EV Digest 2876
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: EV Album
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Makem stand up and stare with off the shelf electric technology. Was:Re: CalCars
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: CalCars Seeks Sponsors for Plug-In Hybrid Prototypes
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: regen braking
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: AC-to-DC motor controllers as chargers
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: So What's So New About Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: So What's So New About Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: So What's So New About Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: CalCars Seeks Sponsors for Plug-In Hybrid Prototypes
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Charging at campgrounds
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Formula lightning and Epic minivans.
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: So What's So New About Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) CalCars/grid-connected or plug-in hybrids
by Felix Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Makem stand up and stare with off the shelf electric technology. Was:Re:
CalCars
by Sam Thurber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Charging at campgrounds
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Makem stand up and stare with off the shelf electric technology. Was:Re:
CalCars
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: So What's So New About Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Regen: was: DC controler questions.
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Regen Braking SEC: unclassified
by "Snudden, Neil FLGOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: CalCars Seeks Sponsors for Plug-In Hybrid Prototypes
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Regen Braking SEC: unclassified
by "tom peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
mike chancey does the EV Album... he's probably just busy and will get
to it when he can. cheers
Seth
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:45 AM, James Jarrett wrote:
Is there something up with updates to the EV album?
I submitted the information for my Henney about two weeks ago and have
not
heard nor seen anything? I uploaded picture and the like. I have also
sent
two e-mail messages checking on the status and I have not heard back.
Am I
doing something wrong?
James
James F. Jarrett
Information Systems Associate
Charlotte Country Day School
(704)943-4562
Every program is either trivial or it contains at least one bug.
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think that hybrid and fuel cell technology is now, right now, surpassed by
off the shelf electric technology. We have fast charging from multiple
sources. The electric part is childs play. Now the last ingredient.
Batteries that will allow 300 to 400 miles per charge at freeway speeds.
All that has to happen is for a Tzero or simular vehicle to drive up to
Sacramento on one charge(well not quite one). Show it off to CARB and get
the board to reverse it's whimpy decision. It would be nice if a few
vehicles were in operation and the Li Ion technology was proven in cars
first but something has to be done to reverse the trend away from the
obvious answer and go stright to the point. There is now nothing better for
the ecology than a pure electric car powered by surplus nightime energy. It
works now and will be even better with renewable energy sources. It is the
most efficient use of energy. Lawrence Rhodes...
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: Was:Re: CalCars
> While agree that the charter needs to be upheld, I wouldn't dismiss an
> effort to build a hybrid as easy. You have twice as much to go wrong,
> and a charge sustaining strategy can be a real pain. Especially if the
> user gets to decide if/ when they want to plug in. And drivetrain
> integration on a parallel HEV is a challenge, be it mechanical, controls
> or both.
>
> It looks like they want to use decent batteries and do testing of the
> product when they are done. There are worse things to do than EV/HEV
> testing at either a system level or component level.
> Maybe we will get a cheaper AC or sepex drive out of the deal, or some
> other benefit.
>
> Seth
>
>
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > Right on Rich. Lawrence Rhodes....
> >
> > > I sell Power factor corrected Chargers for Evs. Want one???
> > > I have 2 street machine EVs. One that has world records in the NEDRA
> > > races.
> > >
> > > I could build a fleet of Evs for 1 to 2 Mill, not a Dozzen. 150K is
> > > rediculas for a Ev of any type.
> > >
> > > This sounds like a internet Scam. Or else you folks have not realized
> > > that the fat days of the late 90s are long past.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich Rudman
> > > Manzanita Micro
> > > www.manzanitamicro.com
> > > 1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
> > >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Felix Kramer wrote:
> We're talking about designing, building and testing
> a sequence of
> conversions of an existing vehicle in such a way that we
> demonstrate the
> practicality and benefits of plug-in hybrids to car buyers and then
> convince car makers that there's a viable mass-market vehicle
> and money to
> be made producing them.
Hi Felix,
Back in March you surfaced here telling us about your organization. I
replied, telling you it won't work. Your responses to recent comments
imply that you've taken this approach based on consultations with those
in the auto industry and government. I respectfully have to reiterate
that you're being had.
EVs were shoved down the automakers' throats. They really hate that.
The fact that the responses from the lessees was very enthusiastic
doesn't matter at all. The automakers killed production EVs anyway.
There are probably a variety of theories as to why they would act this
way, beyond the simple fact that they don't like being told what to do.
They will certainly not tell you themselves. My take is that if you do
a thorough analysis of the revenue stream generated from a large market
segment of consumer EVs, the financials are appalling. If you take away
all that mechanical hardware and make the car a rolling box of
electronics, complexity goes way down. Costs go way down. Competition
drives prices down. Lower prices mean lower profits.
There's also the fact that dealers rely heavily on service revenue,
which will be dramatically reduced. Now you have the dealers screaming
at you. The bottom line is that a move away from ICE vehicles is a move
toward lower profits. No automaker will willingly make that choice.
None. No exceptions.
What does all this have to do with plug-in hybrids? Everything. If a
driver has the choice of driving under pure electric power, he/she will
probably do so. Then they'll relaize that they're doing an awful lot of
driving without using gas. Hmmm, maybe EVs weren't such a bad idea
after all? Why was everyone telling us EVs didn't work? This car would
be much nicer if they threw out all the gas engine garbage and replaced
it with more batteries. I want an EV for my next car! That demand can
be met by much smaller companies than what it takes now to make an ICE
vehicle. Yet another threat to the status quo.
They only way the auto industry will willingly build plug-in hybrids is
if you hold a gun to their heads. Or force them with legislation. You
must understand that the people you have been talking to in government
and industry are telling you what they think you want to hear. Look at
the history of the ZEV mandate in California. Not a single action by
any auto company suggests they have any desire to do the right thing.
Every "gesture" they made was later turned around to drive another nail
in the EV's coffin. Every single one. No exceptions.
Let's assume you actually succeed in producing some plug-in hybrids.
(No major automaker will touch the project, or if they do they will
sabotage it - try emerging manufacturers in Asia.) When you present the
results to the automakers with glowing reviews from the
Super-Early-Adopters, the automakers will again tell you what you want
to hear. They will thank you for your efforts with big smiles and tell
you they'll take this back to the home office for serious consideration.
And it will go nowhere.
If you really want to make a difference, work toward a legislative
solution. What you're doing is a waste of time. The only manufacturing
solution is for a company truly dedicated to doing the right thing to
start making EVs. Plug-in hybrids certainly have a place in the market,
but the ICE portion of such a drivetrain can only be developed by the
existing automakers. It *will not* happen without a legislative stick.
I know you've probably put you heart and soul into this, and my
suggestion is not what you want to hear. I think you'll find I'm being
more honest than the automakers.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I am considering non brush commuted motors; Sep-ext, BLDC...
Does "Sep-ext" mean Sepex (Seperately excited)? Sepex motors normally
have commutators.
> I can't see any reason to not have a transmission or to have a clutch.
Transmissions are expensive, so most built-from-the-ground-up EVs try to
avoid them. If you have a transmission, a clutch is almost mandatory for
easy shifting.
> In a 3 phase environment, getting "fused on" won't allow runaway.
This depends on the design. A typical computer fan is brushless, and
runs away if the load is removed or the supply voltage is stuck on.
> A close ratio sequential gearbox with integral electric motor and
> no 90degree turns located at the previous rear-end location in a
> truck. With spray oiling and straight cut gears, the efficiecy of
> the overall drivetrain would be high.
True, but straight cut gears are noisy. Conventional transmissions are
already over 90% efficient; is it worth a few more percent?
> On the DC side, what if I got 2 controllers and 2 pot boxes and 2 sets
> of brushes. 1 pot box is on the optimized power brushes and chops
> voltage down to control motor;it's on the go pedal. The other pot box
> and controller is on second set of brushes and varies the regen torque
> by raising the effective voltage back to the pack
One problem is that brushes short adjacent commutator bars as they pass
over them. The brush thus has to be at the position where the voltage
between bars is zero as the brush passes over them. There is only one
such position; a second set of brushes would be in the wrong position,
and cause a short.
Also two controllers is a very expensive solution. There are well-known
and straightforward ways to eliminate brush positioning problems;
movable brush rigging, interpoles, and compensating windings.
--
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 ---
The Levine Family wrote:
> The most basic bad-boy charger of a bridge rectifier and big
> capacitor works on a 120V pack, but sets off the circuit breakers.
The *most* basic bad-boy charger is nothing but a bridge rectifier, and
enough extension cords to add resistance to limit the charging current!
It only works when the pack voltage is about the same as the AC line
voltage, so there isn't much voltage difference to "burn up" in the
cords. For example, charging a 120vdc pack from a 120vac outlet.
> Could you have chokes (or are they filters?) that limit current
> input, like say, with 15A choke?
An improved version adds a series capacitor or inductor to limit the
current instead of resistance. "Choke" is another name for an inductor.
"Filter" is the overall name for any combination of inductors and/or
capacitors. This improves efficiency and power factor, since the
capacitor or inductor doesn't burn up the excess voltage; it shifts the
phase instead. They can thus handle larger voltage differences between
input and output, allowing charging a 48-96vdc pack from a 120vac
outlet.
> and then switch to a 5A choke for final absorption, or does the
> bad PFC just make this impossible?
To set the charging current *and* improve power factor at the same time
requires at least one inductor and one capacitor. An inductor-capacitor
pair is called a "pole". So a 1-inductor 1-capacitor pair is called a
"1-pole filter". The more poles you add, the closer you can get to a
perfect sinewave and 1.0 power factor. Very crudely speaking:
no filter 0.6 power factor
1-pole filter 0.8 power factor
2-pole filter 0.9 power factor
3-pole filter 0.95 power factor
But, the exact waveform of a bad-boy charger changes with load. You can
pick the inductor and capacitor values to optimize the power factor at
one particular output voltage load and current. But, the optimal values
change as the load changes.
Normally, designers just optimize the power factor at full load -- that
is when you are going to have problems with hot cords, circuit breakers
tripping, etc. Even though the power factor is worse at light load, the
current will still be less.
Or, you can automatically switch in different inductor or capacitor
values to keep it "tuned" to the actual load. Commercial PFC chargers
have done this.
--
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 ---
Hi, Russ. Good to hear from you! And glad to see you're introducing a
new charger.
russco wrote:
> So what�s so new about Power Factor Corrected EV Battery Chargers?
> Russco has been making �em for six years now.
You're right. PFC chargers have been around for a very long time. Even
50-year-old Lester chargers with constant-voltage transformers have
power factors over 0.9 at full load. Most industrial chargers are PFC
because the power company charges industrial users for bad power factor.
But, PFC chargers cost more, and consumers are NOT charged for bad power
factor. So, most consumers ignore it, and buy whatever is cheap.
> Some think a Russco Charger is similar to other chargers.. NOT!
I'm afraid most of the rest of your description came across as Marketing
double-talk. The Russco charger I saw the insides of a few years ago
certainly looked like and sounded like a phase controlled charger, but
with added 60 Hz filtering to improve the power factor.
Could you provide a more objective description of it, and how it works?
I'm an engineer, and will understand perfectly well if you say it uses a
"phase controlled full bridge rectifer with 2-pole LC filter", for
example.
--
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 ---
James Jarrett wrote:
> One of the projects I have in mind,(In the FAR financial future) is
> to put a slightly "smarter" charger in my Henney.
If you're using flooded batteries, I would suggest a Lester charger.
They are big and heavy (not something you'd want to carry on-board). But
they are very rugged and reliable.
I drove a 1980 ComutaVan for many years. It had a 72v pack of 6v flooded
golf cart batteries. The charger was a Lester model 2840 with "CompuTime
II" electronic controls (also built in 1980). It weighed 120 lbs, was
about 16" x 14" x 12", ran off 240vac, and charged at 72v 40amps and 12v
20amps. It could bring the pack up to 80% SOC in just a few hours. It
had a sophisticated dv/dt charging algorithm that took very good care of
the batteries (they were 7 years old and still good when I sold it). It
used phase control with SCRs, and was adjustable from about 60v to 96v.
This same charger shows up surplus now and then. But Lester is still in
business, and probably has a current model that is similar. Their
website is http://www.lesterelectrical.com/main.htm
--
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 ---
James Jarrett wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> Now I know that I want a PFC-20. It does everything I want, and is
> flexible. But the Wife isn't and I MAY not be able to float that.
>
Sigh!!! Build kickAss chargers, and some can't afford them, Oh I feel
your pain.
The more goodies We stuff in them the fewer folks can reach them.
I get more inquiries for PFC30 level stuff than PFC10 level.
Read most want more, while the quite masses could use about 1500 watts
and be really happy.
I am glad to see Russco filling in the gaps. I have had very little
hands on time on a Russco. But I know they are a lot better than Light
dimmer chargers.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Felix Kramer wrote:
>
> In response to Bruce Parmenter's comments, I stand corrected, and will in
> the future as much as possible point to a URL.
>
> And thanks, Bruce, for all your efforts on so many EV-related web sites
> (and, as seen at
> http://geocities.com/brucedp/index4.html
> for "getting" the value of "grid-rechargeable" gasoline-electric hybrids,
> fuel cell-electric hybrids, etc.)
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix,
So tell us what you are planning on doing? Range, battery chemistry,
Power , who's drive, who's motor, who's Fuel cell... etc.
come on let us help you over the hard points. If you need $150K, it's
clear somebody has already sold you a rather excessive line of Bull.
Let us know, and we can help guide you into some solid engineering goals
and features.
If you are just trolling for Ev cash, this will be a rather brutal list
to venture forth on.
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Joe Smalley wrote:
>
> I wonder what a KOA would charge for a couple hours to "recharge my
> batteries" and "take a shower."
>
> Has anyone tried that approach?
>
The funny part of this is if you took a moderatley long hot shower, you
would eat up more KWhr than the Ev did.
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This message was sent by Bob and I thought
the list would be interested to know that the
formula lightning electrics will be racing
in Mansfield, OH on July 4.
P.s. Does anybody have speed torque curves for
the AC induction motors used in the Epic Minivan?
Thanks,
Rod
Hi Rod,
I had 3 email addresses for you, didn't know which one
to use, so I
sent
this to all three. Let me know which one to use.
I just supplied Ohio University (Athens Ohio) with a
160 KW controller
for
their Formula Lighting race car. The school has 5 of
the motor out of
EPIC
minivans. We successfully ran no load last week. We
plan on running
Chassis
Dyno test next week. Do you have any of the numbers or
curves on this
motor
that we can use to compare our test results against.
Also, if your interested, the Formula lighting cars
are racing at
Mansfield
Speedway on July 4th.
Best Regards,
Bob Gruenwald
Electric MotorSports
2072 Greenpine Dr
Cincinnati, OH 45231
Phone 513-851-3748
Fax 775-201-1362
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web www.fluxvector.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Another thing to keep in mind is that 72V and 80V is
popular in European
forklift's.
You may want to call a few forklift repair
shops/dealers and see if they have any chargers
sitting in the corner gathering dust (36 and 48V
forklift's are the norm in the US).
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Jarrett wrote:
> > One of the projects I have in mind,(In the FAR
> financial future) is
> > to put a slightly "smarter" charger in my Henney.
>
> If you're using flooded batteries, I would suggest a
> Lester charger.
> They are big and heavy (not something you'd want to
> carry on-board). But
> they are very rugged and reliable.
>
> I drove a 1980 ComutaVan for many years. It had a
> 72v pack of 6v flooded
> golf cart batteries. The charger was a Lester model
> 2840 with "CompuTime
> II" electronic controls (also built in 1980). It
> weighed 120 lbs, was
> about 16" x 14" x 12", ran off 240vac, and charged
> at 72v 40amps and 12v
> 20amps. It could bring the pack up to 80% SOC in
> just a few hours. It
> had a sophisticated dv/dt charging algorithm that
> took very good care of
> the batteries (they were 7 years old and still good
> when I sold it). It
> used phase control with SCRs, and was adjustable
> from about 60v to 96v.
>
> This same charger shows up surplus now and then. But
> Lester is still in
> business, and probably has a current model that is
> similar. Their
> website is http://www.lesterelectrical.com/main.htm
> --
> 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 couple of comments on recent posts -- I hope the links are helpful:
Claire Bell has been helpful to CalCars -- she gets the credit for helping
us think through ways to seriously involve users in developing and testing
a sequence of prototypes, based on her experience with Sparrow owners
providing lots of feedback and suggestions back to Corbin.
We also benefit from the expertise of Prof. Andy Frank, leader of the
Team-Fate group at UC Davis, who has built a series of plug-in hybrids. See
http://www.team-fate.net for some specs and links at
http://www.calcars.org/about.html to Andy's archived interviews in EVWorld.
(Both Frank and the people at the Electric Power Research Group and the
Hybrid Working Group that EPRI sponsors prefer the phrase "plug-in" rather
than "grid-connected" hybrid.)
UC Davis's Sequoia, which won the top 2001 Future Truck award, was a
conversion of a Chevy Suburban. Tellingly, it cost them about $500K to
build, even with, I believe, major break from Ovonics for batteries and
student (that is volunteer) engineers. Their Yosemite conversion just won
second place in this year's Future Truck competition.
Pictures of their vehicles and of AC Propulsion's recent conversion of a
Jetta (under contract to the Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District) are included in a CalCars presentation at
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-svmg.pdf (1MB File).
Either or both groups' vehicles may be at EVS-20 this fall.
For more general comparisons that make clear how much MORE a plug-in hybrid
is than a conventional hybrid, see the links to EPRI studies and AC
Propulsion's work on Vehicle-to-Grid at http://www.calcars.org/resources.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
cell 650.520.5555 voice 650.599.9992
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If it were only that easy. The board is well aware of
battery technology despite their apparent ignorance at
the last meeting. They have been given the correct
information numerous times by numerous people. This
stunt would simply be ignored by the board. There is,
at least, a simple conflict of interest by Dr. Lloyd,
who also chairs the California Fuel Cell Partnership,
and, at most, political corruption that is so common
place now it's hardly worth mentioning.
The only solution at this point is to change the
makeup of the board which means changing the Governor
... may happen sooner than we all expect.
--- Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> All that has to happen is for a Tzero or simular
> vehicle to drive up to
> Sacramento on one charge(well not quite one). Show
> it off to CARB and get
> the board to reverse it's whimpy decision.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have explored this idea with several RV parks
on my trip south to a LA SCAQMD EVent
http://brucedp00.150m.com/carb0005/
Maple Leaf in Morgan Hill had a pimply little
High schooler that could hardly hold her attention
long enough to keep two sentences in her head,
let alone listen to what I was trying to do.
(Conversation not going anywhere, fast)
Betabel in Gilroy
In talking to the manager, he did not want to
be bothered with anything that was not an RV
"we don't let anything stay here that isn't a RV"
The next time I tried to use their park was months
later (they forgot who I was) for the Corbin Sparrow
EV tour
http://brucedp00.150m.com/corbin00/
This time I paid my day use fee without telling
them I was an EV. I could have used their shower
as I had paid for a 'full hookup'. Some parks have
a slightly lower rate for a 'tent site' which may
not have any power, but still allow shower access.
The RV park just north of Salinas, Cabana, did not
have any 50 amp sites available. Only cheesy 5-20
sites that would take 12 hours to recharge (I could
only get 10 amps out of the outlet because the
wiring was so bad).
King City's county RV park had plenty of 120 VAC 30
amp RV outlets, but there access was not 24 hour
(after charging several times, when I would come into
that park, it would late at night).
But King City did have a GM dealership that was pretty
cool about letting you plug into their two 14-50
outlets sued for their welders. You have to sweet talk
them ahead of time to arrange this. But no access
other than during the day and not if they are busy.
Paso Robels RV could care less what you are doing
and don't really what to know, as long as you pay
(I can work with that). But just don't try to get
in during their peak times, holidays and their wine
fest.
But the Atascadero RV park when postal when I told
them I would want to pay for a site to charge my EV.
The manager said that EVs use too much power, and
would allow to hear different (this was during the
oil funded dr wattenburger hate talk radio spree
that EVs were bad and a pinko conspiracy).
As you can see, that is why I have taken the
don't talk don't tell approach to using RV parks.
Summary, if you pay for a site, they should give you
the code to unlock the showers, and you should pack
your towel, ditty-bag and flip-flops :-)
-
Joe Smalley wrote:
>
> I wonder what a KOA would charge for a couple hours
> to "recharge my batteries" and "take a shower."
>
> Has anyone tried that approach?
-
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 24 Jun 2003 at 8:42, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> All
> that has to happen is for a Tzero or simular vehicle to drive up to
> Sacramento on one charge(well not quite one). Show it off to CARB and get
> the board to reverse it's whimpy decision.
Don't forget the Solectria Sunrise which ran the NY to Boston trip in the
mid 1990s. Range in a TdS was over 250 miles. They used NiMH but could
just as well have done it on lithium.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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 ---
Russ, nice to hear from you again. You don't post here often enough. We
all could use more support and information from someone with your EV
experience.
But please don't just post to advertise your chargers. Everything I've
heard indicates that they're good, and your reputation supports that.
However -- the list policy is "no advertising." Brief factual mentions are
OK. A post ^describing^ the operation of the charger in value-neutral
and/or technical language is fine. A reference to a website with more
information is fine. Promotional and qualitative language are not.
This passage is primarily descriptive and belongs on the EV list:
"The Russco line of battery chargers, introduced in 1997, does not use phase
control regulation between the AC input and DC output. Active and passive
boost power factor correction produces a PF of 0.90-0.95 at bulk charging
rates, as measured with a Fluke Model 39 Power Meter."
This one is promotional and belongs in an ad or on a website:
"And talk about smart. Unlike some chargers that keep cookin� the
batteries until unplugged, the Russco is available with an automatic shutoff
feature that shuts off the charger when the current comes down and the
voltage stabilizes."
Both Rich Rudman and Victor Tikhonov provide generally good examples of list
members who also build or sell hardware. They talk about their products
factually without advertising them. Even when they give opinions about
them, they don't sound like they're writing ad copy. Better yet, they also
help other EV hobbyist with issues and problems, and discuss products other
than the ones they sell.
I'd love to hear more from you. You really know your stuff and we could use
more of that here. Please post more often, but please, no ads.
Thanks.
David Roden
Assistant EV list administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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 ---
Regarding regen on the ice, I think if it was set up well, it
could be an asset. Maybe put the regen switch/knob right on the
gearshift. I think this because when I lived in Colorado (Front
Range), I drove a VW Bug (rear-drive rear-engined car, kinda
light on the front) there for about ten years. When I first had
that car, I was scared to drive it on real bad ice, because the
front tires would lock up when I'd brake and I'd go sliding along
into the intersection. I had studded snow tires on the rear
(well, maybe they should've been on the front for the brakes!).
Well, enough of that after short order. In went 4*35lb=140lb
worth of cinder blocks into the bonnet up front. That helped a
lot. What helped just about as much was to learn to use those
handy studded tires out back. By using engine braking (shifting
down a gear and using the clutch judiciously), I could get those
studded tires to act just like reverse thrusters. I became
nearly unstoppable on snow and ice, and to this day, that is the
best snow car (note car, not 4WD SUV or something like a 4WD or
all-wheel-drive Subaru, which I've never driven) I've had the
opportunity to drive. If I had had studded tires also on the
front, that would've been even better, but I would've been
chewing through more gas, that's fer sure, and more noise.
So what I'm saying is that regen might very well be used like
this if one could learn to control it well enough. Issue is that
on front-wheel drive cars, all your braking from
engine/regen/brakes is just on the front two tires, although
that's the heavy end of the car with the braking force on it, so
maybe ok.
By the bye, I still have the last set of studded tires from the
Bug, since I drove it out here to CA ten years ago. These
Semperits have studs on the outer edges of the tread, but it
still works pretty well on ice. The tires have been in storage
since I had them taken off shortly after I moved out here, and
appear to be in good shape, with only one winter's usage. So if
anyone wants one a couple of studded snow tires for their
165R15-fittable vehicle they are $10/tire (there are two of
them) + shipping and you have to check whether studded tires are
legal in your area. I hated to throw them away out here (that's
all they would do with them), and I could've sold them if it had
been convenient for me to carry them on a visit back to CO. I
recall they were about $60 apiece new.
Michael Hoskinson wrote:
> Regen on my Zapi sem3 sepex is certainly noticeable, especially
> in 2nd and 3rd gears. It has 3 programmable regen
> configurations: throttle off, brake pedal and reverse. I
haven't
> got the brake pedal regen set up just right but I tell you,
when
> I flip the toggle switch into reverse it's like the hand of God
> saying "No further". I'll have a more complete report when I
> have a little more data. My efforts just now are concentrated
on
> getting her ready for the insurance safety check. Boring
things
> like lights and emergency brakes; maybe the horn should go back
> in too.
>
> IIRC, Victor's ACRX has variable regen that he applies with a
> hand operated switch. There was a discussion on the list some
> time ago about the merits and risks of regen considering that
it
> only affects the drive wheels. I'm going to either set up a
> separate hand switch for brake pedal regen or keep the
programmer
> handy to turn it off or down when the roads are icy.
>
> Mike Hoskinson
>
>
> Chuck Hursch wrote:
> > I drove Bob Wing's ol' MG electric when it had a Zapi H2(3?)
with
> > all the regen contactor setup and a Prestolite series-wound
> > motor. I think he had it up to 120V pack by the time I got
to
> > drive it in this configuration. Needless to say, coming down
the
> > grade from the Inverness Ridge out at Pt. Reyes, I was not
> > impressed with the regen: barely noticeable (kept the car
from
> > speeding away down the grade to some extent) and a rather
weird
> > ticking sound. Eventually Bob gave up on the regen scene
after
> > innumerable hassles and an aging back that slowed down his
work
> > on the car. (By the way, Bob's car(s) is featured at
> > www.geocities.com/nbeaa if anybody wants to take a look.) I
did
> > drive Greg McCrea's Zapi SEM setup in a little Fiat or
whatever
> > it was, and that was nice, real nice regen, all the way down
to
> > 0mph just by letting up on the gas. I got really hot on that
> > idea for awhile, but now I think AC is the way to go for
regen,
> > since it's just a natural part of the AC scene - no extra
> > controller parts, where you have to have one to excite the
field
> > windings in the SEM motor. Here in hilly Marin where
500-2000 ft
> > ridges are commonplace and they just run the roads right over
> > them, regen would be real nice to ease the brakes' life and
get
> > some of that energy back.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All,
I am a new reader to this forum and have found the discussion generally very
interesting.
I have a thought on regen braking that I would like to throw into the fray.
Assuming that the EV is rear wheel drive, has anyone considered using
alternators (or similar devices) connected to the front wheels. The rotor of
the alternator would be fed a variable voltage depending upon the amount of
force applied to the brake pedal; the more voltage fed to the rotor the
greater the braking effect. I would still have front brakes fitted, however
they could be set to activate much later in the brake pedal movement.
I see several advantages to using this setup:
1. The front wheels perform about 75% of the braking.
2. The voltage out of the alternator could be set to the correct
battery voltage, therefore direct charging.
3. Sensors could be placed on the front wheels to detect skidding, the
voltage to the rotor could then be removed/lowered to stop the skid,
therefore the alternators would be a kind of ABS.
4. Could be used in conjunction with a cruse control to reduce speed
when going downhill.
5. Alternators are available cheap.
Some disadvantages or things that would need to be considered are:
1. Half shafts with CV joints would need to be fitted to the front
wheels,
2. Belt/chain or gear drives would need to be fitted between the half
shafts and the alternators.
3. Additional drag would be encountered by the extra stuff.
4. Isolation between the battery bank and the alternators and between
both alternators.
If the car you convert was front wheel drive and you made it rear wheel twin
EV drive, the addition of the alternators is easy.
What do you think?
Regards,
Neil from OZ
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Aren't there some issues to consider and discuss regarding a movement for
mass plug-in hybrid and pure electric vehicles?
Some questions I think of:
Isn't California still pulling out of an electricity crisis---and now State
leaders are supposed to get excited about leading the charge for plug-in
electric hybrids? What's wrong with supporting the existing hybrid
electrics? With SUVs soon to come out in hybrid form anyway, is the value
added worth the hassles?
Also, aren't some of the CalCars Hybrid vehicle goals and usage claims a bit
far-fetched and naive?
---e.g. that these vehicles would be plugged into the grid and when charged
up, could be automatically used by central command to generate electricity
to smooth the grid loads-----this, from a state that got hammered by the
energy traders....doesn't make sense to me. Also, people who garage their
cars (common in california) wouldn't likely want their plugged-in cars
suddenly running to generate electricity for the grid (another sensor
required to detect if car is garaged or not?)---and if the hybrid vehicle's
batteries were being drawn from to dump electricity to the grid, no hybrid
owner in their right mind would want to come out to find their battery
drained due to Enron or Dynegy via the electric grid, sucking their
batteries dry while plugged in.
There are lots more charging infrastructure issues/questions I'm sure.
Wouldn't battery warrantees being thrown out the window due to inability to
ensure a consistent charge/discharge regimen? I doubt that auto
manufacturers would be keen on the variable charge/discharge behaviour which
would result from the plug-in hybrid/generation scenario proposed in this
CalCars initiative, would they? Opinions?
There are oodles of questions that get raised in my mind when the thought of
mass-produced plug-in hybrids gets proposed. Auto manufacturers have
already heard the call made by consumer demand of existing hybrids and
biofuel-compatible high mileage diesels. They have provided something like
100,000 mile guarantees on the batteries of their hybrids. No
infrastructure changes are required. The price is reasonable. Electric
demand on the California electric grid goes unchanged with these. Throw all
these advantages out if we support plug-in mass-produced electric hybrids.
It's a substantial engineering challenge for the vehicles alone. But
there's far more to it than that. California's leaders know that and so do
the auto manufacturers.
Sure, we all want to see more plug-in infrastructure for our EVs---me, for
my electric boat---but imagine if even 100,000 plug-in hybrids went online
in California suddenly, each using perhaps 15kwh/day of grid electricity.
That's an extra 1500Mwh/day (or, 60MWatt rate) of electricity. So, we'd
better be talking about adding lots of windmills and solar panels at the
same time---and funding it all somehow while we're at it.
Thoughts?
-Myles Twete, Portland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi
First of all braking and steering are the most important functions of any
vehicle. People may still remember me telling the story about my daughter
getting killed by bad brakes, and they had been certified good 48 hours
earlier. I would not do any experimenting and endangering life or limb.
But, wouldn't it be safe to use a fifth wheel, or in the case of the
trike I'm building, a fourth wheel? Using the extra wheel for the
experiment in a controlled setting.
Remember: the bank Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snudden, Neil FLGOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Regen Braking SEC: unclassified
> All,
>
> I am a new reader to this forum and have found the discussion generally
very
> interesting.
>
> I have a thought on regen braking that I would like to throw into the
fray.
>
> Assuming that the EV is rear wheel drive, has anyone considered using
> alternators (or similar devices) connected to the front wheels. The rotor
of
> the alternator would be fed a variable voltage depending upon the amount
of
> force applied to the brake pedal; the more voltage fed to the rotor the
> greater the braking effect. I would still have front brakes fitted,
however
> they could be set to activate much later in the brake pedal movement.
>
> I see several advantages to using this setup:
> 1. The front wheels perform about 75% of the braking.
> 2. The voltage out of the alternator could be set to the correct
> battery voltage, therefore direct charging.
> 3. Sensors could be placed on the front wheels to detect skidding, the
> voltage to the rotor could then be removed/lowered to stop the skid,
> therefore the alternators would be a kind of ABS.
> 4. Could be used in conjunction with a cruse control to reduce speed
> when going downhill.
> 5. Alternators are available cheap.
>
> Some disadvantages or things that would need to be considered are:
> 1. Half shafts with CV joints would need to be fitted to the front
> wheels,
> 2. Belt/chain or gear drives would need to be fitted between the half
> shafts and the alternators.
> 3. Additional drag would be encountered by the extra stuff.
> 4. Isolation between the battery bank and the alternators and between
> both alternators.
>
> If the car you convert was front wheel drive and you made it rear wheel
twin
> EV drive, the addition of the alternators is easy.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil from OZ
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
