of heat to be
re-inserted (it gets lost during the compression, the heat produced together
with the compression is not stored, so upon decompression the temp usually
drops, which makes the process less efficient.
If you counter this with step-wise decompression (special motor that reduces
commpression in small steps, for example 4 unequal sized cylinders to reduce
in 4 steps from 5000 to 3000 PSI, from 3000 to 1500 PSI, from
1500 to 800 PSI and finally from 800 PSI to ambient air, then you can place
heat-exchangers between the cylinders to re-capture heat from ambient air
and bring the decompressed air closer to the constant-temp process.
(Isotherm is the name for the ideal contant-temp high-efficiency operation,
while the Adiabatic process is the way MDI implemented the de-compression,
leading to frozen engines and bad efficiency. Adiabatic means without
changing the amount of heat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process)
So, the short answer is: learn from other's mistakes or repeat them.
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brandon Kruger
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:00 PM
To: EV list
Subject: Compressed air as battery?
Hello,
Has anyone thought about using compressed air to store energy as a
replacement to batteries? After seeing the "aircar" on Future Car, I think
compressed air has some potential for energy storage. Depending on the
weight of the tanks (aircar used carbon fiber) and the energy being stored,
it could definitely yield a higher energy density then lead-acid. Using a
motor to drive a generator, it would be possible to electrically recharge
the car and it would deliver life cycles many times higher than and battery
of today. I made a diagram of how I imagined this vehicle.
http://bmk789.dyndns.org/pics/aircar.png It could work as a serial PHEV.
Compressed air tanks could also potentially be refilled quickly. Is there
some obvious problem with this idea or am I overestimating the amount of
energy that can be stored as compressed air?
Brandon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: EV competition classification question
> HI-
> After I reread my reply to Victor's message I realized that I had not
> answered
> his question.The voltage is measured as it leaves the battery pack.
Usually
> the
> rough rule of thumb for lead acid is nominal pack V. 13/12=~ measured V.
> The nominal voltage is used to determine voltage class.FT.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Bill Dube
Snip A bit
> > Also, Victor never actually races anything, so this is just an
> > intellectual exercise. :-)
> >Hi EVerybody;
Don't say "Never"I think it would be cool to see Victor flying down the
track, in the "Something Different" car! That smoking brakestand at Woodburn
on Crapaciters was a harbinger of things to come?
Go Victor! Be cheering ya on at PIR this summer!
My two mfd worth
Bob
> > >>>>>>>>> From the historical perspective: <<<<<<<
> >
> > Capacitors are the same as batteries if they are charged up before
> > you come to the starting line. They are storing electrical energy,
> > just like a battery, so they count just like a battery.
> >
> > After the juice leaves the battery pack ("energy storage system"),
> > you can do whatever you want to the voltage and current with your
> electronics.
> >
> > No one has tried charging a capacitor bank from the battery pack
> > during the race itself and put it in series with the battery pack.
> > From the historical perspective, this would be OK to do, but since
> > it has never been attempted, there is no precedent. It is an
> > interesting approach. You would have to have some way to show that
> > the caps are really at zero volts before you go on the track, I would
> > think. (See below, "Why folks don't do this")
How 'bout a voltmeter?
> > >>> Why the rules are set up like this <<<
> >
> > It all becomes a matter of fair and simple inspection, if you think
> > about it. You can inspect the batteries (or energy storage system)
> > with a voltmeter (and follow the wiring with your eyes) and know how
> > to classify the car. Once you are inside the electronics, there is no
> > way for the inspector to know what the voltage will become. If you
> > were to attempt to regulate the peak voltage inside the electronics
> > system, folks would figure a way to make it appear that the voltage
> > was less than it really was on the track. Then only cheaters would
> > win. It is best to not attempt to regulate something you cannot
> > fairly and easily inspect.
> >
> > >>> Why folks don't do this all the time <<<
A few ?'s about Caps;
> > Wouldn't you measure the primary source of power, like the battery
system that charged the caps?Or whatEVer you were using to juice them up. Or
what the comtroller actually SEES from the bank. How Many volts it is
sitting at, when you do your tire ignition sequence to get them warm and
sticky?With caps would you "Run them down" before the actual race when you
leave the line??Say if you were running 300 volts, would you STILL have 300
volts AFTER warming up the tires before launch?As you would with batteries?
Anyhow it would be interesting to see some Cap Cars on the track.
Seeya
Bob>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Brandon,
To get an idea of the tanks (occupying the entire double floor of the MDI
Aircar) you can check out the photos I took when I visited them:
http://autos.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/mdiaircar/photos
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brandon Kruger
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:00 PM
To: EV list
Subject: Compressed air as battery?
Hello,
Has anyone thought about using compressed air to store energy as a
replacement to batteries? After seeing the "aircar" on Future Car, I think
compressed air has some potential for energy storage. Depending on the
weight of the tanks (aircar used carbon fiber) and the energy being stored,
it could definitely yield a higher energy density then lead-acid. Using a
motor to drive a generator, it would be possible to electrically recharge
the car and it would deliver life cycles many times higher than and battery
of today. I made a diagram of how I imagined this vehicle.
http://bmk789.dyndns.org/pics/aircar.png It could work as a serial PHEV.
Compressed air tanks could also potentially be refilled quickly. Is there
some obvious problem with this idea or am I overestimating the amount of
energy that can be stored as compressed air?
Brandon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are comparing ONE accident against DOT crash testing. As I stated
before DOT crash testing is not the end all and be all, but ONE accident is
hardly a decent sample set to derive ANY conclusions.
I think I have made my (same) point over and over again. I will drop it.
Believe what you like to believe.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------------------
See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
Check the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerryd
Sent: March 1, 2007 6:06 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Hi Don and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:34:10 -0800
>Jerry, But as I
>stated in my postings, I was not at all criticizing or commenting on
>the safety of your vehicle (one way or the other), nor was I commenting
>about your work with E-woody or freedom EV. All I was pointing out was
>Doug's comment stating that it did pass a "crash test", which I
>wholeheartedly disagree with. He also implied that this "real world
>data" demonstrated a level of crash worthiness
>- not in the least. It could have been luck. This was an accident in
>completely uncontrolled environment. Proof of anything is purely
>speculation.
I like real world data to test data in many cases.
Crash testing is no garranty either of car safety.
Is a 35-45 mph test as many of them are really realistic? And they
only do front, side and rear and the cars, ect, vs the many angles, speeds
in real life and are designed to pass the tests more than real crashes to
get the higher crash ratings so they can advertise them.
Now Saab and Volvo really do it right by checking many real world
crashes rather than relying on test data alone which is a much better way to
do it.
It's kinda like my non dam hydro generators, like windgens in
tidal/river currents, where I built 10 of them that worked great from the
first one and probably still are 20 yrs later yet at least 30 projects to
build them by 'experts' have yet to keep one running for more than a month.
But I lived on, in the water so understood what the 'Experts' still can't
seem to figure out.
Test data will only get you so far though worthwhile.
Real life data is much more important.
Jerry Dycus
>
>
>
>Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don,
I am afraid that my message was lost on you,
I argued that there is not much point in discussing
the differences between theory and practice, because
in theory there is no difference between practice
and theory, while in practice.....
I certainly did not say to discard testing.
But testing is designed to satisfy a theoretical model
and this brings us back to theory, while crashes happen
in practice...
To learn more about the validity of facts and the volatile
theory, I recommend browsing through WikiQuote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theory
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Cameron
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:47 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
"I find this discussion a little ridiculous"
your argument is ridiculous. We may as well throw out all crash testing,
sounds like is useless...
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------------------
See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
Check the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cor van de Water
Sent: March 1, 2007 5:58 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Hmmm,
I find this discussion a little ridiculous, for I have seen very few crashes
that complied to DOT specs, on the Highway.
The statistics on a single sample are not good enough to draw general
conclusions from, it is indeed just a single occurrence and it may have been
luck that it stayed together the way it did.
But you can have a DOT compliant crash-tested vehicle that is still very
unsafe and kills 10x more passengers per crash than the average new family
sedan. In fact, such vehicles are promoted for their safety and robustness,
which is misleading at best and to my opinion bordering on a crime, but many
automanufacturers do this.
Since the ONLY place where it matters is in an actual crash and the crashes
that you and I (hopefully not) will be involved in do not follow DOT
regulations, there is _only_ anecdotal evidence of _each_ individual crash.
When several actual crashes have occurred, a statistic can be drawn to see
if the passengers are more likely to be injured or die in the crash with
such a vehicle or not, but for small series this does not happen until many
years after the production.
DOT crash testing is just a model, which will tell you the relative
*expected* safety of a vehicle, compared to test standards.
Like other standards, it does not give you the actual picture, though they
do their best to approach it, same as with EPA mileage classification.
So, until Jerry builds a batch of e-woody's and they all get into a crash on
a bad day, we will never know if it was a generally safe vehicle or that
Jerry was just lucky.
The fact that you are going to die if your truck flips, is that on your mind
every time you get on the road?
Do you think all those concerned moms and dads who buy the biggest SUV they
can afford to protect their kids, care enough to investigate the actual kill
rate on SUV accidents and worry about their rate of rubber-side-up fatal
crashes?
The number of obese vehicles on the roads tell me otherwise.
/rant off
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Cameron
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:34 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Jerry, I am not sure of Mark's motivations. But as I stated in my
postings, I was not at all criticizing or commenting on the safety of your
vehicle (one way or the other), nor was I commenting about your work with
E-woody or freedom EV. All I was pointing out was Doug's comment stating
that it did pass a "crash test", which I wholeheartedly disagree with. He
also implied that this "real world data" demonstrated a level of crash
worthiness - not in the least. It could have been luck. This was an
accident in completely uncontrolled environment. Proof of anything is
purely speculation.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------------------
See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
Check the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerryd
Sent: March 1, 2007 5:13 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
Hi Doug, Mark, Don and All,
Are we here for arguement or helping make EV's better?
Mark brought up this red herring and said things I never did like it's safe
because I guess he's mad at me. Otherwise he would have changed the EV
bashing subject line many posts ago. There is no such thing as safe, only
relative safety including Mark's EV.
I've never said the Ewoody was safe, in fact aways have said
it was a mistake, just illustrating on A safety aspect that other 3wheeler
EV's might find useful in their designs which is the rear raising up from
hitting the rear wheel so the car crashing in the rear slides under it, thus
lowering forces greatly, allowing me to walk away unharmed in what could
have been a fatal accident. Now had the other car been taller like an SUV
instead of a compact car, it would have been different probably. I was going
40 mph and estimated the car was going 65mph when it hit me as I watched it
happen, thought he would go around me.
If you could have seen the damage to the other vehicle, you would
have been amazed, I was. You can take this for whatever you want but it
proves at least 1 good result. But it's these kind of things that are needed
to build a archive of methods to chose from and what this list is for.
Without such 1 data point data, you could never get enough to learn anything
as you have to start somewhere.
But as a MC which it is, it is diffenitely safer than other
MC's and I call it a safety MC. I did design in as much safety as I could
and did well considering it was my first design of a 3wh car 12 yrs ago. And
if one compares it to early and even some newer SUV's, pickups, which
regularly kill people all by themselves in 1 car rollover accidents simply
from their very bad handling. It's not that unsafe comparatively if driven
correctly. And it has proven almost impossible to rollover, unlike many
'safe'
vehicles. If a car driving under it won't make it roll, not much will. Now
add it's excellent handling, braking makes even better.
My experience with it, my experience building high tech boats,
stresses, composites, studying many crashes, crashed vehicles, ect has I
believe allowed me to design a fairly safe vehicle. I've never said anything
but I think it is, as I only have my judgement on that. But I'm betting my
life on it just like Mark bets his life on his EV and his MC driving skills.
Personally I'll take the Freedom EV safety wise with it's good
crush zones, 4 point seat belts, fantastic handling, braking, composite roll
cage, ect over Marks overweight, can't get out of it's way, fairly bad
handling pickup EV.
Have you crash tested your EV Mark? Why not? You infer that it's
not safe or you can't say it's fairly safe unless you do. And no way you can
consider your EV the same safety as a stock ICE one as they are very, very
different vehicles, and the stock one isn't that safe anyway, in some ways
better, but others worse as an EV.
More weight just means a vehicle hitting it just goes deeper into
it, hitting it harder, where my Freedom EV just gets knocked around being
light and strong like a bumper car. A vehicle only needs to be as as strong
as it's weight to avoid getting crushed unless it gets between two objects.
I think front airbags are not that safe for many reasons, much
better to use a 4 point seatbelt though I'm looking for side airbags that
can be useful and not kill people, especially small adults, kids like front
airbags do regularly.
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: EV bashing, RE: T-105 Sitcker Shock
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:07:31 -0700
>On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Mark Brueggemann wrote:
>
>> When the EWoody passes a crash test, I'll be a believer.
>
>The eWoody *did* pass a crash test. Someone rear-ended him , and Jerry
>was unhurt and the eWoody was easily and quickly repairable, even
>though the other car was badly damaged (totalled?).
Exactly. My point though was one can design safety in a light
vehicle and one way to do it amoung many. And certain materials are very
inexpensive, easy to repair.
In Japan, the Kei cars, the old Honda 600, Subaru 360 from the 70's
were that class, are the safest cars in Japan!! Not because they stand
crashes well, but because of the way and the places they drive. So safety
comes in many forms.
>
>No, this is not the same as a DOT certification, but it's real-world
>data. Jerry designed the eWoody to survive this type of crash, and it
>did.
Yes.
>
>When he can afford it, he may get an official crash test.
>On the other hand, if he can afford it, it means that he has made
>millions of dollars selling FreedomEVs that haven't been officially
>crash-tested.
I do plan on crash testing it. But some of the safest vehicles out
there are the F1, Indycars, ect, that are built much like mine and use the
same methods for crash safety at up to 220 mph. Only I have much larger
crush zones added to their methods like using the tires as energy absorbers,
foam, racing seatbelts, ect.
>
>We'll just have to see how many Americans will buy vehicles without
>crash certifications and air bags. Certainly,
>some of them will. Jerry doesn't need or even want to
>sell to Joe Sixpack and Susie Soccer Mom at this time.
>He's only planning to build tens of cars per year at this point.
Exactly. But look at how many drive MC's? I only need to sell 1%
of car buyers to be rich beyound my wildest dreams. And I think 1% would
easily want to drive a Freedom EV! But I won't sell to others that EVer's
until I get a good handle on it and design a whole new Freedom EV for them
from what I learn.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
>--
>Doug Weathers
>Las Cruces, NM, USA
>http://www.gdunge.com/
>
--- End Message ---
