EV Digest 2613
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Inspired Corporation's Product - Part 2 (long, but please read!)
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Inspired Corporation's Product - Part 2 (long, but please read!)
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Evercell has reached cycle 352 tonight
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: You Don't Have to Plug It In!
by Dave Navas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: You Don't Have to Plug It In!
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Tango Volume of Production Versus Cost per Unit
by Sam Uzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: You Don't Have to Plug It In!
by "Mike Pengelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by harsha godavari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: You Don't Have to Plug It In!
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Inspired Corporation's Product - Part 2 (long, but please read!)
by harsha godavari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Tango Volume of Production Versus Cost per Unit
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: question about turning a RAV4 EV into a grid-chargeable hybrid
by murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: What to look for in a battery charger?
by "Walker, Lesley R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Brush advance on Honda
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: BMS cost (was Re: LIN bus link)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Civic Hybrid Upgrade
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Battery Review [in light of recent discussion]
by Sam Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: What to look for in a battery charger?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: BMS cost (was Re: LIN bus link)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: New Product - AC Drive System
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Sam Harper wrote:
<a detailed cost analysis between an ICE and an AC/LiIon conversion>
Hi Sam,
I have to disagree on several counts. You don't want to convert an
existing car. The people on this list are familiar primarily with
conversions, and have accepted their limitations. The public will not,
at least not in great numbers. Also, conversions have by definition
been designed for something else (an ICE). That means you start out
with a compromised design. And as many of us have found in a variety of
circumstances, you're probably better off starting from scratch than
undoing something and re-doing it. I'm confident that applies to
consumer EVs. I think you'd put as much effort into development of a
purpose-built design, and end up with a better vehicle.
I also believe that if you try to ride the bleeding edge of technology
right out of the box, you're virtually guaranteed to fail. Anyone who
tries this will have their hands full just running the business. You
don't need surprises from the engineering department. You can keep it
simple and still quite effective.
And then there's the matter of cost. AC is nice, but pricey. Lithium
batteries and their necessary BMS even more so. If you want to build to
a price point that people will accept and leave you adequate profit, DC
and lead looks mighty attractive. The tZero could have been built with
a DC system. It would have kept the same level of performance, been a
little less refined and much cheaper. Get yourself established first,
then move up the technology ladder as your business grows.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
billglic wrote:
> Ok, so how many kick in the pants cars has AC Propulsion sold
> ?????????
Bill,
It's my understanding that ACP has no desire to market the tZero.
They've never tried. They don't care about selling cars, they want to
sell drive systems to the OEMs. You can't blame them. They just want
to focus on their area of expertise.
The tZero is nothing but a demo platform for their drive system, one
that's intended to grab attention. It was built with an existing kit
car body on a purpose-built (and way too complex) tube chassis. I've
stated before that performance buyers will put up with less in the way
of creature comforts, but I consider functional doors and a roof to be
rather basic.
I seem to remember reading of a tZero being sold to an individual (who
charges it with a huge PV array). That was likely a special deal, and
maybe not entirely legal.
Bottom line, if you marketed a fully certified sports car with the
performance of the tZero, that was designed for profitable production
instead of being a one-off, at around $50k, you couldn't build them fast
enough.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
billglic wrote:
> That's all well and maybe good, but what does the business
> plan tell you about a market for selling a hundred thousand
> plus EVs and not just a few hundred sports cars ?
Bill,
One thing that I've never been able to figure out is why people think a
car company *must* sell huge numbers of cars. It's like you need
$billions in capital just to get started, or it won't work.
Certainly we want to sell as many EVs as possible, but let's be real.
No one will put up the kind of money necessary to immediately make a
dent in today's ICE auto market. EVs are "unproven". The risks are too
great. Won't happen.
But there's nothing to keep a small company from putting an EV out
there. Look at the tremendous progress Rick Woodbury has made.
Certification is all that keeps him from being the first modern EV
producer that actually *wants* to produce EVs and can do a decent job of
it. If he can do it, others will follow. Hopefully someone else will
make the attempt whether he makes it or not, having learned from his
experience in the barriers to certification.
Once you make the certification investment you will certainly need some
volume to get it back. Not hundreds of thousands, just enough to keep
you profitable. Which is fine, actually. Getting the general public to
fully accept that EVs are OK, never mind a good idea, will take years.
Given the sheer enormity of the automotive market, there will be plenty
of early adopters to keep you afloat and let you grow as the market
becomes more accepting.
How many Sparrows have been sold? How many *could* they have sold? If
the Corbin management had simply listened to reason, they'd be in great
shape right now. You don't need to be huge to be profitable, and to
demonstrate that EVs really work. Once you do that, more companies will
follow.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sam Harper wrote:
> Wow, $27,500 for parts. Now granted I havent taken into
> account labor,
> and since all I want to do is break-even on these vehicles,
> profit isnt
> an issue. The point of manufacturing say, ten units, would be to get
> my feet in the water with distributors, manufacturers, and suppliers,
> to prove we can do what we say we can.
>
> Wishful thinking? Maybe. An attempt? Yup. I like hearing
> comments,
> as it helps to revise my thoughts, so please, comment away.
Sam,
If you want to do this at cost just to get a toe-hold in the market,
you'll be doing something you can't sustain. Not a good business
approach. You need a concept that will support itself.
The car you describe would have to sell for around $40k if you wanted to
make a profit. The Solectria Force was based on a humble Metro, had
more mundane batteries and sold for $35k maybe 10(?) years ago. Their
volume was in the hundreds(?), so they were able to spread the
development costs much thinner than you can.
As far as the cost analysis is concerned, it's generally accepted that
an EV costs about as much to operate as an ICE. The cost of batteries
is balanced by the savings in fuel and maintenance. But that's not the
issue. If Mr. and Ms. Public are deciding between an EV or ICE based on
cost, the ICE wins. It's a known quantity.
The purchasers of EVs tend to think of cost only as a limit to what they
can buy. They have other reasons for considering an EV. Hybrid drivers
are buying cars that perform the same as their ICE counterparts but cost
thousands more, or they need to deal with the IRS and other
bureaucracies to break even.
That's not to suggest cost is less an issue - it is a limit, so it's
very important to minimize it if you want to stay in business. You need
to build with reasonable quality as cheaply as possible - or your
business dies. If you build all this high tech and high cost into a
conversion, you end up with something similar to a Force - a $35k Metro
that happens to be electric. DC Forces would have been very nearly as
nice, and could have sold for maybe $25k. Still pricey, but a much
easier sell.
I'm not trying to throw cold water on your ideas, only to focus your
thinking. You're talking about taking a substantial risk.
The reason I want to build a sexy, high-power electric sports car is so
the high rollers in the environmentalist *and* performance demographics
will lay down their money. You must understand that any New Thing (in
the public's eye) like EVs must start with high rollers buying few
units. Cost competitiveness will only come with volume, which will only
come with market acceptance. That takes time.
Rick Woodbury is taking a clever approach that may shorten that process.
If he can get a government agency to fund a volume build right after an
initial run of only ten, we'll all win. That is, if it's handled
properly. It's a bold plan, fraught with risks for all concerned.
Politicians are notoriously risk-averse. Bureaucrats can muck up the
best-laid plans amazingly well. I hope Rick can pull it off. With
diligence and care, he just might.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Rice wrote:
>
>
> >
> Hi Rich;
>
> Thanks for the update. I guess Sheer will drive it when he gets back??
> Do Evercells just die of lack of interest?Are those in the Honda junk, or
> will they reserrect, if fed juice? Sounds like the Evercell isn't the
> answer, but I have/ had big hopes. The one yur testing to death: Is it
> putting out more juice tham a lead acid one of the same size, weight? Would
> sure be nice idf a carload of EVercells was lighter, so they wouldn't hafta
> work so hard to run the car.
>
> Hope to burry the Lead Acids, in MY lifetime!
>
> Bob
> > --
> > Rich Rudman
> > Manzanita Micro
> > www.manzanitamicro.com
> > 1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
> >
Joe and I have brought Evercells back from the Dead. This is kinda easy.
Yea at 42 lbs and still in the 50 amphour range it's still beating most
lead acids in actual delivered Kw.
I expect Sheer the rehab his pack maybe loose a module or two. But then
get his range back.
I sure hope they get here, and then the volume ramps up.
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>Likewise, it quits using the battery when it falls to 50% SOC.
>The only way to discharge it further is by driving in reverse
>or running out of gas, circumstances where it can't run the
>ICE to recharge the battery.
So, you could get EV-only range if you could fool the system
into believing there's no gas?
Hmm....
-Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave Navas wrote:
> So, you could get EV-only range if you could fool the system
> into believing there's no gas?
Basically, yes. I think UC Davis / Ovonic had to disable the fuel pump
to preven the ICE from starting, and then just ignore all the alarms and
warnings and keep driving to see what the range as a pure EV was.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> A smaller project could be accomplished with $200 million. That would build
> about 10,000 cars. They would retail at $18,700 or lease at under $200 per
> month. A business building 10,000 units per year could be started for as
> little as $25 million.
this is a great compilation of data - if you don't mind, I would like to
spamm it around
have you compiled all the numbers into a presentation and hawked it to
politicians in Sacramento yet? heck, california lost more than $2billion on the
so-called "energy crisis"... I know there are a LOT of people who would really
like to have a rippin' $10,000 EV like a Tango, and a lot more who are
sympathetic and fed up with status quo - smells like a poweful constituency for
some crafty politico to me (let's not forget that the $2billion would provide
jobs and increased tax revenue, which is nothing to be sneazed at these days)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
> Dave Navas wrote:
> > So, you could get EV-only range if you could fool the system
> > into believing there's no gas?
>
> Basically, yes. I think UC Davis / Ovonic had to disable the fuel pump
> to preven the ICE from starting, and then just ignore all the alarms and
> warnings and keep driving to see what the range as a pure EV was.
> --
> Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
The following is an email sent by an EV'r in Phoenix regarding driving the
Prius full electric. You might find this interesting.
Fellow EV'ers and friends,
In my constant quest to find the real limits of hybrid vehicle performance
(combined with equal parts bad planning and stupidity...), I finally have an
answer to the question:
How far will a Prius go on batteries alone?
The other night, I was driving home from work (yes, I finally got a job
again!) on SR-51. I knew I was running low on gas, and planned to stop at
the gas station on Bell Rd right after I got off the freeway. I had, after
all, only gone about 25 miles since the "add fuel now" thingy showed up
(unfortunately, and unbeknownst to me, so had the Mrs.). So here I am,
doing my normal 70, when suddenly there's a few warning bells, and the
computer display shows 3 new icons: "PS" with a slash through it (the power
steering went down), a battery, and "check engine now!". Fortunately, I was
near the Cactus Road exit, so I scooted safely across 3 lanes, and coasted
up the ramp at speeds that caused no one to notice. I knew I had run out of
gas, but I didn't know what the beastie would do when the light turned green
(remember, all the Toyota literature says it won't run without gas). Not
wanting to chance a lefthand turn across Cactus at rush hour to the nearest
gas station, I took the right and drove, on battery alone, east on Cactus in
my very recent full-electric conversion! It ran like a charm (sadly,
without AC on this 110 degree day). The lack of PS was no real problem for
it, and I just had to try what acceleration was like on the motor alone. It
was actually pretty good, though I didn't take it above 50. I eventually
decided I would risk the left, and got to the nearest station I knew, at
T-bird and 40th St. As I pulled in, it was starting to dog a bit, and when
I put it in park, I could see that the battery charge indicator was on about
1/5th (the warning graphics unfortunately prevent you from seeing SOC when
you are running on batteries alone. D'oh!) So, it got me a little more
than 2 miles without any gas, but probably wouldn't have made 3. I filled
'er up, and everything worked beautifully; the engine ran full-time for
probably 3 or 4 miles, to both cool the now baking interior and to recharge
the pack, and it's been running fine since then.
Mike Pengelly
Phoenix, AZ
'90 Mustang EV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris:
Thank you for keeping the idea afloat :-) Now I am going comment
on some of the points you raised. Please remember these comments don't
reflect on you but my needs/views as an UNHANDY man (in mycase also a
senior citizen) with little money BUT a desire to promote the EV cause.
That said let us look at the price of approx 20K that translates to 30+
K in canuck money and i am a Canuck :-) Someone starting up or needing a
second car is unlikely put ut that kind of money (we are in the Lux ICE
range there). Bring it down to the price of stripped Cavalier or
something (around 15 k Ca or 10k US) you will have a lot of folks
willing to try.
You can strip it of all the gizmos we are used to these days and leave a
couple of connectors for CDplayer or something (laptop).
There are two ways of looking at the project (1) Like a community
service or working for your favourite politician, you do it volunterily
and free of charge. After all you are working for a cause EVing the
world.
Or (2) like an entrepruener, band a small group,design and sell the
design to developers. You can finance your self or look for funding from
hundreds of organisations in the US (you can even approach the Gates
Foundation - worst scenario..he can only trun you down)
As for substitutes for MS try Vector Linux, FreeBSD (NetBSD/OpenBSD)
running from a 486 on with 8 +MB RAM and 40 to 400mb hd.
In all these cases professionals are spending their own time to develop
(freeBSD has a minor update every three months and major version once a
year). Because they are dedicated to the cause. Having done that atleast
some commercial variants egREDHAt are amking money. Same with EVs If we
want to tell GM where to put their EV1 come up with something that the
masses can accept. With gasoline prices climbing (78cents /litre) there
are alot of little folks being squeezed.
Regards
Harsha Godavari
Chris Tromley wrote:
>
> Harsha Godavari wrote:
>
> > What I would like to see from the talent on the
> > list is to design a universal model (for a 4door sedan small
> > to medium size)with off the shelf parts taht any bozo (such
> > as I)can slap together. One motor,one controller one charger
> > and a standard set of batteries. The car should be drivable
> > for x number of miles on any terrain /weather on this continent.
> >
> > We may not find somone willing to put up even 1 million let
> > alone 15 for a factory. The design can be based on either a
> > popular kit or a popular ICE. If the sturday afternoon
> > mechanics can put it together, you have a winner.
> >
> > Its doable if the knowledgeable folks decide on it. You
> > recall IBM publishing the specs for the PC and unintetionally
> > caused a revolution. or look at Linux or FreeBSD. We can do
> > the same. What do you think ?
>
> Hi Harsha,
>
> I've given a fair amount of thought to an idea similar to what you
> describe. Based on a mid-90's Golf (because parts are so easily
> available), you would use as much as possible from the donor car. This
> helps control cost, and saves a huge amount of time in scrounging parts.
> You would put these parts in a purpose-designed tube frame with a
> fiberglass body in a microvan layout. It would use 144+ V of flooded
> batteries, with a total weight something over 3000 lbs. (which allows
> you to use the original suspension without modification). Decent
> performance, 60-80 miles per charge, maybe more.
>
> I was thinking in terms of having a company make these, selling kits to
> individuals or franchisees who would be the actual "manufacturer" of the
> car. A back-of-the-envelope calculation told me a turn-key car would
> probably cost the buyer in the mid to high $20k range. That's a bit
> steep for a car that would have only adequate performance and would
> require gaining the knowledge to cope with its differences from an ICE.
> Only dedicated individuals would buy. How many Forces were sold at
> retail to individuals?
>
> If we shift this toward your idea of designing it so any bozo can build
> it from scratch, you put some additional limitations on the design. It
> would need a very basic shape that lends itself to simple raw materials.
> That's not necessarily a bad thing, in fact you might be able to give it
> a funky-yet-hip post-industrial look that could win it a cult following!
>
> I think it's doable, and I'd love to be the one to do it. The problem
> for me (and just about everyone else) is that I can't put that kind of
> effort into a product that is essentially open-source. Just building
> the first one from scratch and working out the worst bugs would be a
> huge investment in time, with little chance of return. And then the
> buyers would be limited to those who would attempt to build their own
> car.
>
> I think the only way to make this viable is for someone to make real
> money from it. Linux is probably the best success story for open-source
> products, but how many average people have been able to show Mr. Gates
> the door (of the millions who'd love to)? At the very least you would
> need someone to do a big chunk of the work for free.
>
> Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Seems like with these controls if you recharged and then rebooted you would
lengthen the life of the pack. Lawrence Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: You Don't Have to Plug It In!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So,.... The pack is not charged any higher than 75% after a drive
> > and a chance for the car to recharge the pack?
>
> Yes. The Prius stops charging its battery when it reaches 75% SOC. The
> only way it will charge any more is if you go down a l-o-n-g hill using
> regen all the way.
>
> Likewise, it quits using the battery when it falls to 50% SOC. The only
> way to discharge it further is by driving in reverse or running out of
> gas, circumstances where it can't run the ICE to recharge the battery.
> --
> Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris:
may I add that we take a leaf out of the BUG the design a vehicle
that is not dated but upgradable.
Regards
harsha Godavari
Chris Tromley wrote:
>
> Sam Harper wrote:
>
> <a detailed cost analysis between an ICE and an AC/LiIon conversion>
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> I have to disagree on several counts. You don't want to convert an
> existing car. The people on this list are familiar primarily with
> conversions, and have accepted their limitations. The public will not,
> at least not in great numbers. Also, conversions have by definition
> been designed for something else (an ICE). That means you start out
> with a compromised design. And as many of us have found in a variety of
> circumstances, you're probably better off starting from scratch than
> undoing something and re-doing it. I'm confident that applies to
> consumer EVs. I think you'd put as much effort into development of a
> purpose-built design, and end up with a better vehicle.
>
> I also believe that if you try to ride the bleeding edge of technology
> right out of the box, you're virtually guaranteed to fail. Anyone who
> tries this will have their hands full just running the business. You
> don't need surprises from the engineering department. You can keep it
> simple and still quite effective.
>
> And then there's the matter of cost. AC is nice, but pricey. Lithium
> batteries and their necessary BMS even more so. If you want to build to
> a price point that people will accept and leave you adequate profit, DC
> and lead looks mighty attractive. The tZero could have been built with
> a DC system. It would have kept the same level of performance, been a
> little less refined and much cheaper. Get yourself established first,
> then move up the technology ladder as your business grows.
>
> Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sam Uzi wrote:
> have you compiled all the numbers into a presentation and
> hawked it to politicians in Sacramento yet? heck, california
> lost more than $2billion on the so-called "energy crisis"...
> I know there are a LOT of people who would really like to
> have a rippin' $10,000 EV like a Tango, and a lot more who
> are sympathetic and fed up with status quo - smells like a
> poweful constituency for some crafty politico to me (let's
> not forget that the $2billion would provide jobs and
> increased tax revenue, which is nothing to be sneazed at these days)
Not to mention the fact that the major automakers would have no
credibility asking for a piece of the action, since they've gone so far
to discredit EVs as to sue the state over CARB ZEV requirements.
Hmmmm. I wonder if they'd lobby for ICE UNVs so they could get in the
game. Or what other stunts they'd pull to scuttle Rick's plans. So far
they haven't missed a single opportunity to keep the public out of EVs.
Not one. Maybe I'm reading too much into the course of events to date,
but it's definitely something to consider as this proposal moves
forward.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:48:19 -0500, you wrote:
>It has been done with other vehicles. I am aware of the Long Ranger trailer-based
>range extender, AC Propulsion's trailer-based power system, and most recently Ken
>Norwick's Road Trip across the Rockies (scheduled for June 2003) using a trailer-
>based hybrid recharging system. There have also been ranger extender battery
>trailers. They all work. None have found a receptive audience.
>
>My opinion is that most people find trailers to be an issue, especially in urban
>driving, and that hybrid systems should be self contained.
Darryl:
This is more or less what I was thinking. I got a lot of helpful
responses, most of which referenced the AC Propulsion efforts. While
I knew of those efforts and have a lot of admiration for them, and
appreciate, I hope, some of the advantages of the trailer-car idea, I
also think it would be useful to make some research into building a
grid-chargeable with a small onboard engine. This could address the
perceptions ("right" or "wrong") that some (not all) buyers want
everything "self-contained".
I will leave your other comments (below) because I think many in the
other groups will enjoy reading what you're up to.
>This approach permits
>the use of a smaller battery pack, as it can be sized for typical trips (say 20 km)
>on battery only using grid recharging, instead of building the pack for maximum
>range (say 100 km). Vary the size of the pack based on your own specific needs. The
>generator set provides the range beyond 20 km when required. On a typical 2-
>seater, highway capable commuter that means 100 kg of battteries instead of 500,
>making for a lighter vehicle, which consumes less energy and will have better
>performance. It also means just 20% of the investment in batteries. It may even
>permit individuals to trade up to better batteries (eg NiMH, NiFe, Li-ion etc)
>instead of conventional lead-acid, further reducing the space and weight penalties
>for a given range capability. It certainly permits the use of a smaller diesel
>engine, as it has to provide only average power, not peak power for acceleration or
>hill climbing, so a 10 hp unit will do instead of 100+hp. This means an engine
>that can run at a relatively level loading much closer to its most efficient
>(loaded) power output. And it speeds recharge times, as less battery capacity
>means less power required for the recharge. And it takes away the limited range
>issue as an argument against the acceptance of electrics.
>
>The Porsche 914 diesel-electric hybrid project shell returned home last weekend
>(ahead of schedule) resplendent in its restored metal and new paint, and is safely
>(if snugly) stored in the garage. Time to find out where the charger has gotten
>to. Batteries and controller will be acquired once the budget is replenished
>sufficiently. The issue of 'hacking' the existing circuitry is already resolved,
>as the system voltage (144 volts) is already designed to take the rectified (full
>wave) voltage from the 120-volt AC nominal alternator (generator). It will simply
>be paralleled with the battery pack, which will smooth the waveform considerably,
>reducing ripple at the controller input. Smoothing capacitors will be added if
>necessary.
>
>Another decision has been made. The vehicle will be put on the road in electric
>only mode initially, with the hybrid diesel engine added (actually re-installed)
>afterward. This to avoid issues related to emissions inspections. This because I
>cannot get a straight answer from local emissions inspections folks on how the
>hybrid would be tested, not because it will be a gross polluter. (Besides, the 30-
>year old 914 would be exempted from testing on age anyway unless it is classed as a
>2003 remanufactured.) I just don't want to run the risk of having it parked for
>two years or so after it is roadworthy because the authorities have to consider
>something that doesn't fit their existing rules. I have already spent a couple of
>years steering the provincial government on the subject of emissions testing of
>electric vehicles (they are exempt as a result). If they want to spend a couple of
>years thinking about series hybrids after the vehicle is licensed and in daily use,
>that's fine by me.
>
>If anyone has an air-cooled, approx. 8 kW diesel generator taking up space that
>they want to give away to a good home, please let me know.
>
>Darryl McMahon
>
>
>
>Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent,
>Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8
> It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655
> If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199
> after it, who will? http://www.econogics.com/
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the input.
Lee Hart wrote:
> For a simple "local option" high power charger, you might want to
> consider a motor-generator set. Get a ~2 HP induction motor,
> and couple
> it to a ~24vdc truck alternator. If you happen to be charging
> 24v AGMs,
> the built-in 24v regulator will be all the control you need. It's not
> particularly elegant or efficient, but it is cheap and easy!
Cool - that would get us going now for the 24v test pack, and in a
pinch could double for a possible 48 pack if we split in the middle
and reconnected in parallel.
> A step up would be a simple transformer-rectifier charger. If the
> transformer has taps, or you add a variac, you can adjust the output
> voltage and current to your heart's content.
I can see how this allows us to adjust the voltage. Current would
just be whatever it is at a given voltage, changing as the batteries
charge. We have access to a variac, so this could be on.
> In either case, the output is isolated. You can add passive
> power factor correction with some AC capacitors to maximize the
> power you can get from a given outlet.
Do you have a rule of thumb for what size capacitor to use?
As yet we don't have a power meter.
> If you expect to do "fast charging", then you either need an expensive
> charger with a sophisticated control algorithm and close individual
> battery monitoring, or you will have to manually control it and "watch
> it like a hawk". One screw-up, and your batteries fry!
Well, one recommendation for the charging regime was "charge as fast as
you can, then equalise all night". We'll most likely be charging three
2kWh packs in parallel so maybe it's not so fast for the individual
batteries. In those circumstances each pack would get a theoretical
maximum 25A or 16A (not allowing for losses) depending on whether we get
a 15A or 10A outlet.
--
Lesley Walker
LRW_at_clear.net.nz or [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 ---
Hi Lesley,
Why wont you be able to drive it ?
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>
> It would be possible to have a second relay at each module to switch a
> load resistor across the battery. Now your controller could load as many
> batteries as desired simultaneously. But each module is still very
> simple; nothing but 2 relays and a resistor.
Stronger than average batteries aren't the problem, the problem
is weak ones requiring boost, and proposed system can't boost 2 at
once. It will keep switching between all weak ones. If you only
have 1 weak cell out of 90 and only load resistors (no boost),
that means you discharge 89 (big waste) just to bring them all down
to weak one. Now we limit the rate of charge so that ill cell
can keep up. A system with relays and power bus can boost one cell.
If you have 5 weak cells, you need many cycles to balance them all,
and if they get imbalanced while driving and the rate of
balancing isn't large enough, you're stuck.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Adam Kuehn wrote:
>
> Nah. That's why "unlimited" appeared in quotation marks. I'm fully
> aware that the range is not technically unlimited. On the other
> hand, one can't really ignore the fact that the energy of a
> standard-fuel vehicle can be fully replenished in five minutes flat
> nearly anywhere. That's as practically unlimited as is reasonable to
> hope for, and will not be available for pure electric vehicles any
> time soon.
I understand what you mean. If you forgot to put gas in almost empty
tank, and late to work, you still have chance to stop by the gas
station and fill it in, but if you wake up realizing you didn't
plug it in last night you're stuck. BUT, by calculation, for example
my EV I'm planning to upgrade really needs recharge once a week
(the way I drive) if I push it.
Also, unlimited for a given person means he/she can drive it
anywhere and doesn't get stuck without energy.
It's not for 24 hrs rally where fresh drivers get switched.
Unless you want to go on the vacation in an EV, (we can cover that
later) how far a person can drive in a day before *HE/SHE* needs a rest
and falls in sleep? 500 miles? No problem with today's advanced
batteries. And since you HAVE to sleep you're guaranteed your EV
is ready for another 500 miles next morning.
Be reasonable. It's hard to overcome the fear that refueling
of EV cannot be done in 5 min (can be in 20 though), but if you
realize you never need such emergency recharge (just go
further from 70% SOC to 40% SOC on a given day), things
appear to be not that bad.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey guys. As I have heard more horror stories, I'd like to continue my
battery review discussion, but to a more direct "which is good, which
is bad" point. Lets make a list:
-Lead : Useable, but not real good range
-Yellow Tops : Yet again, useable, with a little better range, and lots
of experience
-NiCad : Hard to find (add suppliers here), more costly, better range
-NiMH : Hard to find (add suppliers here), more costly, better range
-Li-Ion : BAD. Dont handle current well, too much voltage drop, fire.
-Evercell : Alright, better range than Lead, but not tested
-Zebra : What ever happened?
-Sam
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Walker, Lesley R wrote:
Lee Hart wrote:
>> For a simple "local option" high power charger, you might want to
>> consider a motor-generator set. Get a ~2 HP induction motor,
>> and couple it to a ~24vdc truck alternator.
> Cool - that would get us going now for the 24v test pack, and in a
> pinch could double for a possible 48 pack if we split in the middle
> and reconnected in parallel.
Or, it is fairly easy to disable or modify the regulator in the
alternator. Just set or change it for 48v to charger a 48v pack, etc.
>> A step up would be a simple transformer-rectifier charger. If the
>> transformer has taps, or you add a variac, you can adjust the output
>> voltage and current to your heart's content.
> I can see how this allows us to adjust the voltage. Current would
> just be whatever it is at a given voltage, changing as the batteries
> charge. We have access to a variac, so this could be on.
>> You can add passive power factor correction with some AC capacitors
>> to maximize the power you can get from a given outlet.
> Do you have a rule of thumb for what size capacitor to use?
> As yet we don't have a power meter.
You do it empirically. Get a set of large AC-rated film capacitors (not
electrolytics). For example, ten 10uf 440vac units. Wire a switch in
series with each one, and connect them all across the AC input to your
charger. Wire an ammeter so you can see the total AC line current (going
into your charger and capacitors). In operation, keep switching in more
capacitors until you find the point of minimum AC line current. The
current will be high with no capacitors, drop as you add capacitors,
reach a minimum, and then increase again if you have too much
capacitance.
> Well, one recommendation for the charging regime was "charge as fast as
> you can, then equalise all night".
That's not a sensible algorithm for good battery life.
> We'll most likely be charging three 2kWh packs in parallel so maybe
> it's not so fast for the individual batteries.
No; that's pretty fast. 240vac x 15a = 3450 watts. Even with all three
24v packs in series, you're charging at as much as 47 amps.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>> It would be possible to have a second relay at each module to
>> switch a load resistor across the battery. Now your controller
>> could load as many batteries as desired simultaneously. But each
>> module is still very simple; nothing but 2 relays and a resistor.
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Stronger than average batteries aren't the problem, the problem
> is weak ones requiring boost, and proposed system can't boost 2
> at once.
The purpose of the switchable loads is not to balance during driving; it
is to balance during charging, when AC power in being supplied. As each
battery reaches full, you turn on its respective load resistor to bypass
further charging current. Each battery has its own load resistor, so any
number of them can be on at once. This is what the present Rudman
regulators do.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 24 Feb 2003 at 16:01, harsha godavari wrote:
> There are two ways of looking at the project (1) Like a community
> service or working for your favourite politician, you do it volunterily
> and free of charge. After all you are working for a cause EVing the world.
Attempts to commercialize EVs have often failed because investors pulled
out. Typically they realized that there was little chance of short-term profit,
especially after having plowed a fair bit of money into the project.
I may be wrong -- I'm no MBA! -- But I think the way to get EVs into the
market is through a nonprofit corporation. Nonprofits receive significant tax
advantages, and often benefit considerably in their abiltity to obtain both
public and private grants.
While public grant money seems hard to come by in these times, Bill Gates -
- to name just one -- has a foundation to dispense his millions to deserving
nonprofits. Now, can we convince him -- and probably several others -- that
energy independence, cleaner air, and quieter streets justify a development
grant?
And, just as importantly, can we stay sufficiently disciplined and focused to
resist the temptation toward "mission bloat" when the corporation's finances
look good?
David Roden
Akron OH USA
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman wrote:
>
> NOT so, there is LOTS of eddy current losses in the back iron on the rotor.
>
> Also the motor size is within the concept range of the ones I have played
> with. Still there is going to be major thermal issues with 6000 rpm and
> 100Kw in that package.
>
> I agree on the "paper" motor drive system. The motor always gets a lot
> hotter in the real life abuse of a living EV. Since the motor rarely if
> ever sees steady state highway driving once it leaves the dyno cell. In
> city traffic you are on it or off it or heavy into regen. The speed of your
> thermal scavenging is really important.
Sure.
A major improvement of Siemens inverter (Simotion) is software
thermal model of the motor, so the power can be de-rated just
enough to keep it sane but not to loose any extra watt of power
if you don't have to. Development of such software is where the major
cost of the inverter is. If the systems SAm is talking about
have that, they will have all theoretical performance they can get.
If it's only 3 phase closed loop generator, well, you know....
Victor
> Lee Hart wrote:
>
> > Rich Rudman wrote:
> > >> Guess I'm a skeptic this morning.
> >
> > > Yea, my BS detector clipped on this also. Nice numbers, but the
> > > motor cooling is a bit questionable. The controller weight is
> > > really light also...
> >
> > They struck me as theoretical numbers, from someone who has yet to
> > actually build a controller.
> >
> > > I will bet that the limit for an AC system will always be cooling
> > > the rotor.
> >
> > No; if it has a PM rotor, there is negligible heat generation in the
> > rotor.
> > --
> > Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> > 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> > Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> > leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
