EV Digest 2547
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Battery Internal resistance
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: E-Meter/Link10 question
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV talk/lawn mowers (battery electric landscaping)
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: ZAP battery press release
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: ZAP battery press release
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Truck (im)possibility
by Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Anyone heard of this person?
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Anyone heard of this person?
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: With Friends Like These. . .
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Truck (im)possibility
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Electric Boat
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14) RE: Truck (im)possibility
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: EV talk/lawn mowers (battery electric landscaping)
by "Humphrey, Timothy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Electric Boat
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Truck (im)possibility
by "Humphrey, Timothy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Baby Optima YT's
by "James Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Baby Optima YT's
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Truck (im)possibility
by John Lussmyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Truck (im)possibility
by "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) RE: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
by "amadare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
The most consistent method is to use two throttle settings like 200 amps and
100 amps. I would use 2/3 and 1/3 of max. current. Measure the voltage at
the two different loads and calculate the resistance from:
Resistance = (change in voltage) / (change in current)
By using two different currents, the surface charge or bonus voltage becomes
irrelevant.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Battery Internal resistance
>
> On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 01:25 AM, 1sclunn wrote:
>
> > so when you get into you car and see 130v then take off and pull a
> > steady
> > 100amps vloltage drops to 120 10/100 =.1 ohm ??
>
> I believe that's the basic idea, but you probably wouldn't want to do
> it right off the charger (130 volts on a 120v system), but rather would
> want to wait a bit so the resting voltage would be more stable.
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Seth Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Battery Internal resistance
> >
> >
> >> hi all -
> >>
> >> I thought about this once and you can tell me I'm wrong, but here's
> >> how I'd go about it: assume that your battery is an ideal battery, ie
> >> no voltage sag under load. now also assume that your ideal battery is
> >> in series with a resistor of unknown value - the ideal battery plus
> >> resistor is your actual battery. Now measure your voltage across the
> >> whole thing with no load, then put say a 100 amp load on your battery
> >> and measure the voltage. Do this for a few different currents. now
> >> if
> >> you pretend that your ideal battery didn't loose any voltage under
> >> load, then the voltage drop for each current must have been in the
> >> resistor (the battery's internal resistance). now you have a current
> >> through and a voltage across this internal resistor, so resistance is
> >> easy to calculate using Ohm's law. Hope this helps,
> >>
> >> Seth
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 08:35 AM, Gordon Niessen wrote:
> >>
> >>> How do you go about measuring the internal resistance of a battery?
> >>> I
> >>> don't think it's good to hook up you Ohm Meter across a battery. :-)
> >>> Or to short the battery and measure the max Amperage.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
> >>
> >> http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
> >> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
>
> http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, I use a 500 amp meter on a 2000 amp controller. I use a 3:1 resistive
divider to scale the voltage down to where the meter can read the current
properly. I never keep the throttle down for more than 20 seconds and have
not had an overheating problem with the shunt. I record the data on a
computer and multiply by the resistor ratio to calculate the true current
before plotting.
Yes, this is the display limit. If you use a 2:1 voltage divider, the 500
amp meter will read 500 amps at 1000 battery amps. You will need to multiply
by 2 to get the true reading.
Yes, the shunts are the same scaling. 50 mV at 500 amps is .0001 ohms. The
same as a 100 mV at 1000 amp shunt.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Tylinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: E-Meter/Link10 question
> Can a 500-Amp version of the E-meter be used in a system with a
> higher-current controller? Does the rating (500 Amp v. 1000 Amp) merely
> reflect the displayable current, or does it only comprehend 500 Amps and
> no more?
>
> The two versions are offered with different shunts, but the mV/Amp looks
> the same. The 1000 A version appears to have more mass and surface area,
> so might be more stable thermally (I can work around that easily
> enough).
>
> - GT
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Clunn wrote:
> But, why not just use one of the commercially available electrics?
My point was not that I wanted to convert my mower to electric but that I
understood why people Don't convert/buy electric cars even though I have
three EV's and believe in them i do run a gas mower . . Yes I know I
should
do something . I
could at least switch to LP gas for starters . . after 20 years i have
things runing
like a well oiled clock and just don't want any problems(sounds like joe 6
pack). I am in and out in 20 min . Switching to a small electric mower
that
might take 2 hours to do the same work is not to appealing (I sound just
like "them " now). I did get a smaller fuel eff engine and it uses 1/2
the gas that the old engine did (patting myself on that back for making a
small small change, just like them) . I'm also hoping to get out of the
lawn bis and into the EV conversion bis any minute now :-) ( more excuses
just like them) ..
After almost mentioning this quite a few times, Steve's posting here about
hauling around two-stroke weed wackers (and other ICEs) to do
lawncare/landscaping with an EV has motivated me to finally bring up a long
held idea of having an electric lawncare/landscaping business.
Yes... the initial expense and engineering of a workable system would be
substantial, but could certainly be done with a little effort, especially
with a one person/one machine at a time type of operation.
Just think of the marketing hype! --
*Clean and quiet and pollution free machines minimally affect the customer's
environment.
* No smoke, no fumes, no burning of fossil fuels required to cut da grass!
*I would bet many would be willing to pay extra for this type of service.
You could adapt all the required machines to do this with a little planning:
Lawn Tractor, blower, string trimmer, hedge cutter, and push mower. ( may
have to go with corded AC on some of these to save $)
Have all the battery operated devices run at the same voltage for easy dump
charging from support vehicle pack.
OK... example support vehicle, (one drawback of this system is that you
would probably want to pull it with an ICE powered truck for many reasons
including _foremost_ weight, and the ability to recharge while driving from
job to job, might be doable in flat Florida with EV tow rig if you can plug
into most customers grid power and charge main pack while working)
Something like this support vehicle to haul, power, and recharge equipment:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/trailerpage.html
Some more good pics of the same setup with no technical pics:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/mmsolfest.html
(OK... could be smaller)
These are just pictures with no descriptions but a picture is worth a
thousand words. Yes... you could save a bunch of money not having the PV on
the roof, but the marketing possibilities may make this type of option pay
for itself (solar powered! :^D)
Take a look at the large versions of pic 3 and 4 on the first page showing
the battery pack and inverter panel, you could do remote locations with no
grid hookup! (Given that you go in fully charged)
Using a lawn tractor and other battery powered equipment that can be dump
charged from the main pack (24 or 48V, RE standards, w/Trace type inverters)
could shore make for a quick turnaround between jobs :)
I can think of many environmentally aware communities around the country
which could be a good starting place for this. Plugging into the customer's
20A 120V service should be no problem with a semi-aware customer. (costs
them a few cents while you are there)
You could start small, an electric lawn tractor, corded wacker and blower
could get cha goin'.
If you can make the whole mess including tow vehicle battery electric,
well... that should surely wow the crowd :^D
OK everybody.... tell me why this won't work.
Roy LeMeur Seattle WA
My Electric Vehicle Pages:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html
Informational Electric Vehicle Links:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So,
-is it firm that the ZAP EV has a Li-ion pack?
-can people order these EVs 'now'?
-Does this apply to the nEVs or the EV?
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They look identical to me. Lawrence Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Coughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: ZAP battery press release
> On the Metricmind website I saw a group of battery pictures, and the one
> that looks the closest is the Worley Energy Cells Lithium Polymer battery
> (picture on the link below).
> <http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/images/liion.jpg>
>
> So, how much does a pack of Lithium batteries cost?
>
> KC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Uzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "evug list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:38 PM
> Subject: ZAP battery press release
>
>
> > the following press release recently appeared on ZAP's site... there is
a
> photo
> > of the "ZAP Battery" on this page that seems very familiar, but I can't
> recall
> > where I've seen it before (a quick review of my battery-related
bookmarks
> didn't
> > uncover it)... anyone recognize what that actually is?
> >
> >
> > http://www.zapworld.com/news/ces010603.htm
> >
> > SEBASTOPOL, Calif. (January 6, 2003) Electronic transportation
developer
> ZAP
> > (OTC BB:ZAPZ) today announced plans to unveil a new technology that
> appears to
> > triple the performance of todays battery-powered vehicles.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Table 1 - Battery Characteristics
> > Range Energy (Whr/kl) Power (W/kg) Cycles
> > Lead-acid 60 miles 35 150 500
> > ZAP Battery 240 miles 200 400 1000
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 03:12:49PM -0800, John Lussmyer wrote:
> I consider a 5% grade to be pretty damn steep. Steep enough for the Hwy
> dept to put up warning signs, and for big trucks to come down to a
> crawl. It is extremely rare to find a hill like that on a freeway, and
> pretty rare elsewhere.
I drive up one almost daily --- the one west out of downtown Portland is
6% for 2-3 miles, average I think (i.e. steeper in a couple places). And
either way out of LaGrande in Eastern Oregon (where my parents and sister
used to live) goes over mountains. But it's true, it's not common.
--
Alan Batie ______ alan.batie.org Me
alan at batie.org \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle
PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers
27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ spamassassin.taint.org NO SPAM!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 20 Jan 2003 at 5:17, Bob Bath wrote:
> And I'm sensing an ethnic minority,
> due to some spelling and syntax errors.
[Private message]
Sorry to sound preachy and "PC," but it bothers me when people say stuff
like this. Usually they don't really mean it the way it sounds.
In this case the errors would most likely indicate either carelessness or
lack of education, which aren't indicative of any particular racial or
ethnic background. Ignorance comes in all colors.
No offense meant, and I hope none taken.
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 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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Est. yearly US cost to safeguard Persian Gulf oil supply: $50 billion
Est. 2001 value of US crude oil imports from Persian Gulf: $19 billion
-- Harper's Index, April 2002
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 21 Jan 2003 at 3:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Private message]
Dagnab it, I am red-faced. That WAS supposed to be private. AARGH! Really
really sorry Bob, and everybody else too.
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 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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Est. yearly US cost to safeguard Persian Gulf oil supply: $50 billion
Est. 2001 value of US crude oil imports from Persian Gulf: $19 billion
-- Harper's Index, April 2002
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 20 Jan 2003 at 13:09, Steve wrote:
> implying that ZEVs are truly
> effectively emissionless vehicles when powered by the current electrical
> infrastructure can also amount to misinformation if it implies that this
> pollution would just go away if we all drove them instead.
As I understand it, assuming they're charged at night, it's going to be a
LONG time before charging EVs has any measureable effect on the emissions of
power plants. They use idle capacity and thus actually ^improve^ the
plants' efficiency. When it comes to emissions, EVs are as close to true
zero as you can get (except for a bicycle).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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 ---
--- Begin Message ---
John Lussmyer wrote:
> At 04:13 PM 1/20/2003 -0700, Peter VanDerWal stated:
> >punched some rough numbers into Uve's calculator and figured
that a 5%
> >incline at 50 mph would require about 110kw (and a 5% grade is
not even
> >particularly steep).
>
> I consider a 5% grade to be pretty damn steep. Steep enough
for the Hwy
> dept to put up warning signs, and for big trucks to come down
to a
> crawl. It is extremely rare to find a hill like that on a
freeway, and
> pretty rare elsewhere.
They exist, and there are probably at least a few on the
interstate system over 5%. My favorite is the one west of Denver
on I-70, going up into the Rockies. My impression is it's like a
7% grade, and the speed limit is 65mph. Going from about 5800ft
elev up to 7000ft or so in one pretty quick swoop, and then there
are some more uphills a few more miles down, 'er up the road.
There are also some steep grades (probably close to 7%) on I-70
closer to the Continental Divide, near the Eisenhower Tunnel at
about 11,000ft elev. I used to take I-70 up into the mountains a
lot when I lived in Denver from the 1960s through the 1980s. I
moved out to the Bay Area, CA in 1989, and as a result I don't do
it so much anymore, and my memories of the grade percentages are
starting to get a little fuzzy. But when my mom moved out from
Denver to here in 2000, I drove her out, and I had my altimeter
watch by then, and we were gaining about 320ft/min on the first
uphill stretch on I-70 in her Saturn at 55-60mph. That works out
to about 6.5-7.0%. The trucks certainly do crawl on the ascents.
By the way, you have to be able to haul your rig down on the
descent. There are lots of warning signs on I-70 going down into
Denver, and I remember reading about the truck wipeouts at
Deadman's Curve... I've seen trucks pouring smoke out of their
brakes near Vail Pass, CO. Smells awful. Some serious regen
would be nice for downhills. How about the steep grade on I-80
going west out of Reno and Verdi, NV and up near Donner Pass in t
he Sierras? These grades are all over the place if you do any
driving near mountains. Why, we've even got one that's probably
a good 5% right here in Marin on Hi101 southbound onto the Golden
Gate Bridge, known as the Waldo Grade.
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> > >The new Zap car...completely electric. The company that
> > >makes it says it's the vehicle to drive us to a more energy
> > >efficient future. Zap is a San Francisco company with an
> > >eye on the environment. Its name stands for 'zero air
> > >pollution.' According to the company, its new battery lets
> > >you go anywhere at a decent speed for about a penny per
> > >mile. "In a vehicle like (the Zap car), the car can go 240
> > >miles on a single charge, at 70 miles per hour," says Zap
> > >CEO Steve Schneider.
> > >
>
> > 240 miles at 70 mph on a charge? I'm thinking that would
require about
> > 100-200 kwh. I haven't seen a battery pack that can store
that much charge.
>
> If you read what they are claiming it only needs to hold about
20 kwh.
> They are claiming only a penny a mile. That means 240 miles
only costs
> $2.40 in electricity. Assuming $0.10 per KWH, that works out to
> something less than 24 kwh (charging losses).
>
> Of course the real fun comes when you figure out that that
means they
> claim they can go 70 mph using about 100 watts of power FROM
THE OUTLET
> (pegs my BS meter)
Am I about to pull a good blooper here or what? Don't understand
where you get 100W, or maybe I don't understand how you are using
it. By my calc, if we assume this vehicle takes 24kWh to go this
240 miles (which math I understand, and it seems reasonable), and
traveling 240 miles at 70 mph takes 3.4 hours, then we get a
power output for 70mph of:
24kwh / 3.4 hours = 7.1kW, NOT 0.1kW.
7.1kW seems like a perfectly reasonable power output for a small
efficient car going 70mph. So what did I miss? NOT that I buy
that this vehicle is anything more than vaporware...
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, but my boat is a 17' x 7' and holds 8 with the family and I go from
10am to 8pm usually on Smith Mountain Lake (500 miles of shoreline). The
aluminum (for fuel efficiency) boat goes 45mph with a 115 V4
Johnson-Evinrude. It's about 40 miles from the put in place near Roanoke to
Bridgwater Marina where we stop for lunch usually and then ski over to
"Gilligan's Island" where little Ben (my 4-year old) likes to play in the
sand. Then we usually ski over to the Dam about another 35 miles for some
afternoon skiing around some islands & coves and back past the State Park
Beach (where we sometimes stop to meet friends etc) and then back up Roanoke
River to the Hardy put-in point. The boat shown looks like it wouldn't hold
very many people though and not sure if it would have a 150 mile range
though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Electric Boat
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 06:28, Mark Hanson wrote:
> > > What is the recepe' for water skiing behind an electric boat (batts,
motor,
> > > boat type)? I H2o ski behind a gasser but would like it to be electric
but
> > > can't figure out how to get more than a few minutes run time in
electric
> > > mode at 20mph pulling a skier.
> >
> > A couple minutes at 20 mph pulling a skier sounds pretty repectable.
> >
> Would something like this work?
>
> http://www.metricmind.com/boat.htm
>
> Victor
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chuck,
Running the numbers:
240 miles @ 100wpm (extremely efficient, like an EV1) at 70mph
24kwh pack is required - which is doable
most production EVs, like Honda EV+ and Toyota RAV4 EV, have about 30kwh
packs
most production EVs, like Honda EV+ and Toyota RAV4 EV, get maybe 250-300wpm
driving
so most production EVs, like Honda EV+ and Toyota RAV4 EV, have a range 100
miles (30,000wh/300wpm).
these example EVs use NiMH batteries, which don't have quite as high an
energy density as LiIon batteries.
So, by having a smaller and lighter pack (24kwh vs 30kwh - 450lb vs
800-900lb of batteries).
The LiIon pack, if made of TS-LP8581A 100ah cells, requires about 68 cells
(= 17 14v batteries if based on nominal voltage of 3.5v per cell) at 6.6lb
each.
The NiMH packs are based on the production EVs. Honda had 24*90ah*12v =
26kwh nominal pack. Toyota has 24*99ah*12v = 28.5kwh nominal pack.
The challenge is getting a vehicle refined and streamlined to provide 100wpm
efficiency at freeway speed. From the news reports from the LV convention,
the promo was being implied to a NEV driving around the exhibits. Still find
efficient energy usage is a major challenge. I don't know the real numbers
with the EV1, but Sparrows can average 150wpm for a small one-person EV at
freeway speed, once you get up to that speed.
This all looks doable on paper. The challege will be how they put this into
production. Especially with the batteries come down in pricing. Currently,
if 10 cars were built, the pack would cost (at pricing from Thunder-Sky)
would be $9,200. For 150 vehicles, the pack price comes down to $7,000.
Still Zap would need to have a better quantity break to reduce the price
down to $5,000 or less to make a viable margin for vehicle production (some
room for the other componients, electronics and profit).
Battery performance doesn't factor in 20% reserve (only operating to 80%
DOD) or other rounding factors - rough calculations.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Hursch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> > >The new Zap car...completely electric. The company that
> > >makes it says it's the vehicle to drive us to a more energy
> > >efficient future. Zap is a San Francisco company with an
> > >eye on the environment. Its name stands for 'zero air
> > >pollution.' According to the company, its new battery lets
> > >you go anywhere at a decent speed for about a penny per
> > >mile. "In a vehicle like (the Zap car), the car can go 240
> > >miles on a single charge, at 70 miles per hour," says Zap
> > >CEO Steve Schneider.
> > >
>
> > 240 miles at 70 mph on a charge? I'm thinking that would
require about
> > 100-200 kwh. I haven't seen a battery pack that can store
that much charge.
>
> If you read what they are claiming it only needs to hold about
20 kwh.
> They are claiming only a penny a mile. That means 240 miles
only costs
> $2.40 in electricity. Assuming $0.10 per KWH, that works out to
> something less than 24 kwh (charging losses).
>
> Of course the real fun comes when you figure out that that
means they
> claim they can go 70 mph using about 100 watts of power FROM
THE OUTLET
> (pegs my BS meter)
Am I about to pull a good blooper here or what? Don't understand
where you get 100W, or maybe I don't understand how you are using
it. By my calc, if we assume this vehicle takes 24kWh to go this
240 miles (which math I understand, and it seems reasonable), and
traveling 240 miles at 70 mph takes 3.4 hours, then we get a
power output for 70mph of:
24kwh / 3.4 hours = 7.1kW, NOT 0.1kW.
7.1kW seems like a perfectly reasonable power output for a small
efficient car going 70mph. So what did I miss? NOT that I buy
that this vehicle is anything more than vaporware...
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John Lussmyer wrote:
> The one thing you don't mention is that the DC setup doesn't
> have regen,
> but the AC does. Of course I'm still not sure if regen is
> worth that much.
Hi John,
I know very little about heavy-duty hauling. It seems to me, though,
that regen would be very important in a heavy vehicle with no
compression braking. It might be worth investigating whether operating
a heavy truck without compression braking or regen is even legal. The
laws requiring trucks to descend hills in gear are based on the
supposition that compression braking is present.
This is not to say that AC is required. If it was me and I was leaning
toward DC, I would probably plan on including a generator solely for
regen (since most available DC traction systems don't handle regen
well), or consider a dual sepex system from Randy at Canadian Electric
Vehicles http://www.islandnet.com/~canev/. It's only 96 V, but I've
read that if properly implemented in can perform like 144+ V systems.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Anybody who is interested in this thread needs to visit www.elec-trak.org
All of the answers were worked out 30 years ago!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy LeMeur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EV talk/lawn mowers (battery electric landscaping)
>
>
> Steve Clunn wrote:
>
> > > But, why not just use one of the commercially available electrics?
> >
> >My point was not that I wanted to convert my mower to
> electric but that I
> >understood why people Don't convert/buy electric cars even
> though I have
> >three EV's and believe in them i do run a gas mower . . Yes
> I know I
> >should
> >do something . I
> >could at least switch to LP gas for starters . . after 20
> years i have
> >things runing
> >like a well oiled clock and just don't want any
> problems(sounds like joe 6
> >pack). I am in and out in 20 min . Switching to a small
> electric mower
> >that
> >might take 2 hours to do the same work is not to appealing
> (I sound just
> >like "them " now). I did get a smaller fuel eff engine
> and it uses 1/2
> >the gas that the old engine did (patting myself on that back
> for making a
> >small small change, just like them) . I'm also hoping to
> get out of the
> >lawn bis and into the EV conversion bis any minute now :-)
> ( more excuses
> >just like them) ..
>
>
> After almost mentioning this quite a few times, Steve's
> posting here about
> hauling around two-stroke weed wackers (and other ICEs) to do
> lawncare/landscaping with an EV has motivated me to finally
> bring up a long
> held idea of having an electric lawncare/landscaping business.
>
> Yes... the initial expense and engineering of a workable
> system would be
> substantial, but could certainly be done with a little
> effort, especially
> with a one person/one machine at a time type of operation.
>
> Just think of the marketing hype! --
>
> *Clean and quiet and pollution free machines minimally affect
> the customer's
> environment.
>
> * No smoke, no fumes, no burning of fossil fuels required to
> cut da grass!
>
> *I would bet many would be willing to pay extra for this type
> of service.
>
> You could adapt all the required machines to do this with a
> little planning:
>
> Lawn Tractor, blower, string trimmer, hedge cutter, and push
> mower. ( may
> have to go with corded AC on some of these to save $)
>
> Have all the battery operated devices run at the same voltage
> for easy dump
> charging from support vehicle pack.
>
> OK... example support vehicle, (one drawback of this system
> is that you
> would probably want to pull it with an ICE powered truck for
> many reasons
> including _foremost_ weight, and the ability to recharge
> while driving from
> job to job, might be doable in flat Florida with EV tow rig
> if you can plug
> into most customers grid power and charge main pack while working)
>
> Something like this support vehicle to haul, power, and
> recharge equipment:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/trailerpage.html
> Some more good pics of the same setup with no technical pics:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/mmsolfest.html
> (OK... could be smaller)
>
> These are just pictures with no descriptions but a picture is worth a
> thousand words. Yes... you could save a bunch of money not
> having the PV on
> the roof, but the marketing possibilities may make this type
> of option pay
> for itself (solar powered! :^D)
> Take a look at the large versions of pic 3 and 4 on the first
> page showing
> the battery pack and inverter panel, you could do remote
> locations with no
> grid hookup! (Given that you go in fully charged)
>
> Using a lawn tractor and other battery powered equipment that
> can be dump
> charged from the main pack (24 or 48V, RE standards, w/Trace
> type inverters)
> could shore make for a quick turnaround between jobs :)
>
> I can think of many environmentally aware communities around
> the country
> which could be a good starting place for this. Plugging into
> the customer's
> 20A 120V service should be no problem with a semi-aware
> customer. (costs
> them a few cents while you are there)
>
> You could start small, an electric lawn tractor, corded
> wacker and blower
> could get cha goin'.
>
> If you can make the whole mess including tow vehicle battery
> electric,
> well... that should surely wow the crowd :^D
>
>
> OK everybody.... tell me why this won't work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roy LeMeur Seattle WA
>
> My Electric Vehicle Pages:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html
>
> Informational Electric Vehicle Links:
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > Of course the real fun comes when you figure out that that
> means they
> > claim they can go 70 mph using about 100 watts of power FROM
> THE OUTLET
> > (pegs my BS meter)
>
> Am I about to pull a good blooper here or what? Don't understand
> where you get 100W, or maybe I don't understand how you are using
> it. By my calc, if we assume this vehicle takes 24kWh to go this
> 240 miles (which math I understand, and it seems reasonable), and
> traveling 240 miles at 70 mph takes 3.4 hours, then we get a
> power output for 70mph of:
>
> 24kwh / 3.4 hours = 7.1kW, NOT 0.1kW.
>
> 7.1kW seems like a perfectly reasonable power output for a small
> efficient car going 70mph. So what did I miss? NOT that I buy
> that this vehicle is anything more than vaporware...
Sorry, I meant to say 100Wh not 100W, and FWIW 7KW to go 70mph is
incredibly efficient. The average vehicle requires 10kw (from the
batteries) to go a mere 50 mph.
Heck even the EV1 (currently the most efficient production vehicle in
the world IIRC) can't go 70 mph on only 7kw. And that's talking from
the batteries NOT from the outlet.
>
> Chuck Hursch
> Larkspur, CA
> NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
> www.geocities.com/nbeaa
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
>
--
EVDL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 06:17, Mark Hanson wrote:
> Yes, but my boat is a 17' x 7' and holds 8 with the family and I go from
> 10am to 8pm usually on Smith Mountain Lake (500 miles of shoreline). The
> aluminum (for fuel efficiency) boat goes 45mph with a 115 V4
> Johnson-Evinrude. It's about 40 miles from the put in place near Roanoke to
> Bridgwater Marina where we stop for lunch usually and then ski over to
> "Gilligan's Island" where little Ben (my 4-year old) likes to play in the
> sand. Then we usually ski over to the Dam about another 35 miles for some
> afternoon skiing around some islands & coves and back past the State Park
> Beach (where we sometimes stop to meet friends etc) and then back up Roanoke
> River to the Hardy put-in point. The boat shown looks like it wouldn't hold
> very many people though and not sure if it would have a 150 mile range
> though.
An electric boat that meets all of those requirements is currently
impossible.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> Wouldn't the trailer and load add a bunch of aerodynamic drag?
> Also, a 1000lb tongue weight is a significant payload consideration.
>
> --
> John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
> http://www.CasaDelGato.Com
>
Not necessarily, I once towed a Ford Aerostar onboard a U-Haul double-axle
car trailer behind my '94 1/2 ton Silverado. My highway mileage IMPROVED!
during that trip.
Stay Charged!
Hump
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone out there have a source for Baby optima YT's? My boss saw the
picture of the one in The Blue Meanie and he wants to get one for some
custom work he is doing to his Miata. I can't seem to find anyplace locally
or on the web that sells them.
Thanks.
James
James F. Jarrett
Information Systems Associate
Charlotte Country Day School
(704)943-4562
f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 08:33, James Jarrett wrote:
> Does anyone out there have a source for Baby optima YT's? My boss saw the
> picture of the one in The Blue Meanie and he wants to get one for some
> custom work he is doing to his Miata. I can't seem to find anyplace locally
> or on the web that sells them.
>
There is no source for Baby YTs.
Optima developed them for a series of hybrid vehicle experiments
(commissioned by the government IIRC). The only ones in existence are
the few that survived those experiments.
FWIW you can build something similar using six Hawker Cyclons. J Cells
for a 12.5Ah capacity, or BC cells for a 25Ah capacity.
http://www.hepi.com/scprod.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 09:56 AM 1/21/2003 -0500, Chris Tromley stated:
I know very little about heavy-duty hauling. It seems to me, though,
that regen would be very important in a heavy vehicle with no
compression braking. It might be worth investigating whether operating
a heavy truck without compression braking or regen is even legal. The
laws requiring trucks to descend hills in gear are based on the
supposition that compression braking is present.
Remember that we are talking about a pickup truck, which isn't "Heavy Duty
Hauling" by any means. 6,000 lb truck + 10,000 lb trailer isn't
much. It's a normal pickup truck duty. No air brakes or compression
brakes needed.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.Com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From�:� "Kevin Coughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> � To�:�
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> �
Subject�: Re: Truck (im)possibility �
Date�:� Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:00:55 -0800 �
�
<snip>
However, this sounds like something that might be a good test of the
homebrew pickup hybrid..... Get a 4wd with small ICE - leave it connected
up
front, and yank the driveshaft and pop a nice high RPM ac motor into the
differential on the back. Drive electric when you can with the ice in
neutral, drive gas (and charge your pack with regen) for longer trips, and
use both when hauling your trailer and the little motor can't do it all.
You
would not need as much battery either, since you would have other options
for longer range when necessary.
Using the front differential with the ICE involves leaving the transfer case
in, reducing efficiency (and increasing weight.) I would rather yank the
transfer case and connect the tranny directly to the rear wheels. (Plus,
having the regen on the front wheels would help keep the truck from swapping
ends.)
For a pure EV, my '85 F250 (now traded in for a more efficient Ranger) was
5,010 pounds and had an 8,800 pound GVWR. If I stripped out the 460 (800+
pounds), the full gas tanks it was tared with (60 pounds plus 320 pounds of
fuel), replaced the full-size steel spare (20 pounds saved), downsized the
bed from 8 feet to 6 feet (50+ pounds), dumped the exhaust system (100
pounds), A/C equipment and starting battery (60 pounds), I could
theoretically get it down to about 3,600 pounds without any problems. (I
could also go lighter on the tranny, but the granny first gear I had would
be great for helping an underpowered ICE start off from a stop.)
The other issue is, of course, charging. If you plan to do daily driving to
any significant DOD, make sure you have a PFC-50 on hand. :-)
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 21 Jan 2003 at 1:59, Chuck Hursch wrote:
> 24kWh to go this
> 240 miles
That'd be a pretty efficient EV. My Solectria is about as good a watt-
sipper as you're likely to find, and it uses 150-200 Wh/mile at around 45
mph with careful driving. To go 240 miles on a charge, I'd need 36kWh, and
that wouldn't be at any 70mph. At that speed figure at least twice that
number.
Still, Solectria managed range like this with the Sunrise. Anyone know how
much NiMH capacity they carried onboard?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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 ---
--- Begin Message ---
If it is the car they had at the Detroit auto show (in the lower level
vendor area) the thing was huge front to back, almost like a limo. It
could have been carrying a bunch of batteries. It was pretty
aerodynamic looking and the *fact sheet* listed it as the fastest and
longest range EV (hoping i remembered that correctly.) Anybody else at
the auto show go downstairs and see this ?
Bobby
(future ev'er)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Roden
> (Akron OH USA)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EVLN(ZAP car: 240 miles on a single charge at 70 mph)
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2003 at 1:59, Chuck Hursch wrote:
>
> > 24kWh to go this
> > 240 miles
>
> That'd be a pretty efficient EV. My Solectria is about as
> good a watt-
> sipper as you're likely to find, and it uses 150-200 Wh/mile
> at around 45
> mph with careful driving. To go 240 miles on a charge, I'd
> need 36kWh, and
> that wouldn't be at any 70mph. At that speed figure at least
> twice that
> number.
>
> Still, Solectria managed range like this with the Sunrise.
> Anyone know how
> much NiMH capacity they carried onboard?
>
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> 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 ---
