EV Digest 5445
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Xebra
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Xebra
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Xebra
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Xebra
by "Evan Tuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Xebra
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Electric Race Car Article
by Seth Rothenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: converting a gas mower to electric
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Orbital 34DC-36 and 34DC-48, differences and where to buy?
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Wheels/Tires and rolling resistance
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: High Voltage Nationals
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13) Re: Xebra
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Small Brushless wheel motor idea
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Raptor Overheating
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: converting a gas mower to electric, Off to the Races
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Article 625
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Article 625
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence,
I thought we established that heavier vehicles go further ;)
I'd love commuting on an electric motorcycle. My bike only takes about
$13 each week for gas now. Zero dollars would be even better. Half
thought of converting an old Goldwing to an EV. I need the extra
weight of a heavy bike for comfort and long distance ;)
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nobody says boo(they might say ahhhh) when Cedric Lynch goes
hundreds of
> miles on a charge with his motorcycle. The reason is he uses physics
> cleaverly to attain his goals. Low drag & light components are his
> friends. If you want super range and functionality that is the only
way.
> The math never lies and the proof is in the pudding. Lawrence
> Rhodes....Show me & I'll believe...........
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
(Except they're not EVS!)
Nikki
On May 4, 2006, at 2:10 AM, Jody Dewey wrote:
That is one ugllllly car! It definately is the right idea and
price though!
Does anyone know what the voltage is? Could it be increased for more
speed/range?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:02 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zappylist; SFEVA
Subject: Xebra
http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be
perfect
for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices
this car
is a no brainer.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
Vegetable Oil Car.
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Zap had these available for test drives at the Maker Faire a couple of weeks
ago. There was a small coned course to drive in. Lot's of body roll. A bit
scary if you ask me.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:26:59 +0100
Subject: Re: Xebra
It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
(Except they're not EVS!)
Nikki
On May 4, 2006, at 2:10 AM, Jody Dewey wrote:
> That is one ugllllly car! It definately is the right idea and > price though!
> Does anyone know what the voltage is? Could it be increased for more
> speed/range?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:02 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zappylist; SFEVA
> Subject: Xebra
>
>
> http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be > perfect
> for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices > this car
> is a no brainer.
> Lawrence Rhodes
> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
> Reedmaker
> Book 4/5 doubler
> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
> Vegetable Oil Car.
> 415-821-3519
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah... don't get me started on the maker faire. It's so unfaire (hehe)
that we don't have anything that cool over here!
Did anyone take their EVs???
On May 4, 2006, at 4:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zap had these available for test drives at the Maker Faire a
couple of weeks ago. There was a small coned course to drive in.
Lot's of body roll. A bit scary if you ask me.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:26:59 +0100
Subject: Re: Xebra
It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
(Except they're not EVS!)
Nikki
On May 4, 2006, at 2:10 AM, Jody Dewey wrote:
That is one ugllllly car! It definately is the right idea and >
price though!
Does anyone know what the voltage is? Could it be increased for more
speed/range?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:02 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zappylist; SFEVA
Subject: Xebra
http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be
> perfect
for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices
> this car
is a no brainer.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
Vegetable Oil Car.
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/4/06, nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
(Except they're not EVS!)
Some of them are though!
I've got a 4-wheeler one: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/103.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nikki,
They were converting a Prius to a plugin electric but I don't remember any
other EVs.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:46:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [SPAM?]: Re: Xebra
Ah... don't get me started on the maker faire. It's so unfaire (hehe) that we
don't have anything that cool over here!
Did anyone take their EVs???
On May 4, 2006, at 4:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Zap had these available for test drives at the Maker Faire a > couple of
> weeks ago. There was a small coned course to drive in. > Lot's of body roll.
> A bit scary if you ask me.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Sent: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:26:59 +0100
> Subject: Re: Xebra
>
>
> It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
>
> (Except they're not EVS!)
>
> Nikki
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 2:10 AM, Jody Dewey wrote:
>
>> That is one ugllllly car! It definately is the right idea and > >> price
>> though!
>> Does anyone know what the voltage is? Could it be increased for more
>> speed/range?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner->> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:02 PM
>> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zappylist; SFEVA
>> Subject: Xebra
>>
>>
>> http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be >> >
>> perfect
>> for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices >> > this
>> car
>> is a no brainer.
>> Lawrence Rhodes
>> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
>> Reedmaker
>> Book 4/5 doubler
>> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
>> Vegetable Oil Car.
>> 415-821-3519
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tilley has demonstrated his vehicle on a 20-hr "hard run". And had
"outside verification", so it must be for real:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1139
<http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1139>
Of course I'm being sarcastic, the point is, fictional claims of outside
verification are a dime a dozen. And his claim was crude. He needs to
add a name, credentials, and a bunch of objective (though fake)
numbers. Go ahead, nobody even checks up on this stuff. Not impossible
to find an unscrupulous or very gullible person with a real degree if
need be either.
Sorry for keeping the somewhat OT thread alive, but many may breathe a
sigh of relief that Tilley's scams have been largely exposed so this
crap about "electric cars that charge themselves" isn't actively being
spread around anymore.
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/
(just check out the first link alone)
Amazing that the most obvious and easily disproveable "fact" in his
scam, that GE offered him two billion dollars, takes three years to be
exposed and all it ever took was a simple phone call to GE. If he has
been a better scammer, he should have said "a major, major company whose
name I am not at liberty to reveal" or some other such modification to
the claim to make it impossible to every verify conclusively. But the
point of note here is that even if you make a claim that could easily be
shown to be false, it's highly unlikely anyone will follow up on it.
Danny
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
When someone sticks this thing on a vehicle and drives from even 100
miles away I would give it some credibility. Otherwise it's bunk.
LR>...........
----- Original Message ----- From: "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: Gun Engine?
it will be nice to hear comments on the device here :
http://www.tewari.org/Test_Results/test_results.html
check out the other pages of the website too
tony grotz is a qulified professional .. and others who
commented on the 'engine' are not non-entities either
..peekay
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Dear Sir,
....
> Walk around a typical racing paddock. Look at all that intelligence and
> creativity focused on dropping that extra 10th of a second. Are not these
> the people who can take the electric car and make it as fast as today's gas
> powered car? Is not this the challenge that can make racing relevant again?
>
> Sincerely:
>
> Clifford Rassweiler
> www.ProEV.com
Clifford,
Your letter is a great approach to waking people up.
I had mentioned to someone that I was looking
for a car with a dead ICE, and he mentioned he
had a Saturn 2000 with a blown engine.
He wouldn't even entertain an offer from
an EV list member to buy it to make it EV.
"This is a performance car, better death than EV".
Hopefully I'll be able to restore the Saturn EV
that I bought and go public with it, to change
some of my neighbors views.
Seth
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael S Briggs wrote:
> I'd like to get a rough idea of how much it might cost me to do the
> gas-electric conversion to compare to the cost of buying one of those
> old Elec-Traks
Well, the Wheel Horse we converted cost about $300. The 1.5hp traction
motor was $100, the 3/5hp motor for the mower was $60, and two 12v
batteries $60 each, and another $20 for misc. bolts, bits of wire,
brackets, pulleys etc. that we didn't already have.
> another drawback as I see it for the elec-traks is that most have
> a front mount mower deck rather than under the belly, which would
> make it more difficult to fit into our garage.
I haven an ElecTrak E-8, which has a 2-motor mower deck that goes
underneath.
> The one I have is the same as this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7761400583&category=50377&fkxs=1
Ok, it's the garden tractor type, so you could give it a shot.
> I'm wondering if it would be better to salvage a motor, controller, etc.
> from an old electric golf cart, or find new/used ones. Hell, I could
> probably make my own controller I suppose....
Golf carts have a 2.5hp or more motor; it would work, but is bigger
than strictly needed. An "old" one is the key; old ones had two motor
bearings; newer ones typically have only *one* motor bearing; they
depend on the differential to provide the second bearing, and would be
much harder to adapt.
>> A friend and I converted his old Wheel Horse garden tractor
> Does it have a manual or hydrostatic tranny? This gas mower has a
> hydrostatic (automatic) tranny. I'm not at all familiar with those,
> so I'm not sure how the motor will attach to it.
The Wheel Horse was easily 20 years old, and had a 3-speed manual
transmission, with a v-belt connecting it to the gas engine. A "clutch"
pedal just loosened the belt. We just replaced the gas engine with the
electric motor, installed the old pulley on it, and ran the same v-belt
setup.
We didn't have a controller; a switch just turned on a contactor, and
the motor ran continuously. You stopped/started and controlled speed
with the clutch and shiifting.
Later, when we changed to 6v batteries, we changed it to a 2-step
contactor controller.
--
Ring the bells that still 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, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have been using the Exide Orbital XCD's. I have been
really happy with the performance. Auto Supply USA had
them for $105.00. They are in a dispute with Exide
right now. I have since been able to get them in a
couple of other places for 105.00 plus a core charge
bringing the total to 110.00 each. When buying a whole
pack of batts you should be able to get that kind of
deal. The arrangement that Auto Supply USA had with
Exide is that if you bought your batts from them,
Exide would drop them at any of their regular
resellers.
The way I would get that deal is to say that I would
buy them from Auto Supply USA and have them dropped at
their store OR they could sell to me directly and make
the sale themselves.
It's worked so far....
Gadget
visit my websites at www.reverendgadget.com, gadgetsworld.org,
leftcoastconversions.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Tom, I will definitely keep an eye on the load ratings.
This is an Escort Wagon that was converted by a company called Soleq and from
what I have seen of
the vehicle they definitely engineered it 'well' possibly even overly so in
some respects.
For example the battery boxes have these metal plate separators about an 1/8"
thick, kind of like
the card board separators in a box of drinking glasses. That also means that I
can only use the
one size of battery which is the European DIN size for the original
Sonnenschein DF6V-160s.
Also there is a huge inverter under the back seat that is 85-130VDC to 120AC @
about 3kw to run 2
hermetically sealed air conditioning compressors and you should see the size of
some of the heat
sinks on this thing! The charger almost looks like it was made from cast iron.
Anyway I think you
get the idea.
I will try to get the higher load tires. Thanks again.
Chet
--- Tom Shay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm concerned about whether your tiny tires are adequate for a car weighing
> over 4000
> lbs. What's the load rating marked on the tire sidewalls; it might be less
> than 1000 lbs?
>
> It's not prudent to load tires beyond about 75 % of their rating. Heavily
> loaded tires
> have poor handling and steering stability. I have also gathered from
> postings on this
> list that rolling resistance is best with tires at about 70% of rated load.
>
> How can an Escort weigh over 4000 lbs? My Ranger pickup with 20 T-105
> batteries
> weighed less than that. Maybe you could reduce the battery load to give
> your tires a
> break and improve acceleration, steering and handling.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all
Concerning camping. Yes, camping will be available at the track.
As far as where on the property and what facilities will be available
(washrooms, electricity, water, etc.) we don't know yet. Please respect
the facilities that you do get, as they have had problems in the past
with campers.
The motels are booked solid. Seems that the big oil refineries
here are undergoing a huge maintenance program for the summer. There are
2000 out of town workers that just came in and have taken all the rooms.
So if you did not have a motel reservation, you're probably out of luck.
You can always try on-line.
Here is what I know at this time. Gates open to spectators at
11:00 am. Participants and vendors can enter at 8:00 am. Racing begins
about noon. Prior to that there will be plenty of time for registration
and tech inspection. Track will close at 6:00 PM. Awards ceremony
follows immediately at the track. Then it's off to a pizza place (pay
your own) about a 1/2 mile from track for festivities & bench racing.
Check the web site after Sunday for the latest info.
See ya May 13th
John Emde
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.fveaa.org
_____________________________
On Thu, 4 May 2006 09:15:42 -0400 "Doc Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> To all concerning tje campimg at the track.
> John Emde said he thought it would be okay but to check the website
> a week
> before the EVent to be sure. I. for one, am counting on it, Gypsy
> that I am.
>
> Doc, 'Mountain Lightning Team'
>
>
> On 5/4/06, Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone confirm if there is camping available at the track? I'm
> trying
> > to figure out how to get
> > there and camping would really help out. Are there still rooms
> available
> > at the Motel 6 for the
> > rate mentioned on the FVEAA web site? I trying to arrange to fly
> out and
> > rent a car, maybe I will
> > make it out.
> >
> > Dave Cover
> >
> > --- Bob Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Doc Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: High Voltage Nationals
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > The 'Mountain Lightning Racing Team' will be camping out at
> the track
> > > > friday night and would be happy to babysit your bike.
> > > >
> > > > Doc Kennedy, a fellow E-Biker
> > > >
> > > Hi Doc;
> > >
> > > We can Camp out? Cool. I probably will too, in my trusty,
> rusty
> > ,Fraud
> > > Van, to savabuk, IF and when it makes it?!
> > >
> > > Seeya
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
oooh cool! One of the rarer reliants!
:)
N
On May 4, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Evan Tuer wrote:
On 5/4/06, nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It reminds me of the reliant three wheelers we get over here :)
(Except they're not EVS!)
Some of them are though!
I've got a 4-wheeler one: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/103.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, well 200 watts is probably when it's spinning at least 5000 rpm. So
unless you're planning on hooking it up to a skateboard...
FWIW 200 watts is about what a mediocre bicyclist can produce. So I don't
know about the "go-cart from hell" part.
> In the past I have heard of people making motors our of altenators. I
> was curious and discovered just ho inneficeint claw pole alternators were.
>
> But yesturday I was cruising ebay and came accross a mess of motorcycle
> stators and flywheels
> like : item number 4586929481
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4586929481&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSII_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT
>
> I was thinking that because motorcycles are weight consious, maybe the
> stator is more efficient than normal ICE counterpart.
>
> The inside out design would let a person mount a tire/rim to "flywheel"
>
> A set might make an interesting go-cart from hell ??
>
>
--
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 ---
Allow Ram air to push into the controller.
Lots of times the forced air gets forced backwards through the controller.
The Fan then basicly stall the airflow through the controller.
The should leave from the Buss bar end.
And No a Raptor 1200 with even modest to NO forced air should be able to
handle 500 amp continuous loads.
Mine does multiple runs at over 1000 amps and I have never had the hot LED
light come one. And I really hammer my old Raptor!!
Unfortunatley a False or early hot issue can be corosion on a header inside
the controller.. this takes a tech to find and solve.
I have never had the issue come up. I have heard of many others with it
though.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:51 AM
Subject: Raptor Overheating
>
> The other day, I was happily cruising around with my truck at around 200A
> when my controller signaled 'over heating' and sent me to the
> right-of-way. Now: I have an DCP-1200 Raptor and it should be able to
> manage > 200A continously. After a short break, the LED was cleared, power
> restored and I went on driving keeping current at 150A.
>
> It was hot that day but I was going around 65 (= plenty of air pushing
> into the engine compartment) and the controllers fan was working
> perfectly.
>
> Question: Could that behaviour be considered to be 'normal'? And how would
> I be able to improve the situation?
>
> Michaela
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok, after this I promise to drop this thread...
First, let me be clear. I am not trying to defend this guy or his
theory. I agree it seems extremely dubious. What I am objecting to is
the manner of your argument. You are using ad hominem, straw men, and
appeals to ridicule. I believe if you're going to use the level of
sarcasm and condescension that you have, you should be prepared to
back up your position with some numbers.
On 5/4/06, Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, as it stands, a gasoline engine can only get so efficient.
This begs the question, "how efficient is that?" Your reasoning only
holds any water if 220MPG is physically impossible. Are you saying
that 220MPG is *physically impossible* in a small Insight-like car?
How's he plan to do it? No useful explanation provided at all.
And scientists always give lengthy technical explanations in
interviews. Here is an except of his (admittedly typo filled) paper on
the engine:
"the author asked and answered the question, "Is it possible to
develop such a cooling in which a cool preserves heat?" and found
out that it is trivial, so is the elimination of radiator, (the major cause
of inefficiency in current engines) thus he proposes to replace current
cooling, based on coolant jacket around cylinder and radiator, with
internal cooling that preserves heat.
The cooling is based on direct injections of water into explosion
chamber, so steaming would cool engine internally and the heat
would be preserved in the resulting steam and not wasted. The
author also proposes the ratio of water to fuel as 8:1 for gasoline.
In order to limit the volume of water tank, the author also proposes to
use condensation as means to separate water from exhaust, so water
could be reused for internal cooling and pure exhaust released.
In addition to better cooling, the direct injections of water into the
explosion chamber would also assure that piston's crown is the bestcooled
part of the engine, thus explosions of fuel would not melt it.
In order to reduce stress in crank and related parts, the author
proposes to replace the cylinder head of current engine with a
harmonic oscillator, the output of which produces power input to the
work-piston of the mentioned engine.
Indeed the harmonic oscillator shields the piston and in addition, it
delays building the pressure over work-piston, so it is possible,
through proper selection of the bulk of its oscillating mass, to cause
the meeting of the highest force; acting on piston, with longest
distance of crank from the centerline of cylinder, (crank at 90 degree)
thus amplifying torque 5 to 9 times, without any increase of fuel
consumption.
The proposed solution is very simple and inexpensive. It also allows
using plastics more widely for parts, (only those parts exposed to
explosions of fuel need to be made out of metal) thus lowering bulk
and costs of production of the proposed gun-engine, the efficiency of
which would quadruple that of current engines saving 80% of fuels
and cutting 80% of greenhouse gases emission, while totally
eliminating synthesis of NOx type of pollutants.
This proposed solution is also an alternative to a high power long
stroke slow speed marine engines that are extremely bulky and
expensive, yet not as efficient as the proposed engine.
In order to provide explosive mixture of fuel vapor with air, the author
proposes using heat in exhaust to heating a large surface soaked
with fuel and the airflow that improves vaporization and premixes
vapor with air. The mentioned surface would result from injecting fuel
onto metal-wool (thin metal wires resembling loose wool) filling a
chamber heated with a flow of exhaust surrounding the chamber. The
airflow through the metal wool would improve vaporization of fuel
soaking the wool and an electric heater wrapped into the mentioned
wool could assure proper operation during start-ups. The metal wool
conducts heat well, so fuel wetting the plurality of little surfaces of
wires would boil fast.
The initiation of explosions could be by electric spark or infrared
laser; for very high-octane fuels such as hydrogen or natural gas, or
by compression heat induced with an over-compression; never used
before, to assure explosion initiation at, or just prior to, the alignments
of crank with the centerline of cylinder.
The words "over-compression" should be understood as such a
compression that is much higher than that related to octane number
of the used fuel.
As the use of spark plagues [plugs?] for explosions is not very reliable, since
high temperature of explosion quickly deteriorates the insulation
between electrodes, the proposed internal cooling also prevents that,
so the author advice using the spark plague or laser, as both could
lasts longer than in current engine and both are reliable.
As the resulting engine is destine to explode fuels, there is no need
for advancing the explosion initiation and the explosion should be
initiated when crank is aligned with the centerline of the cylinder as
that assures the optimal conversion of energy, released by explosion,
into kinetic energy stored in a moving mass of the harmonic oscillator,
(highest possible pressure during explosion due to minimization of
space containing the explosion is in TDC). The conversion is similar
to that in guns, thus the name "gun-engine".
The resulted engine produces torque independent from speed, thus
no need for energy consuming reduction gears or transmission.
In addition to all the above, the engine could be energized with many
fuels without any adjustments and that would give the owner
opportunity to select the most inexpensive fuel on the market."
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Rice wrote:
> Thanks! Will ya make it to the Races? In Chicagoland? Hope to see
> ya there, and a bunch of OTHER EVers. A Show of Hands: Who ELSE is
> coming? Lee Hart, Dave Roden, Rod Hower?
I'd love to attend, but it's right in the middle of our BEST race day
countdown. I'm trying to ride herd on *four* teams of hammer mechanic
4th-6th graders this year! Close to 100 future EVers are depending on
me.
--
Ring the bells that still 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, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yeah I was brief, because it is really too much work to debunk all his
claims individually. And he frantically jumps from claim to claim
without an explanation of any of it and it's impossible to nail down
what he's even saying. I saw "air cushion", low rpm high torque
solution, waste heat recovery, below ambient pressure exhaust, 12
strokes, water injection, plastic engines, metal wool fuel injection,
and over-compression. Just looking at few of these it appears he had no
idea what he's talking about.
In short, no the radiator is not a problem. Waste heat simply cannot be
used very effectively, that's why it's called waste. I did read it. He
doesn't propose any sensible explanation of how he intends to reuse it.
Actually water injection has been around since WWII, and is still used
in a few exotic cases. It is useful in preventing detonation though
there are easier ways to do this. It increases the efficiency of the
engine some, since an inconsequential volume of water mist expands to
provide additional pressure. However in doing so it absorbs
considerable thermal energy and lowers the stroke's final temp and
pressure so its benefit is limited if any. Now you can potentially take
the hot waste gas, contain it in a piston, add some water mist, and get
additional pressure off of expansion into steam. Possible but the
effect is still somewhat limited; it's not going to increase your output
many times. His 8:1 mixture proposal indicated he plans to get the
power stroke primarily off of steam expansion which is essentially the
same as a steam engine which isn't exactly a new principle.
Danny
Mike Ellis wrote:
Ok, after this I promise to drop this thread...
First, let me be clear. I am not trying to defend this guy or his
theory. I agree it seems extremely dubious. What I am objecting to is
the manner of your argument. You are using ad hominem, straw men, and
appeals to ridicule. I believe if you're going to use the level of
sarcasm and condescension that you have, you should be prepared to
back up your position with some numbers.
On 5/4/06, Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, as it stands, a gasoline engine can only get so efficient.
This begs the question, "how efficient is that?" Your reasoning only
holds any water if 220MPG is physically impossible. Are you saying
that 220MPG is *physically impossible* in a small Insight-like car?
How's he plan to do it? No useful explanation provided at all.
And scientists always give lengthy technical explanations in
interviews. Here is an except of his (admittedly typo filled) paper on
the engine:
"the author asked and answered the question, "Is it possible to
develop such a cooling in which a cool preserves heat?" and found
out that it is trivial, so is the elimination of radiator, (the major
cause
of inefficiency in current engines) thus he proposes to replace current
cooling, based on coolant jacket around cylinder and radiator, with
internal cooling that preserves heat.
The cooling is based on direct injections of water into explosion
chamber, so steaming would cool engine internally and the heat
would be preserved in the resulting steam and not wasted. The
author also proposes the ratio of water to fuel as 8:1 for gasoline.
In order to limit the volume of water tank, the author also proposes to
use condensation as means to separate water from exhaust, so water
could be reused for internal cooling and pure exhaust released.
In addition to better cooling, the direct injections of water into the
explosion chamber would also assure that piston's crown is the bestcooled
part of the engine, thus explosions of fuel would not melt it.
In order to reduce stress in crank and related parts, the author
proposes to replace the cylinder head of current engine with a
harmonic oscillator, the output of which produces power input to the
work-piston of the mentioned engine.
Indeed the harmonic oscillator shields the piston and in addition, it
delays building the pressure over work-piston, so it is possible,
through proper selection of the bulk of its oscillating mass, to cause
the meeting of the highest force; acting on piston, with longest
distance of crank from the centerline of cylinder, (crank at 90 degree)
thus amplifying torque 5 to 9 times, without any increase of fuel
consumption.
The proposed solution is very simple and inexpensive. It also allows
using plastics more widely for parts, (only those parts exposed to
explosions of fuel need to be made out of metal) thus lowering bulk
and costs of production of the proposed gun-engine, the efficiency of
which would quadruple that of current engines saving 80% of fuels
and cutting 80% of greenhouse gases emission, while totally
eliminating synthesis of NOx type of pollutants.
This proposed solution is also an alternative to a high power long
stroke slow speed marine engines that are extremely bulky and
expensive, yet not as efficient as the proposed engine.
In order to provide explosive mixture of fuel vapor with air, the author
proposes using heat in exhaust to heating a large surface soaked
with fuel and the airflow that improves vaporization and premixes
vapor with air. The mentioned surface would result from injecting fuel
onto metal-wool (thin metal wires resembling loose wool) filling a
chamber heated with a flow of exhaust surrounding the chamber. The
airflow through the metal wool would improve vaporization of fuel
soaking the wool and an electric heater wrapped into the mentioned
wool could assure proper operation during start-ups. The metal wool
conducts heat well, so fuel wetting the plurality of little surfaces of
wires would boil fast.
The initiation of explosions could be by electric spark or infrared
laser; for very high-octane fuels such as hydrogen or natural gas, or
by compression heat induced with an over-compression; never used
before, to assure explosion initiation at, or just prior to, the
alignments
of crank with the centerline of cylinder.
The words "over-compression" should be understood as such a
compression that is much higher than that related to octane number
of the used fuel.
As the use of spark plagues [plugs?] for explosions is not very
reliable, since
high temperature of explosion quickly deteriorates the insulation
between electrodes, the proposed internal cooling also prevents that,
so the author advice using the spark plague or laser, as both could
lasts longer than in current engine and both are reliable.
As the resulting engine is destine to explode fuels, there is no need
for advancing the explosion initiation and the explosion should be
initiated when crank is aligned with the centerline of the cylinder as
that assures the optimal conversion of energy, released by explosion,
into kinetic energy stored in a moving mass of the harmonic oscillator,
(highest possible pressure during explosion due to minimization of
space containing the explosion is in TDC). The conversion is similar
to that in guns, thus the name "gun-engine".
The resulted engine produces torque independent from speed, thus
no need for energy consuming reduction gears or transmission.
In addition to all the above, the engine could be energized with many
fuels without any adjustments and that would give the owner
opportunity to select the most inexpensive fuel on the market."
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The part I love about NEC Art 625 is the page and half devoted to extracting
Hydrogen gas and fumes. 1000s of CFM of airflow are required... And Well a
well designed AGM charger won't vent ANY
Gas... and any other OEM battery pack is also zero emmission in that aspect.
Proving that Fear mongering is what most of the effort behind the 625
was all about. Also many locals have viewed the 625 and NOT type accepted
it. Basicly the Inspector has the ability to toss it out and use what parts
of it are Logical and prudent. This of course sets the sene for a exuberant
Inspector holding you to the letter of the 625.. while you have no way to
fight it.
625 Gets a lot simpler when you toss out what does not refer to your
application... aka charging flooded batteries in a closed room. There are
some other totally arbatrary line items like a max of 25 ft from the charger
to the EV, and that the cables have to be 18 inches off the floor but not
more than 48 inches. Hunh??? Why? I will give you a hint that a properley
sized 700 amp DC stinger... Ain't gonna be very far off the floor!!!, Since
it will take a healthy Guy to pick it up and drag it to the charger or the
EV. And that's using Welding cable not some custom imprinted made for EVs
cable.
When you read it it certailly looks like a bunch of inspectors were trying
to apply almost unknown but possible restrictions to what should be as
simple as plugging in your welder or RV.
I fear this 625 will be a immortal document. with us for years after it
really has any uses. I have had it faxed to me in requests for power for my
monster charger, and other folks have run in fear from it.
Like Why do we need to have the DC side Cable marked ":for EV uses only"
This has to be imprinted in the Rubber shield in the Stinger.. Like MSHA and
OSHA rough service is not good enough??
Care to guess what it would cost to have Carol Cable make a custom imprinted
cable??? Like Welding cable is not tough enough? Cable rated for dragging
over rocks in Coal or Gold mine...is not good enough for your Street EV??
Good rules are followed, Bad ones are faught and ignored... and
marginalized.
After you get over Screaming and swearing , you tend to accept those "NEC
625" requirements.. as those that make sense and those that you need to Get
the inspector to see your point of view.
I am sure the 625 can be used to club to death any honest attempt at a high
power charging station...if the inspector... Wishes.
That felt good... Flame mode off...
Clearly I have read it......It's prbably respnosible for the last 20 MM of
my blood pressure.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Article 625
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> > The whole point of art.625 is to prevent you from wiring your charger
> > into the house and then using a standard AC receptacle as the output.
>
> No; I don't think that's the point at all. I think the auto
> manufacturers (GM in particular) did some fearmongering, and created a
> bogeyman that says electric vehicle charging is somehow vastly more
> dangerous than plugging in any other kind of electrical device.
> Therefore, extraordinary measures are required for public safety. GM was
> promoting its inductively-coupled Magnecharger at the time, and sought
> to ban all forms of conductively-coupled chargers. Other auto companies
> (Ford in particular), would rather die than license a GM system; so they
> promoted the Avcon conductive system.
>
> There *were* no proponents for any other system at those meetings; so no
> other systems were allowed.
>
> > wouldn't do to have granma plug the vacuum cleaner into your high
> > voltage DC output when she stops by to visit.
>
> Standard NEMA connectors all have standard voltages and currents. NEMA
> 5-15 is the proper name for the familiar 120v 15amp connectors used in
> everyone's homes and businesses. That connector is rated for 120v AC
> *or* DC! 100 years ago, you would have been as likely to find DC as you
> would AC at such a connector.
>
> And, grandma's vacuum cleaner would have run equally well on DC. I
> *have* a 40-year-old Hoover vacuum cleaner. For fun, I just read the
> nameplate. It says:
>
> 100-115 volts DC to 45 Hz
> 105-120 volts AC 50-60 Hz
>
> But I get your point. Lots of modern products are AC only, and would
> fail (often spectacularly) if you plugged them into 120 volts DC.
>
> > If the charger is a separate item that plugs into the AC power, then
> > it's an appliance and not subject to NEC.
>
> Correct. The NEC doesn't claim to have any authority over plug-connected
> devices; only permanently-installed devices.
>
> > The outlet it plugs into is a standard appliance outlet and as long
> > as you use a standard outlet, it's already covered by NEC elsewhere.
>
> That's where it gets fuzzy. Article 90-2b (Scope: Not Covered) says the
> NEC doesn't cover automobiles; but then 625 says it does, for the
> special case of anything used to charge an electric vehicle. Which
> article has precedence?
>
> > Now for the charger to vehicle interface... as long as the charger
> > is a separate appliance, then NEC doesn't have jurisdiction and
> > Art 625 doesn't matter.
>
> No. As it is presently written, electric vehicles can only plug into
> special connectors, not used for anything else. Article 625 defines all
> the special restrictions on the interface between the AC mains and the
> EV.
>
> > If you are planning on setting up a public charging station that
> > supplies something out than standard AC, then you definitely
> > should follow Art 625, whether your local government has adopted
> > it or not.
>
> Art 625 is written to cover the charger's AC powerline interface, no
> matter what voltage and current it uses.
> --
> Ring the bells that still 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, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Article 625
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
> > Jeff, are you planning on permanently wiring your charger
> > into the house?
> > If not, then don't worry about Art 625 because it doesn't apply.
>
> I believe this is incorrect. Art 625 regulates the requirements of AC
> outlets/power sources that are speficially for delivering charge energy
> to an EV, and its onboard charger.
>
> Remember, the Avcon and Magnacharge are the only Art 625 approved
> charging stations, and *neither* is actually a charger: both are simply
> specialised means of providing AC power to an EV's onboard charger.
>
> > The whole point of art 625 is to prevent you from wiring your
> > charger into the house and then using a standard AC receptacle
> > as the output.
>
> > If the charger is a separate item that plugs into the AC
> > power, then it's an appliance and not subject to NEC.
>
> No; as I read it, the whole point of 625 is to spell out the specific
> requirements of an outlet that is provided for the specific purpose of
> charging an on-road EV.
>
> The requirements for the various branch circuits vary depending upon the
> sort of load that they will be used for, and art 625 is the section of
> the NEC that spells out the requirements that are specific to outlets
> provided for EV charging.
>
> > Now for the charger to vehicle interface...as long as the charger is a
> > separate appliance, then NEC doesn't have jurisdiction and
> > Art 625 doesn't matter.
>
> I believe this is at least partly true. The charger appliance itself is
> not subject to NEC or Art 625... Other than by the impact that Art 625
> has upon the the charger by regulating the characteristics of the AC
> outlet that may be used to supply power to the charger.
>
> Again, note that while Avcon is an Art 625 approved conductive means of
> AC energy to an EV's onboard charger, it strictly provides the connector
> system between the AC grid and the vehicle; it is not a charger and one
> can connect any charger they wish to the vehicle side of their Avcon
> receptacle.
>
> Art 625 regulates the connector system between the AC grid and the EV;
> it does not appear to regulate the charging equipment that may be
> powered from the vehicle's "charge inlet".
>
> > The whole point of Art 625 is to prevent people from plugging
> > appliances into voltages they aren't designed for.
>
> Not at all; the whole point of Art 625 is to prevent people from
> plugging their EV into any outlet that isn't provided specifically for
> EV charging.
>
> > NEC Art 625 is just trying to prevent folks from plugging
> > something into the non-standard voltages/waveforms that an EV
> > charger might put out.
>
> No again; NEC Art 625 regulates the connection means between the AC grid
> and an EV, it does not have anything to do with the output side of any
> EV charger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
Roger... you might want to reread some of it. They step over the line in a
few places...like a Kid daring his folks to come and spank his hand...
And... As someone who makes Grid conencted chargers... I want my customers
to be able to plug into anything they can find, If it's within the limits of
the charger.
Your description... makes my product and the Nec 625 in direct opposition.
Something I don't think they intended.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
--- End Message ---
