EV Digest 4008
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Multiple Powertool chargers as Ni Cad Pack charger
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Blueprinting electric motors
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Multiple Powertool chargers as Ni Cad Pack charger
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Blueprinting electric motors
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Li,Ni vs Pb Was: Follow-up on Valence Li-Ion batteries in 12V size
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) OBDII mileage gauge
by Martin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Blueprinting electric motors
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) "Good wire" ?
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) S-10 Electric For Sale On Ebay
by "Ralph Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: "Good wire" ?
by "Joe Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: "Good wire" ?
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: "Good wire" ?
by "Philip Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE:DIY Controller
by Mike Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: "Good wire" ?
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) LED Head Lights?
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: DIY Controller
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: LED Head Lights?
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: S-10 Electric For Sale On Ebay (Long Range Self Transporting?)
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Charging in an apartment
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) High Power Zener
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) One-Way Breaker
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: One-Way Breaker
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: One-Way Breaker
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) RE: "Good wire" ?
by Steven Tweed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I've backed down from three strings of NiCads in the truck. Going one
string in a recumbent motorcycle. I've seen some higher voltage drill gun
chargers that might work. I think. 5 aught to do it. Lawrence
Rhodes........
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The bottom line - a lot of computing power went to modeling
> before particular shape, material or parameter was
> implemented. If you disassemble the motor, its construction
> is simple as you look at it, just like a shape of a plane
> wing, but there was a lot of calculations put into it to come
> up with particular compromise.
I think recognising that any particular solution is a compromise is the
key. If the designers had the same performance parameters/goals in mind
when they decided which things to focus their limited budget on as you
do, then you are unlikely to find something easy to change that improves
performance in a way that is important to you.
It is not always the amount of computing power that went into the design
that matters so much when it comes to "blueprinting" something.
"Blueprinting", after all, in the strictest sense does not refer to
altering the design but only to correcting all the small manufacturing
imperfections so that the mass-produced item accurately reflects the
design that the engineers specified on their 'blueprint'.
> The machines are still not perfect, but it is virtually
> guaranteed that it you take, say Siemens EV motor and
> "improve" it, you will fail. Now, if you buy a cheaper
> industrial motor and implement some ideas seen in Siemens
> motor, you indeed may gain performance, I think this is what
> Lee is referring to by learning from other designs. But you
> will be copying shapes dimensions and solutions without
> understanding why *that* solution was implemented. Thus you
> can't make it better - you have no idea which way to change
> it and no resources to empirically find out.
It may well be that Siemens motors are hand-built with such quality that
there is little room for blueprinting to improve their performance... or
you might be surprised.
I think you are exactly right, however, that what Lee is suggesting is
not taking a high-efficiency inverter-grade motor and trying to improve
upon it, but rather taking a cheaper industrial motor and applying such
changes as are *known* to improve performance in ways that are important
to us as EVers, and in doing so get most of the advantages of a
high-efficiency inverter-grade motor for lower cost.
For instance, rewinding the motor for a different voltage and/or with
wire rated for higher temps is a straightforward modification whose
outcome is easily predicted.
Especially with these cheaper, mass-produced motors there is greater
likelihood that a 2-minute inspection will indeed reveal things which
can be blueprinted to improve the motor performance (i.e. bring it
nearer to what the engineers intended instead of what the production
line cranks out as "close enough").
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence, are these BB600s? Because a starved electrolyte Ni-Cd charger
is not the right charger for these.
Seth
On Jan 6, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
I've backed down from three strings of NiCads in the truck. Going one
string in a recumbent motorcycle. I've seen some higher voltage drill
gun chargers that might work. I think. 5 aught to do it. Lawrence
Rhodes........
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This whole discussion comes down to thinking inside
the box or outside the box. Victor's argument is
definately inside the box. we can do simulations and
calculations of what we know and improve things a
little here and there and it's hard to beat a big
company with lots of engineers, tech people and
comuting power. None of us are going to beat Siemens
at their own game.
But I think what we are doing here is outside the box.
Some of the best innovations we have come from
independent minds looking at things a different way.
look at Edison, Westinghouse and the Wright brothers.
Without innovation we would still be throwing rocks at
animals to get dinner.
I thought the purpose of this list is to inspire and
cultivate creative thinking in the EV world. I know I
get aha! moments all the time reading this list. I'm
always thinking of things I want to try out. I'll fail
sometimes and sometimes I'll learn something new but
I'll pass it on. But one thing I won't do is tell
someone that they are wasting their time trying.
my two cents
Gadget
--- Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YEs, this was my main point. You sure can try to
> improve the
> motor by, say, changing their shape of the
> laminations near
> rotor to change air gap. Or, change the "twist" of
> the rotor
> (you know some motors have turns not parallel to the
> shaft).
>
> The problem is, you don't know how the gap shape
> impacts
> performance in all regimes high speed, high torque
> etc.
> How do you introduce water cooling? Is it better to
> cool
> off middle of the windings or split cooling lines in
> several?
>
> Do you have to pre-magnetize your rotor? Aside from
> the question
> how are you going to do that, you don't even know to
> what
> pre-magnetization value. Not even mentioning that
> you have
> no way to measure.
>
> The bottom line - a lot of computing power went to
> modeling
> before particular shape, material or parameter was
> implemented.
> If you disassemble the motor, its construction is
> simple as you
> look at it, just like a shape of a plane wing, but
> there was a
> lot of calculations put into it to come up with
> particular
> compromise. Try to "improve something and you ruin
> other
> inter-related characteristics almost certainly. This
> is because
> whole system is too complex to understand by plain
> mortal.
> Even you Lee :-) - I mean to understand to the
> degree that
> after looking at it for 2 minutes you can come up
> with bright
> idea which indeed improves some aspect of operation
> without
> making worse the other - something many men-hours
> and CPU cycles
> were spent to determine. Mot that large companies
> have better
> brains than sharp minds in our garages, but they
> have luxury of
> truing to actually build many prototypes to test out
> their
> idea and refine theories - like make 20 stator
> laminations
> with 1 mm increments in some size, put these 20
> motors on the
> bench and measure. Sometimes it is cheaper than have
> 100
> software engineers working for 3 month modeling that
> (and still
> having to verify).
>
> The machines are still not perfect, but it is
> virtually guaranteed
> that it you take, say Siemens EV motor and "improve"
> it, you will
> fail. Now, if you buy a cheaper industrial motor and
> implement
> some ideas seen in Siemens motor, you indeed may
> gain performance,
> I think this is what Lee is referring to by learning
> from other
> designs. But you will be copying shapes dimensions
> and solutions
> without understanding why *that* solution was
> implemented.
> Thus you can't make it better - you have no idea
> which way to
> change it and no resources to empirically find out.
>
> Victor
>
>
> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > Of course. You can make just one improvement, for
> a slight gain. If the
> > thing you improve happens to be the performance
> "bottleneck", the gain
> > can be substantial. Improved cooling is usually
> one of the main
> > bottlenecks -- improve it, and performance can go
> up considerably.
> >
> > But lots of things are inter-related. I think this
> is Victor's point. If
> > you are just an ignorant "backyard engineer" and
> don't know what you're
> > doing, you won't know what the inter-related
> factors are, or even what
> > the bottleneck is -- you can waste time improving
> things that are good
> > enough as-is, or even make "improvements" that
> make things worse.
>
>
=====
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Great post Lee!
I'm going to try and give some examples from my own experience,
I hope they are accurate enough to be of some use.
One of my favorite things about advanced chemestries, esp Lithium,
is that they have this unchanging "Capacity" ie: No Peukert Effect.
So, as long as you keep the discharge within spec you always get
the same capacity out of a particular Lithium cell. Say I have
a 1.2Ah cell, that's the "nameplate capacity". I actually only
get about 1Ah out of them. If I discharge it at .1 amps I get
1000mAh which I also get at .2 amps, though in half the time.
Now since I'm usuaily in a hurry, and my scooter uses more than
.1 or .2 amps, I normally discharge this cell at 2.0 amps or 2C.
In this case I only get 800mAh out because at a higher current
the voltage is lower and so it cuts out sooner. But if I were
to continue the discharge at 1 amp then .5 amps then .2 amps in
order to keep the voltage high enough I'de still get the remaining
200mAh out of that cell. It's always going to have 1Ah of capacity.
Now, I can only really use 800mAh because of the application.
As such I consider my 12 parallel cells to have just under 10Ah.
This differs from PbA, in that while the stock Lead may be rated
12Ah, and give 12Ah at .5 amps, at 10 amps it only has say 10Ah,
and at 20 amps only 8Ah. Unlike the Lithium, after taking 8Ah
out at 20 amps, you can't slow down to .5 amps and pull another
4Ah out to get the whole 12Ah, it's simply lost via Peukert.
I believe another part of this situation comes into play when
you recharge the batteries, the PbA's will need 12Ah to reach
full, not just 8Ah. On the other hand whatever you take out
of the Lithium is all that you have to put back in.
L8r
Ryan
Lee Hart wrote:
S. David Lalonde wrote:
This is a silly debate. How do you define capacity? The capacity
is the amount of current... provided for a time until the battery
voltage falls below a usable level (for the application). To
define capacity during use as anything else is bogus.
Not quite. Let me try to explain the difference between lead-acid and
most other battery chemistries in this regard.
Most rechargeable battery chemistries (nicad, nimh, li-ion, etc.) act
like an ideal battery in series with a resistor. The voltage is fairly
stable, changing perhaps +/-10% due to SOC, temperature, and all other
effects. The resistor value stays "relatively" constant -- it might vary
2:1 as SOC goes from 10% to 90%. There's a similar change over
temperature, and it gradually increases over life.
Lead-acids are different, because the acid is one of the active
materials. The voltage is still fairly stable, but the resistance varies
drastically with SOC. As the battery approaches 0% SOC (dead), the acid
approaches zero. The electrolyte becomes nearly pure water, and the
resistance approaches infinity (an open circuit)!
This is what leads to the Peukert effect; that the higher the discharge
current, the lower your usable amphour capacity. The internal resistance
of a lead-acid battery can vary more than 100:1 from 10% SOC to 90% SOC.
This means you can easily have a lead-acid battery with half its charge
left, but you can't use it because its internal resistance is too high
for the current you need. For example, your EV needs 50 amps to drive at
reasonable speed. But your batteries are old, cold, and at 50% SOC.
You'll find their voltage goes under 1.75v/cell at 50 amps. They are
"dead" -- you will ruin them if you keep driving.
But there's a complicating factor. Deeply discharged lead-acids will
"recover" if allowed to rest. Park a while, and what little acid is left
will diffuse throughout the electrolyte, lowering the internal
resistance significantly. Park, go have a cup of coffee, and try again.
You will find that you *can* draw that 50 amps again -- for 1/4 mile or
so.
If you don't mind repeating this process (drive and rest, drive and
rest), you will make it home without damaging your batteries. Your
ultimate range will still be about normal (you'll still get almost all
the amphours) -- but it will take a *long* time! I've crept home under
conditions like this where a 10-minute drive took an hour.
Other rechargeable batteries don't have this large increase in internal
resistance -- but they don't have this "recovery" effect, either.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As referenced earlier, here is the OBDII fuel consumption gauge I talked
about:
<http://www.circuitcellar.com/avr2004/first.html>
--
Martin K
http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you are trying something that has been tried before
many times and many ways and, say, negative outcome is
well known and predictable, then yes, you are wasting
your time (if objective is result, not the process).
More over, knowing that if you're not cautioning other
novices thus making them repeat fruitless steps, you're
wasting their time as well.
If they *know* what the outcome will be but still want
to try it just to learn something in process, this
is different matter, perfectly fine, and should indeed
be encouraged.
Victor
Reverend Gadget wrote:
> But one thing I won't do is tell
someone that they are wasting their time trying.
my two cents
Gadget
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is this wire actually "better" or is it just marketing?
http://www.painlesswiring.com/wireterm.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Several of you expressed interest in the Chevrolet S-10 Electric that the EV
Challenge has for sale. It is posted on eBay, item # 4517857381. If
interested and want additional information let me know!
Ralph Goodwin
Executive Director
Carolina Electric Vehicle Coalition Inc.
EV Challenge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.evchallenge.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Probably partly both - the insulation is first-class, the wire may be finer
stranded than cheap wire.
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 6:39 PM
Subject: "Good wire" ?
> Is this wire actually "better" or is it just marketing?
>
> http://www.painlesswiring.com/wireterm.htm
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:39:57 -0600, "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is this wire actually "better" or is it just marketing?
>
>http://www.painlesswiring.com/wireterm.htm
>
Yes, better for automotive use. This is the standard wire that GM uses in
its wiring harnesses. Why am I not surprised that some advertising puke
labels it "extreme"? It is extremely abrasion-resistant and resists
heat-induced aging and embrittlement very well. BTW, that temperature
spec should be 275 deg.
Rather than pay for all that packaging and advertising, get the stuff from
a wire house like http://www.waytekwire.com. A fraction of the price.
Waytek also carries the high temperature terminals and adhesive-sealed
heat shrink.
Or if you're a cheapskate like me, go to the junkyard and salvage wiring
harnesses from wrecks. Take 'em apart and use the wire. Vans and trucks
are best because the runs are long. One harness will yield hundreds of
hunks of wire long enough to be useful (say >3ft) in a variety of gauges.
GM now does a cheap tape wrap of the harness before putting it in that
split corrugated plastic loam so the harness is very easy to disassemble.
The various lengths of loam can be reused as well.
I recently completely rewired my CitiCar (except the high current cables)
using about half of the contents of the harness from a late model chevy
truck. Cost was $0.00, as my friendly local junkyard finds no value in
old harnesses, particularly if they're damaged from the wreck.
john
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: "Good wire" ?
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:39:57 -0600
Is this wire actually "better" or is it just marketing?
http://www.painlesswiring.com/wireterm.htm
They claim that the wire is good to 2750F, but copper melts at about 2000F.
Sounds like marketing to me.
Does sound like a nice assortment of colors, though...
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been following this debate over AC motors very closely with much interest.
I am interested in building an AC EV. I initially learned a lot from reading
Victor's site - very well done, well documented CRX conversion - nice job. I
started thinking that I wanted my power plant to be based on a siemens motor.
However, I started looking at the specs for these motors more closely, and
became a bit disenfranchised with them. It seems that Siemens really designed
these motors with large buses or boats in mind, not smaller commuter BEVs. I
say this because of the voltage and current requirements. For example, the
1PV5135 motor has its peak voltage at 380V, and its peak current at 400A. You
really can't get this kind of power without having a battery pack that weighs
more than around 2000 lbs - correct me if I'm wrong please. I base that number
on using exide orbitals - I've read they weigh 40 lbs? If they were putting
out 8V at 400A, you would need 48 batteries, which would weigh 1920 lbs.
Sure, you could probably use lithium ions to get more power density... but
you'd also have to get 400 amps out of them, so I assume you'd have to parallel
them up, and then you're talking about a lot of money as well.
For me, I would like to make my own controller. I realize this is quite an
effort, but I would consider that enjoyable. Since I can't even buy these
motors without buying the ~$4500 Siemens controller with it, it doesn't make
sense to buy these motors.
What Lee is talking about is very interesting, because you can design the motor
around your power source. If I know that my pack will consist of say 12
orbitals, I can assume then that my peak power rating of the motor should be
achieved at the peak power of the pack. From other's posts, I am assuming that
I can get 1000A from each orbital for a short duration, and they would probably
have an output voltage of 6V (please correct me if this is wrong). I could
then talk to the guys at a motor shop, perhaps find a shop with an old 20hp
motor with a shorted stator, and get them to rewind it to have 80hp at 72V and
1000A.
>From talking to the guys at a local motor shop, they estimated a rewinding fee
>of $1000. Assuming I could get the original 20hp motor with a shorted stator
>for free, I could have a nice AC motor matched to my lightweight battery pack
>for under $1500 (I'm throwing some extra in there for getting a new balanced
>rotor with nice bearings). Considering the Siemens motors cost in the
>neighborhood of $3500, I'm still doing pretty good, and I'm having someone
>else do the work - it's still just money at this point, not endless hours of
>my time. Granted, they won't be totally enclosed water cooled, but it sounds
>like it's pretty easy to stick a fan on them and get good performance.
Does what I'm saying have any major holes in it? Thanks again guys for the
good discussion.
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Lee Hart wrote:
> 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.
>
Money is not relevant if the result cannot be achieved.
Of ciurse if the foal is "just do the best you can with
X dollars available" than *any* tiny improvement is better than
nothing and so you *always* achieve the goal to make something
better (and brag about it!).
>
>>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.
I meand people on the list buying industrial AC motors and
rewinf/modify them the way you prescribe.
> 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?
The big difference is amount of knowledge you need to do it
right (right means outcome worth the effort). For your analogy
if the oil cap can only be undone by writing special code and using
special equipment/process (this is what AC drive making involves),
very few would be capable of doing that no matter how much they want
to.
>
>>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.
Well, you make it sound a lot easier than it is. Yes, this motor
will move your car. Move "good enough". If this is the goal, you
are right.
BAck to basics: corollas move people "good enough", no slower
than BMWs and Mercedeses which are x5 to x10 cost. Why people
buy those? They may be reacher than average on this list, but
no one throws money away for nothing.
> 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'm not arguing that it is good deal, and would attempt it
if no alternatives I could afford would exist. So, as you said,
it is time vs money question, provided one is willing to accept
less than the/she wants.
If you shop for BMW and want it for $30k you have to decide
what gives if that is not possible. THey may offer it for $35k,
but offer Camry for $30k. In theory, you should not settle for
Camry since this is not what you really wanted. Drop the idea,
because having BMW for $30k is impossible.
IF you settle for Camry, then it doesn't matter what do you really
want in the first place, you're ready to accept "something" to move
you from A to B for under 30K. Nothing wrong with such compromise,
but my point is outcome of shopping has nothing to do with your
original shipping goal. Your efforts to achieve *your* goal yielded
nothing. And you accepted it.
Some won't. Some will.
>
>>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!
Sure. If I only keep imagining something, I'd never drive.
When I started, I had 8" ADC in my CRX, Cirtii and 10 Trojan 27 TMH,
standard beginner's setup: http://metricmind.com/dc_honda/car.htm.
My goal was to drive EV. Not to have OEM grade EV, just EV.
Trust me, when I was done I was happiest in the city, I'd never
trade this poor CRX for latest Mercedes (even if from money
stand point Mercedes worth parts for 5 CRXes; didn't matter).
If my goal back then was to have AC EV with LiIon batteries,
I should have dropped this idea, because settling for less
(good enough), wasn't the goal. Whether original wish list was
realistic or not, is different issue.
Of course, in real life you must bend your wishes and *real* goals
aligning them with reality of your income, family, other unavoidable
aspects of life. How much to compromise original truly real goal
is up to you.
And up to those who will rewind that 60 Hz motor :-)
Victor
--
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It seems like at autopart stores, they sell a tiny little 3
or 5 foot spool of wire for nearly $5 if I remember right.
Anyone know for certain the length and the price on those
tiny spools they sell? And is that wire any good just for
reference?
Here are 75 to 100 foot spools of wire(depending on gauge)
for $5 to $10 each!
http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/large/sum-wire_grp_w.jpg
http://store.summitracing.com/default.asp?target=eproduct.asp&N=120+4294925143+4294925132+308956
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Correct..
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
> Joe Smalley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The 3 amp bypass is being applied to only a few monoblocks in
> > the string. All the others are still charging at the full
> > rate. This allows the fuller monoblocks to remain at a safe
> > terminal voltage while continuing to charge the other ones at
> > the higher rate.
>
> Thanks for the reply, Joe. This is precisely what I meant when I stated
> that the only beenfit I could see is that of being able to maintain a
> charge rate 3A higher than without regs.
>
> If the active reg(s) were bypassing the full 3A they are capable of
> (i.e. reg locked on solidly), you would potentially save a maximum of
> 20min charge time per Ah of imbalance. Since the normal reg behaviour
> is for them to blink on and off, I would expect the actual charge time
> savings to be even less than this per Ah of imbalance.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Comments inserted...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: The Amazing Little Hawkers.
> Joe Smalley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The give he alludes to is the ability to charge to a higher
> > pack voltage once the first monoblock reached gassing voltage.
> >
> > For instance, if one monoblock (of 20) comes up to 15.0 volts
> > while the rest of the string is sitting at 13.5, then the
> > pack would read 271 volts. If the charger was controlled by
> > the individual monoblock voltages, the charger would taper
> > back and finish charging with only one monoblock fully
> > charged.
>
> No. If the charger were controlled by individual monoblock voltages, it
> would continue charging until all monoblocks had reached the required
> level, and would do so at a rate that didn't push the full(er) ones over
> a safe maximum voltage.
>
> Even if simpler voltage sensors were used which could only alert the
> charger that a monoblock had exceeded the safe maximum voltage, a
> reasonably intelligent algorithm would still result in all monoblocks
> fully charged. The undesirable behaviour you describe is due to the PFC
> charger's lack of intelligence.
This is where we disagree. If the charger turns down below a useful current
when the first monoblock got full, the other monoblocks in the string WILL
NOT get full. In order to get the bottom ones full, you need to put current
into them. The full one will not let the charger put out meaningful current.
To get the bottom ones to charge fully, the current has to come up. Without
regulators, the full monoblock current is limited either by the
recombination capability of the full battery. If you want to put more
current through the string to reduce the charge time, a bypass path is
necessary to prevent drying out the high battery.
> > With regulators installed on each monoblock, the 15.0 will be
> > clamped to ~14.5 to keep it from gassing excessively while
> > the other monoblocks continue charging at 3 amps. This allows
> > all the monoblocks to reach ~14.5 volts and to all be full
> > and to have a pack voltage of 290 volts.
>
> Tapering the current without regs will not prevent the other monoblocks
> from filling up, although it is true that they may not all reach at
> least 14.5V before the current has tapered to an unacceptably low level
> (from a charge duration perspective) in order to prevent the highest
> voltage module from exceeding the max safe level.
In several instances, I have charged Optima strings and had the low
monoblocks come up to 13.3 to 13.5 volts when the highest ones have been at
15.0. My experience is that these strings need bypass regulators on the high
ones to get the low ones to come up. The alternatives are to either 1)
charge at a low rate (that is within the recombination rating of the
monoblock) for an excessive period of time waiting for the low ones to come
up or 2) use a low end voltage to keep from hurting the high monoblocks
(leaving the low ones chronically undercharged). As the monoblocks age, they
develop differing self discharge characteristics. When they reach the end of
life, some of them may never come up to the setpoint but the extra current
going into them allows them to reach a higher state of charge in a normal
length cycle than if no regulators are used.
> What you seem to be describing here (non-bypassed modules charging at
> 3A) is the constant current finish portion (or the very tail end of the
> absorption), such that the charger is pumping a constant 3A into the
> string and the active reg(s) are locked full on so that the bypassed
> modules are seeing *no* charge current.
Actually, we use about 1-2 amps to keep the regs blinking so we know none of
them "lock on" indicating that they reached thermal limit. Yes, it takes a
little longer, but it provides better control. Some people believe the
bumping voltages and currents are theraputic to the monoblocks. I have not
formed an opinion on that yet.
> > Please keep in mind two things are going on here: 1)The 3 amp
> > bypass is used for equalization. 2) The voltage sense is used
> > to allow safe fast charges. A monoblock can get in a lot of
> > trouble real quick at 60 amps.
>
> Yes, understood. My observation is that a simple voltage sense instead
> of a full-blown reg provides exactly the same safety, and that suitably
> intelligent charge algorithms can achieve full charge and equalisation
> at the expense of a longer charge duration.
Concur on the Safety issue. We differ on the equalization aspects. My
experience is that it takes too long to achieve equalization without the
shunt regulators. You very likely may have more patience than Madman Rudman.
It is a matter of opinion whether you want to blow off the excess energy
equalizing a series string in a) the internal recombination or b) in shunt
regulators. I have done battery packs both ways. I don't usually have the
patience to do it the slow way, but sometimes I do. When I don't have the
patience, I use regulators. Your opinion may be different.
My experience is that an Orbital and an Optima click their pressure vents at
under an amp. I don't like that. Your experience may be different.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The brake lights and turn signals can be easily converted to
LED.
This page says each LED at 12 volts DC pulls 10mA/Hr. They
say they could make a cluster of up to 1000 LED's.
http://www.theledlight.com/led-assemblies.html
Has this been done? Is it viable? Would it be worth it if
the cost for the LED conversion was low?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Mike Barber wrote:
> I base that number on using exide orbitals - I've read they weigh 40 lbs? If
> they were putting out 8V at 400A, you would need 48 batteries, which would
> weigh 1920 lbs.
Mike, your assumption of 8V at a just 400 amps is way off. It takes more than
twice that current level just to get them down to 9V. You're probably closer to
1000 amps to get the super stiff Orbitals to go as low as 8V per battery! When
running just 20 Orbitals at 240V nominal and crossing the 1/4 mile mark at 101
mph, White Zombie was pulling three times your 400 amp assumption at a whopping
1200 battery pack amps with the pack hanging at 155V, that's 7.5V per
battery...awfully close to 8 volts. The Orbitals can deliver ~2500 amps when
kneeled down to 6V per battery.
To back this up, Rudman said that at 2000 amp discharge levels, his test
Orbital was still above 7V. He would have tried to pull it lower, but the
battery blew up his load tester before he had the chance. That battery never
did fail, and has been used as the SLI under-hood battery in my Jeep Grand
Cherokee for more than a year now. Since first trying the Orbitals in the Fall
of 2004, at discharges of up to ~2500 amps, not a single one of these batteries
have failed.
>You really can't get this kind of power without having a battery pack that
>weighs more than around
>2000 lbs. If they were putting out 8V at 400A, you
>would need 48 batteries, which would weigh 1920 lbs.
At just 400 amps, the batteries sag to about 11 volts (est.), so you'd only
need 34 of them. You're looking at a 1360 lb. pack, not 1920 lbs.
>- correct me if I'm wrong please.
Consider yourself corrected :-)
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The only LED based headlight solution that really works is based on
"Luxeon" technology which is 10X brighter than "superbright" or "jumbo"
LEDs. If you hunt around, you can find the Luxeon tech built into triple
clusters and Sanyo even makes some nice focused optics for those triple
Luxeon clusters which makes for a super nice low power headlight.
Many of the newest hottest concept cars and military vehicle prototypes
use these instead of incandescent or HID bulbs.
Hope this helps!
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Megasite
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX - 801-749-7807
message - 866-872-8901
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, if someone wanted to drive one of these, say, cross country what
would you need to make it work?
If it's like the EV1 or other production EV's you can't drive with
the charger pluged in. So even with a MegnaCharger you couldn't
use a genset in the trunk to charge and drive with "Unlimited" range.
So, since this is a PbA vehicle, could you simple tap into the pack
with your own charger? Would a PFC-20 or 30 keep up on the freeway?
I wonder if the stock BMS would get confused by bypassing it this way?
This would seem to only be an option on this S-10 or a Ranger since
they are pickups and you could probably get away with running a genset
in the bed while you drove.
So, How does the Electric S-10 compair to the others?
It sounds like the Ranger was a pretty good truck.
L8r
Ryan
Ralph Goodwin wrote:
Several of you expressed interest in the Chevrolet S-10 Electric that the EV
Challenge has for sale. It is posted on eBay, item # 4517857381. If
interested and want additional information let me know!
Ralph Goodwin
Executive Director
Carolina Electric Vehicle Coalition Inc.
EV Challenge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.evchallenge.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would strongly advise against upsizing the breaker. That would be a
violation of the electrical code. Should an electrical fire occur, you
could be held responsible, and your insurance company could refuse to cover
the damage. Check your policy for any such provisions.
The above holds for a private residence, but there's an additional concern
in a condominium or apartment. Should anything untoward happen, you'd be
exposing yourself to additional legal liability related to injury to other
residents or damage to their property.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or
switch to digest mode? See http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
1991 Solectria Force 144vac
1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
1974 Avco New Idea rider 36vdc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation.
-- Johnny Hart
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
To protect a TS cell from over-voltage, can it be as simple as clamping a 1%
4.2V or 4.3V Zener dialog across the cell terminals?
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is there such a thing as a one-way breaker or fuse? It would let current
flow freely in one direction, but allow only 20A in the other direction, for
example.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 04:13 AM 7/01/05 -0700, you wrote:
Is there such a thing as a one-way breaker or fuse? It would let current
flow freely in one direction, but allow only 20A in the other direction, for
example.
Bill Dennis
Hi Dennis
DC presumably?
Simplest way would be a pair of diodes back-to-back with the fuse in one
leg, although the reverse flow diode would need to be as big as the maximum
flow, with appropriate heatsinking.
smaller
diode fuse
|\ |
====| >|=====0x0===
| |/ | |
| |
==| | /| |==
==========|< |=====
| \|
Honkin' big
diode
You have something in mind?
Regards
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think you would need to make an electronic circuit breaker. For
example, a shunt connected to a comparator that is set to trip at 20A,
via a latch to operate a contactor coil.
What is the application, there might be a simpler way of doing it?
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 04:13:15 -0700, Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a one-way breaker or fuse? It would let current
> flow freely in one direction, but allow only 20A in the other direction, for
> example.
>
> Bill Dennis
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The insulation may be a higher grade than your "normal" THHN/THWN that you
buy from a home store. The stranding size and quanitity changes based on
your application (home, auto, high-power, flexability, high or low temp....
) Go to one of the wire and cable manufacturers websites and take a look at
the types, or just go to the NEC and look at table 310-13.
So in my opinion this wire is not better, just different.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Stotts
To: [email protected]
Sent: 1/6/2005 6:39 PM
Subject: "Good wire" ?
Is this wire actually "better" or is it just marketing?
http://www.painlesswiring.com/wireterm.htm
--- End Message ---
