EV Digest 6891

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: New Zillch Controller
        by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  2) Re: High voltage? was Anyone heard of these Li-Ion batteries - or using 
them?
        by Steve O <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  3) Re: EVLN(Domino's Pizza delivery EVs)
        by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  4) Re: New Subscriber
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  5) Re: New Zillch Controller
        by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  6) Re: EV achilles' heel
        by "Mark Karatovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  7) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  8) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  9) Re: lion testing
        by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 10) Re: New Subscriber
        by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 11) Re: UK Company Introduces Electric Sportscar with Altairnano Battery
 Pack
        by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 12) Re: EV achilles' heel
        by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 13) High voltage? was Anyone heard of these Li-Ion batteries - or using
 them?
        by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 14) The .57 factor for lead
        by Steve Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 15) Re: Sorry to Dan and the list
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 16) Re: Sorry to Dan and the list
        by "TrotFox Greyfoot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 17) Re: EV Library, What Books Would You Recommend?
        by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 18) Re: The .57 factor for lead
        by Michael Barkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 19) Re: OJ2 dragster at  2 strips in one day - Makes one run
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 20) Re: Solar tonneau cover
        by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Nope no fire..
Nomex gloves..
Sun tan oil
Maybe some Cyro-cool cans.

And a note in the tune up logs that if you stuff the PFC50 tune up spec
resistors in a PFC40.. they will make PFC50 numbers.. on the little power
stage.
Holy Hot trace Watt Man!!
PFC50s have 5/8 by 1/8 inch Buss bars.. Ummmmm PFC40s and 30 and 20 don't!

The case is NOT cheap!!!  After buying another 50... it still hurts!!

Madman
Need sleep.. or more kicking Trolls Butts!!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: RE: New Zillch Controller


> So are you planning to throw in a free fire exinguisher with that cheap
> PFC-20 case ;-)
>
>
> Cor van de Water

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*         ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED---            *
*     This post contains a forbidden message format       *
*  (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting)  *
*       Lists at  sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT         *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting  *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:48 AM "Evan Tuer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
> On 6/13/07, Chuck Hursch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I saw this item as I was going through cleaning up the EVDL
> > messages for about five months for my own personal archive.
I
> > think I had read this a week or two after Bruce had posted
it,
> > but didn't comment at the time.
> >
> > Anyways...  I don't know if anybody else on the EVDL has done
> > pizza delivery.
>
> Nice idea.  Have you read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson?
Here's a
> little extract:
>
> [..]
> The Deliverator's car has enough potential energy packed into
its
> batteries to fire a pound of bacon into the Asteroid Belt.
Unlike a
[snip]
> moving that 'za. As he scrunches to a stop, the
electromechanical
> hatch on the flank of his car is already opening to reveal his
empty
> pizza slots, the door clicking and folding back in on itself
like the
> wing of a beetle. The slots are waiting. Waiting for hot pizza.
> [..]
>
> more here, or buy the book :)
http://www.ereader.com/product/book/excerpt/12128
>
> Whenever I read about the Tesla, I think 'Deliverator'..
>
Looks to me like I might have to go get that pizza delivery job
back... ;^>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am sure Victor and Gary and I think a few  other people here in Portland 
would like it if this company would make it right  with them. Any chance of 
that 
happening?

When I said tested I should have  made it more clear. Not that they will 
deliver the rated Ah but they will do it  for the full amount of cycles they 
claim. If they claim 800 cycles that the  impedance will not start rising at 
400 
cycles. 

Don 


In a  message dated 6/13/2007 11:58:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  writes:

> Peter. That's YEARS ago ! Since then has a lot happened. And  we are
> TRULY trying to bring this all up to western biz  standards.

Sure, but reputations last forever.  They had an  opportunity to fix their
reputation and decided not to, that's a pretty clear  indication of their
coporate strategy.

If they want to fix their  reputation, then they should give refunds or
free cells to the people they  screwed.

A company that is comfortable with screwing their customers is  not a
company I want to deal with.

>
> The newest cells are  not even comparable with the old ones. They are
> good. But still require  the BMS.
>
> The engineers in here did not accept the deal to sell  old stock. That
> decision came from investors with hard push. There was  so much money
> sitting on the cells at that time. Thay had to sell.   I remember seeing
> 1 000 000 pcs of 10 Ah LiCo cells which were also gone  old. They were
> luckily scrapped and recycled.
>
> I've tried  to do all I can to get those old cells back and swapped but
> it has not  been possible yet. I have not yet given it up. There is not
> so many bad  cells out anyway.
>
> As some of you might know we are building TS  battery factory in Finland
> too. Aim is to have fully automated factory  with the highest quality
> control available.
>
> Input to the  factory is raw materials. Output is battery systems with
> integrated  EVerything. Chargers, BMS, CPUs, DC/DCs... All you need to
> run an EV.  After that pack you just need a AC motor and controller. And
> ofcourse  the donor. Beta testers are already driving these packs and
> feedback has  not been bad I would say. Online remote diagnostics tells
> us about  problems before they occur.
>
> Pressure is high since China is  hoping to put tens of thousands of EVs
> on their roads as soon as  possible. Buses, delivery vans, cabs... They
> invest $1 billion annually  to get the EVs done.
>
> Affordable Lion battery packs as turn key  solution to EVerybody. This is
> my dream and it just might happen. For  sure it will happen but not
> perhaps exactly as I have seen it. Biz is  bis and hobby is hobby...what
> can I say.
>
>  -Jukka
>
>
> Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti:
>>> You  must be referring to Thunder Sky batteries? Has anyone   actually
>>> cycle
>>> tested these batteries and  reported the results? I  would not go by
>>>  their
>>> information posted. I would want to see a test with   the C rate needed
>>> for
>>> an  EV?
>>
>> A bunch of folks on the list got together several  years back and
>> purchased
>> a bunch of the Thundersky  batteries. They performed poorly, lots of sag
>> and you could only  pull the rated AH at low currents.
>>
>> Apparently this was  because thundersky sold them some old, defective
>> batteries they had  lying around.  They knew they were bad, but sold them
>>  anyway.  Supposedly they have improved their manufacturig  since,
>> however,
>> I wouldn't trust them to have improved  their bussiness practices.
>>
>> Buying from them is a crap  shoot.  Worse yet, if you do get a bad batch,
>> they won't stand  behind their product.  Personally it's not a gamble I'm
>>  comfortable with.
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
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.  




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dan;

I think you are onto something big here.

Yes, a feature packed, reliable and powerful controller does cost a lot.

You can reduce the costs by:
1. Dropping features,
2. Using fewer and cheaper components,
3. Derating the capabilities, and
4. Not offering any warrantee or installation support.

To build a cheap controller, you do not want to build anything that looks
like the Zilla. There are way too many parts, too many assembly operations,
too many features that need to be tested, too many interfaces, too much data
coming out, and too much instruction needed to allow someone to install it
in their vehicle.

To build a cheap controller, you need to use as few parts as possible, use
as few connections as possible, reduce the feature set to a bare minimum,
produce a set of instructions that can be followed by the average hobbyist
using common household tools, and have the customer build the controllers so
that you have no customer support or manufacturing liability issues.

Otmar spends $20000 on transistors so he knows they match and they will work
in parallel. If you use one big transistor, you won't need to match
transistors since you only use one.

The Radio Shack IRF510 transistors (276-2072 @ $1.99) are rated at only 3
amps at 60 volts. That is not big enough to run a very big motor. The IRF640
(18 amps at 200 V) that they formerly stocked had some potential. You need
bigger transistors. Forget about Radio Shack as a power parts source.

You are right. The hairball has too many features for your design. You
should drop it. You don't need it. The Curtis and the power wheels designs
have startup current surge problems. You need to make sure the customer
understands that he needs to deal with this problem, since your design will
have reliability issues (just like Curtis and Power Wheels) if the customer
does not deal with it. You can cut costs by having the customer take
responsibility for your lack of a precharge controller. Then again, you may
want to design a precharge controller that is external to the controller and
is sold separately. That would look like a hairball and does not fit your
plan.

You are right again about the PFC being complex. There are a lot of features
packed into that box. You can cut costs by eliminating features. The box can
be reduced in size if the current capability is reduced. Many users rarely
use the full current capability of those chargers for very long. Many users
are perfectly content to let their EV charge overnight. They don't need a
fast charger or a versatile input voltage capability. High power factor is
only needed to get more watts out of the wall, keep the wiring cool and keep
the circuit breaker happy at high power. If you never ask for high power or
fast charging, these features are wasted.

If you want pictures of the inside of a PFC-20 charger, they have been at
the following location since January 2001:
http://www.manzanitamicro.com/pfc20rts.jpg
http://www.manzanitamicro.com/pfc2012.jpg
http://www.manzanitamicro.com/pfc2011.jpg
http://www.manzanitamicro.com/pfc20ls.jpg
Rich is currently shipping Rev 8 chargers therefore these Rev 2 photos are 6
revisions and 7 years out of date. The design has not changed much except
for improved parts being installed as they became available.

The toughest part of building a battery charger is determining when to turn
the current down or turn it off. You could put two settings on your charger:
Bulk and equalize. You could have the customer manually switch between the
two settings on the base model. You could call it an automatic charger if
the switch position changed itself at a preset time or voltage level so that
the customer did not need to watch the charger all night waiting for the
proper moment to throw the switch. Maybe the switch adds too much to the
cost and no one would buy the more expensive model.

Is there a market for "Cheap EV Parts"? Someone needs to wade into the
market with an appropriate line of components and see if they can develop a
good customer base. Some people on this list say there is no market for
cheap parts. I believe there is a market. Is there money in that market? I
don't know. You are a good person to find out. If you believe you can break
even using this business plan, go for it and we will be looking for cheaper
parts being available in the future.

If you want to work this business plan, you should assemble a product team,
design some products, build the products and market the products to the
world. If you have a reasonable product at a reasonable price with
reasonable service, then you should succeed in your effort and at least
break even at the end of the year. Otmar, Damen, Russ, Victor, and Rich have
done it. Therefore you have an opportunity to do it, too.

Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Former owner of 48 Volt Fiesta
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:37 AM
Subject: New Zillch Controller


> I'm new to EVs. My name is Dan Crankenstein.
>
> EV controllers are too expensive. So I have a plan to make a new
> controller called the "Zillch". It's called the "Zillch" because it
> won't cost that much to make.
>
> I can make them cheaper but I need your help. If you have a Zilla
> controller can you crack it open and take some pictures of it for me?
> I'm too cheap to buy one myself. On Otmar's blog he says he's paying
> $20,000 for transistors. Now hold on there, that's way too much. I
> can get a whole bunch of them for $20.00 at Radio Shack. I think I
> have enough Radio Shack points accumulated now for a $5.00 coupon
> this month.
>
> My new "Zillch" controller won't have a "Hairball." First of all, it
> sounds like something the cat coughed up. And having a hairball is
> like having a transmission in an EV - you don't need one. So my
> controller won't have this "hairball" thing. That will make it
> cheaper. The Curtis controller didn't have a "Hairball". My nephew's
> Power Wheels doesn't have a hairball.
>
> So that's the plan for the new "Zillch" controller.
>
> Also, I left a message on Rich Rudman's voicemail and offered him my
> advice on chargers but he won't call back. So if anyone has a PFC
> charger I need you to open those up and take some pictures for me.
> PFC sounds "Pretty Fricken Complex" so I'm naming my charger "PFA"
> for "Pretty Fricken Affordable." And my charger will be smaller and
> will use smaller wiring to make it lighter.
>
> Who's with me? Just send your photos to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll
> worry about the "Intellectual Property Rights" thing -whatever that
> means - later on. Right now the most intellectual thing to do is make
> cheap EV parts.
>
> And with my new EV parts I'll throw in a free fire extinguisher. I
> bet Otmar and Rich won't offer those for free.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,

Would hate to take away the environmental aspect of the EV  as the
pure no emissions car but it depends on your needs really, and that is
the "perspective" that everyone is thinking of. That is their own
perspective. If an EV by itself doesn't suit your needs isn't a
compromise better than nothing? Renting a car while it sounds good, is
not really an option lets say if you want to go on a holiday for a
week and want a car at your destination while your there. Well it is,
but I would rather not. A hybrid? Well I personally think the Prius is
"ugly" and the only other hybrid is the Civic Hybrid in my area in my
budget which I don't think is as good as a conversion with a trailer
anyway in terms of avoiding petrol and environmental impact.

The idea of a trailer sounds good to me personally. It means that for
90% of my driving I can be environmentally friendly, and use cheap
electricity and don't need to think of installing a sea of batteries
for my needs sacrificing performance and structural integrity of my
car in doing so. It's also cheaper to convert and battery replacement
every 2 years is not so much of a stretch on the budget (as I would
personally require a lot of lead to suit my needs for that 10% of my
driving). However for that odd occassion when I would need to drive it
a fair distance then I can do so without the costs of another car.
While at my destination I can drive on EV power alone as well, making
a better emissions target I'm sure than just my current petrol car
would do for the local short trips and probably making up the extra
gas pollution that my trailer would have made along the way compared
to my gas car. It also saves weight which I'm sure is less polluting
of lead acid batteries, and may allow me to convert a car that isn't
simply a lead pickup truck.

You can quote emissions figures per trip but not everyone wants to pay
insurance, get registered and all the other costs of more than one
car. Cars are a significant expense. If this saves people from just
choosing the gasser because it is easier, then I'm all for it. I think
as technicans while quoting figures is good we can get a bit wrapped
up in this and we need to be realistic on how people drive. People are
entertaining the idea because they want an EV that suits 'their' needs
and they do want to be environmentally friendly most of the time.
There are just instances where the technology hasn't allowed them to
do so yet. Plus the trailer itself can run on a number of alternative
fuels, at least offsetting that if your technically minded and can
make such a trailer. I see people buy SUV's because they need the room
for that off trip when they have the full family in the car, but most
of the time there is only one driver in it. If only that car could
change into a more fuel efficient car when it doesn't need all that
extra functionality? Well with a trailer simply detach it.

Personally I would love to convert to electric. After posting here
awhile ago it seems I will have to wait, my 100 miles a charge without
having to replace the batteries often due to depth of discharge damage
seems a bit hard for a first time converter. I can only have one car
for my own reasons. Most of my driving is local, but there will be the
time where I'm not sure the batteries will be able to handle it. If I
could have a trailer personally I would be saving the environment most
of the time. i.e the plug in hybrid idea sounds wonderful to me in
this regard. But I would rather not wait if I don't have to.

I once heard on a quote "it's better to have 10% than nothing". It
related to the declining wool sales. I think any progress is good
progress and allows technology to take smaller leaps making it seem
more realistic for most people.


On 6/14/07, Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dan,

It depends on the situation people are in:
some have never a need to go more than a few miles, so
the EV is their only car and does not need range extension.

Some have an occasional need and know that renting a car
will be the most efficient way for their transportation
need and they do not need to bother with an unused ICE car
during the time in between.

Many others have more than one car, so before each trip
they think for half a second which car is appropriate.

Very few people use range extension.
Most times it is a total disappointment, a kludge that
takes away from the simple and clean EV idea.
In addition, even thinking about making a genset or
something comparable get good emissions is a royal pain.

There is very little point if you are interested in saving
the environment to have an EV that needs its genset a small
percentage of the time but spews out many times more crud,
defeating the whole purpose.

I did not even address reliability, NOISE, and other issues.

Not everyone is thinking about it from this perspective
and sometimes habit and comfort are stronger than dedication
as can be witnessed when someone needs to mow his lawn.
Most lawnmowers belch out more during one hour of mowing
than the modern car does during an entire week of driving
(not including CO2).

Hope this helps,

Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water     IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225    VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675    eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dan Frederiksen
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:07 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: EV achilles' heel

I think everyone can live with the cost of replacing lead acids once in a
while, and the energy loss in them from common discharge and even assuming
some heads would pop out of dark odorfilled areas and we would fix the
electronics cost for conversions we still have the EVs current achilles'
heel, the range.

how many have tried using a small combustion engine for range extension in
EVs? I imagine for instance a turbocharged 250cc motorcycle engine or even
look into the possibility of using a tesla turbine because of its simplicity
and potentially very compact size. (presumably run very smoothly too)

anyone tried auxiliary combustion?  I know JB Straubel did a trailer but
that was a full size car motor as opposed to a small onboard one.
is everyone driving pure EV?

Dan



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Sorry Danny, you are not correct. The earlier first gen Prius might have done this, I honestly don't know, but the current iteration works just as I describe.

I've seen the trnasmission cut-away.  I know what it looks like.

Here is some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: How the Prius Works


No, it has a mechanical CVT transmission in there. Gears and all. The Prius is a parallel hybrid, if the wiring between a generator and motor were the only link from engine to wheels then it'd be a series hybrid.

It's interesting to note that the engineers spent an awful lot of design time, expense and weight to make a CVT tranny rather than add a separate motor from the generator so they can run at different speeds. Either the losses are simply too high or the second motor is more expensive than the tranny.

The earlier generations of Prius used an electric motor that could not produce great acceleration or top speed without the engine. In 2003 the hatchback had a 50KW motor instead of the earlier 30KW and 33KW ones.

Danny

Dan Frederiksen wrote:

(-Phil-) wrote:

Just to clarify, the Prius doesn't have a separate CVT. The CVT *is* the motor/generators! By shuffling power between the 2 motor/gens you effectively have a CVT. It's a totally ingenious system!

aside from the fact that the end result is an expensive ICE car and not an EV. it's effectively an electric clutch. the design will not survive and should never have been. if one was conspiratorially inclined (and one is) one might be suspicious that they intentionally chose a bad design because it could give the illusion of being environmentally friendly while still remaining a pure ICE car.




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I suggest you guys do a modicum of research..... You are incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: How the Prius Works


No, the CVT is a proper transmission and can carry the full HP of the engine to the wheels. There is only one electric motor/generator. Actually there's a second motor for engine starting and providing countertorque for the CVT gears but it's not a drive motor. The motor/generator is only there to boost the peak engine power and allow the engine to shut off when its high power is not needed and there is sufficient battery power to meet the driver's demands.

Danny

Dan Frederiksen wrote:

I didn't say it was a series hybrid. I said it was essentially an electric clutch. isn't it?

I don't think the prius arrangement could be cheaper than a series layout. I would be interested in hearing the design justification but doubt it would satisfy

Dan

Danny Miller skrev:

No, it has a mechanical CVT transmission in there. Gears and all. The Prius is a parallel hybrid, if the wiring between a generator and motor were the only link from engine to wheels then it'd be a series hybrid.

It's interesting to note that the engineers spent an awful lot of design time, expense and weight to make a CVT tranny rather than add a separate motor from the generator so they can run at different speeds. Either the losses are simply too high or the second motor is more expensive than the tranny.

The earlier generations of Prius used an electric motor that could not produce great acceleration or top speed without the engine. In 2003 the hatchback had a 50KW motor instead of the earlier 30KW and 33KW ones.

Danny

Dan Frederiksen wrote:

(-Phil-) wrote:

Just to clarify, the Prius doesn't have a separate CVT. The CVT *is* the motor/generators! By shuffling power between the 2 motor/gens you effectively have a CVT. It's a totally ingenious system!


aside from the fact that the end result is an expensive ICE car and not an EV. it's effectively an electric clutch. the design will not survive and should never have been. if one was conspiratorially inclined (and one is) one might be suspicious that they intentionally chose a bad design because it could give the illusion of being environmentally friendly while still remaining a pure ICE car.







--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich,

How many did you test?

Would you buy 500 tomorrow (as I did back in 2003)?

Problem is (as least was) you buy 100 cells from TS directly,
75 comply with the spec, 20 don't. 3 are DOA and 2 die in a week
for no apparent reason not even being put in service.

No doubt TS can produce very good Li battery. Question is
if they can produce very good battery after battery after battery...

Jukka as dealing with TS, probably knows more about consistency
of their production. But TS reputation has been compromised and it's
tough to convince people that now everything is OK and different.

They can promise all they want, and publish any data. I did test
two initial good cells which complied with the spec before
decided to buy more - you know what happened.

Makes NO difference if that was manganese cells and not they are
cobalt, or phosphate or whatever. It's the company culture that's
the problem. Cells design changes, but minds of people ruling
the company - unlikely.

It has to be real proof that in general product worth considering.
Not one cell tests.

Victor

Rich Rudman wrote:
-Jukka


Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti:
You must be referring to Thunder Sky batteries? Has anyone  actually
cycle
tested these batteries and reported the results? I  would not go by
their
information posted. I would want to see a test with  the C rate needed
for
an EV?


Jukka.. Peter..

Listers...

RE: Thunder-sky

Tested..
Met thier posted specs...

I am impressed. They work as advertised.
I have collected a charge and discharge cycle that is exactly what they
graph on the Thunder-Sky site.
The 1 C rate is verifiable.

They are NOT a EV racer's battery.. 3C is all you want to take them to. They
won't be in any dragster of mine.
But they have real possibilities for PHEV  and Range class EV projects.
The Bet??
Well it's a safe one as far as I can tell. I have a few mega Bytes of data
on that subject right now.

Rich Rudman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manzanita Micro
360-297-7383,
Cell 360-620-6266
Production shop 360-297-1660
FAX at Metal shop 1-360-297-3311





--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
jukka wrote:
Peter. That's YEARS ago ! Since then has a lot happened. And we are TRULY trying to bring this all up to western biz standards.

You know, there is a saying - if someone calls your sister a slut,
you'll have real hard time to prove you have no sisters...

"Trying" won't pay bills, damage is done, sorry.

I don't see many attempts by TS to rectify the situation. And they
hope to sell more batteries to the same people? C'mon. So much for
western standards.

Good luck with factory in Finland, when it's done and working we can revisit the issue. I won't get too excited though, why should I?

Victor

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rod, with multi-pole (like 24 or 32 they may be using) induction
or synchronous motors achieving this torque is not very big deal.
Rotation speed is low (compared to "normal" 4 pole machines) and
so the power is [relatively] modest as well.

Victor

Roderick Wilde wrote:
Wow. I am so impressed! 0 to 60 in four seconds and doing that with only 2132 foot pounds of torque. That is unbelievably amazing!!! I am going to run out and post this phenomenal feat everywhere I can think of. This will turn the automotive world upside down. This ain't one of those wimpy DC cars like Wayland has with only 772 foot pounds of torque. As the press release says: "Each HPD40 drive unit offers maximum torque of 750 Nm (533 lb-ft)."

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The point of a pusher trailer is to avoid the extra conversion because
every conversion costs.

1)ICE -25%->shaft-->alterntor-75%->controller-90%->motor-90%->wheels  
                    
                                 |
                                 
-->charger-90%->battery-->controller-90%->motor-90%->wheels 
2)
3) ICE-25%->shaft-80%->wheels

1 is .25*.75*.9*.9     = 15% efficient
2 is .25*.75*.9*.9*.9  = 13% efficient
3 is .25+.8            = 20% efficient

The real point here is how to capture the 75% initially lost to heat in
the ICE!
Better Peltiers could recover some.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Maybe becuase "High Voltage" is universally accepted danger symbol and
available in sticker form.

I have seen a lot of these and even have catalogs for these kinds of
stickers, Never have I seen a "Danger High Amperage" sticker

:-)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Be careful about that 0.57 factor.

Useful capacity = 0.57 * nominal pack voltage * AH at
20 hr rate.

That is good for a car (small car) with 120 V / 400 A
controller, 8 " motor, and flooded gold cart batts. 
That's probably how it was determined.

And, that is maximum range, not uasble range for a
daily driver.  You still have to divide that number by
2 (~50%) DOD max for useful daily driver range ...
That is to assure you can actually get some cycle life
out of them.

I use between 0.25 and 0.33 as a factor for flooded
lead.  That's for useful range.  0.25 for 80 AH.  0.33
for 6 and 8 golf cart batts.

So, for my batts, at full drain rate .25.  But at 1/2
drain rate, make that 0.4 ... Read between the lines
and think about what I am saying and why higher
voltage really makes a difference.

For NiMH D cells - rated 10 AH, I use 8.5 AH, if they
are current limited to 3C.  For 2.4 AH Li Ion, I use
2.2 AH for up to 2C.  These are not A123.  These are
low drain rate consumer product grade.

Hope that helps.

Steve





       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! 
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
    John> True, it would certainly stop all those annoying discussions!
    John> Lots of questions posted and no answers posted.  How useful.

In situations where public replies are reasonable do you not trust your
fellow list members to hit the reply-to-all button?  After all, most of them
are (I think) smart enough to properly insulate their wrenches to avoid
shorts.  Don't you think they can tell between private and public responses?
I have *never* seen a mailing list that failed due to lack of flow because
the list members weren't smart enough to hit the proper 'r'eply key.

-- 
Skip Montanaro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.webfast.com/~skip/

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Personally, as someone who is also a member of another list which is
setup to reply to sender...

I hate it.

There are frequently questions asked that no answers are posted to the
list.  Also frequently, I forget to "reply to all" because it's the
Only list I know of that's setup that way.  Every other list I am on,
or have been on, is setup to reply to list normally.

So, I vote to leave it the way it is.  Here's hoping Dan cares what I
think.  } ; ]

Trot, the contributory, fox...

On 6/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    John> True, it would certainly stop all those annoying discussions!
    John> Lots of questions posted and no answers posted.  How useful.

In situations where public replies are reasonable do you not trust your
fellow list members to hit the reply-to-all button?  After all, most of them
are (I think) smart enough to properly insulate their wrenches to avoid
shorts.  Don't you think they can tell between private and public responses?
I have *never* seen a mailing list that failed due to lack of flow because
the list members weren't smart enough to hit the proper 'r'eply key.

--
Skip Montanaro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.webfast.com/~skip/




--
|  /\_/\       TrotFox         \ Always remember,
| ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon \ "There is a
|  >\_/<       [EMAIL PROTECTED]       \ third alternative."

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd also add the best weblinks of course. (Yes, am
volunteering mine..)
(;-p
--- Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I am putting together a long overdue update for the
> So You Want To 
> Build and EV page, and it occurred to me that rather
> than fumble 
> about trying to find  what books I should recommend,
> I should just 
> ask the EVDL.  Currently the list is:
> 
> Convert It by Mike Brown
> 
> Build Your Own Electric Vehicle by Bob Brant
> 
> The New Electric Vehicles by Michael Hackleman
> 
> The Complete Book of Electric Vehicles by Sheldon
> Shacket
> 
> How to Convert to an Electric Car by Ted Lucas.
> 
> 
> I know that there are a lot that should be added,
> some how to, some 
> why to, and some just history.
> 
> What would you recommend be suggest to new folks
> interested in 
> getting into EVs?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Mike Chancey
> Webmaster
> EV Photo Album
> http://evalbum.com  
> 
> 


Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic?  My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too! 
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
                          ____ 
                     __/__|__\ __        
  =D-------/    -  -         \  
                     'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel? 
Are you saving any gas for your kids?


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Steve:  I really wish I could go with higher
voltage, but I'm locked in at no more than 80vdc in
Oklahoma at the moment, not to mention I'm using an
Alltrax 7245 controller, on my aircraft generator. 

Someday, I hope to take the EV Technician
certification test, so that I can upgrade to a higher
voltage.

For now, I'm going to have to work with this 80vdc,
and make the best of it.  At least I'm slowly learning
from you guys, all about EV's.

I wonder if it would ever be possible to put in the
EVDL Libray, all these useful formulas & facts, so
that newbies like me can find them a bit more easily.
I have some difficulty using the archives sometimes.
Anyone here good at compiling notes ?

Thanks for putting up with my questions :)


 
--- Steve Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Be careful about that 0.57 factor.
> 
> Useful capacity = 0.57 * nominal pack voltage * AH
> at
> 20 hr rate.
> 
> That is good for a car (small car) with 120 V / 400
> A
> controller, 8 " motor, and flooded gold cart batts. 
> That's probably how it was determined.
> 
> And, that is maximum range, not uasble range for a
> daily driver.  You still have to divide that number
> by
> 2 (~50%) DOD max for useful daily driver range ...
> That is to assure you can actually get some cycle
> life
> out of them.
> 
> I use between 0.25 and 0.33 as a factor for flooded
> lead.  That's for useful range.  0.25 for 80 AH. 
> 0.33
> for 6 and 8 golf cart batts.
> 
> So, for my batts, at full drain rate .25.  But at
> 1/2
> drain rate, make that 0.4 ... Read between the lines
> and think about what I am saying and why higher
> voltage really makes a difference.
> 
> For NiMH D cells - rated 10 AH, I use 8.5 AH, if
> they
> are current limited to 3C.  For 2.4 AH Li Ion, I use
> 2.2 AH for up to 2C.  These are not A123.  These are
> low drain rate consumer product grade.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and
> hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
> 
> 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Hey Shawn, I like your tenacity! Yep, a 10.67 warm-up then cold shoulder from the track is a good sign of victory. But, don't worry, (not that I think you are) they can't ignore you for long!

Thanks for the great updates!

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 1:36 am
Subject: OJ2 dragster at 2 strips in one day - Makes one run


The OJ racing team is whipped from a day of prep and travel that only netted one warm up run of 10.67 @127 at 80% power. Preparations were made for a 5:00 pm start at Quaker City Raceway, 20 minutes from Lawless Industries. At 4:00 pm the skies opened up and the rain and hail began. We made a decision at 4:30 to forgo Quaker and set sail for Thompson, 1 1/2 hrs north where the skies were blue. We arrived at 6:00 pm and got OJ in the staging lanes for a warmup run. 10.67 secs and 127mph later OJ returned seemingly unscathed and ready to get cranked up for a record run. Eric complained of an extremely rough track just past the finish line but said it was manageable. We recharged and anticipated a low 10 sec run. During the burnout I noticed a quick flare and some smoke from one of the motors. I pulled OJ from the line and inspected the brush gear on the right rear motor. Sure enough we had a stuck brush which had arched during the burnout. It probably stuck on the previous run and we missed it during our post run inspection. We quickly filed the brush, reassembled, and attempted to get back in line for time trials but were told the lanes were closed and we would have to wait for eliminations to start before we could get another t-n-t run. At 7:45 pm they opened staging lane 8 where we had been told to go. I asked the starter where to line up and was told in a very disrespectful way that they didn't have time for us right then and that we would have to check back later after a couple of elimination rounds. I was miffed! At 8:00 pm we sat fully charged in the pits waiting to run when Craig called and checked back with Quaker.  They said the rain had past and they would be running until 10:00pm. We decided one run at a friendly track was better than all day with these Putz's so we loaded up and high tailed it to Quaker. Our aggressive driving had us at the gate at 9:20pm. Plenty of time we thought, for 2 runs. Fate was not on our side however as fog had moved in and the track had stopped running at 9:15. 250 miles of driving netted us one full warm -up run. Not bad for a day of racing. BTW, You won't be seeing any more Lawless records at Thompson. They loved AGNS but aren't so fond of OJ. Hard to believe but they actually began to feel the heat from the electric furnace and got defensive. Wednesday was not a big turnout (mostly street cars), however when OJ ran 10.67 it was one of , if not the, quickest times of the day. I don't think they knew what to do. I will take that as a victory in itself. The DR-B record will have to wait until I return from Hong Kong in a few weeks. By then AGNS should be ready to go with some new DEKAS and a run at NEDRA records number 5, 6, and 7. 
 
Some days are diamond- some are stone. 
 
Shawn 
________________________________________________________________________ 

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. 
 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
=0

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Zeke Yewdall wrote:
But, I'm not aware of where you can get any of the DC-DC converters --
all the ones I've seen have been buck converters, not boost converters
that we need.  Except for a few that boost it up to 3kV or so.... not
quite what we need  :)

Companies like Vicor and Pico make DC/DC converters with just about every input and output voltage imaginable. They cost about $1 per watt (a 200watt converter will be about $150-$200).

But rather than one converter for charging the entire pack, it will be easier to use one converter per battery (or for groups of batteries) because they are very commonly available with 6v, 12v, and 24v output voltages.

--
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 ---

Reply via email to