EV Digest 4005
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: DIY Controller? (DIY Motor)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: RE : follow up on valence Li-ion
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) TS prices (was Re: follow up on valence Li-ion)
by "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Parallel TS: Was: Thoughts on use of TS cells
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6) Re: Sundancer whereabouts?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: TS Endplate Thickness
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: RE : follow up on valence Li-ion
by Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: TS Endplate Thickness
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Accepting compromises, was Re: Planatery gear set
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) Re: "very important that you allow the battery to gas"?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) follow up on valence Li-ion
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: TS prices (was Re: follow up on valence Li-ion)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: DIY Controller? (DIY Motor)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Refining Hybrid truck ideas
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20) GE 23hp series DC motor -> Advanced DC?
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: RE : follow up on valence Li-ion
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Jeep EV (Battery LED, Raptor controller questions)
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: follow up on valence Li-ion
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Jeep EV (Battery LED, Raptor controller questions)
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Charging in an apartment
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) RE: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Lee, are you joking or seriously suggest someone to try
to perform these "not strictly nesessary improvements"?
I am quite serious. People spend a lot of time "blueprinting" normal
ICEs to squeeze out just a little more power. The same thing works for
electric motors.
Sure, people do all kind of things. Lot of time for questionable
improvement (vs. buing a motor for the job) makes sense only
if that time worth little.
You can improve cooling, install better bearings, precision balance the
rotor, superinsulate the windings, etc. all to get more power. These are
the same things the factory does, but they charge a lot.
If if would be that easy and effective, we'd see it being
done by now on regular basis. Why don't we? Perhaps not worth
to bother.
So, yes, technically it can be done, just like a motor can be
built from scratch. Heck, even fabricating a battery is suggested.
If one would know how much calculation and tweaking of inter-related
parameters is happening in design stage (a software for the
matching inverter involved too, it must contain a model for
*that* motor), one would drop this idea. Of course,
if one is willing to accept loosing all the advantages
optimisation provides just to save few bucks and prove
that it can be done good enough, he can do it.
Advantures like this are very american thing. People
don't afraid to fail and be laughed at, even though
prospect of the failure was obvious to begin with.
So at the end, people is proud of achievements portion
of outcome, and that is enough.
"I saved $873 on the motor and my EV is driveable!"
I like this spirit, but from the engineering stand
point it is often just demonstration of ignorance.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That was a group purchase for quantity discount (504 cells total
were bought) and the prices are as of 2003. So 10 more people
enjoyed savings.
The price you see on the site today include cells cycling, measuring
actual capacity, weeding out bad ones and putting together a
matching pack before shipping. Extra cost is to do that work.
Direct blind buy from TS will be cheaper. But you're on your
own with all potential problems - the risk this 10 people
(including me) accepted.
Victor
Jeff Shanab wrote:
Victor caught my attention with only 9K for 96 @ 90ah li-ion cells, But
when I look for prices, I keep coming up with 20K. maybe next conversion
:-(
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Take a look at these prices on TS' price list:
http://www.evuk.co.uk/PriceList(USD)[1].doc
These are apparently the prices you get if you deal directly with TS, rather
than buying from a reseller like Evergreen in HK. As you can see, if you
buy in large enough quantity, the price is down around the $300/kWh level
that Victor paid for his. So if you want those prices, I guess you would
have to get together a big group to make a large group purchase and
negotiate directly with TS. I think that's exactly what Victor did some
time ago, although that was before I subscribed to this list. Maybe Victor
can comment further.
Good luck.
Charles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EVlist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject: RE : follow up on valence Li-ion
Victor caught my attention with only 9K for 96 @ 90ah li-ion cells, But
when I look for prices, I keep coming up with 20K. maybe next conversion
:-(
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have opened enclosure (prizmatic cell, not cylindrical.
The definition gets fuzzy. For cylindrical cell if you roll
two long foil electrodes with electrolyte in between, you can
claim that any portion of that strip is "in parallel" with
the rest of the strip.
For lead acid battery each 2V cell is also many (more than a
pair) plates, which electrically are equivalent to only 2
plates of the same area. So 2 large plates are just that,
and if you cut it in half and place as a sandwich it suddenly
become 2 paralleled cells? If so, than each TS cell about
160 or so (depending on the capacity) cells (pairs of electrodes).
Paralleling complete enclosed cells is not the same as
paralleling electrodes in production to be places in a common
enclosure. Electrolyte is common and the temperature is
much closer that for separate cells. The charge/discharge
current is shared about equally.
If one "internal" cell fails short, it is 1/160 of the capacity
loss and heating, but not much energy generated by that pair.
If you connect two cells in parallel and one fails short,
the other is discharged into it with catastrophic results.
When they work, there is no [practically convenient] way to
ensure the current is shared equally. If one cell has higher
internal resistance it will accept lower charging current
*at the same voltage*, so less Ah in given time than the other
cell. This means chronic undercharge of that cell even if the
voltage is the same as for other(s) in parallel, and no BMS
can take care of the situation.
One can get away with paralleling only if all the cells are
very alike perhaps Sony automated manufacturing line may
qualify. Unfortunately, this does not yet apply to TS cells.
So, correction, in general I would not advice to parallel
TS cells. Not just any LiIon cell, that would be too general
and thus invalid statement.
Victor
Dragan Stancevic wrote:
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 08:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems you would want each li-ion cell as large as possible to minimize
the imbalances of paralleling.
I keep seeing these posts up and down about people warning against paralleling
TS cells, as it seems to me that the larger cells(Amp) are nothing but
parallel cells in a unified enclosure. They seem to manufacture the most
basic round cells and then assemble them to any specification(Amp and Volt).
They have two cylindrical models, one is higher power density than the other,
that's why they have the large "packs" separated by density too. That's at
least how I understood the guy from TS that quoted the cells for my truck.
Is it just me or are people crying wolf withough checking references, has
anyone opened one of those enclosures to verify that?
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> That's one way to define "fair"... (requiring the same number of amphours
> for both packs). If I define "fair" to be having the same internal
> resistance, or ability to output "high" currents, how many TS would you
> have to parallel to equal the string of yellow tops? I know, I'm arguing,
> I'm just pointing out how hard it is to compare apples to oranges. I
> don't even know what the application is; long range at all costs?
>
> - Steve
The 500Ah TS cells are rated to 1000A peak, but you still need a real world
comparison to guage the truth of their claims. If accurate, you can supply a
Z1K from a single string, perfect for "just" a single motor - it equates to a
bit over 1500#/46 cells for a nominal 166V and 1000A.
I'm curious to see the price Sony asks for their high capacity and high current
cylindrical cells (V=200wh/kg and VT=2kw/kg), and then start my contemplation
of a hybrid pack (VT's paralleled to the controller peak current, V's to supply
the rest of the kwh)...and it won't cost me anything to dream.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roderick Wilde wrote:
> Lee, The Ed Rannberg estate has the McCulloch car. I don't know
> if they wish to sell it or not but I could check into it if you
> like. Please contact me off line.
Well, I'll be danged! One survives!
Yes, I would be interested in purchasing it. Or at the very least,
seeing it and/or getting some information on it.
Bob McKee supplied this one without drive train (rolling chassis; no
motor or controller). McCulloch wanted to install their own, and try out
some ideas. I'm curious how it turned out (a step in the right
direction, or a step backwards). Some of the earlier Sundancers set a
pretty high bar to match!
And, thanks for including your address. I have a belated Christmas gift
I can now send!
> Roderick
>
> Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
> Your Online EV Superstore
> www.evparts.com
> 1-360-358-7082
> Phone: 360-385-7966 Fax: 360-385-7922
> PO Box 221, 107 Louisa Street
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
--
"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 ---
Bill Dennis wrote:
>
> I'm planning my battery boxes and wonder if someone with TS cells could tell
> me the thickness (in mm) of the anti-expansion metal plates that are
> attached to the end of each string of cells. Thanks.
Mine are irregular aluminum extrusions, varying from about 1/8" to 1/4"
thick. There are two of them at each end of a stack of cells, with 4
straps banding them and the cells together.
--
"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 ---
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Direct blind buy from TS will be cheaper. But you're on your
own with all potential problems - the risk this 10 people
(including me) accepted.
More the double the cost is a lot of cells to be dead before the risk
matters, though; Matching is another story. You of course need more than
you'll use to do meaningful matching.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
*About* 5 mm. but the straps and bolts heads holding them
stick out some more. Since the plates are not flat, you can
miunt them such thant heads of one go into cavities of another
adjacent one, so no interference.
Consider the distance between cells with pair of plates
in between to be 10-12 mm. I'll measure more accurately tomorrow.
Please remind me to send you the result.
Victor
Bill Dennis wrote:
I'm planning my battery boxes and wonder if someone with TS cells could tell
me the thickness (in mm) of the anti-expansion metal plates that are
attached to the end of each string of cells. Thanks.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I'll venture a guess. First off, a chain with no lubrication could not have
> "presented no loss". *Any* conversion of energy, even
> mechanical-to-mechanical, involves losses. Let's assume Garry meant only to
> say that lubrication increased loss.
>
> The only way I can see this happening is if the loads involved were very
> small. That would minimize friction loss in the chain, so viscous loss from
> adding lubricant would then be very apparent. If you run a chain near rated
> load with no lubrication, your losses might actually remain quite low - for
> maybe a minute. The smooth steel moving against smooth steel presents
> relatively little friction. That is until distortion, galling and assorted
> other nasty phenomena rapidly occur. Then your losses quickly reach 100%.
> ;^)
>
Thanks for explaning it to the under-educated of us - the logic fits that lube
isn't there to increase efficiency but to prevent rapid mechanical failure!
There are plenty of other instances where someone prefers efficiency over "the
greater good", like the EV1 using noisy-but-efficient straight-cut gears or any
EV'er who opts for a variety of noisy-and-poor-handling LRR tires to maximize
range, proving once again that life is full of compromises!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
>
> "You may have heard of people trying to be clever and cut
> down on the water consumption, so they change their charger
> back to avoid the gassing state, don't do that. It is very
> important that you allow the battery to gas, vigorously, the
> gassing actually stirs this electrolyte. You will get long
> life and good capacity."
"Sort of" true. It's like exercise; too little is bad, some is good, but
too much will also kill you.
A lead-acid cell starts gassing when it is full. Basically, this is a
crude way to know it is full, and that you can stop charging. The
bubbling also helps mix the electrolyte a little.
If you never charge it up to this point, you are undercharging. Cell
amphour capacity will be lower, and over time, life is shortened because
some of the lead sulfate is being left unrecharged.
If you always charge past this point, you are losing water from gassing.
In a sealed battery, this water can't be replaced. In either sealed or
flooded, overcharging also accellerates grid corrosion, which over time
increases the battery's internal resistance until it becomes unusable.
Thus overcharging shortens life, too.
--
"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 ---
Rich Rudman wrote:
$500 for a Yt??
this is enough for 6 packs of Yts...
It is not entirely clear that TS cells will do more than 500 cycles, with EV
loads on them.
They will. Sorry, I can't tell you the number.
Until they do, Even with Ultra Caps, Victor......I am not sure what going to
TS will give me?
Until a BMS is ready it is only talk and no hard prove
we all would like. If you want to be conservative, just
coose not to believe in even 500 cycles.
Who has the the best Kilowatt/hour range numbers on thier TS pack????
I use to record cumulative usage and dropped doing it about a week
ago when damaged few cells (my mistake) and one failed
(TS defect). So they are removed from service and Ah consumed
from remaining cells, of course, is increased.
200 amphrs or 326 should be 65Kwhr.
Yes, but my cells are 90Ah (~70Ah actual).
What is the best the TS group has gotten.
Best what?
For reference ... a 228 volt 19 Orbital pack gets 6 Kwhr. 760 lbs for about
25 miles.
The 200 amp 326v TS pack should make 260 miles If both EVs can manage 250
Whrs per mile.
10 times the range. Anybody have ANY real world EV range capabilites from
TS???
I do daily driving and can only estimate range based on
energy consumtion and that I supposedly have. To get real world
number requires actually run the pack dead just to see this number,
and no one is willing to subject their investment just to get
one such number.
I can tell you that my consumption is 1Ah/mile for 324V.
With 70 real Ah it is 70 miles then, until drop dead condition.
Sorry, I'm not going to test that, but you can trust this number.
Note, 90Ah TS cells are undersized for a car.
Note21. This applies only to sagging TS cells. 70Ah Kokam cells
would be much better choice, but at 6x price tag I can't
justify it.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Humphrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
Philippe Borges wrote:
ok TS 200Ah, let's choose... your car exemple and compare 326V Optima
pack
with say about 300V TS pack.
pack price:
$3 500 | $30 000
Philippe;
That's not quite right.
the pack you are quoting is a 200ah Ts pack compared to a 50ah YT pack so
the price difference is more like.
$14,000 | $30,000
Plus IF (big IF) the TS cells last as long as they predict they will go
over half a million miles, and in the long run cost less than flooded
GC's.
Plus what is it worth to never have to change whole battery pack again.
--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right!" --Henry
Ford
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
<<< The price you see on the site today include cells cycling, measuring
actual capacity, weeding out bad ones and putting together a
matching pack before shipping. Extra cost is to do that work.>>>
So, Victor, does that mean the price on your website includes getting the cells
from China to MetricMind? That makes the total cost more understandable, and
I'll bet going to Portland to haul them home is also worth the trip.
Using the Everspring "ex factory" price, $750 each for the 500Ah cells +
shipping them overseas + testing them at home and discarding the bad performers
is probably worth the $500/cell premium for the non-engineers amoung us.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
...
>
200Ah of YTs requires 4
strings, and so Tim simply multiplied $3.5k x 4 = $14k;
4 Parallel strings of 50Ah Optimas (200Ah total)
will never yield 200Ah at EV rates. Even with greatly reduced
per battery current, Real Optima capacity will be 35...38AH.
For TS cells, there is no capacity reduction with
discharge rate increase, only cycle life may suffer.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, it hard to compare. For example ability to output
high current for Optimas is totally useless for me,
so *in my application* I'd pay price for Optimas
I can't take advantage of. So as far as I'm concerned,
Optimas are bad, much worse than TS cells.
Switch cars, and Optimas will suddenly be unquestionably
better. So, "fair" without application is meaningless.
Victor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's one way to define "fair"... (requiring the same number of amphours
for both packs). If I define "fair" to be having the same internal
resistance, or ability to output "high" currents, how many TS would you
have to parallel to equal the string of yellow tops? I know, I'm arguing,
I'm just pointing out how hard it is to compare apples to oranges. I
don't even know what the application is; long range at all costs?
- Steve
Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$500 for a Yt??
this is enough for 6 packs of Yts...
Phillipe's figure of $3500 for a (50Ah) 324V string works out to just
under $130 per YT, which is reasonable.
Tim is suggesting that a fairer comparison would be a 200Ah 324V pack of
YTs since the $30k pack of TS LiIon is 200Ah. 200Ah of YTs requires 4
strings, and so Tim simply multiplied $3.5k x 4 = $14k; still the same
$130 per YT (though I suspect that buying over 100 at a shot would allow
a better price than this).
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, this this what I did. And Dennis in UK did the same twice
since then. In fact, when I visited TS 2 minth ago, I saw 200Ah cells
being crated to be shipped to UK latest - Denis' group purchase
for UK's EVers.
Victor
Charles Whalen wrote:
Take a look at these prices on TS' price list:
http://www.evuk.co.uk/PriceList(USD)[1].doc
These are apparently the prices you get if you deal directly with TS,
rather than buying from a reseller like Evergreen in HK. As you can
see, if you buy in large enough quantity, the price is down around the
$300/kWh level that Victor paid for his. So if you want those prices, I
guess you would have to get together a big group to make a large group
purchase and negotiate directly with TS. I think that's exactly what
Victor did some time ago, although that was before I subscribed to this
list. Maybe Victor can comment further.
Good luck.
Charles
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EVlist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject: RE : follow up on valence Li-ion
Victor caught my attention with only 9K for 96 @ 90ah li-ion cells,
But when I look for prices, I keep coming up with 20K. maybe next
conversion :-(
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Sure, people do all kind of things. Lot of time for questionable
> improvement (vs. buying a motor for the job) makes sense only
> if that time worth little.
Or if you don't have the money.
> If it would be that easy and effective, we'd see it being
> done by now on regular basis. Why don't we?
Actually, you do! A city of any size has a shop that rebuilds motors.
Look in you phone book yellow pages; I'll bet there are half a dozen
firms that repair and rebuild electric motors. They have the knowledge
and the skill to do it. They have (or can order) any special parts you
may want (better bearings, a higher class wire, etc.).
Since the average consumer never fixes anything (they just throw it
out), these shops mainly deal with industrial and commercial motors.
Such customers are usually in a big hurry ("fix it NOW; our production
line is down!") or they demand perfection ("fix it RIGHT; we can't
afford any more breakdowns!"). Therefore, these motor shops charge a lot
per hour for their services.
You can pay them to do the work. Or, you can buy the same parts and
materials (they'll even sell them to you), and do it yourself. Ask nice
and tell them it's for an EV or school project, and they will even show
you how. It's your choice -- do you want to save time, or money?
It's the same as car mechanics. You can change your own oil; the oil and
filter is only $10 at Walmart. Or you can take it to the dealer, who
will charge you $50. Both have the same end result. Which do you want to
save; time or money?
> If one would know how much calculation and tweaking of inter-related
> parameters is happening in design stage (a software for the matching
> inverter involved too, it must contain a model for *that* motor),
> one would drop this idea.
Victor, I think you are making it sound a lot harder than it really is.
A plain old cheap off-the-shelf motor is going to be around 80%
efficiency. Or, you can buy an ultra-super state-of-the-art special with
every trick known to science that is 90% efficient -- for 10 times the
price. Is 10% more efficiency worth 10 times the price? Probably not.
And, if you are willing to do the work yourself and do some
experimenting, you can get half the efficiency gain (85%) for maybe
twice the cost of a cheap motor. To lots of people, that is a good deal!
> I like this spirit, but from the engineering stand
> point it is often just demonstration of ignorance.
Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge
is limited. Imagination encircles the world." and "Knowledge of what is
does not open the door directly to what should be. The only source of
knowledge is experience."
So, we do not want to rely on the "experts" that are building today's
motors to define what is possible. We need to do our own experiments,
and learn for ourselves. That is how new discoveries will be made!
--
"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 ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 4 Parallel strings of 50Ah Optimas (200Ah total)
> will never yield 200Ah at EV rates. Even with greatly reduced
> per battery current, Real Optima capacity will be 35...38AH.
Absolutely true.
> For TS cells, there is no capacity reduction with
> discharge rate increase, only cycle life may suffer.
Nonsense. *Especially* for resistive TS cells there will be a capacity
reduction at higher discharge rates. You may argue that the capacity
really hasn't changed, but as a practical matter, discharge must cease
as soon as any cell reaches the minimum voltage limit (2.7-ish volts, I
think?), and for any battery or circuit with resistance in it that
voltage will be hit sooner as the discharge rate increases. From what
I've heard, this point is non-negotiable: over-discharge a cell and you
might as well pull it out and throw it away immediately as it is
permanently damaged. Therefore, it would be quite risky to start
allowing the end-of-discharge threshold to vary with discharge rate, and
safest is to use the same threshold as for low(er) discharge rates.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
Wow! Thanks for the info. This looks like exactly what I'm looking
for. Now I can document my efficiency upgrades accurately. Plus, this looks
like something a non-programer like me can work with. Thanks again.
John David
-----Original Message-----
From: Neon John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Refining Hybrid truck ideas
This is trivially easy to do with OBD-2 cars (95 and newer, generally).
Go here http://www.obd-2.com/ and buy one of his gateway products.
"Gateway" is the term applied to the OBD-2/RS-232 smart cable. The cheap
way out is to select the one for the particular car in question. A better
but more expensive way is to get a tri-mode or tri-mode/CANbus gateway.
Then download his free software and fire it off. In addition to being an
extremely capable diagnostic tool, it is also a datalogger. In addition
to data logging, it has an additional capability that makes the task of
MPG calculation simple. This feature is computed variables whereby one
can write an equation using intrinsic variables to create a computed one.
Almost exactly like a spreadsheet cell. Without firing up my copy of the
program and looking, I believe that an MPG variable is one of his
examples.
His software is fully functional without the cable so you can download it
and play around. He has sample log files on the web site.
Alex Peper probably knows more about OBD-2 than anyone outside the OEMs.
The advantage is that he can work with you on specific problems that the
standard software might not address. He's one of those eggheads who
doesn't speak the same language us commoners do so it sometimes takes a
bit of work to understand what he's saying. Worth the effort, though.
There are two reasons why there aren't OBD-2-based MPG gauges on the
market, I think. The biggie is that most people just don't care enough to
spend the money on the gadget. They pick a vehicle that suits their needs
that sits in the MPG class they care about and then just drive it. That
even large cars get good mileage today means that unless one is a road
warrior, one can generally ignore mileage.
The second reason is the insane state of the legal system these days.
There is a fundamental limitation on how accurate such a gauge can be
because the behavior of the fuel injector is so variable at the low open
intervals involved in idle and low throttle angle driving. With the
injector valve in almost constant motion either opening or closing, the
flow vs open time is ill defined. This behavior is actually modeled
fairly accurately within the PCM for emissions reasons but that info isn't
available on the OBD-2 data stream.
A related problem is the behavior of the fuel with temperature and
altitude. The mass flow through the injector at a given delta-P changes
with the viscosity of the fuel and that changes with temperature. The
mass flow also changes as the delta-P changes with air density. Again,
this behavior is modeled in the PCM but the information is not available
to the outside.
What all this adds up to is a computation that would not agree very well
with the miles-per-tank method of MPG computation. What happens when Joe
Blow consumer first sees the mis-match? Why, he runs to a lawyer, the
government or both.
The combo of low demand and high risk of litigation keeps the things off
the market. Perhaps someday some ChiCom outfit will make 20 million of
the things, channel them into the country through thousands of mostly
untraceable importers and they'll appear on the flea market tool tables
along with the screwdrivers that bend when you look at them.
John
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:09:05 -0800, Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jeff Shanab wrote:
>> With todays newer fuel injected car can we plug a datalogger into
>> the diagnostic port to capture fuel injector and rpm data? Would
>> that provide us with a good fuel usage numbers. What about using
>
>In theory it should. But, I've seen precious few products that actually
>make fuel consumption data available. If it were easy, I would expect to
>see "miles per gallon computers" on the market that do it.
>--
>"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
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm thinking about a Jet 007 and it has the original GE 23hp series DC motor in
it. I know they last forever but it may fail somehow or the car may just rot
away some day. I was wondering if anyone knew if it was easily replaced with an
advanced DC or if an adaptor for another car would be easily modified to fit
this motor rather then a Advanced?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Syre, you can always buy twice as many as you need and
make matching pack yourself and still have spare cash.
The money go to cycling equipment dataloggers and time for
an engineer to do it all (time for testing, handling,
dealing with TS for replacement, dealing with customs,
forwarders, invoicing, tracking, calling, frustrating,
etc.
A customer pays extra for not having to do all that.
Victor
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Direct blind buy from TS will be cheaper. But you're on your
own with all potential problems - the risk this 10 people
(including me) accepted.
More the double the cost is a lot of cells to be dead before the risk
matters, though; Matching is another story. You of course need more than
you'll use to do meaningful matching.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
That's interesting to here. I've had to reset my throttle adjust pot a
few times as well, when the setting seemed to change itself slightly
(maybe due to me doing a lot of driving on the not so smooth roads
around here :-/ )
Thanks
-Nick
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
---------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 20:11, Richard Furniss wrote:
> Nick,
>
> My T-Rex had a problem with the pot also, if I slammed the hood to hard I
> would loose my throttle adjustment (could not get WOT). This might not be
> your problem but it's starting to sound familiar.
>
>
> >
> > So, it seems that a slight change in the position of the "max current"
> > potentiometer on the Raptor affected the output voltage, input current,
> > and controller current limit state during WOT. The performance of the
> > Jeep did not change though.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Actually, raw cells go to FEVT in Finland, where all this
is happening. Then they go to me, but in theory shipment
from FEVT to a customer in the US can be arranged if the
customer doesn't mind to deal with cuctoms and duty cost
he's going to be charged.
Victor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<<< The price you see on the site today include cells cycling, measuring
actual capacity, weeding out bad ones and putting together a
matching pack before shipping. Extra cost is to do that work.>>>
So, Victor, does that mean the price on your website includes getting the cells
from China to MetricMind? That makes the total cost more understandable, and
I'll bet going to Portland to haul them home is also worth the trip.
Using the Everspring "ex factory" price, $750 each for the 500Ah cells +
shipping them overseas + testing them at home and discarding the bad performers
is probably worth the $500/cell premium for the non-engineers amoung us.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger,
I stand by what I said: a TS cell capacity will not decrease
at higher discharge rate. That is differnt from what you're
implying (that at discharge must sease when you hit 2.7V per
cell). This is true, but if by then you spend only 20Ah out
of 100Ah cell and it is already at 2.7V under your load
so you cannot drive anymore (will happen at -20'C) that
doesn't mean you don't have remaining 80% capacity in that cell.
The cell haven't lost it, you just cannot take it out at
the rate you wish. If you discharge slower, you WILL take
all the Ah out, which proves that you haven't *lost* any.
Yes, too bad you can't drive at that rate, so you may argue
that "for all practical EVer's purpose" you don't have Ah
available. Well, not quite true - you still can creep along
at 25 mph for another may be 50 miles! You wouldn't be
able to do that if capacity is truly lost (energy just not
there).
Victor
Roger Stockton wrote:
For TS cells, there is no capacity reduction with
discharge rate increase, only cycle life may suffer.
Nonsense. *Especially* for resistive TS cells there will be a capacity
reduction at higher discharge rates. You may argue that the capacity
really hasn't changed, but as a practical matter, discharge must cease
as soon as any cell reaches the minimum voltage limit (2.7-ish volts, I
think?), and for any battery or circuit with resistance in it that
voltage will be hit sooner as the discharge rate increases. From what
I've heard, this point is non-negotiable: over-discharge a cell and you
might as well pull it out and throw it away immediately as it is
permanently damaged. Therefore, it would be quite risky to start
allowing the end-of-discharge threshold to vary with discharge rate, and
safest is to use the same threshold as for low(er) discharge rates.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
(Hmm, I don't think this went through the first time):
Hi,
> That the LED was not lit
> means you still had some more to go.
I don't understand what you mean here.
I had the throttle to the floor, and saw pack voltage at the motor (at
least for a few seconds until I had to let off the throttle). However,
the WOT LED was NOT on. I don't understand what I "had some more to go"?
Another thing which I'm not sure I've mentioned before is anytime I
floor it and the WOT LED does NOT come on, It actually does flicker a
bit. By flickers I mean it lights dimly for just a fraction of a second,
with about 1 to 1.5 second intervals in between flashes. Oh and this is
usually accompanied by a squealing sound from the Raptor which is
audible inside the Jeep.
I try not to keep the controller like this for any amount of time (as
the squealing worries me), but sometimes I *have* to if I want
to avoid getting plowed into by impatient drivers...
Thanks
-Nick
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 19:09, Rich Rudman wrote:
> Pack voltage on the motor IS the definition of WOT. That the LED was not lit
> means you still had some more to go.
>
> It now looks like this is all your batteries are going to give...
>
> Still... What is the Maximum Motor loop currrent??? It should be over 600
> amps. That's what you paid for...How much over depends on how generous Damon
> and Crew were at the tuneup
> Time.
>
> I know how these controllers were tuned. And on our test rigs we usually
> gave you more than you paid for.
> Well, that was true while I was at DCP....
>
>
>
> > I don't know if this info is significant in any way, but I found it odd
> > that *decreasing* the "max current" setting would cause me to see an
> > *increase* in the amount of current I could draw from the batteries, and
> > cause me to actually see pack voltage in the motor loop during WOT.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Nick
> > 1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
> > http://Go.DriveEV.com/
> >
> > ------------------------------------------>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It turns out the outlet I used can't dish out the full 20+ amps the PFC
charger wants. I have to turn the dial down some. If it is all the way
up, the breaker will pop after about 10 minutes. I even replaced the
breaker with a new one. It didn't seem to help. I verified that there
were no other loads on that circuit.
You can safely install a larger breaker. The NEC ampacity tables are
extremely conservative, allowing for extreme conditions such as the wire
being embedded in the insulation in an unvented attic. When the wire is
exposed or buried in earth, much more current can be handled without
overheating.
What about the GFI outlet? It is only rated for 20 amps. Is this a
conservative rating too?
Thanks,
Ryan
--
- EV Source -
Zillas, PFC Chargers, and other EV stuff at great prices
E-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toll-free: 1-877-215-6781
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I stand by what I said: a TS cell capacity will not decrease
> at higher discharge rate. That is differnt from what you're
> implying (that at discharge must sease when you hit 2.7V per
> cell). This is true, but if by then you spend only 20Ah out
> of 100Ah cell and it is already at 2.7V under your load so
> you cannot drive anymore (will happen at -20'C) that doesn't
> mean you don't have remaining 80% capacity in that cell.
>
> The cell haven't lost it, you just cannot take it out at
> the rate you wish. If you discharge slower, you WILL take
> all the Ah out, which proves that you haven't *lost* any.
>
> Yes, too bad you can't drive at that rate, so you may argue
> that "for all practical EVer's purpose" you don't have Ah
> available. Well, not quite true - you still can creep along
> at 25 mph for another may be 50 miles! You wouldn't be able
> to do that if capacity is truly lost (energy just not there).
This is all true, Victor, however, it is just as true for the Optima YT
or any other battery: a YT (or other PbA) cell also does not *lose*
capacity at higher rates; you simply cannot take it out at that rate.
Decrease the discharge rate and you will find yourself able to pull
almost the full C/20 rated capacity from the battery. There is no
difference with a TS cell in this regard.
The only differences may be that the TS cell shows less reduction in
available capacity at a given rate (e.g. 100A) than does a YT (but is
this because of the different chemistry or just because 100A is C/2 for
a 200Ah cell and 2C for a 50Ah one?), and the TS cell is *ruined* if you
exceed the recommended end-of-discharge voltage while a YT *may* be
wounded by discharging it below the normal 'safe' limit.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
