EV Digest 3433
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Models burned down house still around.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: OTish: Re: EVLN(h2 Prius)
by Brad Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Seeking Concorde AGM advice
by Green VW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: OTish: Re: EVLN(h2 Prius)- why ethanol?
by "Philip Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Hot EV BMS tool - Battery Monitor System from JB - shameless plug
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: ACPropulsion combo on eBay
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Hi
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8) Re: New Car or Not (Was Tom Hanks = Big EV Fan)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: AMP connectors
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: New Car or Not (Was Tom Hanks = Big EV Fan)
by "T Humphrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: AMP connectors
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: step up transformer and zivans?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Power lines under roads
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Seeking Concorde AGM advice
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: AMP connectors
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Symptoms of a bad battery in a string
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: EVLN(Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss)
by Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Seeking Concorde AGM advice
by Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: AMP connectors
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: EVLN(Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss)
by "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Battery telemetry thought, take one.
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) RE: Battery telemetry thought, take one.
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: EVLN(Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss)
by Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) RE: EVLN(Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss)
by Edward Ang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: step up transformer and zivans?
by Edward Ang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Seeking Concorde AGM advice
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
To be honest I never heard the official report on this thing. It just
seemed to be forgotten. Does anybody have the Fire Dept report? Lawrence
Rhodes.........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Models burned down house still around.
> I'm curious as to the point of this post. Maybe I am missing something.
>
> This story was exposed as a big pack of lies right after it was posted.
> Yes a fire occurred, and yes, there was some damage to a garage, some
> minor smoke damage to the house and a dog apparently died of smoke
> inhalation.
>
> The rest of the sensationalism about how her house was a smoking crater
> was proven to be crap. The quotes from firefighters on the scene have
> been totally disavowed as false by the actual firemen on the scene. This
> has never happened before in anyone's memory on that fire department
> according to the fire chief who was later contacted regarding these
> quotes.
>
> Basically, there was a whole lot of hype about how electrics are "fire
> spewing death machines" but no actual substance to the exaggerated
> claims.
>
> -Ken Trough
> Publisher - V is for Voltage Magazine
> http://visforvoltage.com
> 24 hour AIM - ktrough
> 24 hour message center - 866-872-8901
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:38 PM 03/30/2004 -0800, you wrote:
My point was that rather than spending millions to convert Prii
to run on Hydrogen, it would be far more practical to make them
run on Ethanol, or even LPG or CNG.
I contacted Toyota on that idea, no plans to support running the Prius on
Ethanol fuel.
brad
Brad Waddell ** FLEXquarters.com LLC ** voice-mail/fax: 602-532-7019
Postal: 6965 El Camino Real Ste 105 #488 Carlsbad CA 92009 USA
Plug-in to your QuickBooks data at www.qodbc.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
on 3/31/04 12:44 AM, Lee Hart at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Green VW wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone had any luck bringing Concorde AGM's back to life. My batteries
>> (4-D's) would charge up to 13.1 volts when new, but won't make it past 12.6
>> now. All 10 batteries are in similar condition, no weak ones. They are 2
>> years old with 150 cycles. Most cycles less than 60%. I am using a smart
>> charger with powercheq regs. The charger checks out ok. Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>
> It's hard to recommend corrective actions without knowing what sort of
> abuse the batteries have suffered from. Can you tell us a little more
> about how they have been charged and discharged? If they only have 150
> cycles in 2 years, that implies that they have been left idle for almost
> all of their life. Were they sitting no-load, or on a float charger? If
> a charger, at what voltage?
>
> I have a set of Concordes in my EV. They are just over 6 years old now,
> and I have only had one failure. However, I have had a pretty aggressive
> battery management system for most of that time.
During my first week of ev commuting, I was driving on the highway in 4th
gear instead of 3rd and pulling 230 to 250 amps and overheating the 500 amp
Curtis. I also ran the pack down to 80% or so on the first 3 runs. After
the first week, with advice from the list and an outlet installed at work, I
modified my driving and charging style. Currently, on acceleration, I rarely
exceed 400 amps. Typically, 350 to 375. Cruising, it pulls in the 160 to
210 range. I usually recharge completely using a 30 amp Russco, which puts
in around 17-18 amps to 80%, at up to 130v on a 120v pack and then trickle
charges for 2.5 hours at 144v. I was rarely exceeding a 60% DOD for most of
these miles, but am now going to 80% to make the 17 mile trip from work to
home (about twice the consumption as a year ago). The batteries sit
unattended for up to 3 weeks at a time. During such durations the pack
voltage will lose 1 to 1.5 volts or so.
Thanks
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What would be the advantage of an ethanol-burning vehicle? It seems that it
takes more fossil fuel to produce ethanol than the energy available in the
ethanol. So, by burning ethanol, you would end up with a net loss in
energy, and a net increase in pollution and greenhouse gases compared to a
gasoline-powered vehicle. ( not to mention much higher costs)
See: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicles/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html
Phil
From: Brad Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OTish: Re: EVLN(h2 Prius)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:16:22 -0800
At 08:38 PM 03/30/2004 -0800, you wrote:
My point was that rather than spending millions to convert Prii
to run on Hydrogen, it would be far more practical to make them
run on Ethanol, or even LPG or CNG.
I contacted Toyota on that idea, no plans to support running the Prius on
Ethanol fuel.
brad
Brad Waddell ** FLEXquarters.com LLC ** voice-mail/fax: 602-532-7019
Postal: 6965 El Camino Real Ste 105 #488 Carlsbad CA 92009 USA
Plug-in to your QuickBooks data at www.qodbc.com
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee�
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The Sparrows have only 13 batteries, so this fits within the specs. I've
> been using it to monitor 14 batteries in my modified Sparrow. His design
can
> handle straight string up to 15 or two parallel strings of 7 each (leaving
a
> gap for resetting the reference point for the second string).
>
Did I read your using a zilla controller, Dose that mean your running 168 on
your 156v zilla?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is a difficult challenge. It would be possible to do this by using a
fiberglass shim between the motor and metal adapter plate, and by using a
coupler with an elastomeric element. However, speaking as someone who has
had to transmit 1,666 ft-lb. of torque using one of these couplers in a
stationary application, the problem is that the couplers are HUGE! And,
they do not like high RPM's, like this motor probably does. I think they
max. out around 3600 RPM. I was partial to the Dodge D-Flex
(http://www.dodge-pt.com/products/pt_components/couplings/d_flex_coupling.ht
ml).
The size of the coupler pushes the motor further away, increasing the
required size and weight of the adapter. Plus, occasionally the coupler
elements break and you have to get to them to replace them somehow. They do
tolerate misalignment, well, though.
Another way might be to mount the motor above the transmission on insulated
mounts, put pulleys on the motor and transmission, and use a belt drive. I
think Richard Bebbington mounted his motor on "mellow yellow" in a similar
fashion due to the difficulty in mounting it in the usual position. He
didn't have to deal with insulating it, though.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ACPropulsion combo on eBay
>
> Jorg Brown wrote:
> >> One thing that makes the ACP drive a little more interesting is that
> >> there's an insulation issue - something about the case of the motor
> >> should not make electrical contact with the car chassis.
>
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> > It is not a problem for tzero with plastic body.
> > But it will be for you if a regular car is used.
>
> Most large motors (AC or DC) have a fairly large capacitance between
> their windings and their case. With the fast rise/fall times applied by
> the inverter, this capacitance creates a considerable amount of ground
> current. If you have a non-isolated charger (like AC Propulsion), this
> ground current makes it impossible to keep a GFCI from tripping.
>
> AC Propulsion's solution was to unground the motor case. The motor has
> to be mounted on electrically isolated mounts, and its shaft has to
> likewise have some kind of non-conductive coupler. These isolated
> mountings also need to have protective guards and shrouds, so water,
> mud, snow, etc, cannot bridge the isolation, and so a person cannot
> touch the motor casing while charging.
>
> Meeting these requirements can be quite a challenge!
> --
> "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 ---
Try this game ;-)
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>> If you convert it to electric and then apply for a new title as
>> a "new" electric vehicle, then by the IRS rules it is new and you
>> can take the credit.
> Can you point to an IRS source for this "rule"?
I don't think the IRS has any say in the matter. The title is the
primary document that identifies the make, model, and age of a car. When
you apply for a new title, it becomes a new car in the eyes of the law.
That includes the IRS. They *have* to go by the title.
--
"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 ---
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Will these work?
> http://www.amphenol-aerospace.com/catalogs/12-020/lo/3.pdf
It's a reasonable series; very rugged and well-made. I have a number of
them in smaller sizes. But the insertion/withdrawl force is around 8
ounces per pin; the pressure needed for a 50-pin version is going to be
staggering!
--
"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 ---
>> That's true, but not entirely. If you have a car with 75,000
>> (arbitrary) miles on it then it's obviously not new, however if
>> you convert it to electric and then apply for a new title as
>> a "new" electric vehicle, then by the IRS rules it is new and
you
>> can take the credit.
>>
>
>Can you point to an IRS source for this "rule"?
>As I recall this was just an assumption made by members of the
list, I'd
>like to see a source where the IRS confirms that this is their
>interpretation of the law.
Your right, I worded that wrong, if you get a new VIN for your
car, then it is a new car and qualifies for the credit outlined in
the IRS code.
The code is written in such a way that the IRS would have no
chance of defeating such an action. A new car is a new car and the
title says so. If I took a 1953 Chevrolet Corvette and converted
it, I would then apply for a new title. The NEW car would be a
2004 Humphrey Emotivator, A NEW Electric Powered car that is
eligible to take the credit.
Remember these are the federal codes, states codes vary as to what
is eligible or what is not, the fact still remains, this is a NEW
CAR.
Case in point, I could do the above and qualify for the federal
credit. However NY offers(ed) a much better incentive for doing a
conversion, so my option would be(have been) to convert and keep
the old VIN and just register it as an electric powered 53 'Vette
conversion and take the NY State Incentive.
>
>> New Title(VIN) == New Car. It might not seem exactly right, but
>> it's allowed.
>
>Can you cite an example of where someone who tried this was
audited and
>the IRS agreed that it was "allowed"?
There are members of this list that have done it, though they
haven't been audited. If they would like to input into this
discussion, I am sure they will. It's all kind of moot now anyway,
since the credits expire this year, unless congress extends them.
>
>>
>> If you do the conversion and "register" it as an electric car,
but
>> still retain the original VIN, then it is simply a used car
that
>> underwent conversion. But the VIN would be innacurate, because
in
>> most cars today the engine size/type is included as a code in
the
>> VIN.
>>
>
>Now I know you're wrong. The VIN might indicate which engine was
>originally included with the car (and what color it was painted,
what
>size wheels it had, etc.) Changing the cars paint color or
replacing
>the engine does NOT make the VIN wrong or inaccurate. It's still
the
>vehicles VIN.
>
How does having a VIN that states my car has a 2.4liter gas
engine, when it actually has a ADC4001 Electric Motor make the VIN
accurate. If you change something about the car that is VIN coded,
then yes I agree with you the VIN is still that cars VIN, but it
is no longer accurate.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Alex Karahalios wrote:
> I was just looking at the EV1 maintenance manual and they use a
> 32 pin connector (about .5x2 inches). It has two rows of pins...
> Each of the 26 batteries is tapped with a 30.9K resistor and the wires
> (which appear as a ribbon cable in the diagrams) are brought to this
> connector that then plugs into the BMS.
My concern is that a short in that ribbon cable or connector could put
two 30.9k resistors in series across the 312v pack. The fault current
would be 5ma, and the power dissipated in these resistors would be 1.6
watts. I hope these resistors are in fact large enough to sustain this
kind of power dissipation, or they would overheat and cause a secondary
failure.
--
"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 ---
elaine chiu wrote:
> Is there any problem with using a step up transformer with a zivan to
> enable charging at work?
No, as long as it has an adequate VA rating, and the proper input and
output voltages.
--
"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 ---
Ryan Bohm wrote:
> This is somewhat of a wacky question, but I've heard of farmers
> that have stole power by inducing a current in large coils under
> the power lines. Could a similar concept be put in place by
> sticking a high-voltage, high current line under a road, and
> having the coils (somewhere) in an EV?
There are endless urban legends and apocryphal tales claiming that
people have done this sort of thing. Most are pure fantasy. A few are
slightly true; i.e. someone was able to get small amounts of power at
low efficiency with a lot of work.
The best example I know of was described in the early 1970's in an IEEE
Spectrum magazine. A Wisconsin farmer was very upset about the power
company routing high tension power lines over his farm. He claimed the
lights in his barn wouldn't turn off, he got shocks from his wire fence
when it was off, etc. The power company ignored him. So he set up a
large loop antenna under the power lines, and used the power to run the
lights in his barn.
It turned out that the powerlines were unbalanced; they didn't have
equal and opposite currents in the wires. This meant that there *was* a
net 60 Hz magnetic field, and the unbalanced current in these lines was
high enough to induce a small but useful current in his loop. The power
company fixed the problem.
Under normal circumstances, powerlines are set up so they always have
equal and opposite voltages and currents flowing in the wires, so they
all add up to zero. There's a field if you are significantly closer to
one wire than another, but at a distance this field falls to zero.
Now... could you run wires under the road with deliberately unbalanced
currents, and thereby induce power in nearby conductors? Certainly!
Air-core transformers work at all frequencies, even 60 Hz. However, the
coupling coefficient and efficiency is poor. This is the Achilles heel
of all broadcast power systems -- poor efficiency. It is only practical
for low power, or where power is free.
The most hopeful scheme is probably a linear motor; the "stator" of this
motor is flat, and runs along the road. The "rotor" of this motor is
also flat, and carried in the vehicle. Any type of motor can be used,
but the induction motor is the most common so the stator is powered and
the rotor is just a lump of metal in the car. The trick is to have a
very small air gap between the rotor and stator. This isn't very
practical for cars, but works well for trains.
--
"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 ---
Green VW wrote:
> During my first week of ev commuting, I was driving on the highway
> in 4th gear instead of 3rd and pulling 230 to 250 amps and
> overheating the 500 amp Curtis. I also ran the pack down to 80% or
> so on the first 3 runs. After the first week, with advice from the
> list and an outlet installed at work, I modified my driving and
> charging style. Currently, on acceleration, I rarely exceed 400 amps.
> Typically, 350 to 375. Cruising, it pulls in the 160 to 210 range.
I have eleven Concorde GPC-1295 and a Curtis 1231C in my EV. I have the
Curtis current limit turned all the way down, so it barely touches 400
amps max.
The Concordes are not good high-current batteries. They will die soon if
you pull 400-500 amps for more than a few seconds at a time. Even your
160-210 amp cruising current is rather high for them (assuming you have
something similar to mine, 12v at 95amphours). To pull your currents
with Concordes, you should have two parallel strings of 12v, or use the
6v.
> I usually recharge completely using a 30 amp Russco, which puts
> in around 17-18 amps to 80%, at up to 130v on a 120v pack...
80% state of charge on a 120v pack would be more like 140 volts at 17-18
amps.
> and then trickle charges for 2.5 hours at 144v.
If you are only taking them to 144v, then you are very likely
undercharging them. Concordes are AGMs. They should be taken up to at
least 14.7v until the current falls under 1 amp.
If your batteries have been chronically undercharged, then I would
recommend that you give them a long equalizing charge. Charge them at a
very low current (like 0.5 amps) for as long as it takes for the voltage
to stop rising. The voltage source will have to go to at least 150
volts. In one case I had a Concorde that took several DAYS to reach this
point!
Your Russco charger probably can't do this. I would suggest making your
own equalization charger. You need a 120vac in / 120vac out isolation
transformer (or two identical stepdown transformers, with the first
one's output wired to the second one's output so the second one's
primary is a source of isolated 120vac). Connect a bridge rectifier to
the isolated 120vac output. Wire a car tail light in series with the
output. You now have a 170vdc output that is current-limited to about 1
amp max. Fully charge your pack normally, then connect this charger.
Measure the individual battery voltages every so often. Keep the charger
on until the voltages stop rising.
You can do the same thing with an ordinary cheap unregulated 12v battery
charger, the kind used for normal flooded car batteries. Connect the
tail light in series as above, to limit the current, and connect it to
one of your 12v batteries until its voltage stops rising. This will
obviously take 10 times longer (to do 10 batteries).
> I was rarely exceeding a 60% DOD for most of these miles, but am now
> going to 80% to make the 17 mile trip from work to home (about twice
> the consumption as a year ago).
How are you determining 60% or 80% DOD? With an E-meter, or voltmeter?
If it's an E-meter, remember that it needs to be set for the *actual*
amphour capacity and Peukert exponent of your batteries; not just the
published data (which they barely meet when new, and certainly don't
now).
If a voltmeter, it would help us to know the voltage that you read at
various load currents. Hopefully, you are not pulling your 120v pack
below 105v under load, and that when you remove the load, they always
come right back above 120v no-load.
> The batteries sit unattended for up to 3 weeks at a time. During
> such durations the pack voltage will lose 1 to 1.5 volts or so.
That's normal. When fully charged and left sitting, they should sit at
about 13v a day after charging, and still be over 12.8v a few weeks
later. This assumes you don't have something loading them all the time,
like a DC/DC converter.
--
"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 ---
It's a reasonable series; very rugged and well-made. I have a number of
them in smaller sizes. But the insertion/withdrawl force is around 8
ounces per pin; the pressure needed for a 50-pin version is going to be
staggering!
True; that is why they have those nice screw threads to get the
connector on and off.
Actually two of them at 25 pins each should do the trick. That way I can
either isolate the packs, or keep the cross-voltage limited to 156/144
volts max.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Christopher Zach wrote:
> Question: What are the typical symptoms of a bad battery in a string?
> Does the whole pack poop out at once, or is it a plateau of downed
> performance?
While driving, a bad battery won't be able to deliver as much current,
and will have an excessive voltage sag. As a driver, you might notice
that the total pack voltage sags excessively. For instance, pack voltage
might drop 10 volts at 500 amps where it used to drop only 5 volts.
If you ignore this symptom, you will probably pull the one weak battery
well below 1.75v/cell. When this happens, the weak cells start getting
hot fast. Sustained operation at high current (supplied by the rest of
the good batteries) will reverse cells in the weak battery. This is bad!
First, because it turns a weak battery into a BAD battery. Second,
because it can literally boil the electrolyte, burst the case, and
create an awful mess in your battery box.
On charge, a weak battery may have either a higher or a lower voltage
than a good battery. Thus, its effect on charging is unpredictable. If
the weak battery has developed higher internal resistance, its voltage
is higher, and it encourages the charger to shut off early,
undercharging the pack. If the weak battery has a reversed or shorted
cell, or is old or sulphated, its voltage is lower and it encourages the
charger to OVERcharge the pack. In either case, the weak battery is
likely to cause damage to the rest of the pack from over- or
under-charging.
> The Prizm pack (300 volts, 52ah) is currently down to 20ah max.
> As in it will stay above 300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] till about 15-16ah.
> Once it passes the 300 volt at 60ampp draw, the performance
> literally falls like a proverbial rock. By 20ah, the pack is
> dragging 260 volts at 60amps. However at 1ah load the pack's
> voltage is around 308-310 volts.
>
> Can a single bad battery in a string sink the string that much,
> that fast? Would one hear it hissing and foaming (I don't) or
> would it do something else?
Yes. At least one battery in the pack is apparently down to 20ah. But it
is very likely that there is a wide spread in amphour capacities between
the various batteries in the pack. You really need to individually test
them. You may find that you just have one or a few "stinkers" that are
the weak links holding down the entire pack.
--
"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 ---
On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:13 PM, Shawn Rutledge
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > numbers without any hybrid tech at all. Sure wish they'd invest
> > some of that much needed $$ into the most promising battery
> > technology....
> >
>
> Yeah. Anyway they still have to buy batteries (albeit in smaller
> quantities) and their demand will drive prices down. Seems most of
> the automakers are using more advanced batteries in their hybrids
> rather than lead-acid. Which means, those batteries (NiMH and/or
> lithium-basd) won't be unobtanium for much longer... and there will
> be nothing stopping the rest of us from buying them and building
> real EVs.
Well, nothing stopping us other than the fact that the batteries
being developed for hybrids are unsuitable for 'normal' EV use.
At EVS-20 ultracap (and most advanced battery manufacturers) stated
they had no intention of developing batteries suitable for normal EV
use (i.e. high capacity). Their sole focus is on high(ish) power,
low capacity batteries/capacitors that will be subject to lots of
very shallow cycles, not highish capacity batteries suitable for
deeper cycles.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:54 AM, Green VW
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> on 3/31/04 12:44 AM, Lee Hart at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's hard to recommend corrective actions without knowing what
> > sort of abuse the batteries have suffered from.
> During my first week of ev commuting, I was driving on the highway
> in 4th gear instead of 3rd and pulling 230 to 250 amps and
> overheating the 500 amp Curtis.
A long time ago, there was a discussion about Concorde AGMs vs
Optima/Hawkers for EV use and it was stated that when discharged at
rates less than about 200A, the Concordes could deliver about the
same life as YTs or better. At about 200-250A, the Concordes and YTs
lasted about the same and at higher discharge rates the YTs last
dramatically longer.
It was also stated that when questioned, Concorde themselves stated
that their batteries would fail quickly if routinely subjected to
discharge rates much above 200A.
> I also ran the pack down to 80% or so on the first 3 runs.
Not good, since there is a possibility that in doing so you may have
subjected one or more batteries (and one or more cells) to
significantly deeper discharge than 80% due to capacity and SOC
differences between the new, un-broken in batteries. Of course, you
note that all batteries appear to be in about the same condition
now...
> Currently, on acceleration, I rarely exceed 400 amps. Typically,
> 350 to 375. Cruising, it pulls in the 160 to 210 range.
This may still be a bit on the high side for your Concordes. Perhaps
Lee (the only guy on the list who has managed to get decent life from
a set of Concorde AGMs in an on-road EV?) can refresh our memories as
to what sort of discharge rates he subjects his pack to?
> I usually recharge completely using a 30 amp Russco, which puts
> in around 17-18 amps to 80%, at up to 130v on a 120v pack and then
> trickle charges for 2.5 hours at 144v.
It doesn't sound like you are completely charging your pack. 130V is
just 2.167V/cell and 144V is only 2.4V/cell.
To properly charge Concorde AGMs you should be taking them up to
about 2.38V/cell and then holding that until the current tapers to
0.5-1.0% of the C/20 Ah rating (i.e. current should taper to 0.5-1A
for 100Ah batteries). The voltage should be temperature compensated
if your batteries are much warmer/cooler than 25 deg. C.
> The batteries sit unattended for up to 3 weeks at a time. During
> such durations the pack voltage will lose 1 to 1.5 volts or so.
On a 60 cell string, this is a 25mV/cell loss, which sounds
significant to me, though I don't have an open-circuit voltage vs SOC
table handy to confirm this against.
I wouldn't expect healthy AGMs to drop so much (lose so much
capacity) in such a short time.
My guess is that your pack may simply be at the end of its life due
to the high discharge rates you have subjected it to, but it could
also be that it is suffering from sulphation as a result of being
chronically undercharged.
Surf over to Concorde's website and check their recommendations on a
'commisioning charge' for your particular AGMs (or an similar sized
model). You might want to try this as a means of restoring some
capacity, and alter your charge routine to fully charge them after
each use.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> It's a reasonable series; very rugged and well-made. I have a
>> number of them in smaller sizes. But the insertion/withdrawl
>> force is around 8 ounces per pin; the pressure needed for a
>> 50-pin version is going to be staggering!
Christopher Zach wrote:
> True; that is why they have those nice screw threads to get the
> connector on and off.
That's a locking ring, to prevent it from being unplugged by just
pulling on the wire. You have to plug it in, with enough force to mate
the pins, and *then* rotate the ring to lock it. The locking ring
partially mates/unmates the connector, but the initial contact and
insertion force comes from your hand.
> Actually two of them at 25 pins each should do the trick. That way
> I can either isolate the packs, or keep the cross-voltage limited
> to 156/144 volts max.
Yes, this is at twice as good a solution as putting it all in one
connector!
--
"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 ---
First, this hybrid system is supposed to give the performance of a V6, which
my friend reports about 16mpg freeway and 13mpg city average. Second,
I seriously doubt that Ford is losing money on the Escape hybrid. They
might
lose some money with the hybrid system alone, but the Escape is a
high-margin SUV, and they could afford to add a little more value for the
dollar.
(This is probably also before any tax credits they'll no doubt get.)
Tim
----------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:30:26 -0500
Subject: Re: EVLN(Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
� The hybrid Escape, the first such vehicle to hit the market from a
Detroit automaker, will boast a combined fuel economy of 35 to 40 miles per
gallon in city driving and 30 mpg in highway driving. The four-cylinder
base model Escape averages 23 mpg in city and 28 mpg
� on the highway.
Great. So for all their massive investment in hybrid tech, they are
gaining a mere 2 mpg in highway driving. Those hybrid numbers are
completely unimpressive. They can easily exceed those fuel efficiency
numbers without any hybrid tech at all. Sure wish they'd invest some of
that much needed $$ into the most promising battery technology....
_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar � FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok, I have a thought here for a basic battery telemetry interface on my
Prizm.
My problem is twofold: First, I want to not have anything that comes out
of the pack which can kill me by default. Given this is a 300 volt pack
that means I need a default-off interlock on any wiring solution that
exits the pack. Like the contactors that are in place now; no wires will
be hot at a fatal voltage unless I command them to be hot.
Second: I need to monitor 50 batteries. I should be able to charge them
if needed with up to 5 amps of current, and monitor their voltages with
whatever tool I might want.
First thought: I run a wire from each battery to a common
interconnector. Use two AMP screw-in type interconnectors to provide the
interface. Each wire will be rated to carry a max of 2-4 amps, and can
be fuse-protected at the battery. I limit the current by putting a
33kOhm resistor in series with the wire to keep the current down to a
safe level in the event I am ever stupid enough to touch two wires at once.
In series with the resistor is a small SPST relay. These 50 relays will
have their coils connected in parallel. When energized by a 5 or 12 volt
signal, the resistor will be bypassed, allowing things like diodes,
external regulators, and even low-power chargers to be connected to the
batteries.
Does this sound like a good idea? This way I can put the battery monitor
brains outside of the 1,000+ pound pack where I don't have to worry
about it failing or changing.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Wouldn't you want the relay in parallel with the resistor to switch it in
and out of the circuit? If you also want the wire to be cold (unenergized)
at some point, then you now need 2 relays per wire.
Putting it in series as you say would switch the wire between hot and cold,
but would not switch the resistor in and out of the circuit.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Zach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Battery telemetry thought, take one.
>
> Ok, I have a thought here for a basic battery telemetry interface on my
> Prizm.
>
> My problem is twofold: First, I want to not have anything that comes out
> of the pack which can kill me by default. Given this is a 300 volt pack
> that means I need a default-off interlock on any wiring solution that
> exits the pack. Like the contactors that are in place now; no wires will
> be hot at a fatal voltage unless I command them to be hot.
>
> Second: I need to monitor 50 batteries. I should be able to charge them
> if needed with up to 5 amps of current, and monitor their voltages with
> whatever tool I might want.
>
> First thought: I run a wire from each battery to a common
> interconnector. Use two AMP screw-in type interconnectors to provide the
> interface. Each wire will be rated to carry a max of 2-4 amps, and can
> be fuse-protected at the battery. I limit the current by putting a
> 33kOhm resistor in series with the wire to keep the current down to a
> safe level in the event I am ever stupid enough to touch two wires at
> once.
>
> In series with the resistor is a small SPST relay. These 50 relays will
> have their coils connected in parallel. When energized by a 5 or 12 volt
> signal, the resistor will be bypassed, allowing things like diodes,
> external regulators, and even low-power chargers to be connected to the
> batteries.
>
> Does this sound like a good idea? This way I can put the battery monitor
> brains outside of the 1,000+ pound pack where I don't have to worry
> about it failing or changing.
>
> Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 08:30:26PM -0500, Ken Trough wrote:
> >Detroit automaker, will boast a combined fuel economy of 35 to 40 miles
> >per gallon in city driving and 30 mpg in highway driving. The
> >four-cylinder base model Escape averages 23 mpg in city and 28 mpg
> > on the highway.
>
> Great. So for all their massive investment in hybrid tech, they are
> gaining a mere 2 mpg in highway driving. Those hybrid numbers are
> completely unimpressive.
That's not a fair comparison --- it's getting better than 4-cyl gas mileage
with 6-cyl performance. The 6-cyl mileage from Edmunds is 18/23, so it
gets double the fuel mileage in the city and 30% better on the highway...
--
Alan Batie ______ alan.batie.org Me
alan at batie.org \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle
PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers
27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ spamassassin.taint.org NO SPAM!
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President (1858-1919)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:13 PM, Shawn Rutledge
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > --- Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > numbers without any hybrid tech at all. Sure
> wish they'd invest
> > > some of that much needed $$ into the most
> promising battery
> > > technology....
> > >
> >
> > Yeah. Anyway they still have to buy batteries
> (albeit in smaller
> > quantities) and their demand will drive prices
> down. Seems most of
> > the automakers are using more advanced batteries
> in their hybrids
> > rather than lead-acid. Which means, those
> batteries (NiMH and/or
> > lithium-basd) won't be unobtanium for much
> longer... and there will
> > be nothing stopping the rest of us from buying
> them and building
> > real EVs.
>
> Well, nothing stopping us other than the fact that
> the batteries
> being developed for hybrids are unsuitable for
> 'normal' EV use.
>
> At EVS-20 ultracap (and most advanced battery
> manufacturers) stated
> they had no intention of developing batteries
> suitable for normal EV
> use (i.e. high capacity). Their sole focus is on
> high(ish) power,
> low capacity batteries/capacitors that will be
> subject to lots of
> very shallow cycles, not highish capacity batteries
> suitable for
> deeper cycles.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
I am counting on hybrids to use high power LiIon pack.
We all know LiIon could be paralleled to get a higher
capacity.
Ed Ang
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Stepping up. Humm... This suggests that you have a
220V charger that you want to run at 110V. A 220V
charger is likely going to draw more power and
overload your 110V circuit.
But, if it is the other way around and you get a
transformer that could handle the poor power factor of
a Zivan, it will work.
Ed Ang
--- elaine chiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any problem with using a step up
> transformer with a zivan to
> enable charging at work?
>
> elaine
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Ben and All,
I agree with Lee, most likely you are not
charging them high enough. A 120 pack should be
charged up to 150vdc for full charging. Of course with
AGMs you need to limit current in those last 8 or so
volts.
A good low current charger for this is just
a power cord, a bridge rectifier with a 50/75watt
light bulb in series with the AC and let the voltage
rise to 16vdc/batt for 10+ hrs should do the trick. If
current is kept below 1/2 amp no gas should vent. As
it's unisolated, take precautions.
Never try to judge cap until you have
several cycles recently as cap will grow. Have they
warmed up yet which can make batts seem more dead than
they are. Between cycling and warming, range may
increase 50%!!
I just gained 30% range increase as the
weather has warmed over here in Tampa. Just did 30
miles on 6-t105s and still had 36.8 vdc so could
probably go another 10 miles.
If these don't work your batts are dying.
Switch to GC batts if you have room, you'll be glad
you did.
I switched to GC from AGMs and they are so
much better, easier, longer lasting, cheaper, longer
range!!! Unless I'm going drag racing it's GC's for
me.
Can you drive in third gear? If you can it
will really help your batts, motor, range. It might be
worth changing your motor to get higher rpms to lower
amp draw while keeping the same speed in 3rd gear.
Much easier on the batts. Always drive in the lowest
gear possible for your speed. Then shift up for
passing.
Have you joined the Fla EAA group on Yahoo?
It's becoming active now with EVents, meetings.
HTH's,
jerry dycus
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Green VW wrote:
> > During my first week of ev commuting, I was
> driving on the highway
> > in 4th gear instead of 3rd and pulling 230 to 250
> amps and
> > overheating the 500 amp Curtis. I also ran the
> pack down to 80% or
> > so on the first 3 runs. After the first week, with
> advice from the
> > list and an outlet installed at work, I modified
> my driving and
> > charging style. Currently, on acceleration, I
> rarely exceed 400 amps.
> > Typically, 350 to 375. Cruising, it pulls in the
> 160 to 210 range.
>
> I have eleven Concorde GPC-1295 and a Curtis 1231C
> in my EV. I have the
> Curtis current limit turned all the way down, so it
> barely touches 400
> amps max.
>
> The Concordes are not good high-current batteries.
> They will die soon if
> you pull 400-500 amps for more than a few seconds at
> a time. Even your
> 160-210 amp cruising current is rather high for them
> (assuming you have
> something similar to mine, 12v at 95amphours). To
> pull your currents
> with Concordes, you should have two parallel strings
> of 12v, or use the
> 6v.
>
> > I usually recharge completely using a 30 amp
> Russco, which puts
> > in around 17-18 amps to 80%, at up to 130v on a
> 120v pack...
>
> 80% state of charge on a 120v pack would be more
> like 140 volts at 17-18
> amps.
>
> > and then trickle charges for 2.5 hours at 144v.
>
> If you are only taking them to 144v, then you are
> very likely
> undercharging them. Concordes are AGMs. They should
> be taken up to at
> least 14.7v until the current falls under 1 amp.
>
> If your batteries have been chronically
> undercharged, then I would
> recommend that you give them a long equalizing
> charge. Charge them at a
> very low current (like 0.5 amps) for as long as it
> takes for the voltage
> to stop rising. The voltage source will have to go
> to at least 150
> volts. In one case I had a Concorde that took
> several DAYS to reach this
> point!
>
> Your Russco charger probably can't do this. I would
> suggest making your
> own equalization charger. You need a 120vac in /
> 120vac out isolation
> transformer (or two identical stepdown transformers,
> with the first
> one's output wired to the second one's output so the
> second one's
> primary is a source of isolated 120vac). Connect a
> bridge rectifier to
> the isolated 120vac output. Wire a car tail light in
> series with the
> output. You now have a 170vdc output that is
> current-limited to about 1
> amp max. Fully charge your pack normally, then
> connect this charger.
> Measure the individual battery voltages every so
> often. Keep the charger
> on until the voltages stop rising.
>
> You can do the same thing with an ordinary cheap
> unregulated 12v battery
> charger, the kind used for normal flooded car
> batteries. Connect the
> tail light in series as above, to limit the current,
> and connect it to
> one of your 12v batteries until its voltage stops
> rising. This will
> obviously take 10 times longer (to do 10 batteries).
>
> > I was rarely exceeding a 60% DOD for most of these
> miles, but am now
> > going to 80% to make the 17 mile trip from work to
> home (about twice
> > the consumption as a year ago).
>
> How are you determining 60% or 80% DOD? With an
> E-meter, or voltmeter?
>
> If it's an E-meter, remember that it needs to be set
> for the *actual*
> amphour capacity and Peukert exponent of your
> batteries; not just the
> published data (which they barely meet when new, and
> certainly don't
> now).
>
> If a voltmeter, it would help us to know the voltage
> that you read at
> various load currents. Hopefully, you are not
> pulling your 120v pack
> below 105v under load, and that when you remove the
> load, they always
> come right back above 120v no-load.
>
> > The batteries sit unattended for up to 3 weeks at
> a time. During
> > such durations the pack voltage will lose 1 to 1.5
> volts or so.
>
> That's normal. When fully charged and left sitting,
> they should sit at
> about 13v a day after charging, and still be over
> 12.8v a few weeks
> later. This assumes you don't have something loading
> them all the time,
> like a DC/DC converter.
> --
> Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
