EV Digest 3881
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) RE: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Battery at Zero volts?
by "Steve Clunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: BOT: Re: Hydrogen fuel [vs. batteries]
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) brake pad springs?
by "goodsharonwbird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) charger plans
by Sharon G Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: BOT: Re: Hydrogen fuel [vs. batteries]
by Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: OT: Re: Hydrogen fuel
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Brake Retraction Springs Quote
by "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) Re: AC motor current ratings
by "Arthur Matteson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) FCEV are EV's too
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Dump Charging... Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Scooter battery balancer ( Long, Data, Data)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: FCEV are EV's too
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Running clutchless?
by Claudio Natoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
This debate about fuel cells and H2 has been very interesting, but for now
it's a moot point.
I guess we'll find out in 20 years.....IF they ever make them cheap and
reliable enough to put in production vehicles, ie to paraphrase Neon John,
when you can walk down to the showroom and buy one (without having to take
out a second mortgage).
As has been said about nuclear fusion, "it's the energy source of the future
- and always will be", unless something in the equation changes, the same
can be said about mating fuel cells, H2, and automobiles.
I believe the original point at the beginning was that there are plenty of
other options that can be put into use NOW, instead of waiting for that day
somewhere in the future when fuel cells are cheap and H2 can be easily and
economically produced.
As for now, if the easiest way to make H2 is to reform natural gas, and the
oil companies own the natural gas supply, well, duuuhhh, no wonder they're
backing H2 FCEV's. BEV's would be taking money out of their pocket and
putting them in competition with the electric utilities.
As Lee Hart said, I don't object to the oil companies or electric utilities
making a profit, but not to the point where they send the rest of the
country to the poor house doing it.
For now, throwing out the prospect of h2 and fuel cells sometime in the
future is just an excuse for those profiting from the status quo to sit back
and do nothing, while also sucking up some free taxpayer money from the
government.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: other side of the coin - Re: Hydrogen fuel
Just as I thought...
We are on the same side of the argument...
We just have to Joust about it....
Madman....
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As always Roger you have some good points, and missed some of
> the angles that I am trying to make a point of.
Thanks, Rich. I'll try to catch some of the angles that got away ;^>
> The Warmth
> level needs to be brought back from flame to a good heat...
Whew! Much appreciated. ;^>
> > You and I know this, but it isn't necessarily obvious to everyone
> > else. When we're talking about how far one can go on a
> > 'fill-up', the difference between getting 80% full in a few
> > minutes and getting 100% full in the same time can be significant.
>
> Understood but by your tone, you are making it look like
> I don't know these facts.
Sorry Rich; not my intention. Obviously, you are 'the man' on the list
at the moment when it comes to hands on experience with high-power
charging. (John W may still have you beat in absolute terms with his
dump charging... ;^)
> > Are we talking about what is possible today, or what the situation
> > will be when you or I, or Granny, can pull into a public filling
> > station with an EV or FCEV and fill up?
> >
> The above is the procedure for the Monster charger as it sits
> right now.
> It's just a PFC50 wired into a 37.5 Kw Iso former and
> direct wired to a 100 amp set of breakers.
> > I don't see any big reason for major
> > differences between CNG and H2 pump connections or procedures.
> >
> I do... it's the H2 hazzards and pressures. Much the same as
> a really well done charger PORT...
Bingo! That's really all I'm saying is that a well-done H2 connection
will likely be just as easy (or difficult) for Granny as a well done
charger port that can provide comparable refill times.
The H2 connection will probably differ from a CNG connection, but I
doubt it will be radically different. The pressures and hazards just
aren't that much different (as far as I can tell).
> Clearly I have not done a high level Ev charger port. Most
> have serious drawbacks in layers of undue safety, and regs on
> top of regs. Resulting in $K of custom engineering, and
> uslessness. So.. this has caused us to question the viability
> of all the present 200 amp plus charger port configurations.
Fair enough. What I wonder is if the present state of H2 refueling
stations/connections/safety precautions reflects the same sort of extra
layers of undue safety, etc., and results in us questioning the
viability of H2 refueling in general?
> > An Anderson is not going to be an acceptable connection for the
> > general public, and particularly not for Granny.
>
> Granny can plug in a 14-50 on her Motor home in a
> Thunderstorm at night.... That's the level of competence I am
> aiming at.
But, she isn't *allowed* to plug one into her EV. A 14-50 requires a
fair bit of force to mate/unmate and is prone to allowing finger contact
with the conductors during insertion/removal, and it is not meant to
survive very many mate/unmate cycles, so I don't really think that sort
of connector is likely to appear at the end of a public fill cord.
I agree that aiming for that level of competence is reasonable, however.
> > Why should H2 require so much more elaborate procedures?
>
> Jp4 and 5 can't flash at room temps. And they still have
> stringinent Anti static precautions...
Yes, jet fuel is like kerosene; pretty tame stuff. I had avgas in mind,
which is considerably more volatile.
> Umm Yea and H2 is the MOST flamable Gas....in the
> widest Air h2 ratios.
> This is going to be it's Achillies heel....
I agree that there may be some challenges in the H2 connection design, I
just don't see them as insurmountable (or even an order of magnitude
different than those for the CNG connection).
> > The station will have tanks of sufficent capacity that
> > they won't run out between refills; we don't care how big the tanks
> > are or how often they are refilled, all we care about is
> > that we can fill up.
> >
> This is the part you don't see. I bet there is not very
> many H2 Cryo tankers rolling around. N2.. yea O2 yea.....
> CO2...yea.... 10Kpsi H2....Ummm Say I want 20,000 lbs of H2
> delivered to my door step. When... and how long do they
> laugh after they hang up the Phone.
I see your point, but don't see it as relevant to this particular
discussion. I bet there weren't very many fuel tankers rolling around
before there were lots of filling stations and cars around to depend on
them. If I can sell H2 at a profit at my filling station, you can bet
someone will step up to supply me with it at a profit to themselves;
this will not be an issue.
As for a 20,000lb H2 home delivery... not very likely, I agree. But
then, we were talking about public filling stations, weren't we? For
home refueling, it would pretty much be the same case for H2 FCEVs as
present EV or CNG vehicles; I can refill my EV or CNG vehicle overnight
with readily available equipment and a commercially available
electrolyser would let me do the same with my FCEV. At home, an EV
*may* have the fast charge advantage...
> > > > If you want to compete with the FCEV refill time, your
> > > > EV needs to have a battery capable of storing enough
> > > > energy to take it a similar distance
>
> No, you just need to stuff in the need power to get the range.
Agreed, but... no matter how fast the refill, the time it involves,
including the time and miles wasted driving back and forth to the
filling station(s) repetitively mean that a small battery refilled
quickly will always be at a disadvantage compared to FCEV or battery EV
that can go longer between fillups. Whether you put 20kWh into a small
pack in a bunch of really short 2kWh fillups or in one longer 20kW gulp,
the time spent filling the battery is the same; what the bigger battery
saves you is the bunch of otherwise unnecessary trips to/from a filling
station (time/distance to get there, wait in line for your turn at the
pump, fill up, time/distance to get back on your way somewhere useful).
> I doubt the H2 will use exactly the same power levels that I do.
> The BEV has stored energy, I get it to the ground in %70
> to %90 lots. Less if I am vaporizing Rubber compounds.....
> The H2, might have to have a high pressure pump to stuff
> it in the Car... using lots of Grid to run the pump.
> He also will get only %40 to %60 of the H2's energy
> to the DC rail on the outside of the PEM stackm, then he has
> the same EV drive train losses I do. With 10Kw of Orbitals on
> line in goldie....That's a 50 mile range, and a good
> alignment, and Cookie cutter Green tires.... Goldie will run
> at 200 Whrs a mile... I just might have better range than the
> same sized and weight FCev.
All true, but does it change the present discussion at all? As far as
the issue of whether a BEV can cover the same or more useful miles in a
day as a FCEV we don't care about the efficiency of the
refueling/charging process. We don't even really care about the vehicle
efficiency as this takes care of itself in the comparison. We *know*
that presently available FCEVs can achieve about a 80-100mi range and
are said to refuel in about 10min (or the more recent 3.5min for 4kg
data point). The question is if a BEV can be refueled quickly enough
and go far enough on said fillup to cover more useful miles in a day
than the FCEV.
> Stop, slam in the connector, Swipe card, Hit pump, Dial up
> some Rock and roll...Watch the counter spin backwards... Regs
> hit ... let them have 60 more seconds.. Hop out disconnect...
> Leave Clarly there will be some intellegence in the system
> keeping the big amps from being opened up under load or being
> plugged into a dead short.
Right, and all I'm saying is that this will not be significantly
different from the H2 case. If the H2 refueling cannot be made this
friendly, then it simply won't be acceptable to the public (and
therefore BEVs win by default ;^).
> BMS... clearly Regs hooked to a Charger are a BMS, Of sorts,
> and well they do the %90 of the work for %10 of the cost.
> Not a bad engineering point to meet.
OK. I'll concede this point.
> > What happens if one or more regs is dead or disconnected,
> > etc.?
>
> The simple thing is if the charger is set to say...191
> volts, and the Regs are set to 14.8...Should a reg not do
> it's thing... the charger doesn't really get to far ahead of
> the game. It could if you have a really out of equalization
> Battery... but generally... the abuse is minor. If you had
> the charger set to 240 volts.... and no regs... Danger Will
> Robinson Danger!!
But this is exactly the scenario with a public charging station that has
to safely charge 156V Goldie, 120V me, 300V+ Victor, etc. Clearly, the
charger cannot be set safely for me any allow either of you to charge,
nor can it be set safely for Victor and avoid frying our packs should we
have a reg fault.
It might be possible for us to punch in some appropriate voltage and
current limits into the pump before it starts cramming the amps into our
pack, but I think that scheme would be doomed due to the likelihood of
finger trouble/dyslexia, etc. when entering the limits.
> and we are still adding
> software and control lines to cover the needed data points.
Once again, I wasn't mentioning these things because I thought you
weren't already aware of them; rather, I wanted to make the point that a
public filling station will need something more elaborate than a set of
regs and a big charger to make it safe for Granny.
> Now you are talking about a all encompassing
> BMS... it does everything... and that's a very large
> project... as daunting as a 36Kw power stage and control.
I agree that it is a big task, but not that I am necessarily envisioning
an all-encompassing BMS. My key thought is that to be safe for the
general public the charger must refuse to charge (or default to some
'safe' charge rate) if it determines that the required themal and/or
voltage based shutdown signals from the battery are not present or
functional. Your regs seem to have the capability to provide the
required data and shutdown signal, but the default appears to be for the
charger to run flat out in the *absence* of a signal from the regs
(meaning that if the shutdown signal connection fails the charger cooks
the pack instead of shutting down immediately), and it is not clear if
there is a means for the charger to interrogate the regs to confirm that
they are all present and accounted for prior to opening the throttle to
danger levels.
> But as always.... you digress from the main
> points. We count on you Roger to slightly sidestep the issuse
> to find points that can't be solved %100. If we deem a
> Battery pack is unsafe to charge without a operating BMS...
> Well then maybe the software should flag that point and
> terminate the charge cycle... Happy??? We have planned for
> the sky to fall.
Sorry, I did digress. It is unfair to suggest that I did so to try to
find points that can't be solved 100%, however. The point is that what
you have today is *not* a complete quick charger that is ready for
Granny to use. So, comparing the ease/speed that you can connect Goldie
to your 36kW feed when it doesn't include the reg connections required
for safety in general use, and the fill time does not include time
required for the charger to confirm the pack is safe to charge, etc. to
the actually implemented H2 refueling stations with their (probably)
excessive safeties, etc. tilts things unfairly to your advantge.
> I have assumed that liquid transfer is the faster
> by far method. I am just letting you all know that some of us
> are cutting the leads down, and at a pretty good rate. There
> is now way we can transfer as much energy as a 1 inch nozzle
> and Diesel. I just doubt that H2 is as fast and effortless as
> our current fuels. Grant me that without cutting the concept
> to little pieces that can be answered in a myriad ways...
Agreed and done! ;^>
I agree that quick charging advances may get the BEV to a similarly fast
and effortless refill as H2, and that H2 may not be as fast and
effortless as our present fuels. I'm pretty sure that H2 will still
have an edge over the BEV refill time, but would sure like to be proven
wrong ;^>
> Just as I thought...
> We are on the same side of the argument...
> We just have to Joust about it....
Yep, as usual ;^>
(It *was* fun while it lasted, though, wasn't it? ;^)
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> >> Curiousity leads me to wonder just what you have to do to a 12-volt PbA
> >>battery so that its resting voltage is 0.
> >
> >Run it completely down and then:
> >
> >a) lay a short across the terminals and leave it there for a few days.
> >b) drain out all the electrolyte.
> >c) neutralize the electrolyte by adding soda or aqua ammonia.
>
> I'm pretty sure I didn't do a), and I know I didn't do b) or c). Any
> other ways to do it?
>
a broken connection inside from one cell to the other , what happens when
you try to charge it , any amps flow at all . ,
> David Thompson
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think it is very important to note that in a 5 year period in the 1990's
the laptop and cellphone industries went from Nicad to Ni Mh and at last to
Li Ion. They never looked back. Nuf said. Lawrence Rhodes.......
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Guys, We had that prob,, we rebuilt the calipers and used DOT4
fluid, it is a silicon based fluid, regular brake fluid holds water
vapor, causing rust and corrosion in the claiper cylinder& on the
pistons makeing the piston seem to stick. The pads NEED to rub a
bit, they clean all the time this way ,and help with equal brakeing,
If you have the calipers with the plastic pistons,,toss them away
and buy chrome pistons,the plastic pistons swell, Sharon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi , do you still have the plans to build chargers?? let me know, Thanks sharon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
I think it is very important to note that in a 5 year period in the 1990's
the laptop and cellphone industries went from Nicad to Ni Mh and at last to
Li Ion. They never looked back. Nuf said. Lawrence Rhodes.......
Higher charge density, expected life of maybe 3-4 years for a laptop, if
that, and I can tell you I've had LiIon batteries from Dell which started
having problems in less than 2 years (and others with the same part number
and rating, which did not). Plus I bet most laptop users don't
discharge past maybe 60-70% on at least half their cycles, maybe more.
There's probably research on it.
I charge mine (currently a Powerbook) probably 75% of the time I'm
using it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I know a PFC can eat DC, but this have nothing to do with my point.
Take my pack - LiIons *requiring* slow charge (BTW with pulse
variable current, but such control unit can be attached to a PFC).
So how do I benefit from dump charger if my pack can eat only 15A?
I *don't want* more than 30 amps because it will harm the pack.
So my point again - the dump station isn't for everybody, and you can't
make it universal because everyone's battery is different. If everyone's
battery would be at least lead acid (but different voltages and capacities),
it would be easier to adjust monster charger, but still do dump charge.
Perhaps no NiCD, LiIon, pretty much anything other than lead acid
is allower to be dump charged, so the benefit of having such charger
is proportionally reduced. Today - not a lot, as 95% of cars are still
lead sleds. But wait a few years.
Victor
Rich Rudman wrote:
The problem with dump concept is assumption that everyone use batteries
allowing dump charging. To make it universal is about as fifficult as
making
universal charger for any laptop in existence.
Victor
In case you don't know a PFC charger can suck DC, and boost it or Buck it to
what ever voltage is nesssary.
It's entirely possible to have a Battery bank feed a PFC charger stack
for even higher peak power levels. But now... it gets a LOT more
complicated....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I believe, fuel cells proponents position is not the cost of it per mile
or efficiency
of making it. Yes, you can go twice as far if you use electricity
directly, but the
problem is you cannot store that much electricity on board at one time to go
that far.
If you compare the weight of a hydrogen fuel cell drive package
(including the fuel tank) for a car that will go 200 miles, you will find
that it weighs the same as a Li-Ion battery EV drive train. Compressed
hydrogen has a terrible specific energy.
To top it off, he Li-Ion EV package costs a fraction of what the
fuel cell package does.
Another thing that folks are assuming, but are completely wrong
about, is thinking that a fuel cell will last longer than a battery. In
fact, they wear out quite quickly. Impurities in the hydrogen (or the air
taken in) poison the membrane.
BMW recently ran a fuel cell car across the US for a demo and had
to replace the fuel cell at the half-way point.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 02:50 PM 10/26/2004, you wrote:
Very sharp summary Bill ! Do you mind if I put this on my web site verbatim?
Have at it. :^)
Victor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:42 PM 10/25/2004, you wrote:
I have an (automotive) colleague that sees pure electric as bunkum and
hydrogen (hybrids) as the only answer.
I lack the experience to debunk it? Anyone care to share a link?
Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and
ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart.
You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way
to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw
away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a
fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid
car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company
loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also
twice as much CO2 per mile driven. (G.W. = Global Warming)
If you choose to make hydrogen for your fuel cell car from
electricity, an EV using that electricity directly will go at least
twice as far.
Many of the foaming advocates of hydrogen say, "But we can
figure out a way to make hydrogen more efficiently if we hurl big
research dollars at the problem." Unfortunately, there are only so many
hydrogen atoms in each methane molecule. Also, until we unlock the
secret of photosynthesis, there will be no efficient way to make
hydrogen. Batteries will always be more efficient at storing electricity
than hydrogen gas.
Think of all the money we have spent on fusion power and it will
give you just a peek of how much we would have to spend on electrolysis
to make it more efficient. There are many many other areas in
alternative fuels that will reap greater rewards on a faster timetable
for far less money. (Like biodiesel) Of course, the oil companies really
wouldn't like that, would they.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Transfilling H2 is a tricky business.
It is not quite the same as CNG, and isn't remotely like LNG.
You have to be careful not to overheat the tank being filled. You also
have to be very careful not to fill an "empty" tank with air in it.
Sparks are an issue as the ignition temperature for H2 is just a few
hundred degrees C. The explosive limits are very board, as I recall they
are something like 2% to 95%. This means almost any mixture with air will
explode if confined. Also, the flame is invisible in daylight.
The good thing about hydrogen is that it is REALLY buoyant. If you release
it outdoors, it goes straight up and is gone immediately.
The only compact way to store it in a vehicle is as a liquid. Not terribly
convenient to transfer.
Why not simply leave it as LNG and use it in a hybrid car that will go
twice as far?
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:41 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote:
> Hate to drag this topic, but
> that's not true either. If you tripple the size of
> the tank itself you
> can go 3 times
> as far, but the weight does not increase 3 times
> since the pumps, hoses,
> blowers
> and all supporting stuff are still the same. Si you
> can always get the
> tank large
> enough to outdo NiMH batteries, the largerthe tank
> compare to everything
> else - the bigger FC advantage weight/energy wise.
>
> Victor
You're assuming the tank weight and size is negligable
compared to the vehicle. That's not true. H2 tanks are
a completely different animal than NG tanks. They have
to be much bigger and heavier to hold the same amount
of energy as NG tanks.
CH4 vs H2
Each molecule takes up the same space in the tank. The CNG
molecule holds 4 hydrogens and a carbon. This works out to about four times
the energy for that same sized tank.
LNG is much much more compact.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich, that's OK, calm down. It has nothing to do
with me. *Anyone* who dont use lead acid type battery
is not your application simply because no other
chemistry allows dump charging without harming
battery.
I'm not saying you're wasting your time.
I'm not even saying you're wasting your time for me.
I'm saying you cannot make universal dump charger
for any battery, it simply has to do with non-lead acid
battery chemistry, *not* with your ability to build
power stuff or sense the market for the most green.
Victor
Rich Rudman wrote:
VICTOR!!!
You are NOT my application!!
If you don't need to recharge in a Day....
A service sized high speed charger is a waste of your time.
Don't Knock me for it, just because you don't need it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Considering the regen that some EVs are able to use, it would make sense in
a way to replace disk brakes with drum type brakes. Less drag, and they have
self-actuating features, which help apply the brakes, lessoning the need for
a power booster. Just my too sense.
David C. Wilker Jr.
USAF (RET)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:38 PM
Subject: Brake Retraction Springs Quote
Here's the quote on the brake springs. Jerry, do you know how to do
this?
Thanks,
Patrick Maston
1981 Jet Electrica
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/23/04 6:17:48 PM >>>
Hi John and All,
--- John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about reducing brake drag and steering drag?
How have
people done this, as it appears this has a nasty
habit of
heavily eating away at range.
Yes they can. Some do steering to neutral or in
front wheel drive car use a little tow out so when the
wheels are driven the slack comes back to nuetral.
On brakes a good cleaning and sometimes retraction
springs, clips help keep brakes from draining range.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm not sure everyone realizes the difference between when it burns, and
when it explodes. H2 will burn at an even wider concentration range, but
detonates over most of the range.
Also, last I paid attention, foolcell powered cars are still hybrid; they
still require a battery pack for load leveling. O.K., it could be ultra
caps as well, but it needs something. A shame, though. Design a real
good electric car, but replace most of the batteries with a fuel cell and
related support equipment.
Hey Bill, remember about 15 or so years ago when we saw _solid_ hydrogen?
The guys in the lab coats sure didn't appreciate you sneaking up and
popping a paper bag behind them :-)
- Steven Ciciora
> Transfilling H2 is a tricky business.
>
> It is not quite the same as CNG, and isn't remotely like LNG.
>
> You have to be careful not to overheat the tank being filled. You also
> have to be very careful not to fill an "empty" tank with air in it.
>
> Sparks are an issue as the ignition temperature for H2 is just a few
> hundred degrees C. The explosive limits are very board, as I recall they
> are something like 2% to 95%. This means almost any mixture with air will
> explode if confined. Also, the flame is invisible in daylight.
>
> The good thing about hydrogen is that it is REALLY buoyant. If you
> release
> it outdoors, it goes straight up and is gone immediately.
>
> The only compact way to store it in a vehicle is as a liquid. Not
> terribly
> convenient to transfer.
>
> Why not simply leave it as LNG and use it in a hybrid car that will go
> twice as far?
> _ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
> \'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> =(___)=
> U
> Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike, in terms of motors, look into Magnetek. My friend built the Univ. of
Illinois hybrid car (FutureCar Challenge) with a Magnetek induction motor.
It was rewound but achieved 80HP in a very small package.
If not, Baldor makes a good choice. I use a modified-shaft EM3314T.
Pictures of my motor and the jig used to modify the shaft are on my website,
under Technical Details. The inside of the motor isn't terribly symmetric
but it works well. Note that this is not a vector motor: See Baldor's
http://www.baldor.com/pdf/literature/BR457.pdf , page 29, for details on the
practical difference. It is better to rewind a normal motor than to buy a
vector motor because of cost (note the Super-E comes with
Inverter-Spike-Resistant windings).
Here is the performance of my car at only 60V (top speed 6MPH in video, on
grass): http://www.egr.msu.edu/~mattes12/60vrun.mov
- Arthur
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/awmatt
Mike Barber wrote:
I'm thinking about building an AC motor controller to control some of the
Siemens motors on the metric mind web site. I saw some current ratings
for the motors, and they give values of 282A rms. I believe that this rms
current rating is the sum of all the current in the phases at once - can
anyone verify this for me? 94A per phase would be a lot easier to deal
with than 282A per phase. Thanks in advance.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
Please note that only ACW-80-4 synchronous PM motor
can be sold alone (intent is to use it for APU unit
in which case inverter is optional).
Induction motors are sold only together with
inverters programmed for them as a package - this
is the only professional approach guaranteeing
proper and smooth operation.
If you want adventures, Ford's overstock Siemens
motors go on ebay now and then for half of metricmind's price.
Of course, no warranties, no support, no documentation,
as is, etc. So you're on your own.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There plans are to have a battery pack to help with acceleration and
they are gonna have motors and controlers and high voltage accesories
like heaters and headlights made for automotive use in commodity
quantities.
We just double the pack size , put a plug on the charge controller and
turn off the breaker to the fuel cell. Once in a while, when we need to
go on a long trip we start the fuel-cell on board generator!
It is just another hybrid . :-)
Let them build them.
Or am I wrong?, and this the 'BEV only' EV list?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have attempted email contact 3 times to Metallic
Power and received no response. I do not know if they
are even in business anymore. Their Website has not
been updated in over a year. The company that bought
the UPS system was bought out and no notice of the
Metal Power system.
On an alternate note I just checked the amount of
email this topic has raised. I am up to 86 messages on
this topic. I have 4 points to offer-
1) Fuel Cells in any form are not available to the
public so it just doesn't matter right now except the
expenditure of Federal money we pay for. And in
science experimental size that cost allot.
2) Hydrogen is not available at your local gasoline
station yet. So it just doesn't matter at this point.
3) I can charge almost anywhere I have a plug-in
today. Not 10 to 20 years from now.
4) Fusion was a dream 30 years ago with articles of
future miniaturized home generators to put power
companies out of business in 2010. It is now 2004 and
6 years to go and no word on those Generators.
When I can purchase a Fuel Cell of sufficient output
to drive a EV by going to my local Auto Parts Store or
my Local Battery Store. And Go to my local gas Station
to Purchase Hydrogen to run it. Then I will consider
going that route. Until then the Horse is dead lets
stop beating it to death, unless you have a link of
actual products being sold today.
--- Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:39 PM -0400 on 10/26/04, Neon John wrote:
>
> >To me, it's not production until I can call them up
> with a PO or CC
> >number, order one and have it delivered from stock.
> If they're doing that
> >I can't tell it from their web page.
>
> Did you even look? Two clicks; Products and
> Applications, Stationary.
> Second paragraph, first sentence. "The first of
> these products is now
> shipping and is suited to providing extended backup
> power..." and
> further down a link to a datasheet. You want
> delivery info I suggest
> you click the little contact button and email them.
> --
>
>
> Auf wiedersehen!
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
> "..Um..Something strange happened to me this
> morning."
>
> "Was it a dream where you see yourself standing
> in sort
> of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand
> naked
> women screaming and throwing little pickles at
> you?"
>
> "..No."
>
> "Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
>
> -Real Genius
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
umm, isn't "Dump Charging" technically directly connecting
a higher potential pack to a lower potential pack?
With no charging hardware between them?
Maybe I'm totally wrong, or the definition has changed
to allow for a charger inbetween the two packs...
The essence though remains, There must be a "Dump Pack"
whose job it is to provide you with peak power not
available from the grid at a particular location...
Now, Fast Charging is simple charging a vehicle pack
as quickly as that pack allows, whether it be from
a big fat grid pipe or a smaller pipe and a dump pack.
It's my understanding that any chemestry can be charged
as quickly as it can be charged (obviousely), though they
are rarely charged that fast because the grid pipe is
generally to small, and few people have dump packs.
I don't have any practical experience with Fast Charging
PbA, Rich however has plenty and sais they charge quickly.
I have some Li-ions in a 24v scooter, I can discharge
a single cell at 2Amps in about 20 minutes, and they
recharge as quickly as they can in about 120 minutes.
While charging it peaks at about 0.7A, from 0% to 50%
charge takes about 45 minutes.
No matter how large you scale up my Li-ion pack it can
still be fully charged in 120 minutes, 50% charged in
45 minutes, and 25% charged in about 20 minutes.
Depending on how large it is a 25% charge might be
75 miles worth of a 50kWh 300 mile battery pack.
Let's say that 50kWh pack is made up of 6800 cells,
each capable of charging at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 2.8 Watts
which comes out to 19kW, at 120v That needs 160Amps.
So, Dump Charging would be usefull for even these
exotic and unusuail types of batteries...
I don't see any reason that a PFC couldn't be used
by anyone at a Fast Charge Station regardless of chemistry.
PbA is the Simplest, Choose the number of batteries or
autodetect the length of the string and charge!
Switch to NiMH mode or Li-ion mode and all you have to
do is change the "cell voltage" metric for the pack and
then specify the number of those cells.
Once that's chosen it's just a matter of keeping the
voltage below the battery packs calculated peak voltage.
ok, ok, so it's a little bit more tricky as you do
want to moniter temp and such, but it's perfectly doable.
IMHO... Far simpler than the H2 highway...
L8r
Ryan
PS. My basic beef with the "Hydrogen economy" is that
it's basically exactly the same as the "Oil economy".
The only difference is that there are "possible"
benefits however none of them are very "plausable".
In the mean time the Electric economy is already 50%
in place and could be 100% renewable in short order.
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Rich, that's OK, calm down. It has nothing to do
with me. *Anyone* who dont use lead acid type battery
is not your application simply because no other
chemistry allows dump charging without harming
battery.
I'm not saying you're wasting your time.
I'm not even saying you're wasting your time for me.
I'm saying you cannot make universal dump charger
for any battery, it simply has to do with non-lead acid
battery chemistry, *not* with your ability to build
power stuff or sense the market for the most green.
Victor
Rich Rudman wrote:
VICTOR!!!
You are NOT my application!!
If you don't need to recharge in a Day....
A service sized high speed charger is a waste of your time.
Don't Knock me for it, just because you don't need it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> Are these voltages after the batteries have sat over 12 hours?
Rick wrote:
> No, more like 8-9 maybe 10 hours tops.
Ok; then their voltage is not yet stable; it was still changing. This
means that any predictions you make about their state of charge based on
voltage are not particularly accurate.
> What is the rule on what voltage equates to 25% charged and does
> it vary according to size or difference between SLA AGM's and
> flooded Pba's?
Here are the numbers for flooded lead-acids. These are all no-load
voltages after the battery has sat for at least 24 hours. There are
minor differences between makes and models. The voltages and specific
gravities will be a little higher for starting batteries, or very new
batteries. Conversely, voltage and specific gravity go down as the
battery ages.
100% SOC 2.10v/cell 1.260 SG
75% SOC 2.06v/cell 1.220 SG
50% SOC 2.03v/cell 1.180 SG
25% SOC 1.99v/cell 1.140 SG
0% SOC 1.93v/cell 1.100 SG
For sealed lead-acids, the numbers are a bit higher. Again, the voltage
will be more for brand new cells, lower for old ones.
100% SOC 2.15v/cell
75% SOC 2.09v/cell
50% SOC 2.04v/cell
25% SOC 1.99v/cell
0% SOC 1.93v/cell
> I have figured 11 volts to be fully discharged on my batteries on
> the bike and the scooter both.
The generally accepted voltage UNDER LOAD for a dead battery is
1.75v/cell (10.5v for a 12v battery). But 11v with NO load is very, very
dead; down into the region where you are likely to reverse cells and
permanently damage the battery.
> I will inform my batteries and chargers that they can't charge
> that quickly. ;-)) lol Reality is weirder than fiction isn't it?
> Especially when you figure in inexpensive imported chargers.
Most consumer-grade chargers provide essentially worthless indicators of
the battery's actual state of charge.
> So, are you saying that I should turn the voltage down a bit and
> that should be better?
I think your best bet is to measure what each of your chargers actually
does. Then, decide what the "full" point really is for each. When you
use that charger, stop at this full point, regardless of what the
charger's indicators may say.
For example, your constant-voltage power supply set to 13.8v: Let it
charge at least 24 hours. More time won't hurt, though more than a week
is unnecessary.
The charger that goes to 14.1v should be on for around 14-18 hours, or
until the current falls under 1% of the battery's amphour rating (0.07a
for a 7 amphour battery).
A charger that goes to 14.4-14.8v should be turned off when the current
falls under 2% (0.14a for a 7ah battery), or when the current stops
falling and starts to rise again (this will happen with an old or hot
battery).
A charger that goes past 15v should not be used, unless you are
deliberately trying to equalize it or restore it after being run very,
very dead. In no case should the current be allowed to get over 2-4% of
the amphour rating at 15v.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just double the pack size , put a plug on the
> charge controller and
> turn off the breaker to the fuel cell. Once in a
> while, when we need to
> go on a long trip we start the fuel-cell on board
> generator!
I just bought an Escape hybrid to today with that in
mind. of course I will let my wife drive the thing for
a while before I start playing with it. I have my
plate full with some other ev projects first. I was
really fun driving the thing around on the
residential streets, it was in full ev mode for at
least a mile before the motor kicked back on.
If anyone in the Los Angeles area is looking for an
Escape hybrid I know of a dealer here who has a lot
full of them. I drove in today just to look and he had
exactly what we wanted so we drove it home,
Gadget
=====
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all,
this lurker is about to start on his first conversion (small car), and,
following on from the recent (and very helpful!) discussion over flywheel
machining, I had the following question:
Is there any reason to keep the clutch/flywheel assembly?
My conversion is going to be a commuter, so quick changes down the drag
strip aren't a must. Judging by my calcs, I figure I'll have the odd change
from 2nd to 3rd gear in the zippier parts of my commute... and I'm just
working on the assumption that changing gears without a clutch will be
pretty straightforward with an EV (ie. come off "gas", drop in neutral, push
toward desired gear and let the synchro do its thing... which I'm guessing
should be pretty easy without the inertia load of the ICE and
paraphernalia). Is this correct?.
If I can, I wouldn't mind losing the entire weight of that assembly, and
losing the inertial mass of the flywheel (not to mention fewer moving
parts). Is there anything obvious I've forgotten? Any reason why I really
ought to keep the clutch/flywheel in this situation? On the other hand, are
there any EV-ers here who've happily done away with the clutch?
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
--- End Message ---
