EV Digest 3425
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Truck Conversion
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Truck Conversion
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Truck Conversion
by "Bobby R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Battery racks in progress
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Air conditioner and power steering pumps
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Kostov Fireballed?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Battery racks in progress
by "Ryan Bohm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Battery racks in progress
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Fw: The new gasoline crisis: What you can do
by "bobrice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Overunity motor? We'll see!
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Air conditioner and power steering pumps
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Kostov Fireballed?
by "bobrice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Shocked
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Battery racks in progress
by "Andrew Paulsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Truck Conversion
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Evercell out of business?
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Ask and yee shall receive !
John, thanks for the great response and Datsun history lesson.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wayland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Truck Conversion
Hello to All,
"Pestka, Dennis J" wrote:
> I have a line on a 1964 Datsun 1200 pickup truck.
> John W are you listening.
Yup!
>
> I think it would make a great conversion.
Yup!
>
>
> Would anyone know the Curb and Gross vehicle weight on this truck?
Yup.
>
> It's missing the bed. Anyone know where to look for this?
Yup!
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
OK, here goes....let's see...a '64 Datsun pickup, that would be an N320
model, with the super
cool rounded cab and the stark 1940's looking bed with flat slab sides. I
know you said it's
missing the bed, so that's why I'm describing it to you. The bed is pretty
shop class like, and
has a 3rd world country look.The N320 came with a 1200 cc push rod engine
that was pretty
anemic, an old tech design with just 57 hp, so they used 4:88 gears to wring
out what little
power was on tap. The early 60's Datsuns were known to ride like cement
mixers when unloaded
and would buzz like crazy at 70 mph with such low gears in back. The fact
that your truck is
missing the bed, confirms that it's not the ultra rare model, a spin-off
version, the Style
Side truck...way cool!!! The style side was still a body-on-frame design
like your truck, but
instead of a separate bed piece, the cab and bed were unibody and very
stylish, especially for
the time period, and especially when compared to the regular truck with its
funky bed. In
addition to the cool shape, the bed also sported double wall construction, a
quality
construction technique that Datsun only employed with the Style Side, then
abandoned until
like Toyota, they put it on all their trucks in the 80's. These mid 60's
Style Side Datsun
trucks are highly collectable and look as if they were designed in the late
70's, not the early
60's. Hodrodders like to get them and turn them into glossy show machines.
The N320 series truck was discontinued in '66, replaced by the new model 520
series truck. This
was a more serious truck, with a roomier cab and a larger, more sturdy bed.
The '66-'67 model
520 trucks weighed ~ 1900 lbs. but were factory rated at 1 ton...yes, you
could load up the bed
with
1 ton and the damn thing sat level! These trucks garnered the nick name
'rough riders', since
like their predecessor the N320, they rode very stiffly when unloaded.
The '66 had two large 7 inch round headlights, the '67 got quad 5 inch
rounds, so their face
was different...other than that, they were pretty much identical. The 520's
improved styling
won Americans over with its fun looks, it's ruggedness was legendary, and
fitted with chrome
rims and fat tires, they had a tough look that caught on with young males,
including yours
truly (I was that young wasn't I?)...the Datsun 520 pickup single handedly,
started the
minitruck revolution! Suddenly, it was hip to have a tough, cool looking
Datsun minitruck!
The next generation Datsun truck, made from '68-'72, was the 521, and was
nearly identical to
the 520, as far as the body and frame. In fact, the cab is the same...same
doors, same
windshield, same roof, etc., and the bed is the same too, other than small
changes to the
inside the bed fender arch covers. The nose though, is completely different,
to accommodate
Datsun's 96 hp 1600cc OHC engine, the L16, the same feisty engine that
powered the famous
Datsun 510 sedan. The 520's cute, rounded snout was replaced with a flatter,
longer hood, and
longer, more angular fenders, too. The 521 was a handsome design, and
weighed ~ 2100 lbs.
Though they could still carry 1 ton, Datsun officially called the 521 a half
ton truck. The
larger, more powerful 1600cc engine didn't need the super low gears in back,
so the 521 came
with a 4:38 ratio. Fitted with alloy rims and wide, low profile tires, with
it's near 100 hp
engine the stiffly sprung 521 when equipped with better shocks and dropped a
few inches, turned
into a sports car with a huge trunk! The 521 pickup was a fun import truck
that could be
tricked out with Nissan Comp. racing parts, to where it had 175 hp and could
bark the tires in
3rd gear...what fun!
In '73, the 520 series ended, and was replaced by the trendy styled 620
series. The 620 truck
was pretty much the same frame as a 520 or 521, but had a totally restyled
cab and bed, and
came with front disc brakes for the first time. In '73, it had an 1800 cc
version of the L16
engine, the L18, and from '74 through '77, it had an L20B two liter engine.
In a nut shell....the N320 trucks were built and sold in small numbers, and
came either as a
regular truck or the very rare Style Side. Only one bed fits this truck.
The '67-72 520 & 521 trucks are larger and more updated. These trucks all
share the same bed,
and they are all interchangeable. All the trucks are in the 1900-2100 lb.
range, all can carry
1 ton.
Hope this helps.
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John;
Any suggestions on the right set-up for this truck?
Would like some decent performance with about a 30 mile range @ 80% DOD.
Thanks again;
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wayland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Truck Conversion
Hello to All,
"Pestka, Dennis J" wrote:
> I have a line on a 1964 Datsun 1200 pickup truck.
> John W are you listening.
Yup!
>
> I think it would make a great conversion.
Yup!
>
>
> Would anyone know the Curb and Gross vehicle weight on this truck?
Yup.
>
> It's missing the bed. Anyone know where to look for this?
Yup!
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
OK, here goes....let's see...a '64 Datsun pickup, that would be an N320
model, with the super
cool rounded cab and the stark 1940's looking bed with flat slab sides. I
know you said it's
missing the bed, so that's why I'm describing it to you. The bed is pretty
shop class like, and
has a 3rd world country look.The N320 came with a 1200 cc push rod engine
that was pretty
anemic, an old tech design with just 57 hp, so they used 4:88 gears to wring
out what little
power was on tap. The early 60's Datsuns were known to ride like cement
mixers when unloaded
and would buzz like crazy at 70 mph with such low gears in back. The fact
that your truck is
missing the bed, confirms that it's not the ultra rare model, a spin-off
version, the Style
Side truck...way cool!!! The style side was still a body-on-frame design
like your truck, but
instead of a separate bed piece, the cab and bed were unibody and very
stylish, especially for
the time period, and especially when compared to the regular truck with its
funky bed. In
addition to the cool shape, the bed also sported double wall construction, a
quality
construction technique that Datsun only employed with the Style Side, then
abandoned until
like Toyota, they put it on all their trucks in the 80's. These mid 60's
Style Side Datsun
trucks are highly collectable and look as if they were designed in the late
70's, not the early
60's. Hodrodders like to get them and turn them into glossy show machines.
The N320 series truck was discontinued in '66, replaced by the new model 520
series truck. This
was a more serious truck, with a roomier cab and a larger, more sturdy bed.
The '66-'67 model
520 trucks weighed ~ 1900 lbs. but were factory rated at 1 ton...yes, you
could load up the bed
with
1 ton and the damn thing sat level! These trucks garnered the nick name
'rough riders', since
like their predecessor the N320, they rode very stiffly when unloaded.
The '66 had two large 7 inch round headlights, the '67 got quad 5 inch
rounds, so their face
was different...other than that, they were pretty much identical. The 520's
improved styling
won Americans over with its fun looks, it's ruggedness was legendary, and
fitted with chrome
rims and fat tires, they had a tough look that caught on with young males,
including yours
truly (I was that young wasn't I?)...the Datsun 520 pickup single handedly,
started the
minitruck revolution! Suddenly, it was hip to have a tough, cool looking
Datsun minitruck!
The next generation Datsun truck, made from '68-'72, was the 521, and was
nearly identical to
the 520, as far as the body and frame. In fact, the cab is the same...same
doors, same
windshield, same roof, etc., and the bed is the same too, other than small
changes to the
inside the bed fender arch covers. The nose though, is completely different,
to accommodate
Datsun's 96 hp 1600cc OHC engine, the L16, the same feisty engine that
powered the famous
Datsun 510 sedan. The 520's cute, rounded snout was replaced with a flatter,
longer hood, and
longer, more angular fenders, too. The 521 was a handsome design, and
weighed ~ 2100 lbs.
Though they could still carry 1 ton, Datsun officially called the 521 a half
ton truck. The
larger, more powerful 1600cc engine didn't need the super low gears in back,
so the 521 came
with a 4:38 ratio. Fitted with alloy rims and wide, low profile tires, with
it's near 100 hp
engine the stiffly sprung 521 when equipped with better shocks and dropped a
few inches, turned
into a sports car with a huge trunk! The 521 pickup was a fun import truck
that could be
tricked out with Nissan Comp. racing parts, to where it had 175 hp and could
bark the tires in
3rd gear...what fun!
In '73, the 520 series ended, and was replaced by the trendy styled 620
series. The 620 truck
was pretty much the same frame as a 520 or 521, but had a totally restyled
cab and bed, and
came with front disc brakes for the first time. In '73, it had an 1800 cc
version of the L16
engine, the L18, and from '74 through '77, it had an L20B two liter engine.
In a nut shell....the N320 trucks were built and sold in small numbers, and
came either as a
regular truck or the very rare Style Side. Only one bed fits this truck.
The '67-72 520 & 521 trucks are larger and more updated. These trucks all
share the same bed,
and they are all interchangeable. All the trucks are in the 1900-2100 lb.
range, all can carry
1 ton.
Hope this helps.
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That newest edition to the evalbum
http://www.evalbum.com seems to have near the same
specs as you want. It's a VW Trug and claims decent
acceleration and 30 miles @ 65mph in the mountain
highways.
Bobby
--- "Pestka, Dennis J"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John;
>
> Any suggestions on the right set-up for this truck?
> Would like some decent performance with about a 30
> mile range @ 80% DOD.
>
> Thanks again;
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wayland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Truck Conversion
>
>
> Hello to All,
>
> "Pestka, Dennis J" wrote:
>
> > I have a line on a 1964 Datsun 1200 pickup truck.
> > John W are you listening.
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> > I think it would make a great conversion.
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> >
> > Would anyone know the Curb and Gross vehicle
> weight on this truck?
>
> Yup.
>
> >
> > It's missing the bed. Anyone know where to look
> for this?
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
>
> OK, here goes....let's see...a '64 Datsun pickup,
> that would be an N320
> model, with the super
> cool rounded cab and the stark 1940's looking bed
> with flat slab sides. I
> know you said it's
> missing the bed, so that's why I'm describing it to
> you. The bed is pretty
> shop class like, and
> has a 3rd world country look.The N320 came with a
> 1200 cc push rod engine
> that was pretty
> anemic, an old tech design with just 57 hp, so they
> used 4:88 gears to wring
> out what little
> power was on tap. The early 60's Datsuns were known
> to ride like cement
> mixers when unloaded
> and would buzz like crazy at 70 mph with such low
> gears in back. The fact
> that your truck is
> missing the bed, confirms that it's not the ultra
> rare model, a spin-off
> version, the Style
> Side truck...way cool!!! The style side was still a
> body-on-frame design
> like your truck, but
> instead of a separate bed piece, the cab and bed
> were unibody and very
> stylish, especially for
> the time period, and especially when compared to the
> regular truck with its
> funky bed. In
> addition to the cool shape, the bed also sported
> double wall construction, a
> quality
> construction technique that Datsun only employed
> with the Style Side, then
> abandoned until
> like Toyota, they put it on all their trucks in the
> 80's. These mid 60's
> Style Side Datsun
> trucks are highly collectable and look as if they
> were designed in the late
> 70's, not the early
> 60's. Hodrodders like to get them and turn them into
> glossy show machines.
>
> The N320 series truck was discontinued in '66,
> replaced by the new model 520
> series truck. This
> was a more serious truck, with a roomier cab and a
> larger, more sturdy bed.
> The '66-'67 model
> 520 trucks weighed ~ 1900 lbs. but were factory
> rated at 1 ton...yes, you
> could load up the bed
> with
> 1 ton and the damn thing sat level! These trucks
> garnered the nick name
> 'rough riders', since
> like their predecessor the N320, they rode very
> stiffly when unloaded.
> The '66 had two large 7 inch round headlights, the
> '67 got quad 5 inch
> rounds, so their face
> was different...other than that, they were pretty
> much identical. The 520's
> improved styling
> won Americans over with its fun looks, it's
> ruggedness was legendary, and
> fitted with chrome
> rims and fat tires, they had a tough look that
> caught on with young males,
> including yours
> truly (I was that young wasn't I?)...the Datsun 520
> pickup single handedly,
> started the
> minitruck revolution! Suddenly, it was hip to have a
> tough, cool looking
> Datsun minitruck!
>
> The next generation Datsun truck, made from '68-'72,
> was the 521, and was
> nearly identical to
> the 520, as far as the body and frame. In fact, the
> cab is the same...same
> doors, same
> windshield, same roof, etc., and the bed is the same
> too, other than small
> changes to the
> inside the bed fender arch covers. The nose though,
> is completely different,
> to accommodate
> Datsun's 96 hp 1600cc OHC engine, the L16, the same
> feisty engine that
> powered the famous
> Datsun 510 sedan. The 520's cute, rounded snout was
> replaced with a flatter,
> longer hood, and
> longer, more angular fenders, too. The 521 was a
> handsome design, and
> weighed ~ 2100 lbs.
> Though they could still carry 1 ton, Datsun
> officially called the 521 a half
> ton truck. The
> larger, more powerful 1600cc engine didn't need the
> super low gears in back,
> so the 521 came
> with a 4:38 ratio. Fitted with alloy rims and wide,
> low profile tires, with
> it's near 100 hp
> engine the stiffly sprung 521 when equipped with
> better shocks and dropped a
> few inches, turned
> into a sports car with a huge trunk! The 521 pickup
> was a fun import truck
> that could be
> tricked out with Nissan Comp. racing parts, to where
> it had 175 hp and could
> bark the tires in
> 3rd gear...what fun!
>
> In '73, the 520 series ended, and was replaced by
> the trendy styled 620
> series. The 620 truck
> was pretty much the same frame as a 520 or 521, but
> had a totally restyled
> cab and bed, and
> came with front disc brakes for the first time. In
> '73, it had an 1800 cc
> version of the L16
> engine, the L18, and from '74 through '77, it had an
> L20B two liter engine.
>
> In a nut shell....the N320 trucks were built and
> sold in small numbers, and
> came either as a
> regular truck or the very rare Style Side. Only one
> bed fits this truck.
> The '67-72 520 & 521 trucks are larger and more
> updated. These trucks all
> share the same bed,
> and they are all interchangeable. All the trucks are
> in the 1900-2100 lb.
> range, all can carry
> 1 ton.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> See Ya.....John Wayland
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan,
AGM's don't swell like floodeds. Flooded batteries swell on all sides,
usually wedging them into their boxes. AGM's, like Optimas, swell on the
top, if any. If they swell on the sides the cells will short out.
-Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ryan Bohm
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 5:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Battery racks in progress
Hi,
For anyone interested in seeing the progress of my battery racks in the
200sx, I've got some pictures and info. at
http://www.evsource.com/conversion/battery_racks.php
I'll have more stuff up in the next few days.
-Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Jude,
In my EV call Electro I which you can see in the EV Album under General
Motors, you will see a Air Condition, power steering pump, vacuum pump and a
alternator that is driven off the front of the electric motor shaft.
This car used to have a super expensive Honeywell motors that used the main
battery pack for power to drive the accessories.
After driving this rig for 10 years and start to add accessories off the
main motor, I did not find any additional current lost, in fact I gain power
in some cases.
It does not make any difference power usage if you take power from a 12 volt
systems that is driven by a DC/DC convertor from the main battery or take
power directly from the main battery, or drive the main motor, to drive the
the accessories.
I sometime gain in power, when motor and car is still running above 500 rpm
while slowing down or going down a hill, which still runs all the
accessories units with no power input at the time.
It also provides the EV with a braking, like the compression braking of a
ICE, which is a lot more effected than REGEN on a icy down hill!!!
The frame unit I used to hold all these accessories is for a diesel GMC
engine, that is all in one unit, with all the adjusting mounts and brackets.
You can get this in all aluminum frame that is used in some cars.
This unit is not mounted on the motor, but is mounted on a seperated frame,
mounted on four donut engine mounts about 12 inches in front of the main
motor.
Of course, if your vehicle does not have the room for this type of assembly,
I have seen a belt pully install right on the motor, which ran the
accessories that were mounted on separate platforms.
If your motor does not have a shaft out the front, than a motor generator
could be used. This unit can be run of the main battery, it's provides a
charging voltage for a accessory 12 volt battery and has a motor shaft that
can run the AC , power steering and vacuum pump.
The unit I had was made by HoneyWell, I sent it back to them for repair, it
was cheaper to purchase some other manufacturers unit, because HoneyWell
only built a few proto type units. I took them to junk it.
I than power these units directly off the main motor. This system has been
working for the last 19 years, which took me between points A and B for that
length of time, with no problems.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jude Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:59 PM
Subject: Air conditioner and power steering pumps
> So, I'm trying to plan ahead. When it gets to Florida, my EV will need
> an air conditioner; I figured I'd run the air conditioning and power
> steering pumps off the same motor. The air conditioner's pump should
> include an electric clutch to turn it on and off; meanwhile, I can't
> find a decent motor. I checked evparts, but everything there is 24V or
> greater, and several hundred dollars. I'm really looking for less than
> $150 and 12V (so I can run it off the converter).
>
> Any help?
>
> Judebert
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
>> Lee Hart warned strenously against using any motor as a hill holder.
>> Real bad idea.
Not just me. LOTS of people. This is been known for 100+years!
Chris Zach wrote:
> I can totally understand this with a DC motor: You're not moving
> the commutator, and basically you're holding the car with a
> fraction of the motor. Exceptionally bad and a good way to burn
> dead spots onto your armature.
Not quite. In a DC motor, *all* the windings and *all* the brushes are
carrying the current *all* the time; even at stall. Therefore, the
current rating of *these* parts is the same regardless of whether the
motor is stalled or spinning (assuming you have an external fan).
The problem at stall comes from the commutator bars themselves. At
stall, one particular set of bars is sitting under the brushes. These
bars carry 100% of the current; the rest carry 0 current. The bars can't
dissipate the heat; they are designed on the assumption that one
particular bar is only under the brush and carrying current for a very
brief time as the motor rotates.
So, if you run full current at stall, the commutator bars under the
brushed will quickly overheat. First they warp (will stick up and later
wreck the brush when the motor starts turning again); then the bonding
that holds them in place fails (the bar will get thrown the next time
the motor reaches high rpm); and then the melt (fails right now)!
> However an AC motor does not have that concept. And most AC motors
> are liquid cooled. So what is the potential damage?
*Some* types of AC motors don't. Others do.
A majority of AC motors are air-cooled by internal fans; just like a
majority of DC motors. So, they can die at stall from lack of cooling
air. For either AC or DC motors, an external cooling system (air or
liquid) solves this problem.
Permanent magnet AC motors (a.k.a. brushless DC motors) require that you
energize only half the windings at any given instant. Thus at stall,
half the windings carry all the current. So if the motor is rated for
100 amps continuous, that is 50 amps per set of coils (i.e. per phase).
If you applied the full 100 amps at stall (to have full rated torque),
one set of windings gets the full 100 amps. Heating in the wire is
proportional to current squared; thus these windings are dissipating 4
times more power than when the motor is rotating!
Induction motors slip; the rotor speed is always behind the winding
speed (frequency) by 100 rpm or so. So at stall, the rotor is at 1 rpm
and the stator windings are being switched at about 100 rpm. This avoids
the problem of one phase stuck at full current.
But, if the vehicle is rolling *backwards* so the rotor is turning -100
rpm, then the stator windings must be at 0 frequency to generate forward
torque (i.e. to stop the car from rolling backwards down a hill). So the
problem still exists, but is much less likely.
Induction motors have an additional problem; the slip creates an extra
loss, which is dissipated as heat in the rotor. The higher the torque,
the hotter the rotor. The rotor generally has poor cooling (just stirred
air, like the armature of a DC motor). AC induction motors generally
only air- or liquid-cool the stator windings; not the rotor. So, at
stall you can melt the rotor.
Otmar wrote:
> if you try to hold a AC motor stalled all day you will likely
> damage it, and it wouldn't take anywhere near all day to kill the
> motor. What happens is that the rotor overheats. The rotor usually
> does not have a temperature sensor on it so the only chance for
> the controller to save it would be predictive algorithms.
And this points out the *real* reason why DC motors (like the Kostov
that started this thread) often fail so spectacularly. It's the
controller!
Most DC motor controllers (Curtis, etc.) have *no* feedback from the
motor. They are cheap, simple devices. They don't monitor motor rpm or
temperature, and so can't do anything to detect or prevent failures.
That's why you don't have to 'program' the controller with any motor
parameters.
Most AC motor controllers are expensive, complex devices. They have
extensive feedback from the motor. They have speed and temperature
sensors, and use complex predictive algorithms to guesstimate what is
going on in the motor from the applied current and voltage. That is why
you have to 'program' the controller to match the motor characteristics.
If DC motor controllers were built with the same level of sophistication
as their AC counterparts (and some, like Otmar's, are), then they could
protect their motors equally well. The penalty for this would be higher
cost, and you would have to program the controller with many details
about the motor to make it work. Luckily, most of the cost of a
controller is in the power electronics; thus such a sophisticated DC
controller would cost more than a Curtis, but not as much as an AC
controller.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey, that's great. Thanks Ed. I was a little worried after being told
about batteries swelling that I might have my batteries too close together.
-Ryan
--------- Original Message --------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Battery racks in progress
Date: 26/03/04 15:45
>
> Ryan,
>
> AGM's don't swell like floodeds. Flooded batteries swell on all sides,
> usually wedging them into their boxes. AGM's, like Optimas, swell on the
> top, if any. If they swell on the sides the cells will short out.
>
> -Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Ryan Bohm
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 5:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Battery racks in progress
>
>
> Hi,
>
> For anyone interested in seeing the progress of my battery racks in the
> 200sx, I've got some pictures and info. at
> http://www.evsource.com/conversion/battery_racks.php
>
> I'll have more stuff up in the next few days.
>
> -Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
www.evsource.com - 100% Electric!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan,
I have a Sparrow and have gone through about 4 sets of YTs. The only
swelling, even on 3-year-old YTs was the top bulging. The cylinder design
prevents any side swelling.
-Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ryan Bohm
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Battery racks in progress
Hey, that's great. Thanks Ed. I was a little worried after being told
about batteries swelling that I might have my batteries too close together.
-Ryan
--------- Original Message --------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Battery racks in progress
Date: 26/03/04 15:45
>
> Ryan,
>
> AGM's don't swell like floodeds. Flooded batteries swell on all sides,
> usually wedging them into their boxes. AGM's, like Optimas, swell on the
> top, if any. If they swell on the sides the cells will short out.
>
> -Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Ryan Bohm
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 5:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Battery racks in progress
>
>
> Hi,
>
> For anyone interested in seeing the progress of my battery racks in the
> 200sx, I've got some pictures and info. at
> http://www.evsource.com/conversion/battery_racks.php
>
> I'll have more stuff up in the next few days.
>
> -Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
www.evsource.com - 100% Electric!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi EVerybody;
I just got this in the E mail this AM. I sent them a blast about doing a
new article to rescind their EV's Forgetaboutit article of a few years ago.
I went to the Save a gallon stuff and blasted them for overlooking the
demise of EV-1, that the infratrastructure for EV's is here, electricity is
common in USA, today, unlike hydrogen. Howbout talking about the defanging
of CARB, the Auto Cartel pulling in all the leased cars. EV racing, a link
to NEDRA, oh I went on and on, believe me. I tried to forward my stuff to
the List. But, Hey ! THEY rattled my cage on this one. I'm on thair Mailing
List since I wrote them in protest to EV's Forgetaboutit"The chintzy little
box they give you to write in, I think, is all they are expecting, but you
can go on forever, seems.
Figure they hear from a buncha EVers, they won't think I'm the only
one?I'll forward their answer, if I get one.
Seeya
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Reader's Digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: The new gasoline crisis: What you can do
>
>
> Dear Friend,
>
> We've got an idea at Reader's Digest, and we need your help.
Given the conflict surrounding foreign oil, we've come up with a plan for
what we can all do at home. Make a commitment to save a gallon of gas by
signing up at rd.com/saveagallon.
>
> The 130 million Americans who drive typically consume about
2.6 billion gallons of gas each week in April. If every one of us used just
one gallon less, we'd reduce the amount of fuel we burn that week by 5
percent. That's a whopping 130 million gallons saved, or more crude oil than
we import from Kuwait in an entire month!
>
> So we teamed up with the American Automobile Association to
launch our first annual SAVE-A-GALLON campaign at rd.com/saveagallon.
>
> Click here today and sign our Declaration of Oil Independence
to save a gallon or more of gas during the week of Earth Day, April 22
(Monday, April 19 to Sunday, April 25). There, you'll find easy and
efficient ideas for reducing the amount of fuel you use.
>
> Pledge at rd.com/saveagallon before April 25, and if you are
interested, Reader's Digest may contact you for an interview about how you
did it, so you can inspire others!
>
> Best wishes,
> Glenn Gordon
> Editor, rd.com
>
> Snip, in MY Perfect World
> April 2004
> THIS MONTH'S NEWSLETTER:
>
> 1. Declaration of Oil Independence: Save a Gallon of Gas
Resumed production of EV-1's Honda EV Plusses, Thinks and a
national EV plug in setup
>
> 2. How Do "As Seen on TV" Products Really Rate?
Who cares? Turn it OFF get out and BUILD something. Get yur hands
dirty!
>
> 3. Hog Wild: Stupid Ways States Waste Money
> Oh Don't get me started, List charter sez NO!
> 4. Who Are the Heroes of the Year?
>
Oatmar, Rich, , Plazma Boy,Rod Wilde, Victor,Sheer,Father Time,
the Damon's .Dave Roden Lee Hart, .the Seth's, Bill Dube. The Phoenix
Motors guyz! sorry if I left ya out, but I mean well.
> 5. Introducing the ChangeOne Diet
Throw away the pills!Go for a walk Get out and ride a BIKE, a
pedal type, Electric assist, maybe?
>
> 6. Enrich Your Word Power
Join a few Lists, hasn't helped my spelling much , though<g>!
>
>
>
> OK yur turn, Blast them!!
>
> Seeya
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List shows I sent an attachment. I didn't do it. What is going on? Is
is
> XP? Lawrence Rhodes.......
>
Lawrence I thing its overunity , Just talking about it has generated an
attachment,
>From the front battle field, Gen on a wheels , seem to be sliding to " run
an inverter from the 12v battery and plug in a battery charger to then
recharge that same 12v battery , use an inverter with 2 plugs and the other
plug is your free electric".
Your only defense when taken hostage by these reality terrorist is the word
"remarkable " , keep repeating it till they let you go .
Steve Clunn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> Maybe I can just hook it up to the tail shaft of the 4001A, and rig some
> kind of "idle" mode for when I'm standing still...
>
> Judebert
> EVirgin
> T
that's what I've been doing , and it work very well , its simple and you
don't need to spend any money. also the extra load on the drive motor helps
shifting. you can see it on my Mazda 2 on the top ten evalbum . or one the
Mazda 1 in album also
steve clunn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Kostov Fireballed?
> Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> >> Lee Hart warned strenously against using any motor as a hill holder.
> >> Real bad idea.
>
> Not just me. LOTS of people. This is been known for 100+years!
> For sure! No holding the brakes on and opening the throttle for a quick
getaway in the Train Races!<g>! A Diseasel or electric lokie will kill the
traction motors if this is done, and you NEVER throw them in reverse to
stop, unless you hasve a damn good reason, to tell the trainmaster while the
lokie is towed to the shop.
In Training
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>>> AC or DC, it doesn't really matter much...
> I'm going to second Jerry on this. I've been bitten several times
> by both 110V AC and 128V DC. They both feel roughly the same to
> me (neither is pleasant). But I've been lucky in that none of
> these times was I particularly sweaty or wet.
>
> Either voltage and DC/AC can kill you just as quick under the
> right situation. NEITHER of these is "safe"! Heck, theoretically
> 48V DC can kill you, I've never heard of it happening, but it's
> possible.
I completely agree! Arguing about the safety of AC vs DC is like arguing
about whether freshwater or saltwater is more dangerous to drown in.
Sure, there are minor differences; but BOTH are dangerous and can kill
you!
Voltage is far and away the most important consideration. AC vs. DC is
only a minor variation. Most of the supposed differences between AC and
DC are a consequence of the circumstances, not due to AC vs. DC itself.
For example, most AC comes from the AC powerline, where one side is
always grounded. You are usually standing on, or leaning against, or
otherwise touching something that is grounded. Thus, all you need to do
is touch one more thing to get a shock (something connected to the AC
'hot' wire). It's easier to get such a shock. But, it's also more likely
that you will only accidentally brush against, or loosely touch that hot
wire. You didn't deliberately grab hold of it tightly. So, it's more
likely that the convulsive "jump" or "jerk" from the shock will kick you
away from it. Also, the path that the current takes through your body is
unpredictable; it depends on what part of you is supplying the ground
(other arm, leg, etc.). Arm-arm is probably the worst-case. That's why
electricians will say to work with one hand behind your back; so you
won't get this kind of shock.
In contrast, most high voltage DC comes from some power supply. It may,
or may not be grounded. The propulsion systems in our EVs are *not*
grounded. This means you have to touch two different points in the
circuit to get a shock. This means your feet are almost certainly not
involved; any shock will involve one or two hands/arms. If it's in one
arm (wrist accidentally on one battery terminal when your finger touches
another), you get a nasty surprise but it is almost certainly not fatal.
But if you accidentally put one hand on a battery terminal and the other
hand on another, you have a very dangerous situation because the current
is flowing right through your heart.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all, I'm a lurker from ND with a little experience with AGMs over
the last four years or so.
For what it's worth, I agree about the Optima swelling pattern as well -
at least in the short term. Back in the 2001 American Solar Challenge
(before we knew anything about AGM's), our team (NDSU) used 8 Optima
YT's. We may have only used them for a few months, but with all the
chronic over charging and discharging we killed half of them.
Aside from a little "battery goo" that leaked out of the vent of one
that was overcharging all the time, the only visible damage was swelling
in the top of the case in the form of lumps. We stored the batteries
for two years, and I just dug them out about a month ago to see how they
were doing. The plan was to cycle them a few times, get rid of the
worst ones, and keep the best 8. I found that four of our original 16
were completely toasted (looks like they're dried up), another four are
at about half capacity, and the other eight (probably the ones we didn't
race with :-) seem to be like new yet.
Anyway, back to the point: after damaging them and letting them sit for
two years, they haven't swollen any more than they did at the time of
the damage. The only deformations observed were on the top of the
cases, right over the cells.
Andrew
Andrew Paulsen
Electrical Team Leader
NDSU Sunsetters Solar Race Team
andrew.paulsen at ndsu.nodak.edu
Home: (701) 306-5813
Work: (701) 231-6425
http://www.sunsetters.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Ryan Bohm
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Battery racks in progress
>
>
> Hey, that's great. Thanks Ed. I was a little worried after
> being told about batteries swelling that I might have my
> batteries too close together.
>
> -Ryan
>
> --------- Original Message --------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Battery racks in progress
> Date: 26/03/04 15:45
>
> >
> > Ryan,
> >
> > AGM's don't swell like floodeds. Flooded batteries swell on
> all sides,
> > usually wedging them into their boxes. AGM's, like Optimas,
> swell on
> > the top, if any. If they swell on the sides the cells will
> short out.
> >
> > -Ed
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
These seem ideal for EVing. However it seems that a later model with the
"king cab" might be more comfortable if you need to seat 4 people. I just
saw a pre Trundra model carrying 4 people and they seemed to fit. What
might be the lightest truck year(Toyota/Mazda/Nissan) that might be turned
into a long range (80 to 120 mile) vehicle yet still seat two on the jump
seats and John where do you get your specs.? Lawrence Rhodes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Wayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Truck Conversion
> Hello to All,
>
> "Pestka, Dennis J" wrote:
>
> > I have a line on a 1964 Datsun 1200 pickup truck.
> > John W are you listening.
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> > I think it would make a great conversion.
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> >
> > Would anyone know the Curb and Gross vehicle weight on this truck?
>
> Yup.
>
> >
> > It's missing the bed. Anyone know where to look for this?
>
> Yup!
>
> >
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
>
> OK, here goes....let's see...a '64 Datsun pickup, that would be an N320
model, with the super
> cool rounded cab and the stark 1940's looking bed with flat slab sides. I
know you said it's
> missing the bed, so that's why I'm describing it to you. The bed is pretty
shop class like, and
> has a 3rd world country look.The N320 came with a 1200 cc push rod engine
that was pretty
> anemic, an old tech design with just 57 hp, so they used 4:88 gears to
wring out what little
> power was on tap. The early 60's Datsuns were known to ride like cement
mixers when unloaded
> and would buzz like crazy at 70 mph with such low gears in back. The fact
that your truck is
> missing the bed, confirms that it's not the ultra rare model, a spin-off
version, the Style
> Side truck...way cool!!! The style side was still a body-on-frame design
like your truck, but
> instead of a separate bed piece, the cab and bed were unibody and very
stylish, especially for
> the time period, and especially when compared to the regular truck with
its funky bed. In
> addition to the cool shape, the bed also sported double wall construction,
a quality
> construction technique that Datsun only employed with the Style Side,
then abandoned until
> like Toyota, they put it on all their trucks in the 80's. These mid 60's
Style Side Datsun
> trucks are highly collectable and look as if they were designed in the
late 70's, not the early
> 60's. Hodrodders like to get them and turn them into glossy show machines.
>
> The N320 series truck was discontinued in '66, replaced by the new model
520 series truck. This
> was a more serious truck, with a roomier cab and a larger, more sturdy
bed. The '66-'67 model
> 520 trucks weighed ~ 1900 lbs. but were factory rated at 1 ton...yes, you
could load up the bed
> with
> 1 ton and the damn thing sat level! These trucks garnered the nick name
'rough riders', since
> like their predecessor the N320, they rode very stiffly when unloaded.
> The '66 had two large 7 inch round headlights, the '67 got quad 5 inch
rounds, so their face
> was different...other than that, they were pretty much identical. The
520's improved styling
> won Americans over with its fun looks, it's ruggedness was legendary, and
fitted with chrome
> rims and fat tires, they had a tough look that caught on with young males,
including yours
> truly (I was that young wasn't I?)...the Datsun 520 pickup single
handedly, started the
> minitruck revolution! Suddenly, it was hip to have a tough, cool looking
Datsun minitruck!
>
> The next generation Datsun truck, made from '68-'72, was the 521, and was
nearly identical to
> the 520, as far as the body and frame. In fact, the cab is the same...same
doors, same
> windshield, same roof, etc., and the bed is the same too, other than small
changes to the
> inside the bed fender arch covers. The nose though, is completely
different, to accommodate
> Datsun's 96 hp 1600cc OHC engine, the L16, the same feisty engine that
powered the famous
> Datsun 510 sedan. The 520's cute, rounded snout was replaced with a
flatter, longer hood, and
> longer, more angular fenders, too. The 521 was a handsome design, and
weighed ~ 2100 lbs.
> Though they could still carry 1 ton, Datsun officially called the 521 a
half ton truck. The
> larger, more powerful 1600cc engine didn't need the super low gears in
back, so the 521 came
> with a 4:38 ratio. Fitted with alloy rims and wide, low profile tires,
with it's near 100 hp
> engine the stiffly sprung 521 when equipped with better shocks and dropped
a few inches, turned
> into a sports car with a huge trunk! The 521 pickup was a fun import truck
that could be
> tricked out with Nissan Comp. racing parts, to where it had 175 hp and
could bark the tires in
> 3rd gear...what fun!
>
> In '73, the 520 series ended, and was replaced by the trendy styled 620
series. The 620 truck
> was pretty much the same frame as a 520 or 521, but had a totally restyled
cab and bed, and
> came with front disc brakes for the first time. In '73, it had an 1800 cc
version of the L16
> engine, the L18, and from '74 through '77, it had an L20B two liter
engine.
>
> In a nut shell....the N320 trucks were built and sold in small numbers,
and came either as a
> regular truck or the very rare Style Side. Only one bed fits this truck.
> The '67-72 520 & 521 trucks are larger and more updated. These trucks all
share the same bed,
> and they are all interchangeable. All the trucks are in the 1900-2100 lb.
range, all can carry
> 1 ton.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> See Ya.....John Wayland
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
OK.
I'll bite....where's the beef, Ed?
I've spent a half hour searching the 'net for any evidence that Evercel's
filed for bankruptcy and the only thing close to evidence is that while
EVRC.PK was being traded yesterday, today there haven't been any trades of
the stock going on.
Given the lack of evidence, MORE LIKELY to me is that Evercel is doing
EXACTLY what they said they'd do 2 months ago when they announced they were
"delisting" from being a publicly traded company and instead going private.
The date they targeted to do so? The end of March....I.E., right about now.
So, if anyone has any real evidence that Evercel has filed or is actually
filing for bankruptcy, I for one would like to know.
Thanks!
-Myles Twete (sorry sucker w/EVRC stock)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Evercell out of business?
>
>
> yes, confirmed.
> -Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:05 AM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Evercell out of business?
>
>
> I have heard on the Zappy list that Evercell is bankrupt.
> Anybody know for
> sure? Lawrence Rhodes....
>
--- End Message ---
