EV Digest 6860
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Series/parallel motor clarification
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Tesla roadster motor philosophy
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: An indesent proposition
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) EZGo Controller connection diagram?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) AC/DC thing
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Woohoo! just finished homemade capacitive discharge spot battery
tab welder
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) GM 350 crankshaft pattern
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Chevy motor adapters
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Thundersky Real World Experience
by Thomas Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: An indesent proposition
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Tesla roadster motor philosophy
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) When did you first catch the EV bug?
by Joseph Lado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: GM 350 crankshaft pattern
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Safety of inverter/controller or whole system? (Re: Tesla...)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
dale henderson wrote:
I want to switch two motors between series and parallel and I’m
using contactors to accomplish this task. Can I switch them all at
the same time or will I need to turn one set off before I can turn
the next one off?
You *must* arrange things so the series and parallel contacts are not
closed at the same time. This would create a dead short across the
controller output!
There are a number of ways to accomplish this. One way is to use a
single reversing contactor; one coil that closes the series contact when
off, and the parallel contacts when on. It can't physically be in two
positions at once; this provides the interlock to prevent short circuits.
Another way is to use separate normally-open contactors for series and
parallel. In this case, you need a foolproof way to prevent them both
from ever being on at the same time. One method is some kind of time
delay (series on -- both off -- parallel on) but that is risky because
the time delay can fail. Another method is to use contactors with
auxiliary contacts. When one contactor is on, its auxiliary contacts cut
power to the other contactors. The contactor must release, which
activates the auxiliary switch, which enables the other contactors.
Finally, you can use a big diode to replace the series contactor.
Turning on the parallel contactors will reverse-bias the diode,
automatically taking it out of series mode. You'll still want a fuse
because diodes can fail shorted.
--
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 ---
Every time we discuss AC vs. DC the fog seems to move in. I'm not saying
there aren't plenty of good reasons for choosing one or the other. But
these are not among them:
the advantage comes from the high rpm where you can supply the power
more in the voltage and less in the current. Which is good since all
the loss is in the current side.
You can buy the same motor wound for different voltages. You'll find
that its mechanical performance is *identical* -- same torque, same
speed, same horsepower, same efficiency, etc. -- regardless of the
voltage it is wound for.
When you rewind for twice the voltage, you need twice the turns per
coil. Thus you have twice the total wire length. To fit twice the turns,
you also need to wire with half the cross-sectional area. Twice the
length of half-size wire means 4 times the electrical resistance. At
double the voltage, it will indeed draw half the current; but since
Power = I^2R, and R has quadrupled, your resistive losses are identical
-- unaffected by the voltage the motor is wound for.
Higher mechanical RPM does indeed raise the power-to-weight ratio for a
motor (AC or DC). That's because the current rating is basically defined
by the wire size, while the voltage rating is defined by the insulation
strength and/or mechanical strength of the rotor. For maximum power, you
apply the highest current it can stand without overheating, *and* the
highest voltage it can stand without flying apart or shorting out.
It's common to find both AC and DC motors built for 10,000+ RPM. They
are used anywhere that high power-to-weight matters above all else
(vacuum cleaners, portable tools and toys; and sometimes in EVs.)
AC drive systems are affected by skin effect, DC systems are not.
No; skin effect only becomes troublesome at RF frequencies in the MHz.
It is trivial at the frequencies used by AC motors (up to 200 Hz or so),
or those used by MOSFET or IGBT controllers (20 KHz or less).
the power is not moving through all the copper at the same time and
this increases the effective resistance for a motor made of a given
mass of copper.
Remember that all DC motors are really AC motors with a built-in
DC-to-AC inverter (the commutator and brushes). The voltage on the coils
in a DC motor is approximately sinusoidal, just like it is in an AC
motor. The winding losses are therefore basically the same.
Motor winding resistance is a significant issue at these power
levels.
Copper losses go *down* as motor sizes go up. The bigger the motor, the
higher its intrinsic efficiency. In part this is because doubling the
cross sectional area of an iron core quadruples its area (4x the
horsepower), but the distance around it (length of wire) around it only
doubles.
the overriding benefit of AC remains the regen capability
Every motor is also a generator, AC or DC. But the designer can choose
the design to optimize it for motoring or generating. Wound field motors
(AC wound rotor or DC shunt or sepex) make excellent generators, but
mediocre traction motors (starting torque is low). PM motors (AC or DC)
are good generators and motors (high peak efficiency, but harder to
control and lower part-load efficiency). Motors with indirect field
control (series DC, induction AC) are excellent traction motors, but
poor generators due to the difficulty of control.
The perceived benefit of AC vs. DC for regen is a consequence of the
limitations of the particular motors and controllers available to
hobbyists. Most EV series DC motors and controllers are built for fork
lifts, whose buyers won't pay for regen; so they aren't built for it.
Most EV induction AC motors and controllers are high-end expensive
systems whose customers want all the bells and whistles possible; so
they have regen.
An AC system is inherently much safer than a DC system.
An "AC system" is the motor+inverter. A "DC system" is the
motor+controller. Neither is inherently any safer. Both "run" when you
command them to, even if the command was a mistake or result of a failure.
A *system's* safety is defined by how it performs when it is all
together, with all its backups and safety interlocks in place. You don't
look at any one part and say "since this part can fail, the whole system
must be unreliable."
A dropped wrench in the right spot can connect the motor to the
battery in a DC system and result in full throttle.
True for *any* system. That's why you package things in boxes to make it
impossible for a loose tool or screw to cause such a short.
Shorted silicon will launch the car before the safety logic has a
chance to realize what has happened and drop out the main contactors.
Only if the safety logic is badly designed.
The contactors open quickly, but far from "instantly."
A contactor will open in under 20 msec (0.02 second). How far will a car
move in that length of time?
This also assumes the contactor was already closed, which means the car
was already operating, and presumably being driven.
In an AC system, the controller must be 100% functional for the motor
to even turn.
Only if the controller has all the needed software and safety interlocks
to insure that this is true. And, the same is true for any properly
designed DC system.
There is only twice the loss in the controller, not six times the
loss.
That's correct. An AC inverter has about twice the loss of a DC
controller (2% vs. 1%, or 98% vs. 99% efficiency). However, the
commutator in the DC motor also has another 1% loss -- this puts AC and
DC systems right back at the same point for total losses.
The voltage is typically twice as high as it is in DC systems, so the
current is half as much and thus the losses turn out to be about the
same.
No, because the higher the system voltage, the higher the on-state
voltage drop of the switches. You find MOSFETs with a 1v drop in 150v
controllers, but IGBTs with 2v drops in 300v controllers. So again,
losses wind up almost identical; i.e. not a function of system voltage,
or AC vs. DC.
The motors folks use in DC cars just can't take the 300+ volts that
the AC systems thrive on.
"Just can't take" and "thrive on" are emotional terms. In fact, both AC
and DC motors can be built for any voltage you like.
You pick your motor based on what's available to you. That picks your
pack and controller voltage. It might be high voltage, and it might be
low. Nothing to do with AC vs. DC.
DC is more efficient [than AC] because you can keep the RPMs in the
sweet spot by shifting gears where as with an AC motor there is only
one sweet spot and you are often not at that spot. Also the AC
electronics are not as efficient as a DC controller.
You can make this argument go either way. AC and DC motors are so close
in efficiency that you can make either of them "win" just by your choice
of details.
A DC motor's commutator is a very mature piece of technology. In
contrast, electronic commutators (AC motor inverters and controllers)
are still evolving. Some can provide a broader range of torques/speeds
for high efficiency; some are worse.
--
Do not confuse what is "easy" with what is "right".
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Joseph Lado wrote:
With the expertise that is on this list would it be possible for us
as a group to produce a vehicle that is similar in performance to the
TESLA? That is performance and range?
Perhaps. But how many people want a luxury ultra-expensive sports car?
Even if you build it yourself, a car like that is going to be very
difficult and expensive.
I'm more inclined to produce a vehicle that the largest possible number
of people could actually afford and use for regular driving. This is the
way to make EVs mainstream as quickly as possible. That why the Sunrise
project is going in the direction it is.
And, you are all helping the project, whether you know it or not, just
by writing on the EV list about what you want, what you are doing, what
works and what doesn't, etc!
--
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 ---
In some engines, the bolt pattern are not the same for the early model
internal balance engines and later model external engines. Both have a 3.5
bolt circle, but if you look closely on a stack of these cranks for the
external balance ones, you will see that two of the bolt holes are closer
together than the others.
On these external balance crank flanges, the flanges have been cut away, so
as to balance the engine. If you use one of these on a motor, you will
unbalance your motor.
There will also be a extended pin between two of the both holes in either
the internal or external balance engines flanges. This is so a balance
flywheel or flywheel balance for the engine, to go only on one way.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
> A couple resources I have found:
>
> >From the horses mouth:
>
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=913.html
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=883.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.nastyz28.com/sbcmenu.html
>
> To my knowledge, before 1986, the small block 400 was the only externally
> balanced small block, but I don't know about roundness of the crank end.
> I
> think the bolt pattern is the same anyway, so that should only be relevent
> if you are cutting up a crank to make an adapter. Then the big concern, I
> believe, is making sure you can find a forged crank and not a cast crank
> to
> start with. According to the third reference above, Roland is right,
> although forged passenger car cranks were fairly rare, forged truck cranks
> may be easier to find. Or maybe we can find a crank rebuilder that scraps
> some cranks that we could cut up? Forged Chevy small block cranks are
> probably the most trafficked crank in existance in the race world. There
> has to be a surplus of trashed ones someplace.
>
> I'll have to go dig around in the garage this afternoon and look at
> cranks,
> I've got a few Chevy ones out there.
>
> I'm in discussion with Electro Automotive. They may have the pattern
> already from a previous project, or maybe be willing to do it if enough of
> us express interest: http://www.electroauto.com/index.html
>
> Marty
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:43 AM
> Subject: Chevy motor adapters
>
>
> >> > Jeff Shanab said:
> >> > Marty.
> >> > I am no longer in a position to make them, I used to work as a
> >> > moldmaker in a plastic shop and have switched to software
> >> > engineering.
> >> > I will dust off the old server today and put it on this slow
> >> > connection, it will be reminessant of dialup but I'll get it to ya.
> >
> > I am converting an older corvette, and am keenly interested in this
> > particular flavor of adapter! I can offer a fast web site to host
> > drawings, etc. for access by the community. Get the raw stuff to me
> > and I'll handle the clean up.
> >
> > Clearing up some facts:
> >
> > Earlier Roland Wiench said:
> >> Do not use a later large crank flange where the flange is not
> >> completely round, which are use for the external balance engines.
> >
> > It is my belief that the 'non-round' crank ends are used in the chevy
> > large-block line, ie. 396 ci. and up. I've never seen a non-round crank
> > flange on a small-block, ie. 265/283/327/350/400. Can anyone confirm
> > this one way or the other?
> >
> > There are 'early' flanges, with a 3.5" bolt hole pattern, and 'late'
> > flanges with a 3" pattern. I believe that the 3.5" corresponds to
> > the "1st generation", aka "split seal" model, while the 3" is
> > the "2nd generation", aka "one piece seal" model. Confirmation?
> >
> > ---
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've decided to upgrade my Moms golfcart from it's contactor
controller (sticky, jerky, and wasteful) to a solid-state
controller. To this end I've picked up an E-Z-Go golfcart controller.
Anyone know where I can find a wiring diagram for hooking it
up? Especially the pinout on the 5 pin connector?
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Actually victor, I have often wondered if AC could give a lower but
constant acceleration down the track and so a slower 0-60 but a faster
1/4 mile.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are being sarcastic correct?
if not:
2ms preweld 4ms weld has been recommended as a start point. anything
over 10ms has been warned against.
1 ms = 1/1000 second
1/2 second on the footswitch is 500ms ! I doubt if the mechanical switch
can actually switch less than 10ms
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
> > http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=913.html
> > http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=883.html
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.nastyz28.com/sbcmenu.html
> >
I found those, as well as:
http://www.mortec.com/cranks.htm
The nastyz28 site is confusing, as in the "material type" column it says
either forged, cast or steel, not differentiating whether 'steel' means
"cast steel", or "forged steel".
> > To my knowledge, before 1986, the small block 400 was the only externally
> > balanced small block, but I don't know about roundness of the crank end. I
> > think the bolt pattern is the same anyway, so that should only be relevent
> > if you are cutting up a crank to make an adapter.
In summary, I believe we want a forged crank, 1985 or older, with 3.58"
flywheel bolt pattern. "Externally balanced" is not an issue, as long
as the flange itself is round, BUT when they went to the 1piece seal
(1986) they reduced the hub diameter to 3" bolt pattern. Note that I
haven't confirmed that this corresponds to a smaller *hub* diameter
as well. I did look at a 396 ci crank out in the chicken coop and noted
that it has a LARGE bulge out one side of the hub, not what we want.
> > Then the big concern, I
> > believe, is making sure you can find a forged crank and not a cast crank to
> > start with. According to the third reference above, Roland is right,
> >
> > I'm in discussion with Electro Automotive. They may have the pattern
> > already...
I sent them email about this 3 weeks ago, have yet to get a response.
---
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think I see where we're getting a little mixed up in terminology. The
small block 400 is often called external balance because it required an off
balance flywheel and vibration dampener to balance the motor. As far as I
know, among the pre-86 motors, it was the only one that required an off
balance flywheel. That is pretty well confirmed here:
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=913.html#QRC
I believe what you may be seeing is crankshafts that have a counterweight as
part of the flywheel flange. That isn't what they normally call externally
balanced in hot rodder terminology in that it does not require a special
flywheel or dampener, but it sure as heck would impact what we're trying to
do. I'll have to take a look at a 350 crank and see if it looks like the
counterweight could be machined off. I do seem to remember most Chevy
cranks having something other than round flanges. I don't know that
machining that weight off would be a show stopper.
Maybe the small block 400 cranks have an offset hole to make sure they get
indexed correctly. I've had many Chevy non-400 flywheels turned and
balanced, and I don't believe they were anything but neutral balance. Of
course if they were indexed, maybe I never noticed. It's been years since I
bolted up a Chevy flywheel. Let me dig around in the garage and see what I
can figure out.
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
In some engines, the bolt pattern are not the same for the early model
internal balance engines and later model external engines. Both have a
3.5 bolt circle, but if you look closely on a stack of these cranks for
the external balance ones, you will see that two of the bolt holes are
closer together than the others.
On these external balance crank flanges, the flanges have been cut away,
so as to balance the engine. If you use one of these on a motor, you will
unbalance your motor.
There will also be a extended pin between two of the both holes in either
the internal or external balance engines flanges. This is so a balance
flywheel or flywheel balance for the engine, to go only on one way.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
A couple resources I have found:
>From the horses mouth:
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=913.html
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=883.html
and
http://www.nastyz28.com/sbcmenu.html
To my knowledge, before 1986, the small block 400 was the only externally
balanced small block, but I don't know about roundness of the crank end.
I
think the bolt pattern is the same anyway, so that should only be
relevent
if you are cutting up a crank to make an adapter. Then the big concern,
I
believe, is making sure you can find a forged crank and not a cast crank
to
start with. According to the third reference above, Roland is right,
although forged passenger car cranks were fairly rare, forged truck
cranks
may be easier to find. Or maybe we can find a crank rebuilder that
scraps
some cranks that we could cut up? Forged Chevy small block cranks are
probably the most trafficked crank in existance in the race world. There
has to be a surplus of trashed ones someplace.
I'll have to go dig around in the garage this afternoon and look at
cranks,
I've got a few Chevy ones out there.
I'm in discussion with Electro Automotive. They may have the pattern
already from a previous project, or maybe be willing to do it if enough
of
us express interest: http://www.electroauto.com/index.html
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: Chevy motor adapters
>> > Jeff Shanab said:
>> > Marty.
>> > I am no longer in a position to make them, I used to work as a
>> > moldmaker in a plastic shop and have switched to software
>> > engineering.
>> > I will dust off the old server today and put it on this slow
>> > connection, it will be reminessant of dialup but I'll get it to ya.
>
> I am converting an older corvette, and am keenly interested in this
> particular flavor of adapter! I can offer a fast web site to host
> drawings, etc. for access by the community. Get the raw stuff to me
> and I'll handle the clean up.
>
> Clearing up some facts:
>
> Earlier Roland Wiench said:
>> Do not use a later large crank flange where the flange is not
>> completely round, which are use for the external balance engines.
>
> It is my belief that the 'non-round' crank ends are used in the chevy
> large-block line, ie. 396 ci. and up. I've never seen a non-round
> crank
> flange on a small-block, ie. 265/283/327/350/400. Can anyone confirm
> this one way or the other?
>
> There are 'early' flanges, with a 3.5" bolt hole pattern, and 'late'
> flanges with a 3" pattern. I believe that the 3.5" corresponds to
> the "1st generation", aka "split seal" model, while the 3" is
> the "2nd generation", aka "one piece seal" model. Confirmation?
>
> ---
> Steve
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The trick is to use tilton or quartermaster or AP, or..., racing
clutches. They have their own standard. You can get any spline you like
in the disks themselfs.
My clutch came from a forumla atlantic.
My flywheel came from a supermod
So I have a chevy 350 pattern presented by my flywheel adapter with a
nissan pilot bushing in it.
I have a 105 tooth button flywheel (260049058614,)with the teeth cut off
and a triple plate tilton aluminum racing clutch. ebay#
110135693413,150129222364,170119779546
note same pattern as quartermaster 270129819669,140126615272
I have disks from tiltion for that clutched ordered with the nissan spline
I have a throwout bearing from a 2003 350Z which has a 39mm radius
contact that fits right on the 1987 300Z clutch fork
I went with 5-1/4 tripple but the 7" duble plate are easier to get and
work with and would avoid the shortening of the tranny snout(the part
the trow out bearing slides on) that i had to do.
Michelle at M&R racing was super helpful, So many people have converted
to smaller lighter clutchse that there are a lot uf used ones.
http://www.mrracingequipment.com/ navigate to clutch and flywheel
section after "used parts" link
The more I think about this, the problem is the shaft on the motor and I
think instead we should come up with our own parts to send to Jim Husted
for prepeing motors for EV use.
A shaft that has the chevy pattern built in along with a larger bearing.
A new end bell that sets this back a bit and provides mounting with
bolts that arn't under the @#$@ flywheel.
This would save at least 2 inches of overall installed length.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Gladly, but it may take a bit. (Now which computer was that on???)
Here are my conditions.
Like the GPL if not the GPL(or is that LGPL). I havent read them in
a few years
Anyone is allowed to make and use the design without paying
a royalty
Anyone is allowed to make parts of this design and sell them
as long as they provide the drawing with the part and on request.
Anyone is allowed to modify the drawing as long as they
reference the previous version.
Share and Enjoy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, you are right in that the terminology on the nastyz28 site is
ambiguous. I compared one casting number to the site you referenced, and
one of the "steel" numbers corresponds to "forged" on the other site. I
think typically the term steel is sometimes interchanged with forged, as I
don't think cast iron is technically refined enough to be steel, but I could
be wrong on that. A metalurgist I am not. And who knows about the accuracy
of this data.
I haven't seen one, but I believe the reason for going to a smaller bolt
circle was to reduce the overall size of the flange to get a one piece seal
over it. I wonder if the crank may not stick as far out of the block
either, which raises questions about pilot bearing location, bell housing
depth, etc.
Another thought might be to standardize on the 3" bolt circle, if there are
the same variety of aftermarket pieces available for it. That is probably
the same pattern Electro-Automotive does for the Vortec V6.
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
Hi,
>
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=913.html
>
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Category.jhtmlCATID=883.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.nastyz28.com/sbcmenu.html
>
I found those, as well as:
http://www.mortec.com/cranks.htm
The nastyz28 site is confusing, as in the "material type" column it says
either forged, cast or steel, not differentiating whether 'steel' means
"cast steel", or "forged steel".
> To my knowledge, before 1986, the small block 400 was the only
> externally
> balanced small block, but I don't know about roundness of the crank
> end. I
> think the bolt pattern is the same anyway, so that should only be
> relevent
> if you are cutting up a crank to make an adapter.
In summary, I believe we want a forged crank, 1985 or older, with 3.58"
flywheel bolt pattern. "Externally balanced" is not an issue, as long
as the flange itself is round, BUT when they went to the 1piece seal
(1986) they reduced the hub diameter to 3" bolt pattern. Note that I
haven't confirmed that this corresponds to a smaller *hub* diameter
as well. I did look at a 396 ci crank out in the chicken coop and noted
that it has a LARGE bulge out one side of the hub, not what we want.
> Then the big concern, I
> believe, is making sure you can find a forged crank and not a cast
> crank to
> start with. According to the third reference above, Roland is right,
>
> I'm in discussion with Electro Automotive. They may have the pattern
> already...
I sent them email about this 3 weeks ago, have yet to get a response.
---
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David,
a skip is a large metal box used to take rubbiush away from building
sites, looks a bit like a swim ended barge.
when Peter said "won't be skiping" he probably means he won't be
throwing them away.
UK English is English.
David Roden wrote:
On 8 Jun 2007 at 5:17, Peter Perkins wrote:
I certainly won't be skiping them anytime soon.
Sorry, I don't understand what "skiping" means. (Maybe this is UK English?)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well you know what they say about standards....
The great thing about standards are that there are so many to choose
from.
I think it is more like making spaghetti, throw them against the wall an
see if it sticks. Timing is everything.
Seriously. I look to the computer industry as an example and I know the
critiziems about hardware vs software.
My video card is ATI, I will never buy ATI again, I now buy NVIDIA
and it fits in the same slot.
My power supply is an Antec, it would make Rich proud, PFC and
effiencient.
My monitor is...
My diskdrives are Western Digital
...shall I go on?
In contrast ask any 4x4er about the dana 44 axles
When dana came out with it they created 4 sets of spline cups.
28,26,14,and 11 spline
The highest bidder was GM, so they got the 28 spline
Ford was second, so they got the 26 spline
Then Jeep
Then International. I broke a bunch of axles until i just changed
the cups and axles to ford.
What if the engine in a GM car would bolt in a ford and hook to the
computer? What would that do to the auto industry?
A group like us should be able to form a steering commitee that develops
these standards from proposals by members of this group.
Refine them and turn them into standards. (think how many questions that
would answer?)
We already have a few de-facto ones. RegBus,EVil Bus, Andersosn
connectors.(not all of the standards need to be our own.)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Question, why is it that a sepex motor has less starting torque than a
series wound motor? It seems to me that torque is a function of your
field strength and the field strength is a function of the number of
amp turns you have. So whether you run 10 amps through 100 turns or
100amps through 10 turns the torque should be the same?
On 6/10/07, Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
Every motor is also a generator, AC or DC. But the designer can choose
the design to optimize it for motoring or generating. Wound field motors
(AC wound rotor or DC shunt or sepex) make excellent generators, but
mediocre traction motors (starting torque is low). PM motors (AC or DC)
are good generators and motors (high peak efficiency, but harder to
control and lower part-load efficiency). Motors with indirect field
control (series DC, induction AC) are excellent traction motors, but
poor generators due to the difficulty of control.
<snip>
--
Do not confuse what is "easy" with what is "right".
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would never recommend trying to cut off an old crank, To much to make
it mount to the motor, Too much chance of getting the pattern off from
what you are adding.
It is far simpler to keep it all concentric and parallel if an oversized
blank is put in the lathe and all critical stuff is turned at once or at
worst two setups.
Even having 10 sets made, would get some savings, For something like
e-machine, it jumps the gap from one-off to cnc and once it is cnc, it
can be "re-ordered".
I have no money to work on these ideas, zero, zip nada; right now. It
drives me nuts :-(
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
When people ask me when did I start becoming interested in
electric vehicle I honestly tell them I can’t remember. Electric vehicles
weren’t an “aha!” moment in my life where I suddenly realized that I was seeing
something revealed for the first time. Electric vehicles and many other forms
of capturing and using alternative energy have always been in my psyche. I
think it goes back the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970’s.
I was a preteen and a teenager during that time, very much
interested in cars and driving, as well as being interested in science’s
ability to solve our everyday problems. One of our neighbors purchased one of
Bob Beaumont’s tiny Sebring-Vanguard CitiCars and I was enthralled. I never got
a chance to look at it up close. I just would see it driving on the street here
and there every once and a while. The Apollo space missions were well on their
way and on the moon was an electric car. I remember going to GM’s Tomorrow
Land in Disney World and becoming fascinated
by what I saw.
One thing I saw was a machine that held plants up in the air
and allowed them to grow and root in mid-air by misting the root system. I also
remember my first inklings of applying logic and practical thinking there too.
After the buzz of the presentation I remember learning about the retail value
of the fruit from that plant I saw being held up in the air and suddenly
realized that it may have been cool to see but why in God’s green earth would
you spend several thousand dollars on a machine that keeps a plant alive in mid
air so that it can produce a fruit that retails for a few cents. It would take
a millennium to pay for the machine. I realized that a lot of what we were
seeing was just big company razzle-dazzle and not practical science.
There is much to be said about basic research that is good.
This experiment with the cheap plant and the multi-thousand dollar machine has
its merits rooted in basic research, which is a good thing. However, bringing
it out as a display as a solution for poor quality arid soils was ridiculous.
>From there I was able to connect the dots to a variety of demonstrated
technical solutions presented in prototype that were extremely impractical and
presented as a solution to the crushing problems of our day. Those displays
were too impractical to ever make it to the market place yet they pushed more
credible solutions to the wayside.
The large US
automakers talked about what they were going to do, while things in essence
stayed the same. Their failure to adjust to the market place with product
rather than rhetoric instilled in me my first critical view of the American
automobile industry. That view was clear to me as a teenager in the mid 1970’s
and unfortunately remains today. The view I held then is the same one I hold
today. That is that in the face of very serious industrial and market change the
US automakers
fail to change significantly enough to maintain their markets, their sales and
their profitability.
They doggedly hold onto a model of the market that they want
to sell into rather than the market that will buy their cars. It took the US
auto industry ten years to answer OPEC with smaller more fuel efficient cars.
All
the while the US
auto industry whined about how hard it was for them to produce smaller cars,
how they couldn’t make any money making small cars, how the consumers didn’t
want smaller cars. It took so long that by the time they were finally able to
get something that American’s wanted the crisis was over and gasoline prices
began to stabilize at a much higher cost but lower then where they had been.
The only thing that the American automakers had to face after the oil embargo
was over was the vaunted quality issue, of which two decades after that crisis
began America
auto industry finally made inroads into the problem of quality. Unfortunately,
Japan’s
quality had improved, the product line of Japanese cars had already adjusted to
the new likes and tastes of its American consumers and Europeans had reaffirmed
themselves in the marketplace with better quality products and higher
performance then that of their American counterparts. The view stayed the same.
In the face of very serious industrial and market change the US
automakers fail to change significantly enough to maintain their markets, their
sales and their profitability.
Back as a teenager the oil companies very carefully
manipulated public sentiment by coining the OPEC created and Oil Company
profited artificial crisis in oil production as a broader “Energy Crisis.” I
remember almost immediately talking about conserving electricity, I remember
people pushing for more nuclear power plants, I remember conservation becoming
the watch word and conserving coal as being a major focus of that thrust. A
ridiculous notion since we had about 600 years worth of easily accessible coal
in the ground and there was no threat of shortages any time soon. What we had
was an embargo, which meant at that time there was plenty of oil in the ground
and plenty of oil available; it was that OPEC nations weren’t sending it to us,
a factor that showed all of us how vulnerable we were having allowed ourselves
to become too dependent on a single source of energy. It begged the question,
why, if being dependent on oil makes us so vulnerable economically to other
nations, nations that may view us as their enemy, would we allow ourselves to
maintain that vulnerability?
President Jimmy Carter weaned the United
States electric power industry off of oil
almost instantly. A proper response to the threat, however, the automobile
industry didn’t do anything to mitigate the threat. I, to this day scratch my
head and wonder; why, if so much damage was done by the oil embargo to the
American auto industry would automobile executives allow themselves to be so
vulnerable again? If I were an executive of the American auto industry that had
lived through the near bankruptcy of my industry, seeing Chrysler being bailed
out by the Federal Government and seeing large portions of our market share
ceded
to the Japanese, why wouldn’t I be working like crazy in the intervening years
to mitigate the threat of the thing that did so much damage to my company and
to my industry. Instead the American auto industry’s response was to go
headlong into the practices and market vulnerability that they so enjoyed in
the 1970’s. And almost like clockwork the same scenario occurred again. How
does the saying go? Those who fail to learn from the failures of the past are
doomed to repeat them. For me the times we are living today are a repeat of the
1970’s failures in energy policy and executive readiness. All you need to do is
replace the words small cars with hybrids and big cars with SUVs and you would
be using the same language. Why didn’t the executives at our automobile
manufacturing companies learn the lessons of history? Why didn’t our
legislatures put laws in place to maintain our economic security?
Since the artificial oil only crisis of the 1970s I have
been trying to keep up with all of the innovations to alternative fuels and
energy as best as I could. Nothing got me as excited as the World Solar
Challenge except the announced soon after by GM those electric vehicles would
be available for the general public soon, all things that came to pass in the
last decade of the previous century. The innovations centered around the same
things. That was, make the vehicle as light as possible, improve regenerative
breaking, make heating and cooling more efficient, and managed propulsion
energy use better, all to overcome the shortcomings of the battery. I focused
like a laser beam on this new stuff. I aimed my master’s thesis on alternative
fuel’s barriers to entry into the market place. I wanted to understand why we
weren’t moving forward in America
to reduce our vulnerability to oil shocks by diversifying our motive fuel
choices.
Every morning on the radio GM plays an advertisement where
the head designer of their fuel-cell vehicle talks about his inspiration to
become an engineer. He claims it was Sputnik. How appropriate that a Soviet Era
technology would inspire the leading engineer to design the drivable fuel-cell
vehicle, given that it would take Soviet communism like government control to
force fuel-cells on the American public. Now, when people ask me when did I
first become interested in electric cars? I think I can safely say, it goes
back a long time. It goes back to a time when we had all of the reasons to free
ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, but didn’t do it. I became
interested
in EVs when I first saw the first entrepreneurial solution to the 1970’s OPEC
created oil crisis. I became interested when my eyes first saw Bob Beaumont’s
Sebring-Vanguard CitiCar?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Let's see, # 1 and 2 on my Christmas list. Twin Advance 8" motors (or
similar) on a single shaft that terminates in a Chevy crank flange :). That
would work really sweet in my Jeep. Hey Jim, you got any spare time :) ?
And when that one is done, how about a twin 6.7" setup for a Locost 7
running on Lithiums for an autocross assault? I'm more of a parking lot
racer than a drag racer anyway, and I'd bet enough lithium battery to last a
minute and a half of autocross racing doesn't weigh much.
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:19 PM
Subject: GM 350 crankshaft pattern
The trick is to use tilton or quartermaster or AP, or..., racing
clutches. They have their own standard. You can get any spline you like
in the disks themselfs.
My clutch came from a forumla atlantic.
My flywheel came from a supermod
So I have a chevy 350 pattern presented by my flywheel adapter with a
nissan pilot bushing in it.
I have a 105 tooth button flywheel (260049058614,)with the teeth cut off
and a triple plate tilton aluminum racing clutch. ebay#
110135693413,150129222364,170119779546
note same pattern as quartermaster 270129819669,140126615272
I have disks from tiltion for that clutched ordered with the nissan spline
I have a throwout bearing from a 2003 350Z which has a 39mm radius
contact that fits right on the 1987 300Z clutch fork
I went with 5-1/4 tripple but the 7" duble plate are easier to get and
work with and would avoid the shortening of the tranny snout(the part
the trow out bearing slides on) that i had to do.
Michelle at M&R racing was super helpful, So many people have converted
to smaller lighter clutchse that there are a lot uf used ones.
http://www.mrracingequipment.com/ navigate to clutch and flywheel
section after "used parts" link
The more I think about this, the problem is the shaft on the motor and I
think instead we should come up with our own parts to send to Jim Husted
for prepeing motors for EV use.
A shaft that has the chevy pattern built in along with a larger
bearing.
A new end bell that sets this back a bit and provides mounting with
bolts that arn't under the @#$@ flywheel.
This would save at least 2 inches of overall installed length.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
A dropped wrench in the right spot can connect the motor to the
battery in a DC system and result in full throttle.
True for *any* system. That's why you package things in boxes to make it
impossible for a loose tool or screw to cause such a short.
Shorted silicon will launch the car before the safety logic has a
chance to realize what has happened and drop out the main contactors.
This is interesting point.
DC controller itself may be as reliable as AC inverter, the
problem is that DC motor can (and will) run without
controller at all, all you need is a battery.
So designer must take this into account and do something extra
(external contactors and logic+drivers controlling it) to prevent that.
AC motor won't run from a battery by itself, period. So *that*
extra needed for DC system is not needed here.
And, we were talking about shorted silicon only - as most stressful
component. All else being equal (no contactors, no fuses) DC motor
will run away and AC one will not. So AC inverter has this safety
built in.
So in real we must make things NOT equal - add contactors and
controlling logic to a DC controller to make it as safe from
shorted silicon consequences as AC inverter without those [extra to the
electronics] components.
If you discuss a system, it's just as safe as you design it, same
AC or DC. But for DC you must do extra things AC already possess
which as I mention in the beginning are just due to the nature
of the DC motor - it need no controller to run so something
else must prevent it from doing it.
AC system technically doesn't need main contactors to kill
the battery to prevent runaways.
That's the difference.
Victor
--- End Message ---
