EV Digest 5588
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: mini monster garage
by "Garret Maki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: What the limiting factor up a hill
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Costco golf car battery
by Cory Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Ampabout ... 3kw genset
by Joel Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Impressions of a newby - 50 EV miles and counting
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: What the limiting factor up a hill
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: What the limiting factor up a hill
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) re:What the limiting factor up a hill
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: micro-monorail project needs tech input
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Li-ion Battery Advance
by "John Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: micro-monorail project needs tech input
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: This Just In!!
by "Mark Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) build energy
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: build energy
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Voltage sag under load
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) motor rotation
by Ray Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: build energy
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: build energy
by Peter Eckhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: build energy
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: build energy
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: build energy
by Peter Eckhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Tropica #17 on sale on eBay for $10k, needs new batts
by "Jorg Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Unloaded the ICE, Met Wayland (long)
by Mike & Paula Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Battery terminal Melted Twice
by "Robert Chew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: build energy
by Peter Eckhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Battery terminal Melted Twice
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I am all for you building it Carl.
I'll even lend a hand. I'd like to see how that design works out.
Doesn't sound too out there to me.
-Garret Maki
Broomfield CO
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carl Clifford
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:03 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: mini monster garage
Somebody talk me out of this.
I've been gathering 48v regen Club Car parts on ebay to put in a
motorcycle conversion I am planning. I had planned to use 4 yellow tops
but now I see this $10 deal on 18v Black and decker nicad tool packs at
Amazon.
I figure I could make 3 parallel packs of 10 each, and put those in
series. Then I could switch them back to parallel and possibly use the
black and decker quick charger to charge the whole pack overnight.
I can't get a line on the actual amphours of these, but my guess is
that I would have similar capacity to my yellow top scenario, plus the
ability to discharge them more deeply and get good range even when the
weather is cooler.
Anyway, perhaps someone with a better understanding of
charging/stringing these things can tell me whether this is a workable
idea.
Thanks
Carl Clifford
Denver
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000302V2/variofileform-20/103-3
785428-6551031?creative=327641&camp=14573&adid=1MBC10KQNEA4K48W0SP4&link
_code=as1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Garret Maki wrote:
> I was thinking of the Deka Intimidator AGM
I forgot all about that one! ;^>
Haven't heard much of anything by way of real-world reports on how they
hold up in EVs yet, whereas the Optimas and Orbitals have proven track
records.
Looks like the 9A34M would be the preferred model; like the D34M Optima,
it is 1/8" wider than your SCS150s, but is slightly smaller in the other
dimensions.
> It has pretty much the same specs as the Optima Yellow
> tops and my cost is $95. The optima YT is more like
> $160 I think. Checker Auto sells the Orbital for $160
> but would price match if I found a better deal, but the
> side terminals may give me trouble.
Hmm... I got the impression on the EVDL that a more typical cost for
Orbitals was about $98, and thought YTs were around $125.
I specifically suggested the BTs instead of YTs because I believe they
can be had at a bit lower price than the YTs, and the stud terminals are
handy for connecting monitors, regs, etc.
I think there is a marine version of the Orbital that dispenses with the
silly GM side terminals.
> The Trojans are doing ok and at $70 each for my first batteries.
I understand. I actually wouldn't be that surprised if you manage to
finish the season on these batteries.
> If I go with a fresh set of AGMs this summer I'll probably send my
> Delta-Q charger back to you to get the new charging algorythem loaded.
Sounds good.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello ???,
One person mentioned that Costco has 6V batteries. [1] I am interested
in what Costco is currently selling, not what Sam's Club was selling
years ago. Do you have a link for it?
Cory Cross
[1] http://www.crest.org/discussion/ev/200209/msg00434.html
p.s. my google search:
costco golf battery "ev@listproc.sjsu.edu"
In EV digest 5092 (
http://www.mail-archive.com/ev@listproc.sjsu.edu/msg06208.html ) Lee
Hart mentions using Sam's Club Exide batteries.
Death to All Spammers wrote:
... no one has brought up the 6V golf
car battery. I will look at it this weekend, but in the mean time, does
anyone have any information, specifically cycle life, on these
batteries?
The list has discussed these GC batteries before - seems they are not
always the same manufacturer, so stats may be a bit variable. Both
Costco and Sam's Club just get the best deal they can.
You can also find Orbitals at Sam's Club and lightweight versions of
Optimas at Costco.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Diesel is suspect to airborne bacteria that carries
enzymes that can break down the fuel into a sludge,
so the storage tank must be sealed from air (i.e.
vapor locking gas cap) OR it must have an additive
that kills the bacteria before it can break down
the fuel.
David Roden wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 at 6:05, Jeff Shanab wrote:
For twice a year, an add-on has to be parkable for long periods, so a
battery pack is not recomended.
I don't really think this is necessarily so. Good AGM and gel batteries
have very low self discharge. Periodic charging - every 2-3 months - is
plenty to maintain them. In fact, if they're not allowed to get too hot in
the interim, you could probably park such a battery trailer for 6 months and
just top it off before using it.
Many fueled machines have storage problems, too. I'm no expert on this, but
I note that the maintenance folks run the Diesel-fueled standby genset at my
workplace once a month to keep it limber, which wastes a fair bit of fuel.
I don't know much about Diesel's storage characteristics, but I've long read
that gasoline deteriorates and causes deposits in fuel systems. I suspect
that CNG or propane would be better. Others here may know more about this.
I think the real answer to the problem is a modified station car or vehicle-
sharing scheme, where the user who needs a different vehicle now and then
just drives to the motorpool and swaps for what he needs. Planning a
camping trip into the wilds? Leave your EV and take a SUV. Need to buy
some lumber? Use a pickup for the weekend. Taking a vacation with the
kids? Reserve a minivan for 2 weeks.
This scheme, if widely implemented, even addresses your concern with not
having the EV at the trip destination - when you arrive, stop by the
motorpool there and swap for an EV. Return it and get an ICE when you're
ready to go home.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are correct; however, reduce the master cylinder bore with caution.
The smaller the master cylinder bore (all else being equal) the longer
the brake pedal travel (better leverage causes the reduced effort.) Its
important that if you have a 1/2 brake failure you can still actually
apply the other half. This is easy to test as you are finishing up the
installation of the new master cylinder. When bleeding the brakes, and
you are at the last wheel, make sure the pedal cannot go to the floor
when you open the bleeder valve. An open bleeder valve pretty
accurately simulates a blown caliper or wheel cylinder. A few older
vehicles have a front/rear brake split (instead of duel diagonal) in
that case be sure to test front and rear.
On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:34 PM, David Dymaxion wrote:
It's counterintuitive, but you actually want a smaller diameter bore
in the master cylinder, and/or a larger diameter bore in the wheel
cylinders, to give the brakes more force.
--- Quoted anonymously:
... Otherwise, a larger master cylinder
(larger diameter piston) will help with stopping pedal force.
...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jun 23, 2006, at 7:38 AM, Garret Maki wrote:
On level ground my top speed is maybe 60-65 mph. Heading home on US36
about 5 miles into the drive there is a very large mile long hill. At
the steepest part of the hill my speed drops to 49 MPH. At that point
I
am pulling about 140-160 battery amps and about the same on the motor
side at ~66 volts on a 72v system. My motor is a 12HP D&D ES33 series
motor very similar, supposedly better than an ADC K91.
What is the motor rpm? It sounds like the motor is revved up enough
that it won't take 400 amps with the voltage you have available. But if
you slow a series motor down some it will take more amps at any given
input voltage. If this is the case a slightly taller gear may get the
speed (and amps) up. It will take a little from the low end
acceleration. It will work the controller a little harder.
Another thought that crosses my mind is that the controller could be
cutting back because its getting too warm inside (working to hard
already.) If this is the case the motor voltage should be noticeably
lower than the battery voltage (reduced controller duty cycle.) Most
good controllers do try and protect themselves from the user :-)
Paul "neon" G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jun 23, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Roger Stockton wrote:
Hmm... I got the impression on the EVDL that a more typical cost for
Orbitals was about $98, and thought YTs were around $125.
I think it WAS typical :-( I recently (May) paid $160 each for Optima
YTs after hunting the Seattle area. I couldn't find the Orbs for better
than $25 ea. cheaper (and at that point I couldn't find 10 from one
batch.)
Batteries are up like gas prices <g>. Good thing we don't replace them
too often!
Paul G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It sounds like you have run out of voltage.
A motor is at the same time a motor and a generator. As the rpm's climb
the generated voltage climbs.(BEMF ;Back EMF)
The difference between the bat voltage and the BEMF is avail to push
current through the motor. So yours has saged to the point where the
difference can't overcome the resistance to pull the current and
generate the torque you need. This is why the series motor has the most
torque at zero rpm.
If you keep the tranny, try shifting to a higher gear when it slows
down; ie lugging in 3rd, shift to 4th. This slows down the rpm and
lowers the BEMF so that there is a larger voltage difference. The
current will skyrocket and so will the torque. You will already be in
the correct gear for the new speed. ,
or raise system voltage, if the controller will let you.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't know whether it'll help, but your scheme reminds me of this one :
http://www.brusa.biz/applications/e_coaster.htm
For more detail, click the tabs at the top of the page.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Miraculous breakthroughs seem to come and go (or have their patents bought
up) but if the following electrode research pans out, the NiMH logjam may
be broken:
(from Nature Materials:)
High rate capabilities Fe3O4-based Cu nano-architectured electrodes for
lithium-ion battery applications
P. L. TABERNA1, S. MITRA2, P. POIZOT2, P. SIMON1 and J.-M. TARASCON2
1 CIRIMAT-UMR 5085- Université Paul Sabatier, route de Narbonne, 31062
Toulouse Cedex 4, France
2 LRCS-UMR 6007- Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 33 rue Saint-Leu,
80039 Amiens, France
Correspondence to: P. SIMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Published online: 18 June 2006 | doi:10.1038/nmat1672
Abstract
All battery technologies are known to suffer from kinetic problems linked
to the solid-state diffusion of Li in intercalation electrodes, the
conductivity of the electrolyte in some cases and the quality of
interfaces. For Li-ion technology the latter effect is especially acute
when conversion rather than intercalation electrodes are used.
Nano-architectured electrodes are usually suggested to enhance kinetics,
although their realization is cumbersome. To tackle this issue for the
conversion electrode material Fe3O4, we have used a two-step electrode
design consisting of the electrochemically assisted template growth of Cu
nanorods onto a current collector followed by electrochemical plating of
Fe3O4. Using such electrodes, we demonstrate a factor of six improvement
in power density over planar electrodes while maintaining the same total
discharge time. The capacity at the 8C rate was 80% of the total capacity
and was sustained over 100 cycles. The origin of the large hysteresis
between charge and discharge, intrinsic to conversion reactions, is
discussed and approaches to reduce it are proposed. We hope that such
findings will help pave the way for the use of conversion reaction
electrodes in future-generation Li-ion batteries.
Here's hoping,
John Nicholson
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I imagine you've already thought of this, but I would think you want a
above ground cable drawn thing like a ski resort uses rather than a car
on a track on the ground. The electric motor would then rotate a
drivewheel. Or perhaps simpler use a rubber wheeled vehicle that is
pulled up with a cable rather than driving the wheels,
and ratchet the vehicles wheels so it won't roll back on cable failure.
just my $0.02. in regards to power ratings of electric motors I'm also
unclear how to size them..
jack
David Sofio wrote:
Hi, new guy says hi & my apologies if something like this was just
discussed
three days ago:
I'm working on feasibility for a micro-monorail (NOT anything like an
infrastructure project; it would be for maybe four adults, or a bunch of
building material, etc) to get up some difficult terrain to places
higher on
my hillside property. Gas/diesel monorails like this are not unheard of in
Korea & Japan, and probably elsewhere outside of OSHA reach (see
http://bhmr.co.kr/product/mono/rail1/ks-101.htm for an example, in Korean).
I want to build a DC electric version for my place. Rubber tires would be
out of place, since we're talking about slopes from say 30 to 45 degrees.
I need to get a ballpark sense of what motor voltage/HP, battery count, etc
would be required to do this, and maybe how often charging would be
necessary. As a first pass at this, my rusty physics tells me (using
energy
methods) that if I want to move a 500kg (1100lb) payload up to an elevation
that is 150m (500') above "base camp," and if I arbitrarily decide I'd like
to do this at 7mph over a 1000' long path, it will take me about 100
seconds
to do so (yeah, that might be a terrifying speed). If my calcs are about
right, this results in a burn rate of 7500W for that 100-second trip. Then
it's all downhill, maybe another load (or maybe a spectacular crash
involving broken gears and fine mists of sulfuric acid...) etc.
Anyway, based on that theoretical 7500W, at the conversion rate of 746W/HP,
I'd need 10HP to do the deed, this assuming perfect efficiency. (Might
this
alone be enough to pick out a nice motor?) And--here's where I get even
less sure of the numbers-- if I decided 48V is a reasonable pack voltage,
then from P=IV, 7500W/48V = 156A required for that 100s trip. Drawing 156A
from four 12V cells for occasional 100-second trips should be pretty easy,
right? And maybe 36VDC might work as well?
And if I make some more wild assumptions about energy-efficiency in this
process and assume I lose 20% to friction, motor losses, controller, etc
then I'd still be in the ballpark...or would I? Anyone?
Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. I want not to buy either an
undersized
or oversized motor/controller for the job right off, and of course even
before that, I want to be sure this isn't all totally Quixotic. Yeah, lots
of machine work, but worth it if it gets me to elevations that are not
accessible otherwise without some dangerous hiking. Any recommendations?
Next consideration will be transmission. Final drive--my 'gear' that will
be my equivalent of a tire on a road-going EV-- needs to spin at something
like 600RPM max. On the input side, then, what would typical motor
peak-efficiency speed ranges be, for the series-wound motors that I think I
am after? From the very few curves I have seen, I'm given to thinking that
this is going to be a pretty big gear-down, say from most-efficient input
RPM of 6-10,000 to my puny final-drive of up to 600RPM at top speed, or a
ratio of something like 100:1 or more. Any suggestions for this
transmission setup to give me a single output (no differential required) to
drive my theoretical gear on the monorail's long rack?
Mahalo,
Dave
Honolulu
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I hope that trucking company had plenty of insurance!
Mark Ward
www.saabrina.blogspot.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: This Just In!!
I am very saddened to read this.
"Red Beastie" has a lot of historic value as far as EVs are
concerned. John Wayland made a 440 mile round trip from
Portland to Seattle and back with this truck. It proved that
hobbyists could build conversions with greater usable range
than the EVs the automakers were putting out, and for a much
lower cost.
This was also EV pioneer Dick Finley's last project before
he passed away. He was too ill to help finish it from what
I've read, and he gave John Wayland the go-ahead to make
that historic trip.
This truck did 120 miles per charge at 60 mph highway
speeds, and only needed 300 Wh/mile to do it. This was a
5,200 pound beast, with no LRR tires, and no significant
aerodynamic modifications, so 300 Wh/mile is really damn
good! Performance? I recall reading in the archives that it
did 0-60 mph in roughly 18 seconds. Not bad for a 5,200
pound truck, even if it only keeps up with traffic.
It was a very practical vehicle. John Wayland has used it to
haul other EVs on trailers, including 50 mile trips to the
racetrack.
Its loss is a definite blow to the EV community.
I hope Tony isn't too discouraged by the loss of his house,
shop, and EVs.
He should do another truck in this same vein to replace it.
Perhaps push the envelope farther than Dick Finley did;
aeromod the hell out of it, use LRR tires and all known
efficiency tricks in the book, and shoot for 200+ miles
highway range on lead acid batteries.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much energy to
build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems high. Does
anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to build a
vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g. steel,
plastic, aluminum and lead)?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The newscientist web site said 1/2 the pollution, not the energy. The
energy is alot less. I'm not sure why car making would be as
polluting as running the car despite taking less energy. Maybe
melting steel is inherently polluting or something like that?
--- Michael Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much
> energy to
> build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems
> high. Does
> anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to
> build a
> vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g.
> steel,
> plastic, aluminum and lead)?
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Steve and all,
Steve Condie wrote:
Okay, I'm confused. What is an acceptable level of voltage sag for a
lead-acid battery under a heavy amp draw? Should a 12 volt battery
stay above 11 volts? 10? 9? I sem to remember someone (Lee Hart?)
saying that anything below 10.5 is dangerous, yet I see others
talking about a sag to 9 or even lower under a heavy draw being OK.
It's commonly said that the safe lower limit for battery voltage is 1.75
Volts per cell. That's 5.25, 7, and 10.5 volts for 6, 8, and 12-Volt
batteries respectively. However, a better answer is "it depends." The
two ways that you are most likely to cause permanent damage your
batteries when sagging their voltage excessively are due to heat damage
and cell reversal.
Batteries dissipate power as heat due to their internal resistance.
Internal resistance goes up as SOC (State Of Charge) goes down. So the
amount of heat generated in the batteries will depend on how much
current you pull through the batteries, how long you pull it, and the
battery SOC. Heat speeds up degradation of the plates, especially the
positive plates, shortening the life of the battery.
Also taking a battery's voltage too low can result in the reversal or
other permanent damage of one or more of its cells, especially at low
SOC. We use 5.25, 7, and 10.5-Volts as conservative lower limits because
there is no guarantee that all cells in a battery are balanced or will
react exactly the same to a very heavy load. E.g. pulling a 12-Volt
battery down to 6 volts could mean that every cell is at 1-Volt or that
4 of the cells are at 1.5 volts and two of the cells are in some state
of reversal.
So pulling a 12-Volt battery's voltage down to say, 7 Volts instead of
10.5 Volts is much less likely to harm a cool, well-balanced battery
that is at a high SOC than a warm, un-balanced battery which is at a low
SOC.
Hope that helps,
--
-Nick
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
http://go.DriveEV.com/
http://www.ACEAA.org/
--------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am thinking of coupling a pair of Presolite MVX-4001 (from a Schaeff fork
lift). The motors have a 7/8" spline at one end and a 1" keyed shaft at the
other.
A spline coupler would fit very well in between the two motors with only a
small gap between the motors.
My question. Does anyone know if these 7.25 inch Prestolite motors are
designed to spin equally in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, assuming
that the timing can be set the same.
The brushes do have a slight slant in one direction but that may be done to
increase the brush contact surface area. As the fork lift was designed to run
in both directions, can I assume this will work.
Any help would be appreciated.
Ray
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I seem to recall that one criticism of the VW Lupo high efficiency (3-litre)
car was that it used exotic materials and the manufacturing energy input was
significantly higher than more conventional cars.
I'm glad this came up. I'd like to know the difference between
manufacturing energy and emissions - including the nature of the emissions -
for an ICE, 4-speed automatic transaxle, and ECU on the one hand; and an
induction motor, fixed-ratio transaxle, and inverter on the other hand.
That's a piece of the EV puzzle that isn't often fitted into the picture.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Michael,
You got my curiosity up. I remember reading such a quote and went
looking for it. Overall, it would appear that the actual manufacturing
of a car consumes only 10 to 15% of the energy consumed, but when you
look at the whole process from mining to showroom versus gasoline
consumption for the life of the car, the whole process uses more energy
than than what is consumed in gasoline. This is just a quick and dirty
Google search. Here are my references for this statement:
At www.evworld.com, if you bring up a story to read, you'll see a URL
that looks something like this:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1052
Delete the 1052 and substitute in 646 This brings you to the following:
February 13, 2004
Ruppert asserts that the process of manufacturing a motor vehicle --
from mining the metals to forming the plastics -- consumes as much oil
as that vehicle will burn in its entire operational life. In effect,
every single car, truck, tractor, and bus will use up twice the amount
of oil we normally associate with operating that vehicle. He concludes
that we may simply not have enough oil left to make the transition from
fossil fuels to hydrogen.
Here are two other articles on the subject:
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html in which the authors'
find that the manufacturing cost is 1/10 the fule usage.
http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/
Typically in the US, the embodied energy for producing the car
corresponds to 10 to 15 % of the energy a car uses over its lifetime for
gas. Maintaining an older vehicle will thus save the Footprint of
producing a new one.
Let me know what you find. I'm curious.
Peter
***************
Michael Perry wrote:
I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much energy to
build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems high. Does
anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to build a
vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g. steel,
plastic, aluminum and lead)?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This has been the driving force behind my wanting to keep my old '65
car on the road. She has hardly any plastics in her and the
engineering behind her building (minors changed very little between
their launch in 1948 and their last production vehicle in '72) is
simple and easy to fix. Even the bodywork is relatively cheap to fix
(under $150 for an entire new floor's worth of metal).
Hydrogen cars will get made at whatever cost. Gas companies don't
like the idea of the EV because it means they go out of business. We
can charge our EV at home. Hydrogen, like gas, natural gas, LPG,
Ethenol and EnviroDesiel all have to be shipped and sold at a gas
station.
I suspect that no-one will care about the oil used to bring us
Hydrogen cars. At least, Joe Public won't. It's a very sad fact.
On 24 Jun 2006, at 06:24, Peter Eckhoff wrote:
Hello Michael,
You got my curiosity up. I remember reading such a quote and went
looking for it. Overall, it would appear that the actual
manufacturing of a car consumes only 10 to 15% of the energy
consumed, but when you look at the whole process from mining to
showroom versus gasoline consumption for the life of the car, the
whole process uses more energy than than what is consumed in
gasoline. This is just a quick and dirty Google search. Here are
my references for this statement:
At www.evworld.com, if you bring up a story to read, you'll see a
URL that looks something like this:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1052
Delete the 1052 and substitute in 646 This brings you to the
following:
February 13, 2004
Ruppert asserts that the process of manufacturing a motor vehicle
-- from mining the metals to forming the plastics -- consumes as
much oil as that vehicle will burn in its entire operational life.
In effect, every single car, truck, tractor, and bus will use up
twice the amount of oil we normally associate with operating that
vehicle. He concludes that we may simply not have enough oil left
to make the transition from fossil fuels to hydrogen.
Here are two other articles on the subject:
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html in which the
authors' find that the manufacturing cost is 1/10 the fule usage.
http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/
Typically in the US, the embodied energy for producing the car
corresponds to 10 to 15 % of the energy a car uses over its
lifetime for gas. Maintaining an older vehicle will thus save the
Footprint of producing a new one.
Let me know what you find. I'm curious.
Peter
***************
Michael Perry wrote:
I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much
energy to
build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems
high. Does
anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to
build a
vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g.
steel,
plastic, aluminum and lead)?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
See the following study that contains an EV cost analysis
and some information on energy used in the build:
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2000/05/36138.pdf
The following study has information on the energy impact of
producing/recycling EV batteries:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/201715-9UFfKK/webviewable/201715.pdf
Some of the numbers I found were interesting. Done right, it
appears EVs over their entire lifecycle can save significant
amounts of energy and money over a comparable gas car. There
are still some significant unknowns in regards to energy
producing the cars though; if these studies are to be
believed, making an EV aerodynamic would allow it to
generate a shitload of monetary savings over comparable IC
cars even factoring in battery replacement.
I'm sorry the energy on actually building the cars is scarce
within those two links. I've been trying to find it myself
for years.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Michael,
You got my curiosity up. I remember reading such a quote and went
looking for it. Overall, it would appear that the actual manufacturing
of a car consumes only 10 to 15% of the energy consumed. This is just a
quick and dirty Google search. Here are my references for this statement:
At www.evworld.com, if you bring up a story to read, you'll see a URL
that looks something like this:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1052
Delete the 1052 and substitute in 646 This brings you to the following:
February 13, 2004
Ruppert asserts that the process of manufacturing a motor vehicle --
from mining the metals to forming the plastics -- consumes as much oil
as that vehicle will burn in its entire operational life. In effect,
every single car, truck, tractor, and bus will use up twice the amount
of oil we normally associate with operating that vehicle. He concludes
that we may simply not have enough oil left to make the transition from
fossil fuels to hydrogen.
***But there are some notes at the end of the article disclaiming his
"facts". ****
Here are two other articles on the subject:
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html in which the authors'
find that the manufacturing cost is 1/10 the fule usage.
http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/
Typically in the US, the embodied energy for producing the car
corresponds to 10 to 15 % of the energy a car uses over its lifetime for
gas. Maintaining an older vehicle will thus save the Footprint of
producing a new one.
Let me know what you find. I'm curious.
Peter
Michael Perry wrote:
I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much energy to
build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems high. Does
anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to build a
vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g. steel,
plastic, aluminum and lead)?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Disclaimer: I have no connection whatsoever to the owner or to eBay; I
would buy this car if I weren't already monetarily involved in 2 other
EVs...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4653042632
==>
For Sale: Extremely rare 1995 Renaissance Tropica, lettered for Zebra
and purchased at the bankruptcy auction of Xebra Motors in Alameda,
CA. This is production car No. 17 out of a maximum of 22 vehicles. The
car is powered by 12, 6 volt deep discharge batteries. The battery
pack is flat and will need to be changed. It is currently titled and
registered in CA as a stored vehicle, with approximately 3,000 miles.
The seller is the first registered owner.
<==
There's lots of other info in the eBay motors listing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
After a couple months trying to sell the 2.6L ICE out of the Mitsubishi I
put it on Craig's List for FREE. After a couple calls and no-shows a guy
calls me this morning says he'll leave home at 7pm and be here at 8pm. So I
wait around and this huge GMC 1-ton diesel pulls up, smoking all over. OK,
I had one too, I'm used to it. The guy leaves it running, just like I used
to. I see the smoke and am glad am now driving electric. But something
isn't quite right. I give him the tour of the EV. He turns the truck around
to pick up the ICE and a big sign on the back says "5000+ miles on 20 gal of
diesel." Big contactor goes click in my head. It smells awefully much like
french fries. Wife comes out at that same moment, before I could say
anything, mentions to the guy we had a diesel and had considered burning
vegetable oil too. Then she walks away. This is way cool. I've never seen
one up close and personal. He had his own processing plant right in the
back. So we chat for quite a while talking back and forth about merits of
both vehicles. I mention to him I was asked to bring the EV to the Alaska
Renewable Energy Fair on Aug 12th. He hadn't heard about it since its only
the 2nd annual. He said he's been taking his to the State Fair but hadn't
heard about this one. So maybe we'll have a whole group of "preferred"
energy vehicles there, mine, his and 1 or maybe 2 other EV's. This will
make a lot better impression than the lone Toyota Hybrid they had on display
last year that only rated 35/41 mpg on the sticker.
So later I got to thinking, long distance vacation/motorhome = veggie oil.
Run-around tow behind = Electric... OR... Long way to the race track? Tow
truck/generator and trailer = Veggie oil, 12 second dragster = Electric. I
can see people showing to the pit area, beer in hand, wondering, "Where's
the fries?"
Oh yeah, the day before, got to show off my rig to John Wayland (who
happened to be in town) and his students in mischief. Looks like that crew
had a potential dragster and a Saab 9000 thats been in the works for a bit.
I'd like to get those guys volted up plus the other two EV's I know of in
town and start an Alaska club. Thanks for visiting John. Keep stoking
those boys and I'll help 'em with the lectricity. I'll check back with
them in a bit to see if they've been thinking.
These have been the best two days EVer since the day I drove electric for
the first time. Met John and got rid of the damn ICE from my garge floor.
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
HI All,
What an eventful weekend. Going up a hill in Sydney, i noticed a smell
coming from inside the cabin. It smelt like solder. I though, yeah whatever,
it's just the cables heating up from the current draw, I^2R power loss.
I was going up a hill, with plenty of charge and then i decided to look back
where my batteries are uncovered. Damn, the most negative terminal was
bright red, like molten metal. I was damn, i parked on the side of the road
and let the terminal cool down to figure out the problem.
The wing nut was pretty much welded in place, almost.
When it cooled, i touched the battery cable and it turned out the lug was
extremly loose. There was plenty of slack and that cause a high resistance
path, hence the heating up of the battery terminal.
I tried and tried to undo the wing nut with my hands, and some scrap paper
(bloody hot mate), couldn't get it undone, and i was in a rush cause i had a
party to get to.
With no pliers or tools in the vehicle (trying to converse weight).
I got my steering whel lock and tried to bang the wing nut loose (bad
mistake).
I found that the lead of the terminal was stl pretty soft, after about
10-15mins, and saw the terminal moove a bit when i hit it.
opps.
So i tried and tried with my left hand to undo the wing nut, which worked. I
got arthertis now!
Luckily on the SCS225, there is two screw downs per post. So i just swapped
it over and done it up all tight. I then proceeded to tigheten the lug-cable
down as much as i can. Got it down tight on the new screw down.
Then checked all the other terminals. Some were pretty loose. Thats the
thing with wing nuts, you can't get anough torque with your fingers. I am
going to replace the wing nuts with proper nuts and using spring washers to
really get some serious torque down on those terminals.
I think that is why my range is so poor lately.
People, always check your battery terminals and whether there tight. Check
them every week!!!!!
Cheers
_________________________________________________________________
New year, new job there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All,
Please disregard my first response to this email. It was 2am and I hit
the send button a little too fast.
Peter
Michael Perry wrote:
I've seen that one comment before... that it takes about as much energy to
build a car as it uses for the first 100K of its life. That seems high. Does
anyone have a link to any study that tells how much it "costs" to build a
vehicle? Perhaps one that breaks it down by material type (e.g. steel,
plastic, aluminum and lead)?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Robert,
This is call shrink back of the initial battery post surface to the battery
connector.
In a first time installation of a battery post clamp or a terminal lug to a
stud type post, the lead surface brush scratches will melt down causing a
increase resistance.
It is recommended to used a stainless washer, lock washer and hex nut instead
of a wing nut on a stud type post. Get a inch lb torque wrench and torque the
fasteners to about 50 inch lbs. Some battery manufacture rate the torque value
of these studs way up to 100 inch lbs.
After driving the EV with new install battery connections, recheck the torque
after each five miles of driving. You may find that you may lose over 10 inch
lbs the first five miles. Re-tighten and the rated of inch lbs will get less
until it should maintains a steady rating.
The next problem you might have with a stud type connection, is thru time, the
lead post may mushroom making the head of embedded stud loosen from the from
the battery post that also increases the resistance.
To prevent mushrooming and studs pullout on my low profile battery post pads
with a stud on Trojan's T-145's, I use all positives marine type battery clamp
that has a threaded in bolt, but I used a nut instead of a wing nut.
This provide pressure around the post which prevented the mushrooming and stud
pull out. I do not use the stud on the post to connected my terminal lug, it
now is connected to the gold plated battery clamps that can be rotated to fit
any battery post spacing.
I also used a stainless steal, washer, lock washer and nut on the battery post
stud to provide downward pressure on the battery clamp.
You may not need to install battery clamps as where your lead post are higher
where the post stud is embedded deeper. I use one of the 225 batteries as my
accessory battery and the stud type connecters are holding up good with a hex
nut torque to 50 inch lbs.
During the 5 mile torque test, I also do a specific gravity test of one battery
cell, to see what is the rate of SG drop, voltage drop at the same battery
ampere per run, you then can plot a curve on a graph which will tell you what
will be the indicated range.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Chew<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 5:14 AM
Subject: Battery terminal Melted Twice
HI All,
What an eventful weekend. Going up a hill in Sydney, i noticed a smell
coming from inside the cabin. It smelt like solder. I though, yeah whatever,
it's just the cables heating up from the current draw, I^2R power loss.
I was going up a hill, with plenty of charge and then i decided to look back
where my batteries are uncovered. Damn, the most negative terminal was
bright red, like molten metal. I was damn, i parked on the side of the road
and let the terminal cool down to figure out the problem.
The wing nut was pretty much welded in place, almost.
When it cooled, i touched the battery cable and it turned out the lug was
extremly loose. There was plenty of slack and that cause a high resistance
path, hence the heating up of the battery terminal.
I tried and tried to undo the wing nut with my hands, and some scrap paper
(bloody hot mate), couldn't get it undone, and i was in a rush cause i had a
party to get to.
With no pliers or tools in the vehicle (trying to converse weight).
I got my steering whel lock and tried to bang the wing nut loose (bad
mistake).
I found that the lead of the terminal was stl pretty soft, after about
10-15mins, and saw the terminal moove a bit when i hit it.
opps.
So i tried and tried with my left hand to undo the wing nut, which worked. I
got arthertis now!
Luckily on the SCS225, there is two screw downs per post. So i just swapped
it over and done it up all tight. I then proceeded to tigheten the lug-cable
down as much as i can. Got it down tight on the new screw down.
Then checked all the other terminals. Some were pretty loose. Thats the
thing with wing nuts, you can't get anough torque with your fingers. I am
going to replace the wing nuts with proper nuts and using spring washers to
really get some serious torque down on those terminals.
I think that is why my range is so poor lately.
People, always check your battery terminals and whether there tight. Check
them every week!!!!!
Cheers
_________________________________________________________________
New year, new job - there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT<http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=752315885&_r=Jan05_tagline&_m=EXT>
--- End Message ---
