EV Digest 3467
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) 'electro nerds'
by Fortunat Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Charging.
by Chris Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: got torque?
by "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Sucking Amps schedule
by Sam Uzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: BatPack parts
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
by Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Two 8" vs 1 9".
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: got torque?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: 'electro nerds'
by Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: desulfator circuits?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) contacting the big guys
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid puts out less pollution than an EV)
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid puts out less pollution than an EV)
by Marc Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: contacting the big guys
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid puts out less pollution than an
EV)
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Zivan Question
by "John Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: contacting the big guys
by Marc Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid ) the lighter side
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid puts out less pollution than an EV)
by Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan/single speed tranny
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: CalCars Aim: "Green-Tune" 2004 Prius into PRIUS+ (LONG)
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: 'electro nerds'
by Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: LM3916
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Batteries for Think. Adding ampmeter & volt meter.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: 'electro nerds'
by Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: EVLN(Newsweek: Escape hybrid puts out less pollution than an EV)
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Purchase SAFT STM5.100MRE Ni-Cd batteries
by "Yttervik, Roger (MED)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hey
I just saw a promo for the premier of 'Sucking Amps'
on discovery. They showed some good footage and called
you guys 'electro nerds', which of course you are.
Promo was on tonight and said 'show premiers next
Thursday at 10 PM (EST)'.
I can't wait.
~fortunat
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hm.
The Sears charger only takes the batteries to 14.25 volts. Not nearly
enough for the Hawkers; they need 15 volts at least. Even my spare
"control" batteries are not performing well at this point.
I think I'm going to try replacing the six batteries I identified as the
softest, then connect one string and use the MagneCharger to bring them
up. How agressive should I be for trying to fill the batteries (the
sinkers were probably coming up too fast and causing the rest of the
pack to be undercharged)? Should I go to 15vpb and just hold it there
for four hours to overcharge them?
I do have the ability to monitor temps on 9 of the 95 batteries. So I
can be reasonably sure I will not go to thermal runaway. Or should I
just go constant current and let the voltage rise to 390 volts (15.6 vpb)?
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
True, but that's how all cars are advertised. Ford is the most powerful
truck in
its class, but Dodge is also the most powerful truck in its class. And
Chevy?
Most powerful truck in its class. Are they all the most powerful truck in
their
class? Of course not. One bases their claims on horsepower, another
on torque and the other on acceleration.
When the T-Zero story came out on Slashdot, there were complaints about
how it's not that fast, that this Porsche model could beat it and that
Corvette
could beat it and so on. The thing I pointed out about the T-Zero is that
anybody behind the wheel can achieve those numbers.
I don't know about you, but maybe I'm just not good enough a driver to get
that Corvette to 60 in the same amount of time, but the T-Zero can get its
fantastic acceleration by simply stomping the accelerator to the floor. For
an ICE to match that ease of use, it'd have to be an automatic, and I don't
know of any factory autos that can match those numbers.
Besides, what's more likely in the real world? That I'm going to have a
nicely prepared track under my tires at a stoplight, or that it's likely
going
to be compromised by water, dirt, oil slick, rubber dust, the painted stop
line and crosswalk, etc.? I have to adjust my driving for road conditions,
clutch temperature, air temperature and even fuel quality and how many
people are in the car, but the T-Zero will get its best numbers for the
conditions without any help. That says a lot to me about EV power.
Tim
----------
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:04:48 -0700
From: Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: got torque?
I always wanted to post a comment on this and now it is good opportunity.
The traction control of tzero is excellent and allows the car to
maximize capability of its traction motor. No other vehicle I know
of, EV or not, has that level of control.
Now, the test conditions for demonstrating tzero outrunning
Porsche Carrera 4 next to it in the rain, of course, are not
fare comparison to conclude that tzero is simply more powerful
car - and this is impression most of the readers will get.
As whole car it is quicker than Carrera because it has additional
system carrera doesn't - and this system has nothing to do with
torque of tzero motor. Moreover, knowing this, the rainy day was
choosen to put tzero at maximum advantage and other vehicle
at max disadvantage.
The poing is they just demonstrated how effective *traction
control* is, not how powerful t-zero is. It's like having studded
tires on one car and bold on one with more powerful motor, and
do the test on ice.
Sorry, but if I will have studded tires on my bicycle and tzero
will have regular tires, I guarantee you I will outrun it on ice.
This tells you nothing about *power* of t-zero's drive system,
traction control or not.
If you want to compete in torque/power, make all other variables
equal. I.e. if Porsche would have same traction control and the same
everything else (weight, tires, etc) but more raw motor power,
it would of course outrun t-zero. Again, traction control is
remarkable achievement of ACP I admire, but the message to
masses created by PR dept. creates wrong impression, and looks
like it is intentional.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
...please excuse me if this has already been posted, but I hadn't seen it
yet... I'm sure I'm not alone in being really psyched (I'll refrain from
saying "amped") to see this...
from
http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=24461&gid=0
Sucking Amps.
airing (eastern time):
� Apr 22 2004 @ 10:00 PM
� Apr 23 2004 @ 01:00 AM
� Apr 25 2004 @ 01:00 PM
Meet the speed-hungry, rubber-burning,
adrenaline-pumped electro-nerds reinventing the electric car. These
backyard engineers believe they can achieve the goal that has eluded
eco-freaks for decades�making electric cars a sexy consumer item.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks, John. An excellent document, with lots to assimilate.
Jude
Jon Glauser wrote:
Hi, I have another resource for you about something similar, or the same:
http://innovexpo.itee.uq.edu.au/2001/projects/s348757/index.html
click "Thesis Document" at the bottom.
-Jon Glauser
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As for the lower interia. How much? It doesn't seem to me that the
inertia of an 8 versus 9 inch woud matter much. If you are talking
about the difference between say .05 and .1 kg-m^2 and an average
acceleration of 80 radians per second^2, then one absorbed 4 Nm, the
other 8Nm out of ~600Nm. Or ~1%.
Now that's an approximation based on linear acceleration. Lets assume
that for the first 2 seconds, it is 160 rad/sec^2. Still doesn't make a
huge difference.
But if you have a flywheel and transmission and the flywheel has 0.75
kg-m^2 inertia and you blow thru 1st (or 2nd) gear at 400 rad/sec, then
shift, that's different. That hurts to the tune of 300Nm. Call that a
dynamic loss of more than 200 ft-lb.
Seth
On Apr 15, 2004, at 12:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dual motors can take advantage of the series/parallel feature on the
newer Zilla controllers. This is a HUGE advantage. The KillaCycle uses
twin 6.7 inch motors with a Zilla 2000. The behavior is like a Lenco
two-speed, but without the weight, complication, or the rotational
inertia. Over 800 ft-lbs of total motor torque coming out of the hole.
When you take in to account that the motors spin much slower
throughout the run, and you are not adding any rotational inertia of
transmission, the series/parallel set-up gets much lower ETs than a
tranny or single-speed could ever hope for. It sucks up a lot of HP to
spin up all those rotating parts.
When I modeled the bike in the computer, it became obvious that a
transmission was the wrong path to take. A single speed is slightly
better than a transmission if you have a large enough controller (or a
by-pass contactor.) Series/parallel wins hands down.
Did I mention that the smaller diameter motors have the advantage of
lower rotational inertia?
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for all the input, I am taking the position that I can get the
same or better launch with 2 8" motors and only 1000amp controller, if I
put in the 9" I would neet a 2000 amp controller to get the same
launch.. now if I get rid of the tranny since 2 8" would have some
usable torque at higher RPM, how do I do an eletric reverse? is it
buillt into the setup on a zillia 1k and series/parralel or do I need
more contactors and a re-timing of brushes.
This will be for street use (abuse) not the drag strip and won't be too
light, but I hope to turn some heads.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tim Clevenger wrote:
...
Besides, what's more likely in the real world? That I'm going to have a
nicely prepared track under my tires at a stoplight, or that it's likely
going
to be compromised by water, dirt, oil slick, rubber dust, the painted stop
line and crosswalk, etc.? I have to adjust my driving for road conditions,
clutch temperature, air temperature and even fuel quality and how many
people are in the car, but the T-Zero will get its best numbers for the
conditions without any help. That says a lot to me about EV power.
Tim
Again, this shows EV control smarts, not its power, that was my only
point. And the fact that all cars advertized this way, doesn't make
it technically valid - you know, just about every new car is
revolutionary break through.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Fortunat, Thanks for the heads up. I just turned on the TV to the
Discovery Channel and the promo was on right then. What a
coincidence. If they are going to call me an "Electro Nerd" they
better be ready to kiss my ass! Ain't no [EMAIL PROTECTED]&ing "Electro Nerds"
around these parts. It was really kind of them to let me know about
this - NOT! My problem is that I am under contract to not say
anything bad about them so I will bite my tongue and wait to see what
they turn me into.
Roderick
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
Hey
I just saw a promo for the premier of 'Sucking Amps'
on discovery. They showed some good footage and called
you guys 'electro nerds', which of course you are.
Promo was on tonight and said 'show premiers next
Thursday at 10 PM (EST)'.
I can't wait.
~fortunat
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Myles Twete wrote:
> Thanks, Lee, for the detailed test results! I see why you have
> concluded that the desulfation pulser didn't help. You indicated
> all 5 batteries were in parallel with one desulfator across them.
> This would bias against the pulser having much effect since the
> current pulses would be split between 5 batteries. From what
> I've read, the typical pulser circuit which they claim dishes
> out about 5amp pulses shouldn't be used for more than something
> like 200amp-hours of batteries.
The pulser described was supposed to be good for high capacity
batteries. The author claimed he used it for a pair of golf cart
batteries, which are 220-250ah each. 5 of my batteries together weren't
this much, so it was worth a try.
Since it had no detectable effect at all (except to run down the
batteries faster), I concluded it wasn't worth building 4 more pulsers.
5 times nothing is still nothing.
> I'd have considered testing it on only one battery at a time --
You can't really do this, because the variations between batteries are
so large that they would mask the effect of the desulfator (unless the
desulfator had a HUGE effect; so large that it dominated the difference
between batteries).
> I guess that would require 5 desulfators
Yes. That is the only way I could do it with only 10 batteries.
> Frankly, I think that even 5amp pulses into one battery seems
> too little.
I should comment on this. The 5 amp pulse that the original circuit
claimed is mostly measurement error. You can get your 'scope to show you
anything you like, just by how you set it up.
If I seriously wanted to test the effect of these 5 amp 50usec pulses on
a battery, I'd use something like a flyback power supply or some other
circuit that switches a KNOWN 5 amps to the battery.
> Your pulser circuit may or may not have worked fine with one
> battery, but with several in parallel, the furthest batteries
> may not see much of the pulsed energy.
But if that were the case, I'd have seen a big improvement in one
battery (with the shortest wires) and progressively less improvement in
the others. That didn't happen.
--
"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 ---
Can anyone let me know if there is a directory or listing of how to contact the top
management of the larger auto manufacturers? When I visit their web sites like
Toyota.ja.co, it seems hopeless to even find a contact email address, never mind the
top management.
THANKS for any help.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 14 Apr 2004 at 16:59, Lightning Ryan wrote:
> I think the whole "ICE cleans the air" thing comes from the notion
> that in heavily polluted areas with already bad air a very clean
> ICE might actually remove some of the bad stuff that it "inhales"
> with the oxygen its uses for combustion.
What "bad stuff" are we talking about? Exactly where does it go between
intake and exhaust - the lost city of Atlantis? And if this really works, why
don't we find the cleanest air in traffic jams?
This reminds me of the fuss over the "catalytic radiator" a few years ago.
Vehicles were supposed to be able to clean the air they sucked through
these special radiators. There were some glowing news releases and a few
duped reporters dutifully disseminated them. The whole thing fizzled when it
was revealed that, oops, they don't work after all. Probably the fault of those
darn electric cars. Yep, that must be it.
All the "cleaner than electric cars" nonsense just obscures the central issue:
Yes, EVs DO move vehicle pollution to powerplants. And that's a GOOD
thing, because there it is (1) much, much lower for most components and at
worst just slightly lower for others; (2) well away from city centers, where it
does less direct and immediate harm; and (3) easier to reduce. Not to
mention the fact that (4) the electricity can be produced from renewable
sources such as wind, hydro, or solar energy - markedly more difficult to do
with gasoline or diesel fuel.
Yes, I know about biodiesel and ethanol. Theoretically they're renewable
fuels, or at least more so than gasoline. They represent some level of
improvement. But if the ICE apologists can whine about power plant
emissions, we're certainly entitled to remind them that not only are these
fuels produced from farm crops and land that could be otherwise used to feed
hungry people here and elsewhere, they also presently require a significant
and continuous input of fossil fuel energy to plant, fertilize, grow, harvest,
process, and transport. When farmers use NO fossil fuel, and the
processing and transport are carried out with 100% renewable energy, then
biodiesel and ethanol willl become truly renewable fuels.
Quasi-hybrids reduce pollution, true, but only as a consequence of their more
efficient fuel burning. They don't move the pollution to more manageable
places as do EVs, and they don't support the use of true renewable energy
sources. What they do can be accomplished without the "hybrid" design,
though perhaps with more cost or performance compromises. When the
total system is taken into account, I don't see how they can ever match an
EV for cleanliness. But that won't stop their advertising agencies from
claiming they do.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Also remember that the refining of gasoline requires great amounts of
electricity already, and no one considers that "displaced pollution."
I believe the gasoline refineries are the largest industrial user of
electricity in California.
On Apr 15, 2004, at 9:34 PM, David Roden (Akron OH USA) wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004 at 16:59, Lightning Ryan wrote:
I think the whole "ICE cleans the air" thing comes from the notion
that in heavily polluted areas with already bad air a very clean
ICE might actually remove some of the bad stuff that it "inhales"
with the oxygen its uses for combustion.
What "bad stuff" are we talking about? Exactly where does it go
between
intake and exhaust - the lost city of Atlantis? And if this really
works, why
don't we find the cleanest air in traffic jams?
This reminds me of the fuss over the "catalytic radiator" a few years
ago.
Vehicles were supposed to be able to clean the air they sucked through
these special radiators. There were some glowing news releases and a
few
duped reporters dutifully disseminated them. The whole thing fizzled
when it
was revealed that, oops, they don't work after all. Probably the
fault of those
darn electric cars. Yep, that must be it.
All the "cleaner than electric cars" nonsense just obscures the
central issue:
Yes, EVs DO move vehicle pollution to powerplants. And that's a GOOD
thing, because there it is (1) much, much lower for most components
and at
worst just slightly lower for others; (2) well away from city centers,
where it
does less direct and immediate harm; and (3) easier to reduce. Not to
mention the fact that (4) the electricity can be produced from
renewable
sources such as wind, hydro, or solar energy - markedly more difficult
to do
with gasoline or diesel fuel.
Yes, I know about biodiesel and ethanol. Theoretically they're
renewable
fuels, or at least more so than gasoline. They represent some level of
improvement. But if the ICE apologists can whine about power plant
emissions, we're certainly entitled to remind them that not only are
these
fuels produced from farm crops and land that could be otherwise used
to feed
hungry people here and elsewhere, they also presently require a
significant
and continuous input of fossil fuel energy to plant, fertilize, grow,
harvest,
process, and transport. When farmers use NO fossil fuel, and the
processing and transport are carried out with 100% renewable energy,
then
biodiesel and ethanol willl become truly renewable fuels.
Quasi-hybrids reduce pollution, true, but only as a consequence of
their more
efficient fuel burning. They don't move the pollution to more
manageable
places as do EVs, and they don't support the use of true renewable
energy
sources. What they do can be accomplished without the "hybrid" design,
though perhaps with more cost or performance compromises. When the
total system is taken into account, I don't see how they can ever
match an
EV for cleanliness. But that won't stop their advertising agencies
from
claiming they do.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't suppose you ever considered the fact that they do that on
purpose?
It's not like these big CEOs want everybody and their brother sending
them emails, SPAM, etc.
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 20:36, Andrew Wysotski wrote:
> Can anyone let me know if there is a directory or listing of how to contact the top
> management of the larger auto manufacturers? When I visit their web sites like
> Toyota.ja.co, it seems hopeless to even find a contact email address, never mind the
> top management.
>
> THANKS for any help.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 21:34, David Roden (Akron OH USA) wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2004 at 16:59, Lightning Ryan wrote:
>
> > I think the whole "ICE cleans the air" thing comes from the notion
> > that in heavily polluted areas with already bad air a very clean
> > ICE might actually remove some of the bad stuff that it "inhales"
> > with the oxygen its uses for combustion.
>
> What "bad stuff" are we talking about? Exactly where does it go between
> intake and exhaust - the lost city of Atlantis? And if this really works, why
> don't we find the cleanest air in traffic jams?
>
As I understand it it's stuff like nitrous compounds and unburned
hydrocarbons. Some of it gets burned up in combustion and becomes less
harmful pollution, and some gets converted in the catalytic converter.
> This reminds me of the fuss over the "catalytic radiator" a few years ago.
> Vehicles were supposed to be able to clean the air they sucked through
> these special radiators. There were some glowing news releases and a few
> duped reporters dutifully disseminated them. The whole thing fizzled when it
> was revealed that, oops, they don't work after all. Probably the fault of those
> darn electric cars. Yep, that must be it.
>
> All the "cleaner than electric cars" nonsense just obscures the central issue:
> Yes, EVs DO move vehicle pollution to powerplants. And that's a GOOD
> thing, because there it is (1) much, much lower for most components and at
> worst just slightly lower for others; (2) well away from city centers, where it
> does less direct and immediate harm; and (3) easier to reduce. Not to
> mention the fact that (4) the electricity can be produced from renewable
> sources such as wind, hydro, or solar energy - markedly more difficult to do
> with gasoline or diesel fuel.
>
> Yes, I know about biodiesel and ethanol. Theoretically they're renewable
> fuels, or at least more so than gasoline. They represent some level of
> improvement. But if the ICE apologists can whine about power plant
> emissions, we're certainly entitled to remind them that not only are these
> fuels produced from farm crops and land that could be otherwise used to feed
> hungry people here and elsewhere, they also presently require a significant
> and continuous input of fossil fuel energy to plant, fertilize, grow, harvest,
> process, and transport. When farmers use NO fossil fuel, and the
> processing and transport are carried out with 100% renewable energy, then
> biodiesel and ethanol willl become truly renewable fuels.
>
> Quasi-hybrids reduce pollution, true, but only as a consequence of their more
> efficient fuel burning. They don't move the pollution to more manageable
> places as do EVs, and they don't support the use of true renewable energy
> sources. What they do can be accomplished without the "hybrid" design,
> though perhaps with more cost or performance compromises. When the
> total system is taken into account, I don't see how they can ever match an
> EV for cleanliness. But that won't stop their advertising agencies from
> claiming they do.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Check that nothing else is on that circuit, and try replacing the
breaker, it may be old and break at less than rated current.
Also be sure to be using an extension cord as short and as high _gauge_
(not just thick looking on the outside) as possible, and that the plug
and receptacles are new. This will help it to charge up faster, before
the breaker pops.
Your breaker pops after longer drives just because your charger is
pumping out its maximum current for a long time. Breakers are not
precision devices that pop exactly when current goes over their rating.
Your breaker is heating up slowly with the high current, and the longer
it stays high, the more likely it is to go. Also more likely in summer,
when the air is warmer.
You can do a mild equalize by unplugging and re-plugging your Zivan,
after a full charge, and the light has been green for a long while. It
will start into bulk charge (red light) and do a polite little equalize
before turning off again.
Unplugging & re-plugging doesn't seem to hurt or confuse the charger at
any point in the cycle (I've done it a lot!). It usually starts back in
bulk phase, but will quickly ramp back if the batteries are already at a
high voltage.
Randy Holmquist of Canadian Electric Vehicles strongly recommended to me
that it be mounted inside, away from water. It will also charge faster
and live longer if it is in cool air - preferably vertical with the fans
up, and definitely not in a small enclosed space.
-john
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Todd Ensign
Sent: April 14, 2004 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Zivan Question
I drive a 144 V Fiero.
Question 1: I picked up a Zivan NG3 (110 V input) and after longer
drives, I tend to pop the 20 amp circuit breaker I am plugged into.
Does anyone know how many amps this unit draws when my batteries are
pretty discharged?
Question 2: I really need some practical tips on the use of this
charger, such as is it OK to start a new charge cycle (by resetting my
breaker that popped) if my batteries were already charged up? How do I
do an equalization charge? Is it OK to mount the unit inside my engine
compartment where it is sheltered from the elements, but can get some
indirect moisture OR should I mount it inside my trunk?
Any tips are appreciated.
Todd Ensign
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd google word like "toyota ceo" etc. you'll be surprised what you
can turn up.
what are you trying to do, if i might ask?
Marc
Th!nk City driver
san francisco
On Apr 15, 2004, at 8:36 PM, Andrew Wysotski wrote:
Can anyone let me know if there is a directory or listing of how to
contact the top management of the larger auto manufacturers? When I
visit their web sites like Toyota.ja.co, it seems hopeless to even
find a contact email address, never mind the top management.
THANKS for any help.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Roden (Akron OH USA) wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004 at 16:59, Lightning Ryan wrote:
I think the whole "ICE cleans the air" thing comes from the notion
that in heavily polluted areas with already bad air a very clean
ICE might actually remove some of the bad stuff that it "inhales"
with the oxygen its uses for combustion.
What "bad stuff" are we talking about? Exactly where does it go between
intake and exhaust - the lost city of Atlantis? And if this really works, why
don't we find the cleanest air in traffic jams?
Well, If you have 100 very dirty older cars emitting all the worst
kinds of nasty "bad stuff" rolling down the freeway. Now if you take
one car with "Super Neeto"(TM) Catalitics and ICE systems which are
certified to emmit nothing but pure clean CO2 gas (ie. not pollution).
Then by some stretch of the imagination the "Bad Stuff" from all the
other cars could be removed by "Super Neeto"(TM) in the "Clean Car".
Likewise, if you live in a CARB world where CO2 isn't an "emission"
and BEV's only use "Standard California Power" and none of the other
clean and renewable electricity sources. Then, once again, by some
stretch of the imagination your "Super Neeto"(TM) Hybrid is cleaner.
Luckily we don't ALL live in an already very polluted environment
and we don't ALL conform to CARB definitions of either "Emissions" or
"Standard Grid Electricity". So if you like myself live in the real
world there is no way that a BEV which has no tailpipe could ever
be dirtier than anything that it still converting gas into CO2.
L8r
Ryan
PS.
So shall we ask Ford to refer to their chemestry handbook for the
CHx+O=CO2 formulas, and point out that not everyone uses CA electricity?
PPS.
Or maybe what they ment to say was:
"The Excape Hybrid puts out less pollution than an EV...
...that has been doused with gassoline, set aflame, and crushed...
...while we big 3 execs dance arround having thwarted our greatest foe"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:59 PM, Lightning Ryan
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I for one would very much like to see a full retraction from
> Gersh Kuntzman of Newsweek and MSN for this blanket attack on
> "an electric car",
Me too, however it ain't likely to happen.
Gersh believes that the hybrid is cleaner than an EV because
electricity in his area is primarily (or solely) generated by coal
burning plants, and he says plants in his area have apparently been
cited for emissions violations relatively frequently or commonly,
particularly since Bush came to office (his assertion, not mine).
Others tried pointing him to Chip Cribben's article; I pointed him
also to the Union of Concerned Scientists' site and to the study
performed by the Electric Vehicle Association of Canada for the
Canadian government, both of which point out that EVs are somewhat to
significantly cleaner than gasoline vehicles even considering the
generating mix.
> which _will never emit any pollution_.
This claim surfaces here from time to time, but it is just as
misleading as anything Gersh wrote. Yes, an EV may not produce any
emissions *during operation* (though I don't see EV's being any less
prone to drivetrain oil leaks, or cooling system leaks (for the
water-cooled factory EVs), etc. than their ICE counterparts),
however, the only significance of this is that the emissions that
*most* EVs are responsible for when charged from the grid occur
outside of densely populated areas, which is a good thing. However,
an EV won't operate for particularly long without being recharged,
and for most that means plugging into the grid, and therefore
operation of the EV *does* result in emissions at the generating
plant. We can certainly identify specific examples of someone whose
EV is recharged from an emission-free source (solar, hydro, etc.),
but these are exceptions to the rule and unfortuantely are not
representative of the emissions associated with the operation of an
EV by an average American. For that, we need to consider the
national generating mix and base the emissions on that.
Gersh has, for whatever reason, chosen to go to the opposite extreme
and take the stand that since in his particular locale electricity is
generated by the filthiest means in the country, and apparently by
relatively polluting examples of such plants, he is justified in his
assesment that the Escape hybrid is cleaner than an EV. If he
qualified his statement, and/or were writing only for a locally
distributed/read publication this wouldn't be so bad, however, he is
not and has not, and the result is that his claim appears to be that
the Escape hybrid (and perhaps hybrids in general by association) are
cleaner than EVs period, anywhere in the country, which is
undisputably false.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Another option is to use 100 kW max MES-DEA system; its AC induction
> motors come integrated with single speed transmission as one unit.
Is this for front wheel drive cars ?
> >
>
> --
> Victor
> '91 ACRX - something different
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Why not convert Priuses so they're PHEV at low speeds and still hybrids at
> high speeds?
>
> WE REALIZED PRIUS PHEVs ARE WORTH BUILDING BECAUSE:
> 1. Many people will love an electric mode, even if only for neighborhood
> driving.
> 2. Petroleum displacement and emission benefits will still be substantial.
> 3. Conversions of this hot car will get PHEVs into the national discussion
> of energy options.
> 4. Early adopters can influence Toyota and other auto makers to see a
> market for highway PHEVs.
> 5. If the demand became substantial, it will speed the development of
> lighter, cheaper, more powerful batteries.
> 6. We can sponsor an awesome collaboration between legendary ZEV engineers
> and pioneering garage-based inventors.
> 7. The results can be an unprecedented harnessing of consumer demand to
> bring to the world great clean cars.
How about
8. Most cars in major metro areas spend a whole lot of time, and waste a
whole lot of gas, creeping around at 3mph in interstate parking lots.
?
S.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roderick Wilde wrote:
>
> Hey Fortunat, Thanks for the heads up. I just turned on the TV to the
> Discovery Channel and the promo was on right then. What a
> coincidence. If they are going to call me an "Electro Nerd" they
> better be ready to kiss my ass! Ain't no [EMAIL PROTECTED]&ing "Electro Nerds"
> around these parts. It was really kind of them to let me know about
> this - NOT! My problem is that I am under contract to not say
> anything bad about them so I will bite my tongue and wait to see what
> they turn me into.
>
> Roderick
> "Suck Amps EV Racing"
>
> >Hey
> >
> >I just saw a promo for the premier of 'Sucking Amps'
> >on discovery. They showed some good footage and called
> >you guys 'electro nerds', which of course you are.
> >Promo was on tonight and said 'show premiers next
> >Thursday at 10 PM (EST)'.
> >
> >I can't wait.
> >
> >~fortunat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
> >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Hey Rod... a couple of Deep Breathes...
Yea I guess we are Nerds... Suck amp nerds.
I saw the leader... Comcast Digi Cable Seatttle area channel 8, Well
North Kitsap anyways.
This is going to be fun, but I hope they don't make us look like fools.
Ol' Jessey in Monster Garage has a Gas powered Rail...We need to Kick
his but with 'Trons!!!
--
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
www.manzanitamicro.com
1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You can do this with the Red LED on the Rudman Regulators. They come on when
the battery goes under a user adjustable setpoint.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Coate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: LM3916
> What about putting a single low-voltage LED on each battery? Then a
> bundle of plastic fibers back to the dash board and you can remotely see
> all 50 at once. If one battery is going low (< 10.5 volts) sooner than
> the rest, it needs help. If all the batteries go under at once then it's
> time to ease off the go pedal, or re-charge the entire pack.
>
>
>
> Christopher Zach wrote:
> > I don't need to see what the pack voltage is, or even the battery
> > voltage per se. What I need to see is how the batteries are holding up
> > in relation to each other over a period of time.
>
> --
>
> _________
> Jim Coate
> 1970's Elec-Trak
> 1992 Chevy S-10 BEV
> 1997 Chevy S-10 NGV
> http://www.eeevee.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Optima makes a 60 pound battery that will plug right into a Th!nk Neighbor.
Does Exide also make a 60 pounder that will plug in and is it as good as the
Marine batteries that are doing so well? The charger isn't all that smart.
I suppose it's hammering the sealed batteries that some Th!nks have. The
Th!nk is sort of a no brainer electric car to drive but I have noticed that
I miss the info I get from the ampmeter and volt meter. I'd be nice also to
have charging amps also. Any suggestions?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Reason I'm so pissed is that this would be the equivalent of
taking Dennis Berube's equivalent in the gas racing crowd and calling
them "Petro Nerds" Do you really believe someone like John Force
would take this lying down. I don't think so!
Roderick
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 15 Apr 2004 at 21:59, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> As I understand it it's stuff like nitrous compounds and unburned
> hydrocarbons. Some of it gets burned up in combustion and becomes less
> harmful pollution, and some gets converted in the catalytic converter.
This almost makes sense - until you give it a little more thought. Exactly
how much air could a single vehicle "clean"? And what does it turn the
pollutants into?
Suppose we have a line of 100 ICEs in a traffic jam. Suppose the first car,
idling at the scene of the wreck that's blocked traffic, is emitting the
equivalent of 2 grams per mile of unburned hydrocarbons (let's say that's 20
grams per hour at idle). The second car in line "inhales" some portion the
first car's HC. How much will this be? After all, the first car's exhaust pipe
isn't plumbed to the next car's intake. So what proportion of its exhaust do
you think it will "inhale"? One percent? Five percent?
Suppose it does accept some of the first car's dirt. It tries to burn it up in its
catalytic converter, along with its own HC. Fine so far, right?
This second car then emits some quantity of HC. The question is, does it
still emit its standard amount? More? Less? I'm going to guess that its fuel
system computer is smart, and wants to maintain an optimized HC content
in the mixture drawn into the engine - not so lean that NOx rises, not so rich
that HC rises. To do that, it will slightly reduce its fuel intake (fresh
hydrocarbons) to compensate for the "rich" intake air. So, assuming it's in
proper tune, it still emits its standard 20 gph of HC. Over the hour, that's 20
grams that wouldn't be in the air over that expressway if the car weren't there.
Thus the net result is an increase in total HC in the atmosphere, not a
reduction.
I think the error comes about because, if we look at the PPM of HC in the air
around LA, and then at the PPM of HC in a SULEV vehicle's exhaust, the
latter number might actually be lower in some circumstances. But the
numbers don't tell the whole story. In the real world, the way such a system
behaves isn't necessarily intuitive.
And besides, HC and NOx may be the main constitutents of photochemical
smog, but they're not the sole harmful emissions.
The way to determine whether something really happens is to carry out an
experiment. So, fine: Let's perform one. Let's take our journalists,
advertisers, and auto executives who tell us that modern ICEs have such well
controlled emissions that they actually clean the air. Let's lock them in an
12,000 cubic foot (30 x 40 x 10) sealed garage filled with dirty LA air. Add a
half-dozen vehicles of their choice, full of gasoline. Start the vehicles and let
them idle. Come back in 12 hours or so. By that time the air in that garage
will be nice and clean and all our friends will be breathing easy, right? <g>
Seriously, I think that would be an interesting experiement to carry out
(minus the people, of course). I could be wrong, but I think you'd find that
after the 12 hours the air in the garage would have more CO, HC, and NOx,
not less. I guaranteed there'd be a lot less oxygen and a lot more CO2
(unfortunately not a regulated emissions component). Actually, I'm not at all
sure the vehicles could get enough oxygen to run for 12 hours, so you might
have to do it with less time, fewer vehicles, or a larger space.
How about it, LA folks? Any of you want to try it? Might give us some good
ammunition to defend EVs against this bizarre claim!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi
I wish to purchase a set(20) of SAFT STM5.100MRE for my Ciroen Saxo
Electric.
Can anyone tell me where I may do this.
Roger
--- End Message ---
