EV Digest 2487

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) GhiaMonster Shaft Torque - was RE: GhiaMonster Electrical Subsystem...
        by "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  2) Re: I Can't Wait!
        by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  3) RE: GhiaMonster Electrical Subsystem...
        by "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  4) Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc
        by Gordon Niessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  5) Re: GhiaMonster Electrical Subsystem...
        by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  6) Re: EV in movie?
        by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  7) Re: GhiaMonster Electrical Subsystem...
        by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  8) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  9) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by Peter A VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 10) Re: EV in movie?
        by Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 11) Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc
        by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 12) Re: I Can't Wait!
        by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 13) Prius hacking.
        by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 14) Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc
        by Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 15) RE: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 16) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 17) Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc
        by Gordon Niessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 18) Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc
        by Gordon Niessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 19) Future lithium power
        by "David C. Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 20) Load Sensing Transfer Switch
        by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 21) Current Sensing
        by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 22) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by Peter A VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 23) ceramic heater thoughts...
        by Jeremy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 24) RE: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
        by "Walker, Lesley R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 25) RE: Update on Tilley's Delorian
        by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
> >The builders are pretty firm on putting the three 8" motors
> inline into the
> >tranny then about 12 inches of driveshaft into the rear end so I
> think I'll
> >need to work within the dimensions they give me. Anything along the
> >centerline is pretty much their domain. Outside of this,
> however, I'll have
> >a great deal of flexibility on where I can place the electrics. The
> >builders feel sure there will be no problems finding room for
> the 84 batts
> >with at least 30 of them over the rear end alone.
>
>
> Wow!  all three motor inline?  In a drag racing application?
> Drag racing puts way more torque on the shaft than these motors are
> typically designed for and in your case you're going to have three times
> "way more torque".
>
> How are you planning on overcoming this?

There was a big discussion on the list about this awhile back.  We were
debating whether we should polychain the motors together in sort of a 'V3'
configuration, as Roderick Wilde had coined, versus an inline arrangement.

The chained approach is probably the most durable but would have the
greatest losses and a significant amount of noise which I really wanted to
avoid.  Bill Dube' of course was able to produce some equations that would
estimate, albeit in a perfect world, how much torque the shafts of these
motors could take in an inline configuration.  We ran the calculations and
found that with the shafts being keywayed as they were, we wouldn't have
enough headroom on the third motor's shaft where it linked up with the
Lenco.  So, I sent one of the motors back to the Netgain folks and asked
them to reshaft the motor with the biggest shaft they could manage.  Also,
we went with a spline instead of a keyway.

According to the numbers, we're now well within tolerance even assuming we
could get all that torque to the ground... even with the 15" slicks we have.
Of course, it's hard to calculate what will really happen if we get some bad
tire hop under full power.  The builders know how to defeat alot of this and
I trust their judgement.  In any case, it should be quite a ride breaking it
;o)

Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I think the best that come from this vaporware is better EV drive systems.
Whether the car is battery powered or fuel cell powered, they must have an
acceptable EV drive system. I work with fuel cell customers every day for
stationary systems, however they will admit there are big obstacles for on road
vehicle systems. Some of the stationary systems are viable for certain applications
and I strongly support them. Using them on an on road EV is a good way to
divert public attention from viable alternatives like battery powered EV's while
they sell a few more SUV's and make more profit.
The government can easily make a significant reduction in oil consumption by applying
CAFE rules to SUV's and other gas guzzling commuters. After all, the majority of SUV
drivers are just single occupant commuters anyhow.

Rod

Victor Tikhonov wrote:

William Judy wrote:

..

If fuel cell vehicles are every mass produced and are reasonably

^^^ ^^^^^

affordable, I'd buy one in a second. However, not for the reasons that
the industry would like you to believe. This is what I'd do with my Fuel
Cell vehicle:

1. Buy It.

...

Sadly, "if" and "and" above will prevent otherwise good plan from
execution. I wish I wouldn't have to be so skeptical.

Victor



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor,

Do you use a big complex connector (several smaller ones?) to wire your
modules together or do external wires connect directly to the components in
your modules?  I like the thought of being able to plug and unplug a single
set of connectors to install and remove a module.  However, I see Lee's
point that that would introduce extra weight and unreliability.  Is these
factors likely to be significant under the power loads we're talking about?

Also, do you and Lee have diagrams and schematics available of the
components and modules in your systems?  Mind if I take a look?  ;o)

Steve

> Lee Hart wrote:
> ..
> >
> > > My question is has anyone tried building significant portions of their
> > > electrical drivetrain into components that can be removed from the
> > > vehicle and tested (under low power) apart from the vehicle itself?
> > > What are the issues encountered or anticipated?
> >
> > My LecHart EV has a big metal plate that comes out of the car with 3
> > bolts. It has the controller; shunt; 2 contactors; main, charger, and
> > heater fuses; precharge circuit, cooling fan, and connectors on it. I
> > built, wired, tested, and ran the whole thing on the bench. From time to
> > time I've made changes and improvements, by just pulling it back out.
>
> My ACRX is built this way too. Inverter attached with 4 bolts
> (main and precharge contactors and DC-DC converter happen to be
> integrated in it, so I don't even have them as separate systems),
> the motor is attached with 4 bolts in front and 2 supporting its back.
>
> Of course, charger and batteries are separate, so are main fuses.
>
> My whole setup was tested on the bench. In fact, this is how I test
> and program every system I ship.
>
> Victor
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- The battery would be the MB15-12-8's, which are each rated at 10Ah's. And with a target 160V system. Not sure how the size of the bike effects charging. But it will be a rather small Honda Rebel 250.

At 01:47 PM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
Depends how big the bike is.  A PFC 20 might do nice.  How big is the pack?
Weight of bike etc...... Lawrence Rhodes...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Niessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:00 AM
Subject: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc


> I am planning on a EV conversion of a Motorcycle and leaning toward a 160V
> system using Evercel Nickel Zinc batteries, due to size and weight.  But I
> am wondering if anyone has any recommendations on a charger that would
suit
> the 10Ah cells that would fit this application.
>
> Would love to have it an onboard charger, but given the voltage, I would
> expect most chargers to run off of 230V AC (which prevents easy plugin in
> many places).  But if the added cost of a 120V system is reasonable, I
> would be interested.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

Steve wrote:
> 
> Victor,
> 
> Do you use a big complex connector (several smaller ones?) to wire your
> modules together or do external wires connect directly to the components in
> your modules?  I like the thought of being able to plug and unplug a single
> set of connectors to install and remove a module.  However, I see Lee's
> point that that would introduce extra weight and unreliability.  Is these
> factors likely to be significant under the power loads we're talking about?
> 
> Also, do you and Lee have diagrams and schematics available of the
> components and modules in your systems?  Mind if I take a look?  ;o)
> 

In my case inverter has 2 battery cables in, 3 motor cables out,
(all - lugs on the studs), 12V DC-DC cable out, and 2 other signal 
connectors: motor shaft encoder/motor temp sensors (I think 7 wires),
http://www.metricmind.com/images/cables.jpg
And flat AMP connector with 35 blade type contacts for the dash
interface: http://www.metricmind.com/images/connector.jpg 

Internally +12V DC-DC output cable is directly attached to the PCB 
(small lug on the stud where DC-DC fuse is connected). You can see
it here: http://www.metricmind.com/images/l_open.jpg Left section
is DC-Dc PCB and its output fuse in lower left corner and black
cable running down from it is visible. 

All connectors are waterproof and power ones are also covered
(none exposed).

As of schematic, you can see it if you download installation
manual: http://www.metricmind.com/data/man_w.pdf

Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bruce wrote:

> The Just Married movie short shows a lime green Wedge shaped
> car. Could that be an EV?

>From the trailers it almost looks like a Kewet electric.


Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- The TEVan has high current Radsok connectors on the control.
Since I drove the TEVan for 2.5 years while at GE, I always had a
spare control in the back cargo space. Many of the controls I drove with
were 'in progress'. I remember driving out of the subdivision in NC one
morning on the way to work and the control failed. Since the existing control
was not bolted down I unplugged all of the connectors and re-installed the
spare control at the sub division entrance. I was only delayed by 5 minutes!
I might add that the control box also had a 8kW charger on board that was
part of the switchout. I wonder if a 5 minute control/charger switchout is a
Guiness world record! Maybe not, but I was not late for work.
Rod

Steve wrote:

Victor,

Do you use a big complex connector (several smaller ones?) to wire your
modules together or do external wires connect directly to the components in
your modules? I like the thought of being able to plug and unplug a single
set of connectors to install and remove a module. However, I see Lee's
point that that would introduce extra weight and unreliability. Is these
factors likely to be significant under the power loads we're talking about?

Also, do you and Lee have diagrams and schematics available of the
components and modules in your systems? Mind if I take a look? ;o)

Steve


Lee Hart wrote:
..

My question is has anyone tried building significant portions of their
electrical drivetrain into components that can be removed from the
vehicle and tested (under low power) apart from the vehicle itself?
What are the issues encountered or anticipated?

My LecHart EV has a big metal plate that comes out of the car with 3
bolts. It has the controller; shunt; 2 contactors; main, charger, and
heater fuses; precharge circuit, cooling fan, and connectors on it. I
built, wired, tested, and ran the whole thing on the bench. From time to
time I've made changes and improvements, by just pulling it back out.

My ACRX is built this way too. Inverter attached with 4 bolts
(main and precharge contactors and DC-DC converter happen to be
integrated in it, so I don't even have them as separate systems),
the motor is attached with 4 bolts in front and 2 supporting its back.

Of course, charger and batteries are separate, so are main fuses.

My whole setup was tested on the bench. In fact, this is how I test
and program every system I ship.

Victor




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter wrote:

> >My point is that you can't move waterfalls around to meet the demand.
> >Additionally, there are not any new waterfalls popping up to meet the
> >increased demand for power.
> 
> And I said "Pumped Hydro"...

I missed the switch from "hydro" to "pumped hydro". Let's deal with that.


> that is where you pump water up hill into a reservoir (and you can
> build your own reservoir if you want to) during times of excess and let
> it run a generator when demand exceeds production. 

So let me get this straight. Your idea of "efficient" storage is using electricity to 
pump water up an incline for storage and then utilize 
hydro power to generate electricity later ?


> >> > I'd take a little less efficient and on my side of the meter over
> >> > a little more efficient and on the other side of the meter any
> >> > day.
> >> 
> >> We aren't talking about on your side of the meter we were talking
> >> about power production and distribution which generally happens on
> >> the other side of the meter. 
> >
> >Ah, but the original article most assuredly did, and was the crux of
> >the perspective of decentralization.
> 
> Yes the article did mention using your car's fuel cells to back fill
> the power grid.

A minor part of the overall mentioned proposition.


> I guarantee the energy needed to create this entire process far
> exceeds the energy it will produce.

Interesting that you're so certain regarding an overall proposition that you have 
already misrepresented on several occasions.


> >> > Hydrogen can now be stored as a solid at room temperature
> >> > utilizing renewable resources.
> >> 
> >> Again your point?? Being able to store it as a solid has nothing to
> >> do with efficiency or even with costs. 
> >
> >Sure it does.
> >
> >The process is exothermic, not requiring any external heat, and
> >utilizing renewable resources. Further, the process is totally
> >inorganic (carbon and sulfur free), producing a high quality energy
> >source (hydrogen or electricity) without any polluting emissions.
> 
> And this process is?

The company calls it Hydrogen on Demand, which utilizes sodium borohydride to make 
stored hydrogen without the need for 
compression or liquefaction. In essence, a hydrogen 'battery'. Sodium borohydride is 
made from borax, of which substantial natural 
reserves exist around the globe.

I'm sure you've seen that Chrysler used this patented process in one of their 
prototype vehicles.


> The large flywheel systems are much closer to actual use than Hydrogen
> and far more efficient. 

In your opinion.


BTW, as I originally posted, I presented Rifkin's proposition as an "alternative 
view". Although I find it a rather profound concept and I 
corrected misrepresentations, the proposal is his, not mine.


Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 18:08, Vince wrote:
> 
> Peter wrote:
> 
> > >My point is that you can't move waterfalls around to meet the demand.
> > >Additionally, there are not any new waterfalls popping up to meet the
> > >increased demand for power.
> > 
> > And I said "Pumped Hydro"...
> 
> I missed the switch from "hydro" to "pumped hydro". Let's deal with that.
> 

You switched it not me.
> 
> > that is where you pump water up hill into a reservoir (and you can
> > build your own reservoir if you want to) during times of excess and let
> > it run a generator when demand exceeds production. 
> 
> So let me get this straight. Your idea of "efficient" storage is using electricity 
>to pump water up an incline for storage and then utilize 
> hydro power to generate electricity later ?
> 

Not my idea, the power companies have been using it for years.  Not
quite as efficient as batteries (close) but much cheaper. 
> 
> > >> > I'd take a little less efficient and on my side of the meter over
> > >> > a little more efficient and on the other side of the meter any
> > >> > day.
> > >> 
> > >> We aren't talking about on your side of the meter we were talking
> > >> about power production and distribution which generally happens on
> > >> the other side of the meter. 
> > >
> > >Ah, but the original article most assuredly did, and was the crux of
> > >the perspective of decentralization.
> > 
> > Yes the article did mention using your car's fuel cells to back fill
> > the power grid.
> 
> A minor part of the overall mentioned proposition.
> 
> 
> > I guarantee the energy needed to create this entire process far
> > exceeds the energy it will produce.
> 
> Interesting that you're so certain regarding an overall proposition that you have 
>already misrepresented on several occasions.
> 
> 

Specifically how have I misrepresented it?

> > >> > Hydrogen can now be stored as a solid at room temperature
> > >> > utilizing renewable resources.
> > >> 
> > >> Again your point?? Being able to store it as a solid has nothing to
> > >> do with efficiency or even with costs. 
> > >
> > >Sure it does.
> > >
> > >The process is exothermic, not requiring any external heat, and
> > >utilizing renewable resources. Further, the process is totally
> > >inorganic (carbon and sulfur free), producing a high quality energy
> > >source (hydrogen or electricity) without any polluting emissions.
> > 
> > And this process is?
> 
> The company calls it Hydrogen on Demand, which utilizes sodium borohydride to make 
>stored hydrogen without the need for 
> compression or liquefaction. In essence, a hydrogen 'battery'. Sodium borohydride is 
>made from borax, of which substantial natural 
> reserves exist around the globe.
> 
> I'm sure you've seen that Chrysler used this patented process in one of their 
>prototype vehicles.
> 
> 

You're kidding right?  And you claim this process is efficient?  Granted
freeing the hydrogen from the sodium borohydride is simple. 
However creating (and recycling) the sodium borohydride takes MUCH more
energy than is released.

> > The large flywheel systems are much closer to actual use than Hydrogen
> > and far more efficient. 
> 
> In your opinion.
> 

Of course.

> 
> BTW, as I originally posted, I presented Rifkin's proposition as an "alternative 
>view". Although I find it a rather profound concept and I 
> corrected misrepresentations, the proposal is his, not mine.
> 

And as I pointed out, it's not a very realistic or practical
"alternative view"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is this a "sightings" thread?

How about the small flock of Sparrows in the last scene of "The One" with
Jet Li? The producer was going for a parallel "dimension look", so cute,
curvy little motor bike cars were the choice. Uninitiated viewers wouldn't
have had a clue that they were electric.

-S
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are missing the point of this wonderful charger.  A fifteen minute
charging time.  Remember it's not the range it's the charging time.
Lawrence Rhodes....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Niessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Battery Charger for Nickel Zinc


> Yes, I had looked at that charger earlier.  But while it looks very
capable
> of being de-tuned to the smaller amp requirements, it is still too larger
> for on-board use on a Motorcycle.  Though it is interesting that on
> EVParts.com the shipping weight is only 15.5 lbs, while the charger is
> listed at 20 lbs.
>
> And the price is about 3 times what I would like to spend.  If I stick to
> 48V, then I am looking at $200+ for a charger.
>
> At 09:40 AM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
> > >I am planning on a EV conversion of a Motorcycle and leaning toward a
160V
> > >system using Evercel Nickel Zinc batteries, due to size and weight. But
I
> > >am wondering if anyone has any recommendations on a charger that would
suit
> >
> > >the 10Ah cells that would fit this application.
> > >
> > >Would love to have it an onboard charger, but given the voltage, I
would
> > >expect most chargers to run off of 230V AC (which prevents easy plugin
in
> > >many places). But if the added cost of a 120V system is reasonable, I
> > >would be interested.
> > >
> > >Any thoughts?
> >
> >Sounds like a job for Rich Rudman's PFC charger.
> >It will charge a 160V pack from either 120V or 240V, whatever you find
> >available.  Actually it's supposed to work on any input voltage from 60V
to
> >250V AC and can output anything from 12V to 360V.
> >It's a relatively small charger, from their website: "The PFC20 weighs 20
> >pounds and resides in a box that is 13 x 9 x 5 inches."
> >http://www.manzanitamicro.com/chargers2.htm
> >
> >In fact I believe the only person on the list using Nickel Zinc uses a
> >PFC-20 (or is it a PFC-50?)
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From what I have seen you'd be better off using wind power or solar and
store it in a big battery.  The more I find out the more it looks like a bad
deal.  Yes clean is one thing but when you have to produce three times the
energy compared to putting it stright into a battery why bother.  Lawrence
Rhodes...
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Judy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:48 PM
Subject: I Can't Wait!


> I've been following fuel cell technology for quite some time, and I won't
> get into the debate on it's pro's and con's.  The debate will never end.
> With that said...
>
> If fuel cell vehicles are every mass produced and are reasonably
> affordable, I'd buy one in a second.  However, not for the reasons that
> the industry would like you to believe.  This is what I'd do with my Fuel
> Cell vehicle:
>
> 1. Buy It.
>
> 2. Drive It home.
>
> 3. Remove the 75kw-90kw Fuel Cell Stack.
>
> 4. Remove the Hydrogen Storage Tanks/Reformer/Hydroxide Container.
>
> 5. Create Battery Boxes where all this equipment used to be.
>
> 6. Install <Insert Best Battery Technology Here> batteries and connect
> them to the production quality electric drive system to give me between
> 150-400 mile range.
>
> 7. Install the Fuel Cell as a Backup/Primary Power Generator for my home
> (Plus 4-6 of my neighbors)
>
> 8. Drive my all electric (Almost Production Vehicle) my normal 20-30 miles
> a day.
>
> 9. Never Replace the batteries for the life of the car because I only use
> 10-15% DOD most of the time (Even if the batteries are rated for only 500
> 80% DOD cycles).
>
> Just thought I'd drop my two cents.  Like I said in the beginning, I CAN'T
> WAIT for fuel cell vehicles!
>
> Will
>
> --
> Will Judy
> 128VDC '74 VW Bug "Reba"
> Juneau, Alaska
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
According Alec Brooks the Prius is capable of 41mph under pure electric and
that is governed.  With the proper batteries it would be the same weight as
the orginal Prius and have over 100 miles range.  Anybody else have info on
the Prius systems and is it really possible to make it a pure battery
electric with its stock motor.  Lawrence Rhodes..
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
How much are you planning on paying for the 10Ah batteries? *If* it
suits your application, there are surplus 13 Ah NiCD cells available.
48V worth (in boxes with interconnects no less) sold on ebay last week
for $175. Might be a cheaper "starter" nickel chemistry pack. I don't
know what the Evercells cost, though.

The ne plus ultra charger, at least as far as watts/dollar goes, is one
of the Manznaita PFC series. Ask others about the level of control and
programmability available currently. Also, 1kW Sorensen rack mount power
supplies pop up on ebay for $200-400 from time to time, if you want a
current and voltage limited indoors "charger". Not fantastic, and
requires babysitting.

Ultimate onboard battery murderer/charger would be a step up/isolation
transformer and bad boy charger, maybe with variac trimming? 

Seth



Gordon Niessen wrote:
> 
> I am planning on a EV conversion of a Motorcycle and leaning toward a 160V
> system using Evercel Nickel Zinc batteries, due to size and weight.  But I
> am wondering if anyone has any recommendations on a charger that would suit
> the 10Ah cells that would fit this application.
> 
> Would love to have it an onboard charger, but given the voltage, I would
> expect most chargers to run off of 230V AC (which prevents easy plugin in
> many places).  But if the added cost of a 120V system is reasonable, I
> would be interested.
> 
> Any thoughts?

-- 
vze3v25q@verizondotnet
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence wrote:


> Vince, Do you have a reference for a solid hydrogen storage system that
> is both efficient and that I can afford to purchase? 

I don't know about "afford to purchase", as it's an OEM application so far. Millennium 
Cell is the company:

http://www.millenniumcell.com/about/index.html


> I know there are systems for storing hydrogen in bound form. I would
> not call it 'solid' form as that requires a temperature of -259 degrees
> C. 

This system functions at room temperature.


Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter wrote:

> > I missed the switch from "hydro" to "pumped hydro". Let's deal with
> > that.
> > 
> 
> You switched it not me.

Nope. The previous posts were in regards to "hydro dams".


> > > that is where you pump water up hill into a reservoir (and you can
> > > build your own reservoir if you want to) during times of excess
> > > and let it run a generator when demand exceeds production. 
> > 
> > So let me get this straight. Your idea of "efficient" storage is
> > using electricity to pump water up an incline for storage and then
> > utilize hydro power to generate electricity later ?
> 
> Not my idea, the power companies have been using it for years.

I never claimed that "pumped hydro" was your "idea". I asked if it was your idea of an 
"efficient" storage.


> Specifically how have I misrepresented it?

Please.


> > > And this process is?
> > 
> > The company calls it Hydrogen on Demand, which utilizes sodium
> > borohydride to make stored hydrogen without the need for compression
> > or liquefaction. In essence, a hydrogen 'battery'. Sodium
> > borohydride is made from borax, of which substantial natural
> > reserves exist around the globe.
> > 
> > I'm sure you've seen that Chrysler used this patented process in one
> > of their prototype vehicles.
> > 
> > 
> 
> You're kidding right?

No.


> And you claim this process is efficient?

Looks very efficient to me.


> Granted freeing the hydrogen from the sodium borohydride is simple.
> However creating (and recycling) the sodium borohydride takes MUCH
> more energy than is released.

Actually, they state:

" there is no need to supply external heat to access the hydrogen. The heat generated 
is sufficient to vaporize some of the water 
present, and as a result the hydrogen is supplied at 100% relative humidity."


> > BTW, as I originally posted, I presented Rifkin's proposition as an
> > "alternative view". Although I find it a rather profound concept and
> > I corrected misrepresentations, the proposal is his, not mine.
> > 
> 
> And as I pointed out, it's not a very realistic or practical
> "alternative view"

In your opinion.


Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Um, I smell smoke. Is that my batteries I smell, or just my wallet.

And recharging only helps when you can find a place to plug in. And here in Texas we can find oil anywhere, but never an outlet when you need one.

All kidding aside, it is something to think about. Maybe for a future upgrade.

At 08:24 PM 12/17/2002, you wrote:
You are missing the point of this wonderful charger.  A fifteen minute
charging time.  Remember it's not the range it's the charging time.
Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I am still waiting for a price from Evercel. Response is slow, probably due to the holiday's. But I would expect it to be in the range of $50-70 per battery. And I would have to get 14 of them.

I am not to keen on NiCDs. I messed with them for years with my radio controlled planes and cars. Never had fun recharging, cycling, and replacing them. Switched to NiMh and have never looked back. But am trying to keep cost down a little. And the Evercel's seem a good compromise.

Of course, I just have to keep remembering that quality pays back in the long run when I work out the budget. :-)

At 08:52 PM 12/17/2002, Seth wrote:
How much are you planning on paying for the 10Ah batteries? *If* it
suits your application, there are surplus 13 Ah NiCD cells available.
48V worth (in boxes with interconnects no less) sold on ebay last week
for $175. Might be a cheaper "starter" nickel chemistry pack. I don't
know what the Evercells cost, though.

The ne plus ultra charger, at least as far as watts/dollar goes, is one
of the Manznaita PFC series. Ask others about the level of control and
programmability available currently. Also, 1kW Sorensen rack mount power
supplies pop up on ebay for $200-400 from time to time, if you want a
current and voltage limited indoors "charger". Not fantastic, and
requires babysitting.

Ultimate onboard battery murderer/charger would be a step up/isolation
transformer and bad boy charger, maybe with variac trimming?

Seth



Gordon Niessen wrote:
>
> I am planning on a EV conversion of a Motorcycle and leaning toward a 160V
> system using Evercel Nickel Zinc batteries, due to size and weight.  But I
> am wondering if anyone has any recommendations on a charger that would suit
> the 10Ah cells that would fit this application.
>
> Would love to have it an onboard charger, but given the voltage, I would
> expect most chargers to run off of 230V AC (which prevents easy plugin in
> many places).  But if the added cost of a 120V system is reasonable, I
> would be interested.
>
> Any thoughts?

--
vze3v25q@verizondotnet
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thought this was an interesting article:
    http://www.sionpower.com/files/2001_presentation.pdf

Haven't found any 2002 Power articles on-line, and of course the
cell size is too small, but....

-Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:57:25 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Load-Sensing Transfer Switch for 2 Chargers
> 
> Marvin Campbell wrote:
>> Since the TOU meter's "sidesaddle" mounting ring (which is attached
>> under our existing meter) is only rated for 60 amps we can't charge
>> two cars simultaneously.
> 
> So, did they route it through a 60 amp breaker? 240vac at 60 amps is
> 14.4 kw. Do you even have two chargers that can each draw 30 amps?
> That's a BIG charger!

Right now the MagneCharger is hardwired on a 40A breaker.
Also have a NEMA14-50 outlet on a 40A breaker. That's for the EVcort. It's
on-board charger is a 110v but can draw 30A (it only uses one of the hots of
the 220v 14-50).

The new circuit for the TOU meter is the one they must share.
> 
> Even if you do, they are going to complete their bulk charge (high
> current) phase very quickly -- in an hour or less. All that you need to
> do is stagger their starting times by about an hour, and they will never
> exceed 60 amps for both of them.

Yeah, but you know Edison was pretty adamant about the complete separation
so there's no way possible for both to be on at the same time. They really
like to err on the safe side of everything.
> 
>> I would use a timer and separate circuit but we only have one circuit
>> for the TOU meter with two chargers using it.

> If they are hard-wired, an electrician will have to install the timer.
> They are still available (for controlling outdoor lighting, for example)
> but will cost more both to buy and to install. All you should have to do
> is set one charger to come on an hour or so after the other to avoid
> them both being at full power at the same time.
This is probably what I'll end up doing (after a few weeks of dicking around
with that manual transfer switch, I'm sure).

Thanks a lot, and Merry Christmas!

J. Marvin Campbell
Culver City, CA
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Tom!

Well, I guess it all depends on your definition of "no" and "longer":0
I still covet a truck but the RAV4 is just a ploy to get my wife out of that
Volvo so I can trade it for a diesel truck.

I sure would love to copycat your set-up there. No emergency but whenever
you've got the time all that info would be GREATLY appreciated!

I did not know that the RAV4 will not begin to charge with power-on. Good
thing to know as that would be a simple mistaken assumption to make.

Thanks for your help. I know all you longtime listers are probably sick of
the rookie questions...but I'm sure glad you answer them anyway!

...Headed over to the Veris website right now...

Have a Merrry Christmas!

J. Marvin Campbell
Culver City, CA

on 12/17/02 3:58 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> From: "Tom Dowling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:56:32 -0800
> To: "EVList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Current-sensing
> 
> Marvin,
> 
> Congrats on the upcoming RAV4 EV.  I guess that means you're no longer
> looking for an S10E.
> 
> I have the same situation -- two EVs, and a SMUD side-saddle adapter
> that is limited to 40A.  (It has a 40A push-button circuit breaker built
> into the bottom of the adapter.)
> 
> I have built a switcher box using an adjustable AC current-sensing
> relay, a Veris Hawkeye.  See http://www.veris.com/products/cs/index.html
> 
> Other components:  A 120x24V control transformer, two 40A 2-pole
> contactors, and a time-delay relay to prevent short-cycling if the
> current to the primary charger dips for a short time.
> 
> I'd have to do a little research to find the exact model numbers of all
> the parts, and a wiring diagram, but I could dig them up if you are
> interested. 
> 
> The RAV4 EV must be charged first.  It will not "wake up" and charge if
> the paddle is inserted when there is no power. With that restriction, my
> setup works just fine.  I use it almost every night -- charge the RAV4,
> then the PbA EV1.  (Actually, I have three EVs -- the third is an S10E.
> I charge that one separately.  The circuitry could actually be expanded
> to handle a third EV, but I haven't done that yet.)
> 
> Tom Dowling....  
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > > I missed the switch from "hydro" to "pumped hydro". Let's deal with
> > > that.
> > > 
> > 
> > You switched it not me.
> 
> Nope. The previous posts were in regards to "hydro dams".
> 

I said in my first response on this thread:
> > However if you want truly massive storage there are other even
better
> > solutions.  Pumped Hydro, huge gyros, etc. 
> 

And you switched it too:

> As I previously posted, "hydro" isn't mobile. You don't get to decide
where the powerplant will be located. I haven't seen any evidence 
> that "huge gyros" are currently a practical technology for mass
storage.


So perhaps you meant this post:
>> I can think of several - they're all hydro dams. Just add pumps.
>
>Unfortunately large waterfalls aren't mobile.

If you read closely Lesley was talking about pumped hydro too.

> > > So let me get this straight. Your idea of "efficient" storage is
> > > using electricity to pump water up an incline for storage and then
> > > utilize hydro power to generate electricity later ?
> > 
> > Not my idea, the power companies have been using it for years.
> 
> I never claimed that "pumped hydro" was your "idea". I asked if it was your idea of 
>an "efficient" storage.
> 

85% efficient?  Yes that is my idea of an efficient mass storage
system.  Way, WAY higher than even the theoretical efficiency of
hydrogen (even if you ignore storage losses).
Even the decades(century?) old systems are better than 50%.

> 
> > Specifically how have I misrepresented it?
> 
> Please.

Well?  No answer eh?

> 
> 
> > > > And this process is?
> > > 
> > > The company calls it Hydrogen on Demand, which utilizes sodium
> > > borohydride to make stored hydrogen without the need for compression
> > > or liquefaction. In essence, a hydrogen 'battery'. Sodium
> > > borohydride is made from borax, of which substantial natural
> > > reserves exist around the globe.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure you've seen that Chrysler used this patented process in one
> > > of their prototype vehicles.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > You're kidding right?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> > And you claim this process is efficient?
> 
> Looks very efficient to me.
> 

Currently Sodium Borohydride is rather expensive to make and costs about
$50 to $100 per kg.  It is possible to reverse the "Millennium Cell"
process however their patented recycling method has be PROVEN to be
unworkable.  The only workable methods require huge amounts of energy,
temperatures above 200 degrees, that sort of thing.
Here is a nice paper discussing this:
http://alliance.hydrogen.co.jp/E_TOP/R&DPolicy.pdf

Currently NOBODY offers a working system to recycle the waste products
from the Millennium Cell process.

> 
> > Granted freeing the hydrogen from the sodium borohydride is simple.
> > However creating (and recycling) the sodium borohydride takes MUCH
> > more energy than is released.
> 
> Actually, they state:
> 
> " there is no need to supply external heat to access the hydrogen. The heat 
>generated is sufficient to vaporize some of the water 
> present, and as a result the hydrogen is supplied at 100% relative humidity."
> 

That is ONLY talking about getting the hydrogen from the Sodium
Borohydride.  The process for recovering or creating the Sodium
Borohydride is an entirely different matter.

> 
> > > BTW, as I originally posted, I presented Rifkin's proposition as an
> > > "alternative view". Although I find it a rather profound concept and
> > > I corrected misrepresentations, the proposal is his, not mine.
> > > 
> > 
> > And as I pointed out, it's not a very realistic or practical
> > "alternative view"
> 
> In your opinion.
> 

So prove me wrong.
For the moment ignore the costs of the solar cells, assume you can get
them for free.  Stuartenergy is quite possibly the leader in hydrogen
electrolysis systems 9convert water into hydrogen).  They claim a system
efficiency of about 80%... you are already behind pumped hydro storage.
Assume you storage method is 100% efficient and also free.
Hydrogen Oxygen Fuel Cells have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 83%,
real fuel cells are around 50%.  But we will pretend you can get one
that works at 83%.
That makes our total (theoretical) efficiency about 66%, way below all
of the methods I suggested (including methods already in use, like
pumped hydro 85% and flywheels 90+%).
Of course once you come back to the real world and use actual fuel cells
(50%), and account for storage losses (compression 94%, pressurized
storage 97%), you end up with a real world efficiency of about 36%.
some of this data comes from :
http://www.hydrogen.org/Knowledge/Ecn-h2b.htm

And of course in the real world someone has to pay for this equipment,
and none of it is cheap.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I'm looking for some opinions on what to do with my heater situation.
I wasn't satisfied with the output of the heater in my crx so I decided to upgrade to 2 ceramic units instead of one.
I know that technically these heater cores are only rated for 120 vac but I have been running one at 192 volts dc for a while at haven't had any meltdowns. So, my question is, should I put the two cores in series (which should still make more heat than they used to because they will have twice as much surface area and will probably just draw more current . Or, should I have them wired separately so that I can switch one or the other off to have a high/low setting?

What's our thought on putting too much voltage through these? I had always thought that it would just make them run a little hotter but that they are pretty self limiting so it wouldn't be a problem. They never drew that much current from the pack I think I probably got a maximum of about a 5 amp draw once it is heated up (from one core).

So, do folks think?

-Jeremy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter A VanDerWal wrote:
> If you read closely Lesley was talking about pumped hydro too.

Indeed, I was.  Didn't know it was called that, but I do now.  :-)

In the email I answered, Vince asked:
>> You have someplace you can store a few hundred kilowatts of
>> electricity for an extended period of time ?

No mention of it needing to be mobile.  I confess I mentally
translated "kilowatts" to "kilowatt-hours" but I think that's
excusable since kilowatts represent power, not energy.

<yawn> I'm officially very bored with this thread now.

-- 
Lesley Walker
Unix Engineering, EDS New Zealand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[Hybrid electric vehicles] are self-sustaining,
as long as you keep putting gas in the tank."
     --- James R. Healey, USA Today
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
from http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/delorean_ev2.html :

"The foreign corporation asked Carl Tilley and the Tilley Foundation that no 
further demonstrations be made."

Oh my, how inconvenient.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or
switch to digest mode?  See http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
1991 Solectria Force 144vac
1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
1974 Avco New Idea rider 36vdc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thou shalt not send me any thing which says unto thee, "send this to all
thou knowest."  Neither shalt thou send me any spam, lest I smite thee.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---

Reply via email to