EV Digest 7091

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  2) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  3) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  4) RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
        by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  5) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
        by "Tom Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  6) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
        by "Tehben Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  7) RE: AC forklift motor info
        by "Dale Ulan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  8) RE: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  9) E-dragsters go for gas-powered records
        by MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 10) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 11) RE: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 12) Re: Insurance
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 13) RE: Could higher pack voltage be stepped down for Curtis input?
        by Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 14) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by Marcin Ciosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 15) RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires
        by Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 16) RE: Could higher pack voltage be stepped down for Curtis input?
        by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 17) Re: Honeywell DCP 700 Programmer Controller 120V
        by "John Dinsmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 18) Re: Truncated messages (Primer and distillation by an observer)
        by Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 19) Re: Could higher pack voltage be stepped down for Curtis input?
        by Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 20) Re: A123 chemistry
        by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jukka_J=E4rvinen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 21) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 22) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 23) Re: Insurance
        by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 24) Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
        by "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas engine
of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY and the primary
drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is hydrogen
doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it aboard instead
of charging it externally. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dan Frederiksen
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 14:25
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)

somewhat interesting but it isn't really an electric vehicle. hybrid
electric maybe I wonder if the rules are that sloppy as to allow that as
an electric vehicle. I sort of hope not

maybe hook up with A123 instead

Dan

Colin Frame wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know some people don't consider fuel cell powered cars as true 
> "electric cars", but I thought this was an interesting read anyway.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/31/tech-buckeye-bullet.html
>
> For John's sake I'll refrain from comparing this vehicle to White 
> Zombie! ;}
>
> Colin
>
>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, was someone saying that this is really a hybrid vehicle instead of an 
electric? I think that using a fuel cell makes it more of a... well... fuel 
cell vehicle doesn't it? Technicalities... :P

Brian


---- Timothy Balcer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

=============
Woot. I can enter an Electric Quadracycle into an NHRA race!  Look out John!!!

;-)


--T

PS: Hey now... Electric Quadracycle.....

On 7/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/31/2007 11:11:56 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ________
>
> For John's sake I'll refrain from comparing this vehicle to White  Zombie! ;}
>
> Colin
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ________
>
> Why? John's car has an electric motor/motors four wheels and a seat
> shouldn't they be in the same class?
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>
>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 7/31/2007 11:50:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
________________________________________________________________

Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas  engine
of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY and the  primary
drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is  hydrogen
doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it  aboard instead
of charging it externally. 
 
______________________________________________________________
 
What if the car had a hydrogen fueled piston engine driving an AC generator  
hooked to an AC motor, what would it be then???
 



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Phil Marino wrote: 

> >From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" 
> >
> >That means for a given tire size, a 65 aspect ratio will 
> >have a smaller contact patch that an equal width 80 aspect ratio.
> 
> No, it doesn't.   The tire patch area equals the load on the 
> car ( in lbs) divided by the tire pressure ( in psi).
> 
> And, since a 215/65-15 has the same tread width as a 
> 215/70-15, and the patch area is the same (assuming
> both tires have the same load and tire pressure) then
> the patch width AND length will be the same for both tires.

Thanks Phil, you saved me the effort of pointing out the same thing.

> Patch size has no particular relevance to tire rolling 
> resistance, though.

Size may not, but it has been suggested that shape does (i.e. wide and
short is better than narrow and long), so in Jody's comparison of two
different 215 tires even the patch shape is the same.

One remaining difference is that the 80-series tire is a bit taller and
this might actually result in it having slightly *lower* rolling
resistance than the shorter 65-series tire.

It is also worth noting that while it is important to minimise rolling
resistance, it is only one loss affected by the tire size.  Fitting a
315/40 tire ~might~ result in lower rolling resistance when measured at
extremely low speed (e.g. pull/push test), but could represent a greater
total loss in normal driving due to greater aero losses or greater
rolling losses on less than perfectly smooth streets due to having a
stiffer sidewall (necessary since the shorter tire results in less
distance between the wheel and the road) such that the entire wheel is
deflected upwards over small pebbles, etc. instead of the tread/sidewall
deflecting to absorb small obstacles.

Cheers,

Roger.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I wonder what else besides the motor got soaked? There probably is water in everything. Tweety needs to be cleaned up and dried out.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What if you just go for a good cruise with some fast acceleration and
high rpm's to heat the thing up and dry it out?

Mind you, I haven't really got a clue what I'm talking about.

-- 
Tehben
'90 Toyota 4x4 Pickup
'hElix EV'
evalbum: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1225

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>One of the biggest issues that I see is that these
>Danaher motor use an encoder bearing on one end that
>runs 600.00 bucks if it needs replacing 8^o  IMO
>that's a pretty costly bearing and in fact costs more
>than most of my total invoices for full DC motor

That encoder bearing is a problem in a lot of places.
I heard one go out on a dynamometer controller one
time. It was a motoring dyno (DC brushed, actually)
and went full-speed when it lost the encoder signal.
The 'crunch' as it took out a rather large diesel
ICE (the engine under test) was impressive. Those
heavy-duty truck engines were not designed to spin
at 6000 RPM!!!

In ICE applications, we also use an encoder on the
crankshaft, but it looks very much like the encoder
on the Siemens AC motors. Fewer teeth, and we use the
motor shaft's own bearings for support. Those things
are really quite reliable. The software is somewhat
tricky to get engine position by time interpolation
but it's not rocket science. ICE controllers have
been doing it since the 1970's. With a 60-tooth
mask, you get plenty of resolution down to maybe
20 RPM. Not quite good enough for servo positioning
but fine for ICE. We go for a timing accuracy of 1/4
crank degree or better. I would think that such
resolution would be fine for EV or forklift motors.

Sounds like there are a lot of idiot designers out
there.... I try not to be one most of the time.

-Dale

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Brian Jackson wrote: 

> So, was someone saying that this is really a hybrid vehicle 
> instead of an electric? I think that using a fuel cell makes 
> it more of a... well... fuel cell vehicle doesn't it? 
> Technicalities... :P

I suppose technically there are no electric vehicles since electricity
isn't a fuel but a form of energy.  I suppose my vehicle is really
gravity-powered since I store electricity generated by hydro-electric
generators in its batteries, while many other people's vehicles might be
coal or natural gas powered.  Ultimately even these are solar-powered
(along with those using electricy generated by wind or photovoltaics)
since the hydrocarbon fuel is simply stored solar energy from a very
long time ago. ;^>

The fuel cell Buckeye Bullet certainly isn't a
_battery_electric_vehicle_, which is what this list is largely intended
to focus on, but it is certainly as much an electric vehicle as any
other discussed on this list.

Cheers,

Roger.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is so big :-O

Do a Google search for "E-dragsters go for gas-powered records" and see how 
many places are posting this.

I cycled through 10 + Google search pages (and then quit) and EVERY hit was to 
this article on someone's site.

Talk about coverage ;-)

Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G wrote:
Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas engine
of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY and the primary
drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is hydrogen
doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it aboard instead
of charging it externally.
The hydrogen fuel voids its status as electric in my book. I would say that a strict EV must be powered by an electrical storage such as battery or capacitor. if you allow generators such as fuel cells you also allow types like the prius which is a gas car with an electric clutch. this is a fuel cell car. hydrogen-electric if you will. like diesel-electric trains. another way to define an EV might be to require refueling by an electrical connection. again this one would fail that.

when we are debating victory criteria with ICE people then everything is an electric car of course : ) but this is a hydrogen car. not an EV. I would be surprised if the record people will allow it as a pure EV. not that batteries couldn't beat it anyway

Dan

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

> What if the car had a hydrogen fueled piston engine driving 
> an AC generator hooked to an AC motor, what would it be then???

Electric, or hydrogen-powered, if you prefer to think of your EV as
coal-powered.

Should we strip all NEDRA records from any vehicle whose batteries were
charged by an ICE genset at the track for the record run(s), whether the
genset was onboard or off-board?    Does a BEV cease to be an "electric
vehicle" if an onboard genset is used?

Some suggest that a hybrid is a vehicle with multiple fuel sources (i.e.
a plug-in hybrid that uses both a hydrocarbon fuel and energy from the
grid) for propulsion, however, this definition is flawed since the
electricity from the grid is often generated through combustion of a
hydrocarbon fuel.  I think that if the sole means of tractive effort is
an electric motor(s), then it is probably fair to call the vehicle
'electric', but this conflicts with the convention of referring to such
vehicles as diesel-electric locomotives as 'series hybrids' (even though
they are fueled strictly by diesel and all tractive effort is provided
by electric motor(s)).

The debate over classification of various permutations of electric-drive
vehicles verges on religious, so there is little point in us going
there.  This list is devoted to discussion of battery electric vehicles,
so I believe further discussion of this particular vehicle is probably
OT since even if we can't agree what it is, we can certainly agree that
it isn't a BEV unless it has batteries onboard for energy storage (which
wasn't made clear in the article as far as I noticed).

Cheers,

Roger.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roland: Mine did the same, when the car was simply damaged. The problem
isn't in damage to the vehicle, especially through your own insurance. The
problem came in when the car was totalled. That's (apparently) a different
process.

All they'd give is what other cars of the same type were selling for. I
looked at one of the cars he was pulling as a "like" car. It was a real
POS. <g> The only way they unbent was to say I could exchange some custom
parts *IF* I still had the originals to put back on.

Apparently that's a risk you take when updating an older car.

On Sun, July 29, 2007 5:37 am, Roland Wiench wrote:
> That is why I have Hartford insurance.  They paid everything, what it
> cost to replace.  They paid the full cost of replacing the side glass
> panel in the door which cost $600.00 just for the glass plus about $200.00
> for installing.  A insurance adjuster did not even come out to look at it
> for a 1977 El Camino.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have been considering a system like this too. Basically use a controller to 
handle all the voltage it can, and then have a second battery pack on a 
breaker. When the accelerator is depressed all the way, the controller will be 
at "full throttle" and the breaker will also be engaged. This is the simple 
version of what I have been kicking around anyway. I would have trouble 
verbalizing the actual design in detail. 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here comes again - a fresh bite for our troll.

How do you thin electricity in your grid is made?
If it's made in power plant where coal is burn it means "you" EV car has also 
combustion engine ?

Stop making comments like that.

EOT (4me)

On Tuesday 31 July 2007 21:37:32 Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G wrote:
> > Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas engine
> > of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY and the primary
> > drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is hydrogen
> > doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it aboard instead
> > of charging it externally.
>
> The hydrogen fuel voids its status as electric in my book. I would say
> that a strict EV must be powered by an electrical storage such as
> battery or capacitor. if you allow generators such as fuel cells you
> also allow types like the prius which is a gas car with an electric
> clutch. this is a fuel cell car. hydrogen-electric if you will. like
> diesel-electric trains.
> another way to define an EV might be to require refueling by an
> electrical connection. again this one would fail that.
>
> when we are debating victory criteria with ICE people then everything is
> an electric car of course : ) but this is a hydrogen car. not an EV.
> I would be surprised if the record people will allow it as a pure EV.
> not that batteries couldn't beat it anyway
>
> Dan

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Phil, 

I have not researched this much. Again, was looking for a narrow tire because 
all of the LRR machines I had used up to this point had always had narrow 
tires. Your argument that a narrower tire will have more sidewall flex and 
therefore greater rolling resistance makes perfect sense. You win! :)

However, I still wonder if the following reasoning could account for the 
perceived lower rolling resistance that I experienced on my road bike and on my 
street luge. As a tire of a specific tread width rotates, a length of rubber, 
whose length is identical to the tires tread width, is constantly coming into 
contact with the ground. This is the leading edge of the contact patch. As this 
length of rubber meets the ground, it must conform to the shape of the road. 
Every little rock and pebble will compress its own little area of rubber along 
this length of rubber. This requires energy in the same way that compressing 
the tire's side wall requires energy. 

Now, I realize how difficult it is to imagine that this would consume very much 
energy, but how else can I explain a roller blade wheel out performing a skate 
board wheel down Donald street in South Eugene? :)

I guess a person could estimate how much energy is wasted this way. He could 
measure how much force is required to press a 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch square piece 
of rubber flat against a smooth surfece with a pebble sandwiched between the 
two. Then, that force could be multiplied by the number of pebbles across the 
front of a tire of a given tread width. Then, that number could be multiplied 
by the distance that tire would travel at a specific speed for a given amount 
of time. 

I think that reading the rolling resistance chart would be easier though. :)

Brian




- Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

=============
Oh yes, width will definitely impact the rolling resistance.

The Bridgestone Potenza RE92 are the OEM tire specified for the
Prius from years 2001 to 2003, they used the XL variant, which
allows a higher load rating than the standard RE92.

They certainly have a low rolling resistance.

In fact, I switched from the RE92 to HTR-200 on my Prius
and noticed an MPG hit (which is normal when putting new tires 
on a car, as the increased amount of rubber means more energy
wasted in friction during compression)

Hth,

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 Phil Marino
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:48 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires




>From: Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>CC: "Joseph T. " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:45:16 -0700
>
>True, old tires are very dangerous. Even if they don't blow out, they 
>get hard and have poor traction. I am ashamed to admit that I actually 
>caused an accident this way. I have an old set of tires on my Corvair truck
too.
>They don't have many miles on them, but they're about 10 years old. One 
>of them blew out last week while the truck was parked.
>
>I have been looking at these tires for my EV project.
>
>http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=
>Potenza+RE92&vehicleSearch=false&partnum=665SR4RE92&fromCompare1=yes&pl
>ace=0
>
>Sorry for the long link. I have been looking at these because they are 
>as narrow and as low profile as I can find for a 14" tire.
>
>Brian
>
>
Brian - do you know the rolling resistance factor for RE92's ?  I don't
think I've ever seen them in a chart of low rolling resistance tires.

If you look at the GreenSeal paper, two of the lowest tires ( the
Bridgestone B381's and the Sumitomo HTR 200's are available in stock at
TireRack in 14 inch sizes - although not as narrow as the RE92 you are
looking at.

Why do you want the narrowest tire?   Do you need a tire that small to fit 
in your wheel well?

If not, it is more important to have a low rolling resistance tire.  This
depends on the material and construction of the tire, not its width.


Phil Marino

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
n_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- This type of idea comes up frequently on the list, usually from folks who are newer to EVs. It sounds easier and less expensive, but when the details are all worked out it turns it out is best to get the right controller and use all your batteries at the same time. You can always give it a shot, but at some point and time you will realize it wasn't easy or cheap to get it to work well. It is also very possible that you will destroy the cotroller you already have and maybe even end up in a dangerous situation. I would avoid any of these schemes.

damon


From: Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
CC: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Could higher pack voltage be stepped down for Curtis input?
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:51:33 -0700

I have been considering a system like this too. Basically use a controller to handle all the voltage it can, and then have a second battery pack on a breaker. When the accelerator is depressed all the way, the controller will be at "full throttle" and the breaker will also be engaged. This is the simple version of what I have been kicking around anyway. I would have trouble verbalizing the actual design in detail.


_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com

--- 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 --- Yes, I took a close look at the message source, and here's what seems to be happening: 1) The sender's original message is in a section of the email marked "text/plain", which is what most mail clients display when they aren't set up to handle HTML 2) When the sjsu server strips off the offending HTML, however, it appends a second "text/plain" section to the email, following the first, original text/plain section 3) When an Email client like Thunderbird reads the Email, it sees the two "text/plain" sections, and makes a decision to display only the second one.

Dave, is there no way to have the sjsu server either just append the TRUNCATED message to the end of the original text/plain section, or to have it insert the TRUNCATED section *above* the original text/plain section?

Bill Dennis


Timothy Balcer wrote:
Hi Folks,

You may not realize this, but the messages that are showing to you as
truncated are not, in fact, being truncated :) The original message is
intact but not being displayed because of some MIME magic.. MIME is
just a method of formatting information in email and if you have two
MIME messages stacked together, depending on what they are some email
clients will only show the -last- one in the chain.

Which means, if someone has a signature with HTML (or whatever) in it,
the list truncates it out and attaches the familiar "YOU HAVE BEEN
TRUNCATED" message onto the end..

Your email client then displays only the second bit.. namely the
truncation message.

The answer is to look at the 'original' or 'source' of the email. In
Gmail, which many of us use, you can click on the little arrow next to
the 'Reply' fast tab and it will show 'show original'. You will then
be able to view the whole message.

A few of these truncated messages actually are truncated in the body
of the message, but I've not noticed very many. Find out how to 'show
source' or 'show original' with your email client and you should be
ok.

--T




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- How about something like this (modified from a post by Lee Hart on Oct. 28, 2006):

  _______________________________________
  |          |                         _|_
__|__ +      |                        /   \ armature
 ___  36v     / S1                    \___/
  |   -      |             _________    |   series
  |____/_____|____________|_____    |   |_  motor
      S2     |          B+|    _|_  |    _|
             |            | D1 /_\  |    _| field
           __|__ +        |     |___|_____|
            ___  144      |   |_|   |M-
             |   -        | -||_ Q1 |
             |            |   | |   |
             |____________|_____|   | Controller
                        B-|_________|

Close either S1 or S2 to be using 14-cell mode or 17-cell mode, respectively.
Start off in 14-cell mode, then switch to 17-cell mode when up to speed. Controller never sees more the 144V across it. Charge the two battery strings separately.

Bill Dennis


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It seems the information is copied from the A123 data :) LMAO !!!

With few years with TS LFP cells and always charging to 4,3 V has very little effect on the lifetime. Thou... I will post here some data by the end of this week about the cycle test on LFP-30 cell.

I have several vehicles with LFPs on the roads. The cells do not give out the name plate capacity unless you take it to the 4,3 V. Charging is stopped when the current is less than few amps.

The voltage drops quite fast down to 3-3,2 V in driving. But stays there until about 20% SOC. then it drops nicely to 2,7 V. Stays there for a while.. and then drops like a rock to 2V.

This is how LFP-350 cells behave.

They give 100% DOD cycles out (from 2V to 4,3V) over 1000. In my case I can expect at least 700 000 km (430 000 miles) on the Bus batteries (before less than 60% 0f original capacity). :) I rarely drive more than 100 km a day with the bus "green moster" ( http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1009 ).

TS cells are MUCH different from A123s. Tolerances and purities are WAY different. A123 guys, try to make your cells with purufied tab water. :)

If you'd know how cheap they are to make you would S#!@ your pants !

Thou A123s can out perform the TS in power, cyclic life and capacity. TS beats with the price.

Thou.. I STILL like more LiCo cells... I need energy dense batteries...

-Jukka




Marcin Ciosek kirjoitti:
The information available on Thundersky and Everspring's website kept me wonder why they are giving such wide voltage range for charging. First I though that TS product is a bit different in cathode/anode chemistry but MSDS gives straight information about what's inside. So I asked a company that ordered BMSes for TS project to send me a piece or two for investigation. Meanwhile I tried to contact Everspring representative and get some information. I was answered by Keith Lau:

I am not too sure about your question. Anyway, the norminal voltage of
TS-LFP series is about 3.2V.    2v to 3.6v is basically a limit of safety
operation of the battery; in other words, you cannot charge over 3.6 v and
you cannot allow the battery discharge below 2.0v.

In normal circumstance, you may just want to charge upto 3.45v and
discharge to 2.6v which will account for over 95% of the battery capacity.

MC> I know LiFP batteries are safe for overcharge but doing it constatnly
MC> leads to shorten battery life.

you are correct. Overcharging is the major problem leads to the shorten
battery life or even battery damaged.

And in the meantime lab tests gave me results that charging TS with 3.6 V limit gives full charge withing 10% longer period of time than under overvoltage.

That's all I know.

Generally TS business is a bit strange, their websites are full of inconsistent information that can lead even to cell destruction.

Marcin


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hydrogen is not a fuel.  It  IS an energy carrier, or storage medium much as a 
battery or capacitor..  If the electrons from the storage medium power an 
electric motor, then technically it IS an EV.  

Maybe we could rename our group the BEVDL, or Battery Electric Vehicle 
Discussion List and limit our arguments to what batteries get the best 
performance, or how to maintain them better.   It seems you are now the one 
with the closed mind, and blindly following the mantra of if its not batteries 
its not electric, yada yada yada.  I'm not one to favour the hydrogen hype 
because it is such an inefficient form of energy storage.  However to stay 
technically correct, but not argue for that side, I would say the Fuel Cell 
powered vehicle are EV's if they power electric motors. 



----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:39 am
Subject: Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu

> Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G wrote:
> > Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas 
> engine> of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY 
> and the primary
> > drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is 
> hydrogen> doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it 
> aboard instead
> > of charging it externally. 
> >   
> The hydrogen fuel voids its status as electric in my book. I would 
> say 
> that a strict EV must be powered by an electrical storage such as 
> battery or capacitor. if you allow generators such as fuel cells 
> you 
> also allow types like the prius which is a gas car with an electric 
> clutch. this is a fuel cell car. hydrogen-electric if you will. 
> like 
> diesel-electric trains.
> another way to define an EV might be to require refueling by an 
> electrical connection. again this one would fail that.
> 
> when we are debating victory criteria with ICE people then 
> everything is 
> an electric car of course : ) but this is a hydrogen car. not an EV.
> I would be surprised if the record people will allow it as a pure 
> EV. 
> not that batteries couldn't beat it anyway
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, the way I classify it, the whole purpose of an electric vehicle
is to be able to refuel it on site without importing power (I have a
PV array, so I do not have to import electricity)

Hybrid electrics, I cannot fill up with electricity -- so though they
may technically be electric, but don't meet my criteria for WHY to
have an electric.  If you make a plug in hybrid, then yes it is (as
long as I can run it without putting gas in it almost all the time).
If I can generate hydrogen on site with my electricity, and use it as
the energy carrier, instead of batteries, then I'm fine with that (the
only problem is that the round trip efficiency of this is pretty bad
compared to batteries).   If I have to buy hydrogen that is made from
reformed natural gas.... that defeats the purpose.

For racing purposes, I'd say whether it is an electric vehicle could
be a bit broader -- because yes, people do charge them from an ICE
generate before the race sometimes.  But there I'm more concerned with
drivetrain details than fuel per se, I guess.

Indecisive...

Z

On 7/31/07, MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hydrogen is not a fuel.  It  IS an energy carrier, or storage medium much as 
> a battery or capacitor..  If the electrons from the storage medium power an 
> electric motor, then technically it IS an EV.
>
> Maybe we could rename our group the BEVDL, or Battery Electric Vehicle 
> Discussion List and limit our arguments to what batteries get the best 
> performance, or how to maintain them better.   It seems you are now the one 
> with the closed mind, and blindly following the mantra of if its not 
> batteries its not electric, yada yada yada.  I'm not one to favour the 
> hydrogen hype because it is such an inefficient form of energy storage.  
> However to stay technically correct, but not argue for that side, I would say 
> the Fuel Cell powered vehicle are EV's if they power electric motors.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:39 am
> Subject: Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>
> > Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G wrote:
> > > Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas
> > engine> of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY
> > and the primary
> > > drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is
> > hydrogen> doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it
> > aboard instead
> > > of charging it externally.
> > >
> > The hydrogen fuel voids its status as electric in my book. I would
> > say
> > that a strict EV must be powered by an electrical storage such as
> > battery or capacitor. if you allow generators such as fuel cells
> > you
> > also allow types like the prius which is a gas car with an electric
> > clutch. this is a fuel cell car. hydrogen-electric if you will.
> > like
> > diesel-electric trains.
> > another way to define an EV might be to require refueling by an
> > electrical connection. again this one would fail that.
> >
> > when we are debating victory criteria with ICE people then
> > everything is
> > an electric car of course : ) but this is a hydrogen car. not an EV.
> > I would be surprised if the record people will allow it as a pure
> > EV.
> > not that batteries couldn't beat it anyway
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
>
>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
With my EV, I have a advantage.  I had it re title and name it Electro.  The 
sister car, another EV I have is call Transformer I and even has a different 
VIN number which was a re manufacture GM B body.  These were selling for 
$52,000.00 back in 1977, but I got my for a reduce cost because it was one 
of the proto types that road tested for about 1/2 a year before I received 
it.

There is what you call proof of material lose.  If a vehicle is destroy, 
just add up all the replacement cost of the equipment that is on the vehicle 
and I always got the other party who did the damage, pay the full price.

Did you know the Hartford has different classes of insurance.  One is a 
antique insurance, another is a classic car insurance, another is for a 
vehicle driven under 1500 miles a year, and one where you have a group 
insurance for several cars which is driven only by one person at a time.  So 
its like one insurance coverage instead of insuring each car.

Also it will cover any other car I drive, even you car if I damage it.  This 
is the type I have.

Roland




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Insurance


> Roland: Mine did the same, when the car was simply damaged. The problem
> isn't in damage to the vehicle, especially through your own insurance. The
> problem came in when the car was totalled. That's (apparently) a different
> process.
>
> All they'd give is what other cars of the same type were selling for. I
> looked at one of the cars he was pulling as a "like" car. It was a real
> POS. <g> The only way they unbent was to say I could exchange some custom
> parts *IF* I still had the originals to put back on.
>
> Apparently that's a risk you take when updating an older car.
>
> On Sun, July 29, 2007 5:37 am, Roland Wiench wrote:
> > That is why I have Hartford insurance.  They paid everything, what it
> > cost to replace.  They paid the full cost of replacing the side glass
> > panel in the door which cost $600.00 just for the glass plus about 
> > $200.00
> > for installing.  A insurance adjuster did not even come out to look at 
> > it
> > for a 1977 El Camino.
>
> 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
One more thing I just thought of -- a hydrogen/electric motor drag
racer probably has to have batteries too (or maybe supercaps) -- a
fuel cell just doesn't have the power density or the current ramp
rates needed to drag race, or at least any of them that I have seen.
IIRC, the highlander fuel cell car still has the small battery bank
like the prius, in order to smooth out power demand on the fuel cell.

Z

On 7/31/07, Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the way I classify it, the whole purpose of an electric vehicle
> is to be able to refuel it on site without importing power (I have a
> PV array, so I do not have to import electricity)
>
> Hybrid electrics, I cannot fill up with electricity -- so though they
> may technically be electric, but don't meet my criteria for WHY to
> have an electric.  If you make a plug in hybrid, then yes it is (as
> long as I can run it without putting gas in it almost all the time).
> If I can generate hydrogen on site with my electricity, and use it as
> the energy carrier, instead of batteries, then I'm fine with that (the
> only problem is that the round trip efficiency of this is pretty bad
> compared to batteries).   If I have to buy hydrogen that is made from
> reformed natural gas.... that defeats the purpose.
>
> For racing purposes, I'd say whether it is an electric vehicle could
> be a bit broader -- because yes, people do charge them from an ICE
> generate before the race sometimes.  But there I'm more concerned with
> drivetrain details than fuel per se, I guess.
>
> Indecisive...
>
> Z
>
> On 7/31/07, MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hydrogen is not a fuel.  It  IS an energy carrier, or storage medium much 
> > as a battery or capacitor..  If the electrons from the storage medium power 
> > an electric motor, then technically it IS an EV.
> >
> > Maybe we could rename our group the BEVDL, or Battery Electric Vehicle 
> > Discussion List and limit our arguments to what batteries get the best 
> > performance, or how to maintain them better.   It seems you are now the one 
> > with the closed mind, and blindly following the mantra of if its not 
> > batteries its not electric, yada yada yada.  I'm not one to favour the 
> > hydrogen hype because it is such an inefficient form of energy storage.  
> > However to stay technically correct, but not argue for that side, I would 
> > say the Fuel Cell powered vehicle are EV's if they power electric motors.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:39 am
> > Subject: Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
> > To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >
> > > Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G wrote:
> > > > Why do you say it is NOT an electric vehicle?  I don't see a gas
> > > engine> of any type on there.  A fuel cell generates ELECTRICITY
> > > and the primary
> > > > drive mechanism is an ELECTRIC Motor.  Just because the fuel is
> > > hydrogen> doesn't mean it is not electric.  They are just making it
> > > aboard instead
> > > > of charging it externally.
> > > >
> > > The hydrogen fuel voids its status as electric in my book. I would
> > > say
> > > that a strict EV must be powered by an electrical storage such as
> > > battery or capacitor. if you allow generators such as fuel cells
> > > you
> > > also allow types like the prius which is a gas car with an electric
> > > clutch. this is a fuel cell car. hydrogen-electric if you will.
> > > like
> > > diesel-electric trains.
> > > another way to define an EV might be to require refueling by an
> > > electrical connection. again this one would fail that.
> > >
> > > when we are debating victory criteria with ICE people then
> > > everything is
> > > an electric car of course : ) but this is a hydrogen car. not an EV.
> > > I would be surprised if the record people will allow it as a pure
> > > EV.
> > > not that batteries couldn't beat it anyway
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to