EV Digest 3979
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Kent Book-Thoughts on Recommendations
by Joel Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Vehicle weights and drag coefficient?
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Long Range Van on E-bay?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Random musings from an EV newbie
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Anyone tried 16 volt batteries?
by "EAA-contact" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by "Tom Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Long Range EV Ideas
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Long Range EV Ideas
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Random musings from an EV newbie
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Motors in series? Torque vs. power?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) Re: Motors in series? Torque vs. power?
by Lonnie Borntreger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Motors in series? Torque vs. power?
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: This does not sound quite right...
by JCT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Ampabout ... cheaper by the pallet
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: This does not sound quite right...
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Jury-rigged Charging
by "Joe Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by "Steve Clunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Vehicle weights and drag coefficient?
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Have others on the list read the Steven Kent book "Kar
Kaptains Kry, Kalamity"? I just finished it and found
it to be a very interesting perspective.
For those who have not read:
1) He recommends the production of a VSR (very short
range/30 miles per charge) EV that fit well into
city/urban setting.
2) The conversion of vehicles into plug-in hybrids.
Electric only up to 50 mph for a range of 20-30 miles
and a gas engine for the 50+ trips that are long
distance.
Living in the midwest (Minneapolis, MN) where urban
sprawl is the norm, the second alternative would be a
great direction to investigate.
Kent's thought is that a gas car could easily support
short range EV components with minor changes. I was
thinking (while I have the flu, plenty of time to
think) that one could get a SUV/Pickup with 4wd and
drive the front differential using an electric motor
tied directly to the drive shaft. The gas motor would
drive the rear wheels. The truck either runs in FWD
or RWD but never 4x4. The truck could handle a
120-144V pack and a 9" motor could be mounted under
the truck. Still keeping within GVWR.
I am sure this is not a new idea to those in the
group. Has anyone tried this approach? If so, how
did it work out.
BTW, I calculated that with my wife's Volvo wagon and
my EV we are getting a combined MPG of 35-40. As a
reference our combined MPG before the ev was 25.
Thanks
Joel
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone have, or know where to get some hard numbers on various
vehicles? Like how much do 1980's Chevy S-10's and Ford Rangers weigh
compared to later 1990 model trucks? And also the drag coefficient numbers
of the older ones compared to the newer ones. Or how much do vehicles like
Dodge Neons, Chevy Cavaliers, and Ford Focus's weigh? What might be the
"ultimate" car(or truck) for a conversion?
The thing I like about the trucks is being able to mount all the batteries
and the onboard charger in the bed, maybe even the controller too. Worried
about the "high" center of gravity? Those trucks can be lowered to any ride
height... Ever seen an electric powered low rider? ;)
With the cars, I think the batteries could easily enough all be mounted in
the trunk and where the back seat was, etc.
So I guess it basically comes down to weight and aerodynamics. Except if
everything roughly weighs about 3,000 lbs and has pretty much the same drag
coefficient... then it all becomes a moot point.
Anyone got any numbers?
All I've found so far is some various misc. numbers on things you might
wonder about in regards to any weight savings:
http://www.vorshlag.com/tech_weights.asp
Regards
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Don't know if I buy the 100 mile rating, but based on it's size and the fact
> that it packs 17 6v batts, I'd be willing to belive 60-70 if you keep it in
the
> 45mph range.
>
I owned one of this style of ElectraVans; other than the difficulty getting
spares and usual tiny car safety issues, you'd need a very deep cycle and a
Lee-Hart-is-a-hotrod-kid driving attitude to get 60mi on city streets.
The same seller posted a shunt motor/contactor system from Kaylor a few times
where he considered electronic controllers "cutting edge"...don't know where
this EV fits on that continuum.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am planning on making an EV in the near future as I think it would be
perfect for commuting and all my driving needs. I like how it doesn't
pollute. It really gets to me when I drive a gas powered vehicle and the
pollution it puts out when I know there is an alternative.
As an aside, a running vehicle could be chosen and the gas parts removed.
At a later date in the future, the EV parts could be removed and the vehicle
could be converted back to gas and sold off as a running vehicle and a
different vehicle could then be used with the EV parts. Something to be
considered in regards to nice or expensive cars that you have reservations
about converting. Just convert it in a way that it could be converted back.
Two examples: With a mini-truck, remove the bed and mount the battery rack
directly to the frame rails. At a later date, remove your rack and put the
bed back on. Also the motor, exhaust, and fuel tank. With a car have the
rack mounted to the sub frame rails in the trunk, maybe using u-bolts like
the ones that hold a differential to leaf springs, the holes could later be
sealed with those rubber plugs that are currently used in various places in
a cars floor pan.
First I need to select a candidate vehicle. Weight and aerodynamics would
be factors.
Remove the motor, exhaust, fuel tank and lines.
Drain the differential oil and manual transmission. Refill with synthetic.
8 or 9" DC motor with motor mount and adapter. Get a new clutch disc,
pressure plate, throwout bearing, and pilot bearing.
144 or 192v? Build rack for Exide Orbitals(most likely). I like them
because I can get more of them locally.
How about things like get a custom aluminum driveshaft made for less
rotating mass? Like one from here for example?
http://www.dennysdriveshaft.com/ Would it even make a difference?
How about lightweight aluminum wheels? Like these:
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=2233&prmenbr=361
Or these:
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=2235&prmenbr=361
15" x 4, 5, or 6?
Some tires that have a high PSI rating and air them up all the way. Sure it
will wear the center of the tread out; but it will roll nicely..
I'd like to mount the 110v charger on or in the vehicle. Would it be worth
the money to have a 220v charger in the garage in addition to the 110? Or
just use the 110v onboard? How many minutes(hours?) faster would the 220
recharge the pack over the 110?
Another thing I like about the trucks is that manual steering setups can be
had for them. Any somewhat modern frontwheel drive cars these days have
manual steering?
With aftermarket rotors (4 wheel disc conversions), calipers, and master
cylinders, couldn't a really good manual brake system be made? An example:
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=86615&prmenbr=361
I could dial in the front and rear brakes with one of these:
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1178&prmenbr=361
Thanks for reading. I had to get all this out of my mind somewhere. Non of
my friends or family are into this subject.
Regards.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
These are rated at 25ahr, 70 minute RC (16v).
You'd have to have multiple strings for enough power for an EV car or truck.
-Ed
--- On Sun 12/26, Ryan Stotts < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Ryan Stotts [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:45:19 -0600
Subject: Anyone tried 16 volt batteries?
Check that out:
http://www.turbostart.com/SPLGRP.jpg
http://www.turbostart.com/
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Let me tell you about my experience with golf cart batteries in a
Ranger pickup conversion which I did myself. The batteries were
the weakest link.
The pack of twenty batteries weighed about 1200 lbs and held the
energy equivalent of about two gallons of gasoline. The battery
pack could push the truck for about 40 miles, about the same
distance that 2 gallons of gasoline could cover when the truck had
an infernal combustion engine.
The weight of the pack was a major problem. I made no attempt to beef
up the rear springs before installing the battery pack to see how much the
rear would sag and how much help the springs might need. The tail
settled about three inches and needed two extra leaves added to each rear
spring to restore a level ride. The overloaded rear tires made the truck
oversteer, a problem corrected by installing wider rear wheels and tires.
The limited range was a serious aggravation. I've read a mountain of
propaganda here about how short range is not a problem, but it is no
matter how often I read that it isn't. There just were too many places
we couldn't go and too many times when we worried if we could make
it home to recharge. We had a tow bar for the truck which we used
three times to get up the steep hill to get home.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yet another twist on the long range ev idea:
Build a Red Beastie type truck with literally a ton of batteries.
First, however, chop the top. Every 2 inches of chop removes about a
square foot (about 5%) of frontal area.
Likewise, cut wedges out of the bed floor and reweld, to angle the
sides of the bed ~15 degrees. Section and reweld the tailgate
narrower. Use wheel offset to bring in the rear wheels and cover the
wheel wells. Put on a shell that angles down at ~15 degrees, and
matches the bed sides coming in. Put on a belly pan.
If you are ambitious, replace the font clip with something more
aerodynamic. More ambitious, angle the windshield back more. Really
really ambitious, cut the truck in 1/2 lengthwise and narrow it by a
foot or two, taking a step in the Tango direction.
Might be possible to get better than 50% weight in batteries, and cut
the aero drag way down. Imagine Red Beastie with 1/2 the aero drag --
might have a shot at that very rare "200 club" (200 miles on a
charge) so far only obtained so far with expensive Lithium or nickel
chemistry batteries to my knowledge.
Playing my own devil's advocate: I decided to not go this road myself
(for instance, loading up a Camaro with 40 to 60 orbitals). I think
it is techically feasible, but has these disadvantages:
* Would take a long time to charge
* Would cost 2 or 3 times more money (2 or 3 times as much of
everything)
Smaller and lighter is much cheaper, and lets you oppportunity
recharge at a higher miles/hour rate (miles of range added per hour
of charge).
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You might find that reductions in rolling resistance and parasitic
loads, both mechanical and electrical might be where to look first to
extend range.
Things to try:
-LRR tires
-special alignment (no toe, no camber)
-low viscosiy transmission fluid
-a transaxle that uses fluid wetted (versus grease) inner CV joints
-remove the internal motor fan
-add external motor fan to above
-use the biggest properly wound motor possible
-a low current limit
-assuming a DC-DC is used, reduce 12v power wherever possible
-ditch all the sound deadening in the car, you don't need it, it's an
EV!
-if you can get an efficiency map for the motor, then figure the
correct operating regimes based on roadspeed and torque and shift
appropriately (this could be the most significant and it is FREE)
-learn how to drive modestly
-coast whenever possible
-slow down
(brake piston seizure was a big problem in the regen equipped Forces,
you just didn't use them much)
One thing that sort of grew on me at Solectria was a sort of mentality
that every Joule was sacred and every pound was evil. It would have
been easier and cheaper to make steel battery boxes, (and cost was very
much a consideration), but they were made of aluminum. If possible, no
fans on heatinks for reliability and power. Run 12V devices on 12V, not
the 13.X Volts that a battery/ alternator in an ICE might provide. Use
contactors with economizer circuits for the coil (or a LM1949N circuit
added on).
Many of these will help and are easier than body mods. Some are just
behaivior mods.
Seth
On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:28 AM, David Dymaxion wrote:
Yet another twist on the long range ev idea:
Build a Red Beastie type truck with literally a ton of batteries.
First, however, chop the top. Every 2 inches of chop removes about a
square foot (about 5%) of frontal area.
Likewise, cut wedges out of the bed floor and reweld, to angle the
sides of the bed ~15 degrees. Section and reweld the tailgate
narrower. Use wheel offset to bring in the rear wheels and cover the
wheel wells. Put on a shell that angles down at ~15 degrees, and
matches the bed sides coming in. Put on a belly pan.
If you are ambitious, replace the font clip with something more
aerodynamic. More ambitious, angle the windshield back more. Really
really ambitious, cut the truck in 1/2 lengthwise and narrow it by a
foot or two, taking a step in the Tango direction.
Might be possible to get better than 50% weight in batteries, and cut
the aero drag way down. Imagine Red Beastie with 1/2 the aero drag --
might have a shot at that very rare "200 club" (200 miles on a
charge) so far only obtained so far with expensive Lithium or nickel
chemistry batteries to my knowledge.
Playing my own devil's advocate: I decided to not go this road myself
(for instance, loading up a Camaro with 40 to 60 orbitals). I think
it is techically feasible, but has these disadvantages:
* Would take a long time to charge
* Would cost 2 or 3 times more money (2 or 3 times as much of
everything)
Smaller and lighter is much cheaper, and lets you oppportunity
recharge at a higher miles/hour rate (miles of range added per hour
of charge).
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Several thoughts for you:
You might want to think incrementally. Redoing the brakes,
driveshaft, etc, could double your conversion time. From a human
psychology point of view, it might be better to get it running
electrically first (big morale boost), and then tinker with other
systems if they need it.
Cost: High performance lightweight parts are expensive. A lighweight
aluminum flywheel runs around $300 to $400 bucks. A lightweight
pressure plate is about the same. Lightweight wheels vary, but I'd
guess at least $400 (be careful here, often the stock ones are
lighter than alot of the aftermarket ones!).
Benefit: If you do alot of cruising at steady speeds, the lightweight
parts will not help you much (3% lighter car might only get you as
little as 1% improvement in range at highway speeds). If you do alot
of accelerating, stop-and-go, there is more benefit. In this case
taking a pound off a wheel is like taking 2 pounds off the car.
Taking a pound off the flywheel is like taking about 4 pounds off the
car! 20 pounds off the wheels and 10 pounds off the flywheel would
make the car effectively act 3% lighter during acceleration, even
though you have removed only 1% of the weight. The driveshaft is less
benefit because of smaller diameter and lower rpm.
Some back-of-envelope math: Wheel kinetic energy, 1/2*m*v^2. Wheel
rotational energy, ~1/2*m*r^2*(2*pi*f)^2 = 1/2*m*v^2, so kinetic
energy equals rotational, so effective mass to accelerate a wheel is
doubled. For the flywheel, the diameter is about 1/3 of a wheel, but
gearing spins it about 6 times faster than a wheel. (1/3)^2 implies
1/9 the inertia per pound, but a 6:1 overall gear means v^2 is 6^2 =
36 times more. 36/9 = effectively 4 times the weight!
Probably the best financial compromise is to take your flywheel to a
race machine shop, and have them lighten it and remove the starter
gear (and any flywheel outside what the pressure plate needs). It's
just dead weight since an electric motor doesn't need the mass to
keep from stalling. For wheels, check which model of your car had the
lightest wheels (or find another car with compatible bolt pattern,
width, and offset), and get them used. Ditto for brakes, you may be
able to swap with a later year, another model, or high performance
option to get bigger brakes. Softer racing pads may help, too.
--- Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> 8 or 9" DC motor with motor mount and adapter. Get a new clutch
> disc,
> pressure plate, throwout bearing, and pilot bearing.
> ...
> How about things like get a custom aluminum driveshaft made for
> less
> rotating mass? Like one from here for example?
> http://www.dennysdriveshaft.com/ Would it even make a difference?
>
> How about lightweight aluminum wheels? Like these:
>
>
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=2233&prmenbr=361
>
> Or these:
>
>
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=2235&prmenbr=361
> ...
> With aftermarket rotors (4 wheel disc conversions), calipers, and
> master
> cylinders, couldn't a really good manual brake system be made? An
> example:
>
>
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=86615&prmenbr=361
>
> I could dial in the front and rear brakes with one of these:
>
>
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1178&prmenbr=361
> ...
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Was reading a post the other day from... I believe Jerry Dykus but could be
wrong... and he said that if you put two electric motors in series, you'd get
twice the torque because the current has to series through both of them.
Certainly I agree that the current has to series through both, since it is a
series connection. In fact, I don't *disagree* with anything he said because
I don't know enough to agree or disagree. My question is this: As Greenspan
said the other month before Congress, "the free lunch has yet to be invented."
There is no free lunch, and my studies in physics has taught me this. What
are you giving up to get "twice the torque?"
Another question is this. Ever since my muscle car days, there has always
been this debate between torque and horsepower. Someone would say (hell, even
muscle car mags would say) "yeah, this beast might not have the horsepower, but
she sure has tons of torque!" I don't understand it when someone says
something like this. I always understood "torque" to be "twisting force" from
all
the physics classes that I took. Power is, of course, power. Energy per time.
What is relevant? Power or torque? I always thought it was power, but I
admit I've never quite understood the torque thing. My question is, what gets
you down the road? What puts you back in the seat when you kick the
accelerator? If someone says "torque" then I will ask "is there not power also
involved?" Can someone explain the difference to me between torque and power?
There
is certainly a mathematical difference which I know from physics. And there
is a definitional difference. Torque is "twisting force," and power is "energy
over time." But I don't know how to translate that into car-speak. If you
tell me that an engine (or motor) is putting out lots of power, I figure that
is a lot of energy over time, which translates to a lot of energy at the wheels
over time to put me back in the seat. And if you tell me it's putting out
lots of torque, I figure that is a lot of twisting force at the crankshaft (and
therefore at the rear wheel) to put me back in the seat. Which means, they
both sound like they do the same thing. But apparently they don't.
So, two questions from an EV dummy. 1) if you are getting "twice the torque"
then what are you giving up (power perhaps)? and 2) just what the hell is
the difference between power and torque anyway? If I am getting "twice the
torque" then how does that help me, and how is it different than getting "twice
the power?"
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Horsepower = (rpm * torque) / 5250
Quick answer, Yes.
Longer answer [ understatement - please shoot me - I can't stop ]...
HP is the work..... torque is the force that does the work. If you are
traveling at a given speed (rpm) and wish to accelerate, you need more
available "work" (power). To get more power at a fixed rpm, you need to
increase torque. Thus torque provides force to increase the HP to
provide the "push into the seat".
When you are talking about different parts of the speed (rpm) curve,
"car speak" changes the focus. Why? Because, at low (near zero) rpm,
torque is a greater part of the equation. Thus, from a standing start,
the terminology used is usually torque - and as the rpms get higher,
torque (while still the critical player) becomes seen as more of a
"partner" with rpm. Thus you hear statements like "starting torque" or
"torque off the line" compared with "high end horsepower" to relate to
where a car accelerates best. In reality, both are power relying on the
force of torque.
Basically, the "push you into your seat" sensation is always the result
of an difference between the work being done and the power available to
do work, caused by increasing torque causing you to accelerate from your
current speed. Most ICE cars give you a huge push back from a start, or
after you're already at speed, rarely in both cases.
Now to electric....
A series wound electric motor is a cool device in that it takes the
thing that a large ICE does... and does it better. Even a large ICE
needs 1000 - 1500 rpm to get into its power band (where it starts
generating peak torque), but a series DC has near infinite torque at
near-zero rpm (providing that you can provide the current, and its
windings can take it). Thus, it can haul you from a dead stop to the
upper half of its rpm range in near zero time (once again - if you can
provide the current, and its windings can take it, and you have the
traction - and you don't break any half shafts ;-) ).
More equations:
P(in watts) = VI
Keep in mind that P is a sibling of HP,
so varying V and I at a given rpm will affect torque (thus
acceleration)
P(in watts) = R * I(sq)
At low rpm, a DC motor has near zero back EMF (which provides
resistance) so the only resistance is the length of wire in the
windings, thus it pulls a LOT of current -- thus lots of power... thus
LOTS of torque.
But why does the series/parallel switch in series wound DC motors work
so nicely? Reality, that's why.
No pack is capable of putting out infinite (or near infinite) amps, and
as more current is drawn the pack voltage will sag until its internal
resistance maxes the current flow. That means that V is lower but I is
still very high. So, how can you get more torque (thus power and
acceleration) from a given amount of current? Electrical theory.
Putting a second (or third) DC motor in series at low rpm causes very
little additional resistance, so the current remains "near" the same
level, thus a doubling (or tripling) of the R at pretty much the same I,
so you've doubled (or tripled) the (P ... torque), which moves your butt
(in this case from a stop).
The "trade off" with DC motors in series is that as they "spin up" back
EMF builds (for everyone except for garry) and increases the resistance.
At some point the motors generate enough back EMF to stabilize the
"circuit" with a steady current flowing through series resistances, each
dropping part of the voltage of the pack. (Reality check #2 - no pack
can put out infinite voltage). Oops. That means that two motors and a
120V pack, each motor is seeing 60V, and it stops accelerating earlier
than it would have if not in series. So, you've gained P/torque at low
speeds, but you've reduced the max voltage available to push more
current through the back EMF, which reduces the max rpm..... in other
words it can only generate enough power to continue at this lower speed.
So, you've accelerated harder than you would have, but to a lower speed.
Once again we can work around this problem caused by reality. Now that
we have the motors spinning fast enough that they no longer "request"
infinite current (due to the increased resistance from back EMF) and the
circuit current is low enough that our pack is no longer maxed, we
switch them into parallel mode. Now they no longer share the same
current path. Each will see full pack voltage, and get whatever current
they need to continue to spin up. So, now, with higher voltage across a
certain resistance, it pushes more current, creates more power/torque at
the given rpm (causes acceleration), until once again the back EMF
resistance is high enough to cause the circuit to "steady state" again.
This time EACH motor is rpm maxed by the packs voltage. However with
three motors (assumed identical in every way - right) seeing exactly the
same V and I that a single motor would for a given V, you've effectively
doubled or tripled the P (HP) put out - once again.
Basically, you are trying to pull the maximum work that a given battery
pack can provide from a dead stop all the way to the end of the 1/4 mile
(or the max speed you want to reach). This obviously means a
continuous, steady, hard acceleration (or application of torque) for the
entire run. Your number of motors could increase to do this
(progressively switching from series to shorter strings in parallel
until all are in parallel), but you'd be limited by controller
technology and space for the motors.
Of course there are other ways around all this using multiple series
motors to work around its low-rpm/high-torque high-rpm/low-torque
characteristics. They are known as shunt-wound or compound-wound
motors.... in theory you could design a motor that - properly controlled
- could draw max battery P from 0-14000 rpms..... but they aren't easily
available (especially in EV sized packages) or controlled or
familiar..... and that's a whole "nuther" discussion........
Wow, that hurt. Pulling all that "book/lab learnin" from my college
BSEE degree some 15 years ago (that I've never used since).
HTH and didn't totally bore you,
Lonnie Borntreger
PS: This post will be fact checked by other expert list members. This
post should not be considered publishable fact until verified by the
community, in true scientific fashion - my professors would be sooooo
proud.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Im sure there are people far more qualified to tell you about the motor
part of this than me, but it would help you to un-abreviate "power"
back to its original meaning, which is horsepower and then you can look
it up and get its definition.
I would however like to broadly comment on the free lunch, because as i
see it if you can get someone else to pay for it and you dont have to
pay for a reciprocal lunch the following day you have indeed consumed a
free lunch.
If you build a dam it costs but after that the power it makes is free
because it is paid for by nature not the company running the dam but
they sure as hell dont want you to figure this out cause that would
mean they couldnt justify charging you for the power.
It would lead to wide spread panic as people rushed to buy real estate
near streams and rivers so they could go get themselves a cheap water
wheel and generator and share in this "free lunch" too.
Free your thinking then go looking for the "free lunch" its out there
if you look.
Garry
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:38:24 EST
Subject: Motors in series? Torque vs. power?
>Was reading a post the other day from... I believe Jerry Dykus but
>could be
>wrong... and he said that if you put two electric motors in series,
>you'd get
>twice the torque because the current has to series through both of
>them.
>
>Certainly I agree that the current has to series through both, since
>it is a
>series connection. In fact, I don't *disagree* with anything he said
>because
>I don't know enough to agree or disagree. My question is this: As
>Greenspan
>said the other month before Congress, "the free lunch has yet to be
>invented."
> There is no free lunch, and my studies in physics has taught me this.
> What
>are you giving up to get "twice the torque?"
>
>Another question is this. Ever since my muscle car days, there has
>always
>been this debate between torque and horsepower. Someone would say
>(hell, even
>muscle car mags would say) "yeah, this beast might not have the
>horsepower, but
>she sure has tons of torque!" I don't understand it when someone says
>something like this. I always understood "torque" to be "twisting
>force" from all
>the physics classes that I took. Power is, of course, power. Energy
>per time.
> What is relevant? Power or torque? I always thought it was power,
>but I
>admit I've never quite understood the torque thing. My question is,
>what gets
>you down the road? What puts you back in the seat when you kick the
>accelerator? If someone says "torque" then I will ask "is there not
>power also
>involved?" Can someone explain the difference to me between torque
>and power? There
>is certainly a mathematical difference which I know from physics. And
>there
>is a definitional difference. Torque is "twisting force," and power
>is "energy
>over time." But I don't know how to translate that into car-speak.
>If you
>tell me that an engine (or motor) is putting out lots of power, I
>figure that
>is a lot of energy over time, which translates to a lot of energy at
>the wheels
>over time to put me back in the seat. And if you tell me it's putting
>out
>lots of torque, I figure that is a lot of twisting force at the
>crankshaft (and
>therefore at the rear wheel) to put me back in the seat. Which means,
>they
>both sound like they do the same thing. But apparently they don't.
>
>So, two questions from an EV dummy. 1) if you are getting "twice the
>torque"
>then what are you giving up (power perhaps)? and 2) just what the
>hell is
>the difference between power and torque anyway? If I am getting
>"twice the
>torque" then how does that help me, and how is it different than
>getting "twice
>the power?"
>
>Thanks.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Joe Smalley"
I see what you described sometimes during some battery tests. The voltage
sags more than usual at the beginning of a discharge and then rebounds. I
always thought that was odd. I believed it could be either a stirring or a
heat issue.
If it were the heat issue, hitting the starter would heat it up faster. I
don't see that during high current tests, but then again, I haven't looked
for it either.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================
I am from the North-W Qc.
What the old timer here have to say on this subject is this:
Put a load on the battery (the lights ON for a few seconds for ex.)
before actually starting when its very cold.
And it works. Before taking the EV road, I had no clue why.
Now after reading mucho EV list digest :-) I would very cautiously
suggest the following:
The medium load must be getting the chemical reaction going from its
cold paralyzing state.
So that when you start you are in what you call the rebound stage.
Now this is very important when starting a very cold vehicule,
because if you miss it in the first very few turns then... well you
walk. So having the max power instantly going to the starter & the
spark plugs is of utmost importance in very cold condition.
Kind of like giving a push in the back of your couch potatoe style
friend to start it jogging!
JCT
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bruce,
I just went through a 20-pack of US-125's at 7800 miles, were supposed to
last at least 14k miles like the T-105 Trojan's I had. I tried T-875's
(14ea) and US-8VGC-HD which both lasted about 9k miles. I think I'll try
some used ni-cads for the next pack since I go through a pack of floodies
once a year and they are a real pain to change out, shoots a week-end.
see ya, Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "bruce parmenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "evlist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Ampabout ... cheaper by the pallet
> Well times have changed. The prices of batteries always goes up,
> and how much you can get for a pack that gets tired soon, goes
> down to nil.
>
> I bought my current 132 VDC pack of 22 US145 batteries from Jim
> Ramos of American Battery in Hayward CA back in Oct of 2003. The
> pack is only a year old, but it is getting tired to the point
> where it does not want to finish charging at 150 VDC, its using
> water, and when you stomp on the accelerator, the performance
> is mushy (the emeter winks out, meaning the pack voltage is
> truly sagging).
>
> Yup, its time to start eyeballing another pack.
>
> I want to try a different battery this time. The US145's served
> me well for the long distance runs to and from Sacramento (160
> miles of using public EV charging).
>
> But the added weight, and made me a true lead-sled, and the larger
> tire to support the weight pushed me out from going with a low
> rolling resistant (LLR) tire type.
>
> If I lose some weight (both in the pack and around my waist),
> my EV would run a little more efficient for the mostly around
> town driving I am doing. I am not in a position to go on
> long trips anymore: financially and I just can't get the
> time off.
>
> So I am looking at a battery with less weight and capacity.
> This will make changing the pack out, less of a contest. 22
> 70 batteries times two (take them out, and put them in) is
> lifting 3080 lbs of batteries (not good for my high blood
> pressure).
>
> I called Jim today to get a price quote. Today is a good day.
> Its very quiet at work because the employees were given half
> the day off for the Holiday. This gives me the free time to
> get a few of my personal tasks/chores done, that I normally
> would not be able to do.
>
> Jim quoted me:
> $75.52 US145 244ah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $58.22 US125 235ah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $53.31 US2200 225ah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dividing the minutes at 75 amps into the cost of a US125
> and them multiply that by the minutes of a US2200
> ($58.22/132) * 115 =
> at the US125 rate, a US2200 would cost $50.72 .
> The US125 is better deal.
>
> I asked Jim of these type of batteries, what does he sell the
> most. He said the US125's, then the US2200's, and lastly the
> US145's. The other traction battery models are available, but
> I would not be able to get the lower price because he does not
> those in quantity. Its cheaper if lots of pallets are bought
> at one time.
>
> Oddly, Jim said the cycles do not increase when I change from
> a US145 toward the smaller capacity batteries. This is just the
> opposite to what has always been said about traction batteries:
> lower capacity = more cycles
> high capacity = less cycles
> ... Has something changed?
>
> Jim chided Trojan by saying, Well they opened a plant in China,
> does that say something? ... (this did not sound right, is not
> a reason why I will get less cycles with a lower capacity battery).
>
> Jim says unless my tired pack is got really dead ones, I get
> nothing
> for a pack that is dying before its time. So much for the 2 year
> warrenty.
>
> So I am going to check how much money I can spend (I have only
> gotten one paycheck since returning to work), make sure of what
> type of terminal lugs I have, and spend this weekend making
> room for 22 batteries to be dropped off at my place (Jim
> usually delivers in 2 to 3 weeks). By that time, my pack should
> be on its last leg.
>
> I plan to see if I can get my old pack to the SJEAA chapter's
> battery man Don Gillis. He goes through them for both battery
> data, and well as finding one or two that still have a little
> life left in them. Someone with one weak battery can run for
> 6 more months before having to replace the whole pack.
>
> ...
> No money from UPS on my lost PFC-50. I would like to order
> another charger. It would be good to be able to use the public
> AVCONs again. Hmmm, ... I will have to bug UPS again.
> They sure were quick to take money, but slow to pay it out.
>
> ta
>
> =====
> Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
>
> ' ____
> ~/__|o\__
> '@----- @'---(=
> . http://geocities.com/brucedp/
> . EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
> . (originator of the above ASCII art)
> =====
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I see what you described sometimes during some battery tests. The voltage
sags more than usual at the beginning of a discharge and then rebounds. I
always thought that was odd. I believed it could be either a stirring or a
heat issue.
Now that the temps in MD are down in the 20's and 10's, I'm noticing
this on the Prizm pack. Voltage under load (100a) will drop into the mid
280's, then recover back to 290 within a mile or two. When it's this
cold, I don't floor the pack anyway and the Dolphin slows down the rate
of accel to keep from stressing the batteries.
I always thought it was the curren draw from the pack warming up the
batteries a bit since they are basically resistors.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have done this when my charger was down for repair, and it is slow, but
works just fine. Do not overcharge the batteries, just bring them up til the
amperage drops off.
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "W Bryan Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: Jury-rigged Charging
> Before I do something that might be incredibly stupid, I wanted to hear
from
> a few minds more experienced than mine.
>
> It recently dipped into sub-zero temperatures here, and for one
> reason or another, my charger's built-in GFI trips everytime I
> try to plug in it. I was hoping that something was just wet, or
> frozen, so I've just left well enough alone for two days hoping
> that the garage would warm up when the sun came out.
>
> Well, today, no luck, and I'm starting to get worried. I'm going to have
> to risk it and tear things down to get a better look. I know
> the batteries are pretty drained and if I find that I'm going
> to have to wait for a replacement charger, I'd like to
> top them up.
>
> So, I was hoping to use a normal car battery charger on two-6vs-in-series
> and just go around the whole pack this way. I believe the batteries
> are reguar-old lead-acid US-125s.
>
> Any yays or nays?
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 6:01 AM
Subject: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
> I read all the posts between Wayland and others regarding the issue. I
think
> it's interesting and would like to ask a question.
One thing I think for many is the price , if they were both the same
price lbs for lbs more people would lead toward the AGM's ( or if the
dollars per pound where reversed excides
orbital where $35 each and golf cart batteries where $130 then golf cart
batteries wouldn't even be on the table ) . Golf cart
batteries are less than 1$ a pound, where AGM's are more than 2$ a pound.
What makes the Golf cart vs. AGM wars interesting is that there is
no one winner with so many trade off and so much depends on what you need
them for . Its a lot like AC vs DC or clutch vs no clutch. For now for me
the answer
is to have both, :-) Yes , I have the golf cart batteries in my work truck
, which I drive all day long and pull a 1500 lbs trailer ,I keep my amp draw
below 100 when crusing , even with my
zilla turned down to 500 battery amps I still have very good pickup from a
stand still because the controller pumps out the 1000 amps on the motor
side. When I want to do some short around town driving , I can use my 924
Porsche with 18 excides and have a little fun without worrying about hurting
my batteries.
> My question is this - let's say that my vehicle isn't an issue in terms of
> how much lead I can pack into it. Let's say it's strong enough and big
enough
> and safe enough for me to put a big hunk o' lead in it. Let's consider
> something like a big-ass van that I've possibly modified structurally (if
necessary)
> to carry thousands of pounds of lead.
remember its not how much weight but the ratio of weight to the total car
weight. ,
) If this is
possible,
> would you at this point be paying more than you would for a pack of AGMs
> sized to deliver similar performance, after factoring in life of the
batteries and
if you had 2 cars , one 4000lbs with golf cart bats and one 2000 with agm's
and both had the same bat weight to car weight then even though the golf
cart batteries cost less , your light car would need only half , and cost
might be around the same.
> what not? I suppose the question is, at this point does your cost/cycles
end
> up being more than for AGMs?
>
> I understand that there might be enough variables here to make some of
this
>
when talking to people , they want some hard answers not a lot of well maybe
this maybe that , what Lee says below is the kind of simple answer people
want to hear.
> This is what I was getting at by the 1-hour discharge rate. If you drive
> so as to discharge the batteries in less than an hour, then you're
> likely to be overstressing floodeds during accelleration, and so AGMs
> could be a better, cheaper choice.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hi Ryan, and welcome!
If you go to
www.budget.net/~bbath/civicwithacordjournal.html,
you'll get the weight and tons of info on converting a
92 Civic. I was a bit compulsive about documentation
for future converters. Also for $12, I have a DVD or
video, showing adapter plate and component mounting
locations.
At least check my journal.
peace,
--- Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have, or know where to get some hard
> numbers on various
> vehicles? Like how much do 1980's Chevy S-10's and
> Ford Rangers weigh
> compared to later 1990 model trucks? And also the
> drag coefficient numbers
> of the older ones compared to the newer ones. Or
> how much do vehicles like
> Dodge Neons, Chevy Cavaliers, and Ford Focus's
> weigh? What might be the
> "ultimate" car(or truck) for a conversion?
>
> The thing I like about the trucks is being able to
> mount all the batteries
> and the onboard charger in the bed, maybe even the
> controller too. Worried
> about the "high" center of gravity? Those trucks
> can be lowered to any ride
> height... Ever seen an electric powered low rider?
> ;)
>
> With the cars, I think the batteries could easily
> enough all be mounted in
> the trunk and where the back seat was, etc.
>
> So I guess it basically comes down to weight and
> aerodynamics. Except if
> everything roughly weighs about 3,000 lbs and has
> pretty much the same drag
> coefficient... then it all becomes a moot point.
>
> Anyone got any numbers?
>
> All I've found so far is some various misc. numbers
> on things you might
> wonder about in regards to any weight savings:
>
> http://www.vorshlag.com/tech_weights.asp
>
>
> Regards
>
>
=====
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- End Message ---
