EV Digest 6497
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Compressed air as battery?
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Well, how is the AltairNano Pack working?
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV competition classification question
by "Mike Harvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by "Mike Harvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Well, how is the AltairNano Pack working?
by Ray Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Compressed air as battery?
by "Tim Gamber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Toyota pedal /plug in
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Solectria Force NiMH Conversion - and fans/blowers
by dale henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by "Mike Harvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Various Controller Thoughts (was RE: Contactor controller
control?)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: EV's, Ewoody and safety,
by Mark Brueggemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Tango lane splitting
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Compressed air electric hybrid. Re: Compressed air as battery?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---> 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. Do a search at the Yahoo ev-list-archive site under "aircar". The Future Car program was excessively simplistic, basically an infomercial for GM plus some other misinformation. This particular segment glossed over so many energy issues with compressing air to be a joke. Discovery Channel aimed this show at an audience more fascinated with swoopy lines and 0-to-60 stats than how to conserve energy, especially while creeping along in stop-and-go rush hour traffic or dashing for the next stop light a block away. I went to their site and commented on these points, and recommend anyone with an opinion to do so, too: http://extweb.discovery.com/viewerrelations
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:47:32PM -0800, Ray Wong wrote: <..snip..> > Did anyone attend the Phoenix test drive in Los Angeles today, March 1 with > Ed Begley Jr at the Peterson Automotive Museum. I've heard a rumor that the test cars are not powered by Altair Nano batteries. Does anybody have any evidence either way on this? Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I'm with Bob. Would be great to see Victor do a brake stand in a 24v 2 zillion amp cap-banked DC-DC ranked contraption. Better his money than mine:)Mike----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:01 PM Subject: Re: EV competition classification question----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: Re: EV competition classification questionHI- 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.Usuallythe 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 DubeSnip 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 thetrack, in the "Something Different" car! That smoking brakestand at Woodburnon 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;system that charged the caps?Or whatEVer you were using to juice them up. Or> Wouldn't you measure the primary source of power, like the batterywhat 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 youleave 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 --- Well hell. Let's just stop building cars right now since I doubt a one of us can affords the crash testing. It's hopeless. Sounds like someone's sleeping with the devil/car makers/lawyers... who owns the DOT anyway? The government? Yeah, eWoody or Freedom, or BugEV...make em guys. Put a big sticker on it and say "Drive at Your Own Risk"! Simple. End of conversation.Sorry, I really hate defeatist attitude disguised as "practical devil's advocacy". If it's really that bleak, take up knitting.Mike----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:46 PM 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/evCheck the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archiveCheck 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 crashesthat complied to DOT specs, on the Highway. The statistics on a single sample are not good enough to draw generalconclusions from, it is indeed just a single occurrence and it may have beenluck 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 familysedan. 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 manyautomanufacturers do this.Since the ONLY place where it matters is in an actual crash and the crashesthat you and I (hopefully not) will be involved in do not follow DOTregulations, 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 withsuch a vehicle or not, but for small series this does not happen until manyyears 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 ona 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 mindevery 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 killrate 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/evCheck the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archiveCheck 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 safebecause 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 fromhitting the rear wheel so the car crashing in the rear slides under it, thuslowering 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 SUVinstead 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 ithappen, 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 itproves at least 1 good result. But it's these kind of things that are neededto 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 anythingas 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 couldand did well considering it was my first design of a 3wh car 12 yrs ago. Andif 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 Ibelieve allowed me to design a fairly safe vehicle. I've never said anythingbut I think it is, as I only have my judgement on that. But I'm betting mylife 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 goodcrush zones, 4 point seat belts, fantastic handling, braking, composite rollcage, 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'snot safe or you can't say it's fairly safe unless you do. And no way you canconsider 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 beinglight 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 thatcan be useful and not kill people, especially small adults, kids like frontairbags 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 -0700On 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 largercrush 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 ---Sorry, my memory failed me. The first 10 batteries were for $750,000 including tooling costs. Ezesport Ray Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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. --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, they have already made a few prototype air powered cars. The ones they are making though are based on a modifyed internal combustion engine and they are very noisy. I think the main problem with them was just making sure the compressed air tank wouldn't blow up in the event of a crash. I think the air tanks they use in them now are carbon fibre and bullet proof.From: Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: RE: Compressed air as battery? Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:57:56 -0800 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_________________________________________________________________Your Space. Your Friends. Your Stories. Share your world with Windows Live Spaces. http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Don, One last thought: Who created the vehicle crash test specs? You can say "the government", but that does not show how the manufacturers have the say, which tests are acceptable and what they consider a good test. In other words: the crash tests are a means to show to the public that a vehicle is safe and they do this by showing conformance to a very limited set of pre-determined situations which are regularly challenged by people who know the wide variety of situations that is not tested at all. In other words, it is not a means to determine unsafety of a vehicle, it is mainly a barrier to small and import folks while the large manufacturers can make the public feel comfortable about the high ratings of their new boxes. On the road, the safety will show and is often quite different from the results of the crash tests. Hope this clarifies, 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 8:06 PM To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety, 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 ---It's a (little) bit better than that. A "VERY" fit human is capable of exceeding 1 hp for brief periods (even bursts exceeding 2hp). A "VERY" fit human (i.e. TDF competitor) is capable of producing almost 1/2 hp for extended periods. I (who am NOT a VERY fit human) have produced almost 1/3 hp for 1-2 hours in the past, which I don't think is a "short period" of time, at least it doesn't seem like it when exercising at that level. FWIW the current HPV 200 meter flying start record for a single rider is 81 mph. At least I think it's still current, that was set about 4 1/2 years ago, so it might be faster now. The one hour record is over 50 miles. Two people in a very efficient vehicle should be able to average well over 40 mph without assistance. 65 mph with a relatively small assistance is within the realm of possibility. > Knowing that a very fit human body is good for about 1/4hp for a short > period of time, this looks a bit impractical to me. > I built a man powered race vehicle in the late 70's early 80's. With 2 > really strong guys it did 61.04mph over 600 feet with a 1+ mile run up. > Current technology is now near or a bit over 70 with 1 guy. > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "jmygann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:41 PM > Subject: Toyota pedal /plug in > > >> http://tinyurl.com/23xenu >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 >> 2:43 PM >> >> > > -- If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---as a public school educator i need to scavenge what i can and the 10 PCs i have in my room i put together from a pile of other [mostly broken] computers. long story short [too late], recycled computers may be a good source for fans and heat sinks [i've saved some for future EV projects [i hope]], if any wants some let me know and we can work something out. Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 7. Find similar air handlers to what Solectria used > to cool the Ovonics. Noel, Will these be blowers or fans? What voltage do you target using on these devices? I frequently 'dumpster dive' at work and have lots of 12V and 24Vdc blowers hanging around in the basement. I'm not looking to get money for them, but I would like to get $10 for shipping (I like to promote EV's and recycle!). You can check out the air performance here, http://www.ametektip.com/ametek/PDF/CatalogsHTML/BLDCCatalog2006/index.php?page=0046 Some of the blowers with built in controls have a 0-4Vdc speed command, so you could command the performance that you want up to the maximum air performance. Rod --- "Noel P. Luneau" wrote: > Hi all, > > Well for Valentines Day, I cleaned out all the crap > in the garage and > moved the Force in. > > Yesterday was the start of the NiMH conversion. I > removed all the > batteries and did a fit test for the Ovonics. > Interestingly enough, I > was able to fit the standard six comfortably in the > front and ten in the > rear. > > I posted some pictures of the project in the Photo's > section of the > Solectria Yahoo group. > > So much more to do. Here is a rough draft of my > Project plan. Feel > free to offer advice. > > 1. Charge and load test the 32 batteries to > determine the best 18. > 2. Send two of those to Paul :) > 3. Determine if 16 batteries will be within > tolerance of the DC/DC > Converter (200V Max), and AMC325 Motor Controller > (200V Max) and if the > 3KW NLG412 Brusa charger will not be under capacity. > 4. Find and program the NLG412 with the correct > charging profile for 15 > or 16 Ovonic batteries. > 5. Program the AM325 Motor Controller for the change > in Voltage and > Amperage. > 6. Find a packing material that will be able to > withstand the heat that > the NiMH will produce. I am not sure if the > existing orange foam will > suffice. > 7. Find similar air handlers to what Solectria used > to cool the Ovonics. > 8. Attach the Blowers to the lid of the Battery > boxes and provide > ducting to the battery box exit holes. > 9. Cut the battery boxes to provide exhaust for the > air handlers. > 10. Determine how to activate the blowers during > charge and when heated. > My Force has a circuit to activate the warming > blanket during charge so > maybe that can be used. > 11. Determine if a BMS is required and if so how to > implement. > 12. Connect the batteries together. > 13. Test drive. > > Thoughts? > > Noel Luneau > > Albuquerque, NM http://geocities.com/hendersonmotorcycles/blog.html http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1000 http://geocities.com/solarcookingman --------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---I'd still like to see how the 2 motors are coupled together to drive the rear wheel as I've never seen that particular detail before.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Good point Cor. Sounds like a call for a nonpartisan neutral testing body designed to provide fair and balanced testing to all vehicles regardless of country of origin, or manufacturer. That's about as likely to happen as cap on campaign spending. It just wouldn't be fair to the rich guys. Hey, I thought the government was supposed to protect the little guy from the big guys. Oh wait! That's Fictional History 101.Regards, Mike----- Original Message ----- From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:29 PM Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety,Don, One last thought: Who created the vehicle crash test specs? You can say "the government", but that does not show how the manufacturers have the say, which tests are acceptable and what they consider a good test. In other words: the crash tests are a means to show to the public that a vehicle is safe and they do this by showing conformance to a very limited set of pre-determined situations which are regularly challenged by people who know the wide variety of situations that is not tested at all. In other words, it is not a means to determine unsafety of a vehicle, it is mainly a barrier to small and import folks while the large manufacturers can make the public feel comfortable about the high ratings of their new boxes. On the road, the safety will show and is often quite different from the results of the crash tests. Hope this clarifies, 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 8:06 PM To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: RE: EV's, Ewoody and safety, You are comparing ONE accident against DOT crash testing. As I statedbefore DOT crash testing is not the end all and be all, but ONE accident ishardly 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/evCheck the EVDL Archives: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archiveCheck 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 -0800Jerry, 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 worldcrashes rather than relying on test data alone which is a much better way todo 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 tobuild 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 DycusDon Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --->> The 1912 Detroit uses a large drum with heavy copper contacts >> and carbon brushes. As the drum is rotated by the throttle lever >> (not pedal) it changes the battery configuration. From: Randy Burleson > So basically, it is was just a simplified mechanical way of making and > breaking contacts... Right! > 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)? Yes. Properly built, they are very durable and reliable. > 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? Well, 48v at 400a is 14.4kw, which is about 14 horsepower when you take efficiency into account. A 1000 lbs vehicle with a 14 horsepower motor will work, but will have *very* slow acceleration and a low top speed. It could still be useful as an NEV. -- Lee Hart
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ------ jerryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are we here for arguement or helping make EV's better? All I'm doing is offering the opposing opinion. I don't believe you'll see widespread acceptance of EV's until they are nearly form, fit and function to ICE's. That includes crash testing. You don't have to agree with that if you don't like, but reality is on my side. Crashworthiness is a selling point to a lot of buyers. In my opinion too, a crash tested/passed EV is "better" than one that isn't, so yes, I am all for arguing to make EV's better. > Mark brought up this red herring I stand by it. I don't think your EWoody is safe in a crash by just about any standard. I agree with posts made earlier in the day that one crash does not automatically qualify it as being crash tested. As you point out, a different vehicle or different direction of impact and it would probably have been a very different ending. Certified crash testing does bring out some of those situations. I will agree that for your own use, crashworthiness is a personal choice. But you are quite vocal about how your chassis is such a great solution with it's high efficiency and how easy and simple they are to build, everyone should have one. I don't agree, unless those that build them understand the risks. They aren't a universal solution. I don't believe it's reasonable to compromise safety in the interest of efficiency or economy. > Otherwise he would have changed the EV bashing subject > line many posts ago. I didn't create that subject line, and left whatever subject was there so folks filtering on subjects didn't have to create a new filter, if they weren't interested in this topic. I adopted the "EV Basher" tagline because I find it humorous. I rather enjoy the debates, unfortunately they usually aren't terribly entertaining to those not directly involved. > There is no such thing as safe, only relative safety > including Mark's EV. 100% true. > You can take this for whatever you want but it proves > at least 1 good result. It proves you were damn lucky. > I'm betting my life on it just like Mark bets his life > on his EV and his MC driving skills. Problem with that premise, while I agree with it, is not everyone is a "skilled" driver. The crash testing assures some modicum of crashworthiness to an accepted standard in the event the driver, skilled or not, is unable to avoid the crash. You have to rely on crush zones and steel cages to keep from getting squashed. > 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. Buy you can't buy a Freedom EV. And, it's not a truck. If I could get by with a car, I'd have a car. If I would've waited to buy a production EV, crash tested or not, I'd still be waiting because 10 years after I built mine, you *still* can't buy one. (I don't count $100K one-off's). > Have you crash tested your EV Mark? Why not? Because GM did. Have I compromised it by adding 1000lbs of weight to the chassis? Undoubtedly, and in ways that would be impossible to predict. But there is *some* assurance that upon some impact, some crashworthiness remains. The panels will deform, and the seatbelt will hold. I trust that the collapsible steering column will collapse, and the bar in the door still has it's tensile strength. You can't make any vehicle absolutely safe, but your odds go up a whole lot if the basics are in place. > and the stock one isn't that safe anyway, Safern' an EWoody, I'd bet. It's one thing to compare the merits of vehicles that have been tested, but I'm afraid you've got nothing to hang your hat on until yours is. Not trying to be snotty, but one data point in uncontrolled conditions isn't much. Your design may be everything you say it is, but you have no way to prove it. > More weight just means a vehicle hitting it just > goes deeper into it, hitting it harder, And, imparting less energy to the occupants. The additional mass will spread that impluse of energy over time, lessening the peak energy the passengers will receive. I could care less what the thing looks like after the dust settles, if there's a better chance I'm alive to witness it settling. > my Freedom EV just gets knocked around being light and > strong like a bumper car. So the occupant gets more than one impact from several directions as the vehicle ricochets around. You want to absorb the impact energy, not impart it to the passengers. It's pretty well acknowleged that heavier vehicles are safer in collisions than lighter ones for this very reason. > I'm looking for side airbags that can be useful and not kill > people, especially small adults, kids like front airbags do > regularly. I'm not a big fan of them either, but anymore they're the price of admission if you want to build and sell a 4-wheel car. Look, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You always have the option to make me look stupid and get it to pass crash testing. Then I will be your strongest supporter. But not until then, period. I don't fit the typical EV'er mold, as I'm not environmentally driven and I'm not willing to be a blind evangelist for a concept such as battery EV's that are not economically viable. And, certainly won't endorse a vehicle as a solution that unduly risks the lives of the occupants in the interest of "the EV cause". Hey, EV's are fun and done right, are a safe and interesting hobby. If you can come up with a business model that can sell BEV's to the public then more power to you, you've succeeded where dozens, maybe more, have failed before you over the past 30+ years. Consider my input to be part of the demographics you hope to market vehicles to, because guess what, I am. Someone's going to come up to you and ask, "Wow, that's neat, but is it safe?". All the ICE's have to meet the standard, and I don't see any justification why EV's shouldn't have to, either. Mark "EV Basher" Brueggemann Albuquerque, NM S-10 EV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Maybe the whole lane splitting sharing discussion has run its course?This is supposed to be about building and buying ev and not driving techniques right?On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 8:07 pm, John G. Lussmyer wrote: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.comwww.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and the melting poles.www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- A compressed air electric hybird might be interesting. You could double the range of an all electric maybe and instead of getting a half charge during the day just get an airtank refill and recharge the batteries only overnight.If the airtank ran a small electric generator to feed electricity directly to the electric motor in concert with a main battery pack or piggybacked with a lightweight turbine system onto one powered axle it might work.Gets you away from gas anyway as a hybrid. Would be cleaner.And it gives you some instant refill ability while you still only charge the batteries at night.On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 8:07 pm, xx xx wrote: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-14795097www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and the melting poles.www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
