EV Digest 2592
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Question about Curtis 1221 with ADC 9"
by "Sell, Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Battery Management and Regulators
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: OT: Metal suppliers
by "john kangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Current Eliminator News
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) Re: Question about Curtis 1221 with ADC 9"
by Electro Automotive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Remove
by "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Battery Management and Regulators
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) TEVan controller/charger assemblies
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) [Fwd: Re: Battery Management and Regulators]
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Question about Curtis 1221 with ADC 9"
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: [Fwd: Re: Battery Management and Regulators]
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: [Fwd: Re: Battery Management and Regulators]
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Nasty Todd Chargers
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: [Fwd: Re: Battery Management and Regulators]
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Sunrace charging strategy
by Lesley Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) OT Proposed Solar Tax
by Daniel J Rivest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Sunrace charging strategy
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I've got a VW conversion that I'm working on.
It wasn't working when I bought it. The
batteries were in pretty bad shape, so I'm
hoping they simply need to be replaced.
I also have a Curtis 1221 controller. Is there
a simple way for me to test the controller, without
the batteries, to see if it is ok?
Thanks,
....Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Coate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 11:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Question about Curtis 1221 with ADC 9"
If memory serves, the 1221 is 400 amps maximum, the 1231 is 550 amps
max. I think the "B" and "C" refers to the switching frequency
revisions. At the least, he should switch to a 1231. I feel that the
1231 is still undersized and would suggest a DCP (if can find one) or
the soon-to-be baby Zillas.
The original owner/convertor of my truck started with a 1221 at 120
volts and a 9" ADC; he upgraded to the 1231 when Curtis came out with
that model. I let the smoke out of the 1231 and put in a DCP and have
been fine ever since. Even a gentle start with the heavy truck can pull
peaks of 600-700 amps on the motor side, which means that the Curtis was
regularly maxing out which probably didn't help its life span any.
David (Battery Boy) Hawkins wrote:
> I'm helping a local EV'er, not on this list, with his 120VDC Toyota truck
> conversion that he had bought used. After he put batteries in and drove it
> for a number of months, it recently left him stranded with an EV frown! I
> just diagnosed that he has a dead Curtis 1221C, so he is thinking about
> buying a used 1221B from another local EV'er to replace it. I had heard,
> and I think Peter mentioned this recently on the list, that the 1221 is too
> small for the 9". Does anyone know if this is model specific, like the "B"
> might be better, or should he switch to a 1231? His truck is an early
> standard cab, and a lot lighter than mine, and I had to switch from a 1231
> to a H2O cooled Raptor because the 1231 was overheating, even after adding
> a larger heat sink. I think he experienced a thermal cutback one day last
> summer, but otherwise the 1221C has been trouble free. Also, his controller
> is mounted directly behind the cab in a utility box (on a large heat sink),
> which I've heard can help with the mismatch when used with the 9" motor, in
> that the longer cables add inductance.
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S10
1970's Elec-Trak
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill, I may not agree with your maths, but I definitely agree on the BMS.
Hands up who's planning to use a BMS for their Li-Ion batteries.
hint i'm typing this line one handed
Not only that, I'm still looking for 3.6V battery regulators, so I can fully charge
the whole pack in series without overcharging individual cells. (ok, so they might be
4.1 or 4.2V, but you know what I mean)
I'm going to be spending a lot of money on these batteries, and I have no intention of
putting them in preventable danger.
(I can prevent over and under charge - I can prevent overheating - stuff like that)
So, does anyone know where I can get my hands on plans, kits, or actual devices to
regulate the voltage on 3.6V Li-Ions, similar to the Rudman Regulators
http://www.manzanitamicro.com/parts.htm ?
(Rich, you wouldn't be interested in doing a Li-Ion version?)
As for something to prevent or alert to extreme cell conditions, there is the offering
from Worley http://www.worley.com.au/wecs/cp.html - does anyone know of anything else
out there?
I'm actually considering building my own (busy getting myself clued up on PICs and A/D
converters and stuff...)
I think it's time to stop the FUD about how we're going to kill our expensive
batteries by neglecting them, and start talking about the best way to monitor and
protect them to give the longest life.
There's a lot of knowledge and experience subscribed to this list. Though most of it
is geared towards 6/12V lead acids, many of the concepts are applicable to all
batteries. I know that you are trying to stop us making expensive mistakes, and I
appreciate that. However, we are still going ahead with our plans, and we could really
use your help.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 16 February 2003 5:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Battery Management (was: Money talk.......)
>
>b.t.w. failure rate for 30 x 5% is (1 - (0.95 ^ 30)) = 0.78536... = 79%,
>not %150.
You have to view it as how many cells will fail within the
warranty period. If only one cell fails, the pack is dead (or on fire.) As
the pack grows, the odds of a cell failing increase. If 5% of the three
cell packs fail, then 1 pack in 20 will fail, then one cell in 60 will
fail. If you have 90 cell packs, EVERY pack will fail within the warranty
period.
It's worse than that. This assumes that you are regulating each
three-cell group! With no regulation, there is no hope whatsoever.
Regardless of how you work the math, it is very likely that you
will ruin very expensive cells without a BMS.
>We can all talk about the benefits and problems of new technology until we
>are blue in the face, extrapolating from completely unrelated situations
>to suit whichever argument we are making, but it all means nothing until
>someone actually puts it in their car and tries it out.
>
>
>That's what we need to do. Try it out. Discover the real problems. Work
>out solutions.
Needlessly toasting expensive Li-Ion packs does no one any good.
Conversely, figuring out how to make these packs last and be economically
viable serves the entire community. Experience has shown that a BMS is
REQUIRED to make these packs survive. The best approach to a successful
application of Li-Ion cells to EVs is to figure out how to make a clever
and inexpensive BMS, not to ignore the requirement and ruin a bunch of cells.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Keith Richtman wrote:
I have marked this as off topic, but could easily argue it is on. I am
looking for some material for the NDSU solar car which is a BEV. Anyway,
our rear suspension is a trailing arm setup welded out of 4130 Steel sheet
(.048). The arms pivot on 2.93" ID bearings so we need 3" OD tube for the
pivots. Wall thickness is not important as we can turn it down. I have
been unable to find 3" OD tube and solid bar is far too expensive. Anyone
know of any suppliers I should look into?
You might try The Metal Source
11 Forbes Rd., Woburn, MA 01801
Tel: 781-932-0482
http://www.admiralmetals.com/metal_distributors.htm
They are geared towards the small-time builder/hobbiest and ship UPS. But
for something less common like this it is a matter of luck as to what they
have at the time.
There's also:
http://www.onlinemetals.com/
"Specialists in small quantities", they've got your tube. 4130 is available,
but if you can get away with another alloy, that could save 90%. Lots of
other material, too, and most of it's pretty reasonable.
John Kangas
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S10
1970's Elec-Trak
http://www.eeevee.com
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Another saturday at Speedworld in Pho.The Current Eliminator went quicker and
faster today but it took the last run of the day for it to happen.I did a
gear ratio change that went the wrong way.So next weekend it will go back to
what I had last weekend.I did however let the brushes move away from close to
netural at the starting line to a more advanced position at the finish
line.Results were amazing,nearly .42sec. better off the line with a great
increase in mph at the far end.Motor amps nearly doubled the last eight
mile.It will take many more runs down the track to dial in this brush moving
system but the results are very promising.I still have 4 power supplys in the
pack that are weak,so I have yet to lean on this low voltage pack.Oh what fun
this is. Come on George an
Net Gain/Warp Motors/Nasa/Warfield motors Bring your Car Show Best enginered
electric dragster,New Record Holder to Vegas.......Go faster an quicker and I
will pay your way... nedra....... OUTLAW Dennis KILL A WATT Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 11:05 AM 2/15/03 -0700, you wrote:
All,
I'm helping a local EV'er, not on this list, with his 120VDC Toyota truck
conversion that he had bought used. After he put batteries in and drove it
for a number of months, it recently left him stranded with an EV frown! I
just diagnosed that he has a dead Curtis 1221C, so he is thinking about
buying a used 1221B from another local EV'er to replace it. I had heard,
and I think Peter mentioned this recently on the list, that the 1221 is too
small for the 9". Does anyone know if this is model specific, like the "B"
might be better, or should he switch to a 1231? His truck is an early
standard cab, and a lot lighter than mine, and I had to switch from a 1231
to a H2O cooled Raptor because the 1231 was overheating, even after adding
a larger heat sink. I think he experienced a thermal cutback one day last
summer, but otherwise the 1221C has been trouble free. Also, his controller
is mounted directly behind the cab in a utility box (on a large heat sink),
which I've heard can help with the mismatch when used with the 9" motor, in
that the longer cables add inductance.
Multiple issues here. The 1221 and the 9" motor are not necessarily a
mismatch, depending on application. However, in something like a pickup,
the 1231 would definitely be better.
The "C" models were brought out because at one time Solar Car Corp in
Florida was using 1221Bs with 9" motors in S10 pickups, and drivers were
starting up without using the clutch. The combination was too much for the
B version. The C model switches at a lower frequency at very low start up
speeds, eliminating the deadly stress on the controller.
The short answer for your guy is, go 1231.
The other part is that he has it inside a utility box. It MUST have
airflow across the BOTTOM to heatsink properly. If necessary, duct forced
air to it.
Mike Brown
Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113 Telephone 831-429-1989
http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos * Since 1979
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for all the good times
I have too much in my inbox
Thanks Chad
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark;
The existing Mk 2 regs won't work at less than 6 volts. There are
modifications that we can make to make it work for LiIon.
If you are interested, I can assemble a few modification kits with
instructions to change the Mk 2 reg to work with LiIon.
If it works properly, they should be added to the Manzanita product line.
The cost to buy the LiIon units should be the same as the lead acid
versions.
Contact me off (or on) list with your requirements.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: Battery Management and Regulators
> Bill, I may not agree with your maths, but I definitely agree on the BMS.
>
> Hands up who's planning to use a BMS for their Li-Ion batteries.
> hint i'm typing this line one handed
>
> Not only that, I'm still looking for 3.6V battery regulators, so I can
fully charge the whole pack in series without overcharging individual cells.
(ok, so they might be 4.1 or 4.2V, but you know what I mean)
>
> I'm going to be spending a lot of money on these batteries, and I have no
intention of putting them in preventable danger.
> (I can prevent over and under charge - I can prevent overheating - stuff
like that)
>
> So, does anyone know where I can get my hands on plans, kits, or actual
devices to regulate the voltage on 3.6V Li-Ions, similar to the Rudman
Regulators http://www.manzanitamicro.com/parts.htm ?
> (Rich, you wouldn't be interested in doing a Li-Ion version?)
>
> As for something to prevent or alert to extreme cell conditions, there is
the offering from Worley http://www.worley.com.au/wecs/cp.html - does anyone
know of anything else out there?
> I'm actually considering building my own (busy getting myself clued up on
PICs and A/D converters and stuff...)
>
> I think it's time to stop the FUD about how we're going to kill our
expensive batteries by neglecting them, and start talking about the best way
to monitor and protect them to give the longest life.
>
> There's a lot of knowledge and experience subscribed to this list. Though
most of it is geared towards 6/12V lead acids, many of the concepts are
applicable to all batteries. I know that you are trying to stop us making
expensive mistakes, and I appreciate that. However, we are still going ahead
with our plans, and we could really use your help.
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, 16 February 2003 5:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Battery Management (was: Money talk.......)
>
>
>
> >
> >b.t.w. failure rate for 30 x 5% is (1 - (0.95 ^ 30)) = 0.78536... = 79%,
> >not %150.
>
> You have to view it as how many cells will fail within the
> warranty period. If only one cell fails, the pack is dead (or on fire.) As
> the pack grows, the odds of a cell failing increase. If 5% of the three
> cell packs fail, then 1 pack in 20 will fail, then one cell in 60 will
> fail. If you have 90 cell packs, EVERY pack will fail within the warranty
> period.
>
> It's worse than that. This assumes that you are regulating each
> three-cell group! With no regulation, there is no hope whatsoever.
>
> Regardless of how you work the math, it is very likely that you
> will ruin very expensive cells without a BMS.
>
> >We can all talk about the benefits and problems of new technology until
we
> >are blue in the face, extrapolating from completely unrelated situations
> >to suit whichever argument we are making, but it all means nothing until
> >someone actually puts it in their car and tries it out.
> >
> >
> >That's what we need to do. Try it out. Discover the real problems. Work
> >out solutions.
>
> Needlessly toasting expensive Li-Ion packs does no one any good.
> Conversely, figuring out how to make these packs last and be economically
> viable serves the entire community. Experience has shown that a BMS is
> REQUIRED to make these packs survive. The best approach to a successful
> application of Li-Ion cells to EVs is to figure out how to make a clever
> and inexpensive BMS, not to ignore the requirement and ruin a bunch of
cells.
>
>
> _ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
> \'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> =(___)=
> U
> Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folks,
Anyone have any idea where one might turn up a functional TEVan
controller/charger assembly? The other night I was talking to the owner of
one of these vans who needs one very badly. His van has been down since
September and he would really like to get it on the road. He has been
working with Rod Hower on this, but apparently this one may be unrepairable.
Wasn't there someone who mentioned stripping a TEVan for parts some time back?
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Battery Management and Regulators
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:42:28 -0800
From: Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me make this clear... If this is just a custom load of a Mk2 Rudman
Reg, It
will be available next week.
Yea that fast, I have 100s of PCBs on hand and pretty good stock of
most
items.
If there are a few custom %1 items they can be in hand in a couple of
days.
We still need to find out how well they do work.
I have been playing with Regs for most of the afternoon. I got the Low
Batt real
time to work all the way back into the charger. If you can see your PFC
charger
I can give you REAL time low batt. AKA a "LIFT Stupid!!!" LED
It works well as Mark Dodrill can attest. I got a string of 10 Mk2 regs
all
working and tested and configured for HOT Reg cut back operations.
Joe is pretty sure we can have the Mk2 circuit work down below about 2.5
volts.
We don't know what is considered to be a LOW voltage condition on a
given
Lithium battery. We know from Victor and others that 4.200 should be the
limit
for charging a Li battery. We don't know where it drops off the voltage
cliff
and is considered depleted.
We also don't know how low we can still drive the Regbuss Optos to.
So...We should have Reg driven charger cut back, but I don't know if we
can have a valid Low Batt signal When the Li battery is less than 2.5
volts.
I think that there are lithium problems on both over voltage, and sever
under voltage events. Mk2 Rudman Regs become ever so much more useful
when you can transmit both errors back out of the Battery string for
Charger and Controller Action.
The Low batt Real time signal, was designed in, for controlling DCP
controllers, Years ago. With Sparrows in mind.....
In the current light of the BMS thread... A Lot is happening, I am
building RegBuss control and support one PFC charger at a time, and
Otmar is building his from the controller side. Expect a Rudman MK3??
regulator to be reasonably compatible with a Otmar XXXX? addressable
battery widget.
This is how infrastructure starts, competitors and friends talking
about the same issues, heading towards a common goal.
For right now the Mk2s should be able to do the cell by cell voltage
regulation. The RegBuss allows a single battery to halt a PFC driven
over charge event. These are Feature 1 and Feature 2.
Oh yea the cost for the Li ready Mk2s will be the same as for the 12
volt Lead Acid Regs. Same thing, different value parts.
Can somebody answer the what the Low voltage threshold for a single Lion
battery is???
Mark, I am doing just what you said you needed, as fast as we can.
Plans??? have PCBs and schematics, and part lists. And hopefully fully
loaded hardware very soon.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
Joe Smalley wrote:
> Mark;
>
> The existing Mk 2 regs won't work at less than 6 volts. There are
> modifications that we can make to make it work for LiIon.
>
> If you are interested, I can assemble a few modification kits with
> instructions to change the Mk 2 reg to work with LiIon.
>
> If it works properly, they should be added to the Manzanita product line.
> The cost to buy the LiIon units should be the same as the lead acid
> versions.
>
> Contact me off (or on) list with your requirements.
>
> Joe Smalley
> Rural Kitsap County WA
> Fiesta 48 volts
> NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Battery Management and Regulators
>
> > Bill, I may not agree with your maths, but I definitely agree on the BMS.
> >
> > Hands up who's planning to use a BMS for their Li-Ion batteries.
> > hint i'm typing this line one handed
> >
> > Not only that, I'm still looking for 3.6V battery regulators, so I can
> fully charge the whole pack in series without overcharging individual cells.
> (ok, so they might be 4.1 or 4.2V, but you know what I mean)
> >
> > I'm going to be spending a lot of money on these batteries, and I have no
> intention of putting them in preventable danger.
> > (I can prevent over and under charge - I can prevent overheating - stuff
> like that)
> >
> > So, does anyone know where I can get my hands on plans, kits, or actual
> devices to regulate the voltage on 3.6V Li-Ions, similar to the Rudman
> Regulators http://www.manzanitamicro.com/parts.htm ?
> > (Rich, you wouldn't be interested in doing a Li-Ion version?)
> >
> > As for something to prevent or alert to extreme cell conditions, there is
> the offering from Worley http://www.worley.com.au/wecs/cp.html - does anyone
> know of anything else out there?
> > I'm actually considering building my own (busy getting myself clued up on
> PICs and A/D converters and stuff...)
> >
> > I think it's time to stop the FUD about how we're going to kill our
> expensive batteries by neglecting them, and start talking about the best way
> to monitor and protect them to give the longest life.
> >
> > There's a lot of knowledge and experience subscribed to this list. Though
> most of it is geared towards 6/12V lead acids, many of the concepts are
> applicable to all batteries. I know that you are trying to stop us making
> expensive mistakes, and I appreciate that. However, we are still going ahead
> with our plans, and we could really use your help.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 February 2003 5:31 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Battery Management (was: Money talk.......)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >b.t.w. failure rate for 30 x 5% is (1 - (0.95 ^ 30)) = 0.78536... = 79%,
> > >not %150.
> >
> > You have to view it as how many cells will fail within the
> > warranty period. If only one cell fails, the pack is dead (or on fire.) As
> > the pack grows, the odds of a cell failing increase. If 5% of the three
> > cell packs fail, then 1 pack in 20 will fail, then one cell in 60 will
> > fail. If you have 90 cell packs, EVERY pack will fail within the warranty
> > period.
> >
> > It's worse than that. This assumes that you are regulating each
> > three-cell group! With no regulation, there is no hope whatsoever.
> >
> > Regardless of how you work the math, it is very likely that you
> > will ruin very expensive cells without a BMS.
> >
> > >We can all talk about the benefits and problems of new technology until
> we
> > >are blue in the face, extrapolating from completely unrelated situations
> > >to suit whichever argument we are making, but it all means nothing until
> > >someone actually puts it in their car and tries it out.
> > >
> > >
> > >That's what we need to do. Try it out. Discover the real problems. Work
> > >out solutions.
> >
> > Needlessly toasting expensive Li-Ion packs does no one any good.
> > Conversely, figuring out how to make these packs last and be economically
> > viable serves the entire community. Experience has shown that a BMS is
> > REQUIRED to make these packs survive. The best approach to a successful
> > application of Li-Ion cells to EVs is to figure out how to make a clever
> > and inexpensive BMS, not to ignore the requirement and ruin a bunch of
> cells.
> >
> >
> > _ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
> > \'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > =(___)=
> > U
> > Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
> >
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Electro Automotive wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 2/15/03 -0700, you wrote:
> >All,
> >I'm helping a local EV'er, not on this list, with his 120VDC Toyota truck
> >conversion that he had bought used. After he put batteries in and drove it
> >for a number of months, it recently left him stranded with an EV frown! I
> >just diagnosed that he has a dead Curtis 1221C, so he is thinking about
> >buying a used 1221B from another local EV'er to replace it. I had heard,
> >and I think Peter mentioned this recently on the list, that the 1221 is too
> >small for the 9". Does anyone know if this is model specific, like the "B"
> >might be better, or should he switch to a 1231? His truck is an early
> >standard cab, and a lot lighter than mine, and I had to switch from a 1231
> >to a H2O cooled Raptor because the 1231 was overheating, even after adding
> >a larger heat sink. I think he experienced a thermal cutback one day last
> >summer, but otherwise the 1221C has been trouble free. Also, his controller
> >is mounted directly behind the cab in a utility box (on a large heat sink),
> >which I've heard can help with the mismatch when used with the 9" motor, in
> >that the longer cables add inductance.
>
> Multiple issues here. The 1221 and the 9" motor are not necessarily a
> mismatch, depending on application. However, in something like a pickup,
> the 1231 would definitely be better.
>
> The "C" models were brought out because at one time Solar Car Corp in
> Florida was using 1221Bs with 9" motors in S10 pickups, and drivers were
> starting up without using the clutch. The combination was too much for the
> B version. The C model switches at a lower frequency at very low start up
> speeds, eliminating the deadly stress on the controller.
>
> The short answer for your guy is, go 1231.
>
> The other part is that he has it inside a utility box. It MUST have
> airflow across the BOTTOM to heatsink properly. If necessary, duct forced
> air to it.
>
> Mike Brown
> Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113 Telephone 831-429-1989
> http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos * Since 1979
Actually Mike Any Curtis first needs the heatsink properly attached to the
controller, THEN good free airflow. Or Fan forced is still needed.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For right now the Mk2s should be able to do the cell by cell voltage
regulation. The RegBuss allows a single battery to halt a PFC driven
over charge event. These are Feature 1 and Feature 2.
Oh yea the cost for the Li ready Mk2s will be the same as for the 12
volt Lead Acid Regs. Same thing, different value parts.
Can somebody answer the what the Low voltage threshold for a single Lion
battery is???
They typically list 2.5 volts as the lower limit. You can go
slightly lower than this under load, but not open circuit. I think that
folks would be happy with 2.5 volts.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Bill thanks this is the data point I needed.
I just spent the afternoon getting a string of Regs working for a client.
He's now home and has them on the EV and now strange things are happening.
Groan!!!. Worked here!!!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >
> >For right now the Mk2s should be able to do the cell by cell voltage
> >regulation. The RegBuss allows a single battery to halt a PFC driven
> >over charge event. These are Feature 1 and Feature 2.
> >
> >Oh yea the cost for the Li ready Mk2s will be the same as for the 12
> >volt Lead Acid Regs. Same thing, different value parts.
> >
> >Can somebody answer the what the Low voltage threshold for a single Lion
> >battery is???
>
> They typically list 2.5 volts as the lower limit. You can go
> slightly lower than this under load, but not open circuit. I think that
> folks would be happy with 2.5 volts.
>
> _ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
> \'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> =(___)=
> U
> Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Sharkey,
Too bad to hear that you have gotten out of the Todd repair
business. If you are getting out, do you have wiring schematics
available for others that may need to attempt to fix theirs or
others' chargers?
I seem to have gotten lucky on the funky voltage problem that I
had with mine (a Todd PC-75). I removed the voltage knob pot and
the wiring, then shorted out the two tabs that the pot hooked up
to, so I ran at maximum voltage, and did it into no load. The
unit was very stable voltage-wise. I have since progressed to
running at various voltages under varying loads with the pot back
in, and the voltage is still very stable. I suspect I was
getting a little extra variable resistance on the tabs that the
pot's wires hook up to. It's either that, or doing the pulling
of the wires and the re-insertion that I "fixed" it, by flexing
the pot's wires or the circuit board. So I consider myself lucky
that the unit seems basically functional and in good shape.
Thanks for your suggestions! And if I have future voltage
problems, I'll just start back at square one like I did this time
and see if the unit is still basically stable w/o the pot.
I consider this post EVDL-compatible, since I'm using my Todd to
keep my 4 spare Trojan T-125s for the Yellow Banana's pack
charged up. I also have hopes of using those spares along with
an Exeltech sine-wave inverter as a super-duper UPS for my
computer. :-)
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:45 AM
Subject: Nasty Todd Chargers
> This is a cross-over request from another list that I belong
to:
>
> Does anybody know who does repairs to Todd battery chargers
(besides me?).
> I have permanently left the Todd charger repair "profession".
>
> Since beginning to repair these units, I have managed to find
only a very
> few that were an "easy repair". Most needed extensive
diagnostics and
> rebuilding. Too many of them blew up on the test bench during
full load,
> and required additional repairs at my expense, often in excess
of what they
> were sent in for. I've never managed to make any useful amounts
of money
> repairing them, and in most cases, I ended up working for less
than
> $2.00/hr. by the time packaging and shipping were figured in.
Some are
> still here, awaiting my attention while their impatient owners
shower me
> with bad vibes for not getting them back in order sooner.
>
> In all, I consider the Todds a quirky, hair-trigger design,
that is running
> on the ragged edge of self-destruction even when it is
operating properly.
> I won't miss the pressure of having a corner of my shop piled
with their
> carcasses.
>
> Despite all that there my still be someone out there who has
more patience
> than I do and could service the units that I will now be
turning away.
> Anyone up for self-abuse?
>
> -S
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 11:34 PM 2/15/03, you wrote:
Hey Bill thanks this is the data point I needed.
I just spent the afternoon getting a string of Regs working for a client.
He's now home and has them on the EV and now strange things are happening.
Groan!!!. Worked here!!!
I'll bet he has mounted them remotely and has used one wire per
battery. :^)
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
I'm interested in opinions on battery charging for the Sunrace.
(300km per day for 9-10 days - http://www.sunrace.com.au)
The rules allow us to have three lead-acid battery packs of up to
80kg each, and we can charge each pack once per day. Logistics will
be such that we can't start charging until the end of the day,
partly because we'll be driving down the road, and partly because we
might need to put a used pack back in the car after allowing it to
recover, and if we charge it first we won't be allowed to do that.
(I know, deep cycling to 100% DOD will murder the batteries, but we'll
only need to get 10-15 cycles out of them to get through the race)
Should we:
* have three chargers, one for each pack?
* hook the three packs together on one charger?
* have one fast charger and charge one pack at a time?
Does the Puekert effect come into play during charging? If so, does
that mean our preference should be to charge slowly overnight, rather
than fast charging?
Thanks for any insights.
--
Lesley Walker
Miss Informed
Wellington, New Zealand
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello:
I am going to quote some material that was published in the San Francisco
Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from an article
written by David Lazarus.
Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis real
seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power consumption
at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a $115,000
solar system on his roof.
Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E bills meant
the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he isn't sure
how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose fees on all
solar generation statewide.
The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission is
expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover the
billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling blackouts
during the last few years.
But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect than the
amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians from
pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People would be
turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would make no
financial sense to go solar"
This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in the hole
after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash strapped
utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off the debt
with sky high electricity bills.
Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of the burden
to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded recently
and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something that needs to
be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to fossil fuels.
California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the state
already says it will subsidize about half the cost of installing most
residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed Smeloff,
assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you produce solar
power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and consumers
that the state doesn't support solar."
It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions state
regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should be charged
for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own electricity.
Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid systems. The
bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large scale
utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of their own
juice.
That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2 cents and 5
cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid system, which
makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a dark cloud
over solar.
Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy Industries
Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light Company, a
Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would cost
average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings from use
of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most people, she
said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E bill by
about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it would take
for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees on solar
use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to collect.
This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new equipment
to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
"It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said. "The sun is
free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned solar
systems".
John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said the utility
is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity costs.
"It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are designed to
protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar on their
roof?
But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor which
has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its San Jose
headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized just
because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
"We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he said. "If I
do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for somebody
else's screwup?"
Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit fees
regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of solar, wind and
other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at least
something each month.
The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar users less
than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final sums have
yet to be determined.
This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to attach
new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource that the
state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
Smith of the solar business association estimated that an exemption on
exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than an
additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not exactly the
onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just a couple
of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide? Something
tells me they would.
"Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of the
problem"
Daniel
Beyond Oil
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lesley Walker wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I'm interested in opinions on battery charging for the Sunrace.
> (300km per day for 9-10 days - http://www.sunrace.com.au)
>
> The rules allow us to have three lead-acid battery packs of up to
> 80kg each, and we can charge each pack once per day. Logistics will
> be such that we can't start charging until the end of the day,
> partly because we'll be driving down the road, and partly because we
> might need to put a used pack back in the car after allowing it to
> recover, and if we charge it first we won't be allowed to do that.
> (I know, deep cycling to 100% DOD will murder the batteries, but we'll
> only need to get 10-15 cycles out of them to get through the race)
>
> Should we:
> * have three chargers, one for each pack?
> * hook the three packs together on one charger?
> * have one fast charger and charge one pack at a time?
>
> Does the Puekert effect come into play during charging? If so, does
> that mean our preference should be to charge slowly overnight, rather
> than fast charging?
>
> Thanks for any insights.
>
> --
> Lesley Walker
> Miss Informed
> Wellington, New Zealand
First a couple of questions:
What kind of power do you have??? 240 20 amp more 240 50 amp???
Also since it looks like you have Lead Acid batteries, at 80 Kg or 160
lbs. You don't have more than a few Kwhr of stored power.
Even with 3 packs hooked in paralel you won't need more than a few Kwhr
a hour charger. PFC20 sized, 2500 watts from 120 or 5Kw from 220/240.
And it looks like even at this rate you won't need more than a hour to
basicly get them full, leaving hours for equalization efforts, and float
cycles.
There is a effect of Puekert on charging, but it's very minimal, and can
be ignored. Get 'Em full keep them warm, or maybe cool if needed. Lead
acids in racing and short cycle like can take 120 Deg F to 140 Deg F. No
more or you risk thermal runaway.
Charge reasonably fast, and get them equalized!!! Then let them rest,
but maintain you desired temperature.
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Daniel J Rivest wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> I am going to quote some material that was published in the San Francisco
> Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from an article
> written by David Lazarus.
>
> Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis real
> seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power consumption
> at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a $115,000
> solar system on his roof.
>
> Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E bills meant
> the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he isn't sure
> how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose fees on all
> solar generation statewide.
>
> The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission is
> expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover the
> billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling blackouts
> during the last few years.
>
> But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect than the
> amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians from
> pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People would be
> turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would make no
> financial sense to go solar"
>
> This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in the hole
> after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash strapped
> utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off the debt
> with sky high electricity bills.
>
> Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of the burden
> to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded recently
> and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
>
> On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something that needs to
> be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
> independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to fossil fuels.
>
> California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the state
> already says it will subsidize about half the cost of installing most
> residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed Smeloff,
> assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco Public
> Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you produce solar
> power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
>
> He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and consumers
> that the state doesn't support solar."
>
> It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions state
> regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should be charged
> for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own electricity.
>
>
> Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid systems. The
> bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large scale
> utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of their own
> juice.
>
> That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2 cents and 5
> cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid system, which
> makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a dark cloud
> over solar.
>
> Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy Industries
> Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light Company, a
> Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would cost
> average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings from use
> of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most people, she
> said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E bill by
> about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it would take
> for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
>
> Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees on solar
> use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to collect.
>
> This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new equipment
> to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
>
> "It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said. "The sun is
> free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned solar
> systems".
>
> John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said the utility
> is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
> Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity costs.
>
> "It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are designed to
> protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar on their
> roof?
>
> But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor which
> has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its San Jose
> headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized just
> because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
>
> "We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he said. "If I
> do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for somebody
> else's screwup?"
>
> Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit fees
> regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of solar, wind and
> other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at least
> something each month.
>
> The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar users less
> than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final sums have
> yet to be determined.
>
> This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to attach
> new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource that the
> state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
>
> Smith of the solar business association estimated that an exemption on
> exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than an
> additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not exactly the
> onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
>
> Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just a couple
> of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide? Something
> tells me they would.
>
> "Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of the
> problem"
>
> Daniel
> Beyond Oil
You Californians need to send the bill to Enron, With interest Due.
You folks got Screwed, do the California thing and send in the lawyers!!
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
