EV Digest 4149
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: EVS-21 Monaco April 4-7
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Additional outside funding
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Re: the VOLTSWAGON (was: Re: Why bother saving factory EV's????)
by "Jonathan \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Additional outside funding
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6) Re: Two Boost Options
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: SiC Schottkys
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: 3 phase PM-long and heading OT
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9) Re: Compound wound motors
by "Jack Knopf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Why bother saving factory EV's????
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Compound wound motors
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) Re: 100,000 volt DC power supply
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: 100,000 volt DC power supply
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Here's an ev for ya!
by "M.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by "M.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Additional outside funding
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Why bother saving factory EV's???? Cheap EV's and CAREFUL!!!!!
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Two Boost Options
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Compound wound motors
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
i will be there with mine Italvel Day EVolution (lynch motor, 450 amps
alltrax, 24V saft NIMH or 36V nicad not decided yet) and... camera too
;^)
Philippe
Et si le pot d'�chappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
Forum de discussion sur les v�hicules �lectriques
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: EVS-21 Monaco April 4-7
Is anyone going to Monaco? I could be a reporter again if anyone wants to
send me :-) Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 3/3/05 3:08:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< How many do you need / what is the total cost for what you need?
>>
I need just$ 50,000 to buy the lithiums and bms of my choice.The Current
Eliminator is completly prepared to handle the power NOW. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 3/3/05 3:20:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Dennis Berube has taken home more total prize money in his short
time racing in NEDRA than in all the years he has bracket raced >>
Rodrick,You are wrong here,the CE has taken home more money bracket racing
than it ever earned at all nedra events. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Sam Uzi wrote:
Sounds like a serious small business opportunity -- build 'em and
sell 'em.
Heck, it could be done as a non-profit -- have high school kids
(or anyone else who wants to sign up for a free "learn how to
build an EV conversion" course) cycle through and do the
conversions, sell the cars off relatively cheap and use the
profits to buy new materials and pay for the overhead and
permenant staff...
Hmm... what if we started something like our BEST program (see
www.bestoutreach.org) only for high school students.
Set it up as a class to learn about science and engineering. The goal is
to build a working electric car for less than $1000, and compete in a
series of events at the end of the school year.
You'll have to provide written documentation on where your parts came
from, and what they cost. The organization will reimburse you for the
cost of parts up to $1000. You also have to document HOW it is built;
i.e. produce a set of plans sufficient so someone could duplicate it if
desired.
At the end of the races, the cars will be autioned off to the highest
bidders. The only way to take your own car home is to bid the most for
it! :-) The money raised by the sale of the vehicles is what funds the
program for next year. The plans provide the documentation so whoever
buys your car can fix it.
This way, teams don't need to buy their own parts (motor, controller,
batteries, etc.) because the organization will pay for them (up to
$1000). Teams can scrounge, donate, or recycle any materials they like
(such as using a cheap or free donated car as their glider). But because
of the "must sell at the end" rule, no one is going to use exotic
batteries or unobtainium parts that they have to pay for themselves
(i.e. in excess of the $1000 that will be reimbursed by the
organization).
The "race day" contests would be things like range, accelleration,
weight, load-carrying capacity, a slalom, tractor pull, technical
presentations, car show (beauty contest :-) etc. Many of them are
mutually exclusive, so no one team is ever going to win everything. In
fact, I would suggest that the students themselves pick the performance
categories for each year's race -- this way, the vehicles are certain to
be "interesting"!
To insure that they are at least nominally "practical transportation",
you could require that all vehicles need license plates, registration,
and insurance to compete.
I think you'd wind up with a lot of really imaginitive contraptions that
might not be all that useful as daily drivers -- but people would have a
lot of fun, and learn a LOT in the process!
--
"The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
I think this is a great idea, except that I suggest the amount be $5000,
instead of $1000. Then, it's possible that some of the most innovative
teams *could* build daily drivers. Actually, maybe we should make
several of these programs.. $250 for middle school, make a one-person
vehicle. $2500 for high school, make a two-seater. $25,000 for college,
make a car that is a suitable daily driver. $250,000 for PhD program,
design a car that could be mass-produced.
If some government flunky could cut loose with $10 million for a program
like this, the results could be astounding. Especially if we encouraged
cross-dicipline teams to complete. Get a budding computer programmer, a
experienced car mechanic, a neophyte boat designer, a inspired artist, a
bored electrical engineer, and a frustrated mechanical engineer in a
room togeather, and watch what happens. ;-)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Dennis Berube wrote:
>
> >"If I only had a lithium pack and the bms to support it, I could
> > finally run low 7s at over 178mph in the qt.mi."
>
> Are you referring to these?
>
> http://www.metricmind.com/battery.htm
>
> Or these?
>
> http://www.metricmind.com/battery2.htm
>
Definitely would want to race with the Kokams - I added some of these specs to
my battery page off of http://www.geocities.com/hempev/EVCalculator.html - if I
had an idea of a Peukert's exponent, I'd even have them in the calculator
itself.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
wet nicad needs 1.65V to 1.7V for good equalization phase, there are not dry
toy cells !
cordialement,
Philippe
Et si le pot d'�chappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
Forum de discussion sur les v�hicules �lectriques
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Two Boost Options
> Thanks, Jerry. Can you just clarify the term "resting voltage" for me?
The
> Nicads get charged to 1.55V per cell, but nominal voltage is 1.2V. The TS
> cells get charged to 4.25V per cell, but quickly fall to 3.9V or lower
upon
> use. So what would I consider the resting voltages of the two packs?
>
> Here are the answers to your questions:
>
> > What are you putting these in? (Geo Metro Convertible--very light car)
> > Which TS cells? (200Ah cells)
> > Pack voltage? (35 cells at 3.6V/cell = 126V)
> > Charger? (still deciding--maybe Delta-Q)
> > Motor? (8-inch ADC)
>
> Bill Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jerry dycus
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:09 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Two Boost Options
>
> Hi Bill and All,
> --- Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm probably going to install a boost pack of BB600
> > Nicads along with my TS
> > cells and am considering two options, on which I
> > wanted to get some
> > opinions:
> >
> > 1) Use a circuit like Doug Hartley designed, where
> > the two packs are
> > connected via a Schottky diode at their positive
> > terminals. The Nicad pack
> > is slightly lower in nominal voltage than the TS
> > pack, so the Nicads kick in
> > only when the voltage sags on the TS pack (Doug
> > posted some good
> > explanations of this on the list last fall, using TS
> > and PbA).
>
> I'd go with 1 as it with a little experience it
> will be easy to make automatic by adjusting the
> numbers of ni-cad cells.
> You should make it where both run out about the
> same time to get max range also. With the stiffness of
> the nicads and the sag of the TS's start with about
> 8-10% less charged resting voltage of the TS's for the
> nicads and adjust from there with experience from
> using them as your guide.
> Watering shouldn't be as bad a problem if you
> don't overcharge them by just equalizing them every 5
> charges or so and not charging until you run them at
> least 1/2 way down if possible.
> You'll have to charge them seperately but you can
> use one charger by making a cut-off circuit for the
> nicads and let the charger go on to finish the TS's.
> Instead of the diode a contactor on each bank
> would be better so the nicads can get recharged if
> heavy currents are used a lot from the TS's while
> coasting, stopped at a light, ect. If the voltage is
> too close together the ni-cads could become discharged
> and reverse a cell.
> So put voltmeters or better E-meters on each bank
> until you achieve the best voltage ratio between the
> banks.
> An E-meter can also control the charging of the
> ni-cads by turning off a relay or the bank contactor
> when they are charged, 105-110% of the withdrawn
> amphrs, then letting the TS's go on until they are
> charged by whatever means you will use for them. An
> e-meter may be the ticket for them too but I don't
> know that much about them yet on charging.
> What are you putting these in?
> Which TS cells?
> Pack voltage?
> Charger?
> Motor?
> Both batt types will need a break in period before
> they settle down into a steady pattern, the ni-cads
> about 5 cycles and the TS's ? cycles.
>
> >
> > 2) Keep the two packs separate (tied together at
> > negative, but separated at
> > positive), with the Nicad voltage higher than the
> > TS, right up to the max.
> > voltage that the Curtis 1231C can handle. When
> > extra power is needed, the
> > driver manually switches from one pack to the other
> > via a dashboard switch.
> > BB600s were intended for high current draws to begin
> > with, so this might
> > make sense and add some capacity, but at the expense
> > of being manual vs.
> > automatic, and of not allowing sharing of the load
> > between the Nicads and
> > the TS cells. Plus, of course, I'd be carrying
> > around the extra Nicad
> > weight all the time, even when not using it.
> >
> > First option probably still seems the best to me,
> > but I wanted to see what
> > others thought.
> >
> > I picked Nicads over PbA because, even though
> > watering will be a minor
> > hassle, I've got a long uphill climb at the end of
> > my daily commute. Lots
> > of power needed for about a 15-minute stint.
> >
> > Bill Dennis
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
And the best part?
A diode you can parallel pretty safely due to the PTC characteristic of
Vf. Safely without a nice test rig like some people have for
characterizing their parts.
Hyperfast silicon diodes from IR in the 15A range (their fastest)
appeared to have similar Vf (according to voltage rating), a 175C
rating, but still had reverse recovery time and current. Which makes
them inferior to SiC, in my book. And yes there are times when soft
switching helps, and there are times when you have to hard switch.
I still don't have pricing from my e-mail cree yesterday...
Seth
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Rich Rudman wrote:
Funny Lee..
Correct me if I am wrong here... but reverse recovery is rather
dominate
in the design of a Buck controller. AKA DC electrical Vehicle
controller as
we know them.
I know that using a Ultra fast diode is pretty near suicidal in the
design
of a controller. I have done it, and the heat that was made in the
diodes
and the voltage spikes caused by the reverse recovery current spike
basically ruined a couple of my early design attempts.
So Motor grade Ultrafast soft recovery diodes are a must in the
design
of a 20Khz hard switched power controller. AS the SiC diodes are being
touted as the nearly perfect diode with basically NO reverse recovery
losses
at all, it seams to me and ...the authors of such articles in Power
electronics magazine, that SiC IS the coming diode flavor of choice.
Infact
they show the improvements in a AC variable speed drive. Exactly what
production EVs and hybrids use for power conversion right now.
They may not be ready for Otmar and I right now in the cost performance
issues we have... but I would Kill to have a SiC in my center HF
rectifier
diode. I am hunting better diodes as we speak.
Not that I expect to get a SiC diode but there are some newer platinum
diodes that are promising less forward losses and greatly reduced
Trr,times
and much smoother reverse recovery wave forms.
It's important to note here that they are NOT perfect, and lossless,
But the
improvements are supposed to be really impressive. Also the posted Temp
limits are only 175C up from 150C.
This helps, but doesn't by much smaller heatsinks.
Just DID my home work:
APT 2x61D60j 600 volts 60 amps per SIDE
Max peak Irrm is 38 amps. This is
the
peak reverse recovery current bottom of trough.
A Trr of 80 Ns.
Apt Does have a nice PDF and a really neat diagram of What
reverse recovery really is. If you are not certain...surf on out and
have a
look.
www.Advancedpower.com
www.Cree.com
Cree CSD20060 600 volt SiC 20 amps both legs.(10 amps a leg)
Max Rv per leg is 1000 MICRO
amps.....How
many zeros less peak reverse current??? 3.8 times 10 to the -4
They claim NO reverse recovery time.
Nill.
They have no chart to define their
reverse
recovery specs and wave form references.
Ok so I get 4 powers of magnitude less reverse recovery current....Yea
I
want this Kind of diode .... for reduced RF
Home work done... Can I still Drool over these devices????
The higher forward voltage drop at over 150 C is, a bit of a
concern...I can
only hope when they scale this up to a 60 amp device, and that the
high
current high temp conduction losses are less.
I suspect that most of my RF issues stem from the use of the diodes
that I
currently use, and specifically the reverse recovery wave forms in the
80 Ns
range. A SiC may be the ticket to allow me to approach EC radiated
emission
specs.
Clearly I will be doing my on going home work on What is a available
and
what they can do for me.
Leapfrogging technology has allowed me to start with a 20 amp barely
5000
watt charger and now I can squeak 6600 watts from the same form factor
case.
I And yes I think I can move 10,000 watts with water cooling and......
slightly better IGBTs and diodes. Same devices packages... better
devices.
When a 80amp SiC twin pack SOT-227 diode gets to twice the cost of my
current diode(about $40) I intend to have them in the PFC charges.
Then I
will judge them as a improvement or a extravagant use of modern
silicon.
It looks like I can sustain better than %90 conversion efficiency from
150
VDC up to 450 now days. That's up by %5 in the last 90 days... with a
newer
batch of Diodes and IGBTs. Nobody warned me I found out the hardway. I
can
hold better than %95 230 Vac input to 400 VDC output. Basically a
PFC30 can
hand you 500 watts more charge power from the same grid power it did 6
months ago.
Damn straight I am looking at better silicon.... It's a way of life.
Thanks for hacking me off enough to go out and see for myself.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: SiC Schottkys
Seth Allen wrote:
for power conversion with a higher PWM frequency, they start to make
sense. 300V parts with some MOSFETs might be worth investigation for
some DC-DC converters or a motor that has a very high fundamental
frequency and not a lot of current.
But, reverse recovery in a diode is not loss per se. It is if you hard
switch, so a useless pulse of current shoots thru both the MOSFET and
diode. But high frequency, high efficiency designs don't do this
anyway.
They use resonant or quasiresonant soft switching, or lossless
snubbers,
or other techniques to effectively eliminate these losses even with
normal diodes.
The reverse recovery current in a schottky diode is charging a
capacitor, which is a lossless event. It only becomes a loss if your
circuit simply dumps or burns up the energy stored in that capacitor.
The only attraction I see with these SiC diodes is their ability to
operate at extremely high temperatures. This makes them attractive for
spacecraft and certain military hardware that must operate at these
temperatures. But I don't see EVs in their future.
--
"The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Yes, but the knee is at a lower load level than you suggest.
> For the ETEK, the knee of the curve is around 20amps in each of the curves
> offered: 24, 36 and 48v applied. 40amps is well above the knee in each case
> and well into the 80% zone.
>
> Further, one analysis which modeled 4 different motors, including the ETEK
> vs a Lynch Motor, shows the ETEK outperforming the Lynch motor for currents
> BELOW 40amps (though not below 23v). BOTH of these are shown with 86%
> efficiency in this modeling with 23volts applied to each and a load of
> 40amps.
> At 30amps: ETEK 86%, LEMCO 83%;
> 20amps: ETEK 83%, LEMCO 78%;
> 10amps: ETEK 70%, LEMCO 58%.
> See analysis at:
> http://www.engineer.gvsu.edu/faculty/yackish/Tom%20Yackish%20Index/dcmotoref
> ficiencycomparison.htm
>
What about the German-made versions from PMG?
http://www.perm-motor.de/index_e.html - some of their products are actually
*meant* to be generators.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Actually, I know exactly what the difference is between a shunt winding and
a series winding is, my motor is hooked up as cumulative compound , not the
shunt field in parallel with the series field as I stated. I am looking at
"Build Your Own Electric Vehicle" by Bob Brant right now and I clearly see
the difference between short shunt(parallel to arm) and long shunt(parallel
to arm and s winding), and I understand the difference between differential
compound and cumulative compound. What I don't know YET, is what will happen
if I : 1. connect the shunt field directly to the battery and vary the
series field with my controller, as in your link and the Ward-Leonard
wiring, and 2. vary the shunt field in the opposite way I vary the series
field. I think number 2 will work better but will just have to try it. Jack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Shipway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Compound wound motors
You seem to have misunderstood how the shunt winding differs from the
series winding.
<teacher mode on>
The amount of field that each winding produces is the current times the
number of turns in the winding.
Current is Voltage divided by the Resistance of the coil (I=V/R)
The Shunt winding is made of many turns of fine wire and is supposed to
carry a couple amps at full voltage (e.g. 5 amps @ 48 volts)
The Series winding is a few turns of fat wire and is supposed to carry ALL
the amps that go through the armature, but to only drop a few volts in
doing so (e.g. 200 amps at 5 volts, with the other 43 volts dropping
across the armature).
Using these admittedly made up numbers you'd have the following
resistences:
Shunt = 48v/5a = 9.6 ohms
Series=5v/200a= 0.025 ohms
Since you've put the shunt in parallel with the much smaller resistance
series winding, there will be the same voltage across both and most of the
current will go through the series with the shunt having only a small
effect. This may be why you don't see much change when you connect it
this way.
Since you where using it on a 42' boat, the resistance of the water would
limit the motor speed in series mode, and may mask small changes in motor
behavior.
Look at the diagrams on my first link (fig.12-7) for how a shunt winding
is expected to be connected, which is in parallel with the armature (short
shunt)
or in parallel with both the armature and the series winding (which are in
series with each other).(Long Shunt)
Now to make things more confuzzling, the two windings don't have to be of
equal effect.
It might have a wimpy series winding so that it mostly behaves well as a
shunt motor, or it might have a Beefy series winding so it mostly is
torquey like a series, but is a little better behaved (with regards to
speed regulation).
<teacher mode off>
I'm not sure how you'd determine which flavor you have without a
specification sheet or counting the coils.
Maybe a good Ohm-meter would help?
You can get more power out of it (at a given RPM and field strength) the
same way we do for series motors, increase the voltage to the armature to
push more current thru it. This will increase the current in the series
winding, increasing the field, but it would not change the current in the
shunt field, so it's contribution to the field remains the same. The two
fields add together to give the total magnetic field that the armature get
to play in. The two windings are usually wound on the same hunk of iron,
IIRC.
I know folks often use double the nameplate voltage as thier peak (and
pack) voltage on series motors and report good results. I don't know if
you'd want to change the voltage on the shunt field the same way, but I'm
guessing not. Anyone know for sure?
Jack Knopf wrote:
Thanks Lee, you put me on a good train of thought. I reread the info on
compound motors that Michael Shipway pointed me to, the one with all the
math, and what you were saying about reducing the shunt field current for
low rpm HP, which is what I am after, and came to the conclusion that I
am not sure what will happen If I do this your way or the Ward-Leonard
way, which has a fixed shunt field, if I understand correctly. The info
says the Ward-Leonard way is used in elevators for good starting torque.
Right now my shunt field is connected in parallel to the series field and
my controller controls both. I wonder what will happen if I connect my
shunt field directly across the batteries without control and leave the
series field on the controller? The other thing I want to try is , which
runs with your advice , if I understand correctly is, modify my
controller to control both series and shunt fields so when I press the
electric pedal the shunt field is max and the series field is minimum and
they both reverse as the electric pedal is floored where the shunt field
is minimum and the series field is maximum. My ampmeter and some time
this weekend should make me more sure. Thanks for your time, Jack.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> Why bother saving Factory EV's when you can convert a VW to electric power
> for around $2,000.00.
Don't just save factory EV's, don't just convert of VW''s into rather NEV
like vehicles, save anything that even remotely looks like an EV or even
part of an EV and convert everything in sight!
Face it, EV's work. Some better than others, but they all do work. Not
one should be allowed to be destroyed if at all possible. Even less than
successful once have lessons to teach.
I read of a TEVan being stripped and converted into conventional ICE Dodge
Caravan and I cringed. I read of the Globe-Union Fairmont station wagon
being stripped and scrapped and I cringed again. I was told of two unused
Citicars being canabalized to make a hangar door opener. Next I hear of a
Solectria Force found in a scrap yard with a car sitting on top of it and
the roof crushed in. Then I read of one of the Sundancers being turned
into a carnival ride. Finally there is the pictures of EV1 pancakes. All
this gets a might bit depressing.
No EV should end up like that. Save them all.
I think a privately owned EV1, turning up at various green vehicle events,
would be a constant and powerful reminder of just what is possible. That
is probably one of the the reasons GM will probably not back down like Ford
did. Face it, a Ranger EV looks like any other Ranger. An EV1 looks like
the future. The sad part is while I know for all the anti-EV types at GM,
there had to also has to have been a core group of true believers who have
to be just about in tears to see all their effort end up like this. Oh well.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
'95 Solectria Force
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> I know folks often use double the nameplate voltage as thier peak (and
> pack) voltage on series motors and report good results. I don't know if
> you'd want to change the voltage on the shunt field the same way, but
> I'm guessing not. Anyone know for sure?
>
>
I, for one, need to know - I want to rewind the compound motor in a Kewet (weak
series/strong shunt field) to straight (maximum) shunt field and run this 48V
motor with a 96V ZAPI SepEx controller.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Humm, regarding the hood orniment applications...
How would something like this interact with the cars body & frame?
First you want to be sure it's outputs are well insolated.
Also, wouldn't you need to keep it far enough away from the body
to prevent it from finding a shorter path, via say the hood?
I'm guessing this thing runs off of a standard 110vac outlet.
So, you might use a cheap Inverter to power it, are these isolated?
It would require ( 5,000v to 100,000v * 0.002A ) 10-200 Watts.
Always wanted to play with "Lifters", maybe make my own "ionic breaze".
L8r
Ryan
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Is there anyway this could be used for EV R&D purposes?
http://www.unitednuclear.com/hvsupply.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
> 2 milliamps won't get you anywhere.
I was thinking more along the lines of if someone was building a high
voltage DC controller or AC inverter from the ground up, they could
substitute this for the battery pack while building it on the bench.
It would be safer then a battery pack and more convenient.
Input x amount into it and measure the output?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Where is this located?
Mike G.
Lightning Ryan wrote:
Alan Batie wrote: ( nothing? )
(everything was stripped and hidden for me)
Here's the link he was trying to share (pretty kewl):
http://www.peak.org/~kmr3/M&LKRailroad/viewpics.html
L8r
Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Could start a new fad "Subway Drag Racing!!"
Mike G.
Dave wrote:
AND (Not to perpetuate a silly idea) the technology already exist in
electric subway trains. Seriously, though, this kind of discussion is
good, in that we are thinking outside the box, and that is where all
the good ideas come from.
David C. Wilker Jr. USAF (RET)
Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.
- Harold
S. Hulbert
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Stockton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: NEDRA rule changes
Jeff Shanab [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you imagine getting a bill for eletric usage at end of race?
Certainly create a focus on regen in the higher brackets :-)
Not really... consider that even if a car managed to consume a full
600kW for an entire 10s run, this only amounts to 1.67kWh, or about
$0.10 worth of electricity.
Look at it another way, the slot cars wouldn't have batteries to
recharge, and so this would be the total energy consumed for a run (no
charger/chemcical efficiency to account for). At the present time, the
racers all have batteries that get recharged in the pits largely on the
dragstrip's dime from outlets provided free of charge (e.g. at
Woodburn); the total electricity consumption for the day isn't
significant enough to show up on the track owner's radar.
Just think how many runs you could get in for the cost of a gallon of
high octane fuel! ;^>
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If I am wrong I will give you a public apology. I will get details of the
totals and dates from NEDRA and post here. I do remember at least one amount
over $1000.00.
Roderick
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas
In a message dated 3/3/05 3:20:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Dennis Berube has taken home more total prize money in his short
time racing in NEDRA than in all the years he has bracket raced >>
Rodrick,You are wrong here,the CE has taken home more money bracket racing
than it ever earned at all nedra events. Dennis Berube
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is practically no exponent Dennis, e.g. itis equal 1.
You get (*about*) the same capacity out regardless of the rate
of discharge (e.g. you will violate max allower rate far before
than above statement no longer holds true).
at 10C 34Ah cell will give you 34Ah as well as at 1C or lower,
so Peukert there is 1.00.
You are not suppose to exceed 10C, so don't ask me what happens
at 100C or whatever. Most likely you won't get 34Ah out, but
not because it is not there, but because the cell will overheat
and blow up before you will have chance to find out.
If you want this data, I'd suggest to buy several smallest cells
and load them up to 20C, 30C, 50C, whatever you see fit, and determine
what is Dennis' maximum, not the manufacturer's.
Then, discharge at that rate and see now many Ah you get out,
and you will have true Peukert number at those beyond spec rates.
Victor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Berube wrote:
"If I only had a lithium pack and the bms to support it, I could
finally run low 7s at over 178mph in the qt.mi."
Are you referring to these?
http://www.metricmind.com/battery.htm
Or these?
http://www.metricmind.com/battery2.htm
Definitely would want to race with the Kokams - I added some of these specs to
my battery page off of http://www.geocities.com/hempev/EVCalculator.html - if I
had an idea of a Peukert's exponent, I'd even have them in the calculator
itself.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lee, Lawrence and All,
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> > Why bother saving Factory EV's when you can
> convert a VW to electric
> > power for around $2,000.00. I've been looking at
> the kit from
> > http://www.e-volks.com/about.html and the
> simplicity & logic
> > plus the fact that this would be a one weekend
> project makes me
> > think that a simple plan that could be followed by
> many people
> > might be more powerful than support from the big
> auto manufacturers.
I'd go with the Steve Clunn method of making your
own adaptor like putting an extension on the trans
input shaft if nessasary, I don't know what it looks
like, and drill a hole in the plate to fit it exactly,
then just drill out the bell housing holes.
After that centered on that hole and drill the
motors mounting bolts for it from a paper pattern.
Then mount it direct to the input shaft with a Love
Joy or other coupler connector. This will only cost
under $100 or less if you use 1/2" alum plate. You
could get by with thinner. Use a 100-150 amp series
motor you can get for under $400 surplus or used.
Or do the center pulley thing like the website
mentioned did and with 2 golf cart motors and 8mm cog
belts.
I'd go with 72vdc pack of Trojan 27tmh 12v or
t105-125's or US batt versions for longer range if
needed charged with a 36vdc charger modified for 72vdc
if using an E controller or my favorite, a contactor
controller and charge them in parallel at 36vdc. By
series/parallel both the batts and the motors you get
3 speeds and 4 gears plus reverse.
This will get you a true 50mph and about 20 mile
range with the 12vdc batt pack and probably 50 miles
with the t125 pack. YMMV
And do it for around $700-1200 for the EV parts
depending on how well you can scrounge. And be a much
better EV than the one from the website.
>
> It's a great idea, but I don't know enough about
> this particular kit to
> say whether it actually works or is junk.
>
> As you say, the old VW Beetles are an attractive
> "glider" due to their
> simplicity. They are small and light, which scales
> down all the EV parts
> needed, to keep the price low. If all you are
> striving for is NEV type
> performance, it could indeed be a very simple and
> inexpensive
> conversion.
>
> I'm trying to imagine the "typical" person that
> wants to try an EV
> conversion (if there is such a thing! :-) I see
> someone who is:
>
> - sick and tired of the high cost of driving
> - has serious environmental or political concerns
> with our present
> imported-oil-based transportation system
> - has a reasonable amount of mechanical skill
> - likes "tinkering" with things to get them to work
> - actually enjoys being a bit "different" from
> others
> - already has an old car they would like convert
>
> Now, what is stopping them from actually doing an EV
> conversion?
>
> - doesn't have much money
> - no good place to work on it
> - lack of knowledge
> - knows very little about EV parts
> - fear of failure
>
> The EV list goes a long way towards addressing these
> concerns. I think
> once a person discovers the EV list, it goes a
> *long* way towards
> encouraging them to proceed. Information is POWER!
>
> But, the EV list isn't very good at providing
> *complete* information.
> People are more likely to say "This is how I did it"
> rather than
> describe "How *you* can do it" in sufficient detail
> so a beginner
> actually *can* do it. Good directions are difficult
> to write!
>
> A good conversion kit helps a lot, but they are only
> available for a few
> specific vehicles. And (wouldn't you know it) many
> potential builders
> don't happen to have (or are not interested in)
> those vehicles.
>>
> I wonder if a motor coupler and adapter plate might
> be able to be
> fashioned with similar techniques. Something a "guy
> in his garage" could
> make with hand tools. Perhaps by using the vehicle's
> existing engine
> block and crankshaft end as patterns (cut 'em off
> with a torch or
> sawsall and use them?)
NO!!!! At least not on a VW Bug as they are made
from magnesium!!!!! Alway be careful especially when
cutting, grinding as it can explode!!! One kid in
Sarasota did this with a grinder and the grinded bits
ignited and badly burned INTO his face!
And diffinently not using a torch!!
HTH's,
jerry dycus
>
> The goal is to provide sufficiently detailed
> instructions, that do not
> require too many special skills or tools, and with
> sources and prices
> for parts, so that a reasonable person can look it
> over and say, "Yes! I
> can do that!"
> --
> "The two most common elements in the universe
> are hydrogen and stupidity." -- Harlan Ellison
> --
> Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
>
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bill and All,
--- Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, Jerry. Can you just clarify the term
> "resting voltage" for me? The
> Nicads get charged to 1.55V per cell, but nominal
As Philippe said the charging voltage is higher
though to keep watering down 1.60/cell each charge and
1.65-1.70 equalizing every 5 or so charges.
> voltage is 1.2V.
More like 1.25/cell resting full charge. This is
for SAFT's, yours may be slightly different.
The TS
> cells get charged to 4.25V per cell, but quickly
> fall to 3.9V or lower upon
Sounds about right.
> use. So what would I consider the resting voltages
> of the two packs?
I'd fully charge them and put on a 1 amp load
then take that as the voltage to use then about 7-10%
less nicad voltage using those measurement for the
calculation. This removes any surface charge that
could mess up calculations.
>
> Here are the answers to your questions:
>
> > What are you putting these in? (Geo Metro
> Convertible--very light car)
> > Which TS cells? (200Ah cells)
> > Pack voltage? (35 cells at
> 3.6V/cell = 126V)
> > Charger? (still
> deciding--maybe Delta-Q)
> > Motor? (8-inch ADC)
Sounds cool! Should have serious range and good
pickup!
jerry dycus
>
> Bill Dennis
>
> Hi Bill and All,
> --- Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm probably going to install a boost pack of
> BB600
> > Nicads along with my TS
> > cells and am considering two options, on which I
> > wanted to get some
> > opinions:
> >
> > 1) Use a circuit like Doug Hartley designed,
> where
> > the two packs are
> > connected via a Schottky diode at their positive
> > terminals. The Nicad pack
> > is slightly lower in nominal voltage than the TS
> > pack, so the Nicads kick in
> > only when the voltage sags on the TS pack (Doug
> > posted some good
> > explanations of this on the list last fall, using
> TS
> > and PbA).
>
> I'd go with 1 as it with a little experience it
> will be easy to make automatic by adjusting the
> numbers of ni-cad cells.
> You should make it where both run out about the
> same time to get max range also. With the stiffness
> of
> the nicads and the sag of the TS's start with about
> 8-10% less charged resting voltage of the TS's for
> the
> nicads and adjust from there with experience from
> using them as your guide.
> Watering shouldn't be as bad a problem if you
> don't overcharge them by just equalizing them every
> 5
> charges or so and not charging until you run them at
> least 1/2 way down if possible.
> You'll have to charge them seperately but you
> can
> use one charger by making a cut-off circuit for the
> nicads and let the charger go on to finish the TS's.
> Instead of the diode a contactor on each bank
> would be better so the nicads can get recharged if
> heavy currents are used a lot from the TS's while
> coasting, stopped at a light, ect. If the voltage is
> too close together the ni-cads could become
> discharged
> and reverse a cell.
> So put voltmeters or better E-meters on each
> bank
> until you achieve the best voltage ratio between the
> banks.
> An E-meter can also control the charging of the
> ni-cads by turning off a relay or the bank contactor
> when they are charged, 105-110% of the withdrawn
> amphrs, then letting the TS's go on until they are
> charged by whatever means you will use for them. An
> e-meter may be the ticket for them too but I don't
> know that much about them yet on charging.
> What are you putting these in?
> Which TS cells?
> Pack voltage?
> Charger?
> Motor?
> Both batt types will need a break in period
> before
> they settle down into a steady pattern, the ni-cads
> about 5 cycles and the TS's ? cycles.
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jack,
I designed compound wound motor controls when
I worked at Caterpillar.
The shunt field had a PWM control to vary field power
and the high current armature control ran the
armature/series field. I think the most cost
effective way at looking at these control methods is
to check out the GE Elec Trak, E15 would be a good
example.
These riding mowers use small relays to switch in
various 10W resistors to control field current.
There are a couple of things you should be carefull
with;
Don't weaken the field to much, you will get
commutator arcing and low efficiency with high
armature current.
You should have the speed torque curves of the motor
in question to make sure this is not an issue.
The simple answer is to test this motor on your
application. NEVER completely remove shunt field
power, you will get huge armature current!. The best
method is to slowly reduce field current and keep the
motor in it's most efficient torque/speed point.
You could use a low current PWM control (like those on
PM motor Ebikes) to control the field current.
Most of the sepex and compound wound motors never
required more than 20 amps on the field.
The shunt field would be connected from battery
positive to the control that is connected to battery
negative.
You can use a Curtis type control for the armature
circuit, but you need to make sure the shunt field
voltage is controlled in parallel with this control.
For example, full field for starting the vehicle and
when it gets up to speed you can reduce field current
to increase speed. When you encounter a hill you need
to increase field current for more torque.
This is best done with a control designed for the job,
but it can be done with seperate controls and
experimenting.
Good luck
Rod
--- Jack Knopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I know exactly what the difference is
> between a shunt winding and
> a series winding is, my motor is hooked up as
> cumulative compound , not the
> shunt field in parallel with the series field as I
> stated. I am looking at
> "Build Your Own Electric Vehicle" by Bob Brant right
> now and I clearly see
> the difference between short shunt(parallel to arm)
> and long shunt(parallel
> to arm and s winding), and I understand the
> difference between differential
> compound and cumulative compound. What I don't know
> YET, is what will happen
> if I : 1. connect the shunt field directly to the
> battery and vary the
> series field with my controller, as in your link and
> the Ward-Leonard
> wiring, and 2. vary the shunt field in the opposite
> way I vary the series
> field. I think number 2 will work better but will
> just have to try it. Jack.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Shipway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Compound wound motors
>
>
> > You seem to have misunderstood how the shunt
> winding differs from the
> > series winding.
> >
> > <teacher mode on>
> > The amount of field that each winding produces is
> the current times the
> > number of turns in the winding.
> > Current is Voltage divided by the Resistance of
> the coil (I=V/R)
> >
> > The Shunt winding is made of many turns of fine
> wire and is supposed to
> > carry a couple amps at full voltage (e.g. 5 amps
> @ 48 volts)
> > The Series winding is a few turns of fat wire and
> is supposed to carry ALL
> > the amps that go through the armature, but to only
> drop a few volts in
> > doing so (e.g. 200 amps at 5 volts, with the other
> 43 volts dropping
> > across the armature).
> > Using these admittedly made up numbers you'd have
> the following
> > resistences:
> > Shunt = 48v/5a = 9.6 ohms
> > Series=5v/200a= 0.025 ohms
> >
> > Since you've put the shunt in parallel with the
> much smaller resistance
> > series winding, there will be the same voltage
> across both and most of the
> > current will go through the series with the shunt
> having only a small
> > effect. This may be why you don't see much change
> when you connect it
> > this way.
> >
> > Since you where using it on a 42' boat, the
> resistance of the water would
> > limit the motor speed in series mode, and may mask
> small changes in motor
> > behavior.
> >
> > Look at the diagrams on my first link (fig.12-7)
> for how a shunt winding
> > is expected to be connected, which is in parallel
> with the armature (short
> > shunt)
> > or in parallel with both the armature and the
> series winding (which are in
> > series with each other).(Long Shunt)
> >
> > Now to make things more confuzzling, the two
> windings don't have to be of
> > equal effect.
> > It might have a wimpy series winding so that it
> mostly behaves well as a
> > shunt motor, or it might have a Beefy series
> winding so it mostly is
> > torquey like a series, but is a little better
> behaved (with regards to
> > speed regulation).
> > <teacher mode off>
> >
> > I'm not sure how you'd determine which flavor you
> have without a
> > specification sheet or counting the coils.
> > Maybe a good Ohm-meter would help?
> >
> > You can get more power out of it (at a given RPM
> and field strength) the
> > same way we do for series motors, increase the
> voltage to the armature to
> > push more current thru it. This will increase the
> current in the series
> > winding, increasing the field, but it would not
> change the current in the
> > shunt field, so it's contribution to the field
> remains the same. The two
> > fields add together to give the total magnetic
> field that the armature get
> > to play in. The two windings are usually wound on
> the same hunk of iron,
> > IIRC.
> >
> > I know folks often use double the nameplate
> voltage as thier peak (and
> > pack) voltage on series motors and report good
> results. I don't know if
> > you'd want to change the voltage on the shunt
> field the same way, but I'm
> > guessing not. Anyone know for sure?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack Knopf wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Lee, you put me on a good train of
> thought. I reread the info on
> >> compound motors that Michael Shipway pointed me
> to, the one with all the
> >> math, and what you were saying about reducing the
> shunt field current for
> >> low rpm HP, which is what I am after, and came to
> the conclusion that I
> >> am not sure what will happen If I do this your
> way or the Ward-Leonard
> >> way, which has a fixed shunt field, if I
> understand correctly. The info
> >> says the Ward-Leonard way is used in elevators
> for good starting torque.
> >> Right now my shunt field is connected in parallel
> to the series field and
> >> my controller controls both. I wonder what will
> happen if I connect my
> >> shunt field directly across the batteries without
> control and leave the
> >> series field on the controller? The other thing I
> want to try is , which
> >> runs with your advice , if I understand correctly
> is, modify my
> >> controller to control both series and shunt
> fields so when I press the
> >> electric pedal the shunt field is max and the
> series field is minimum and
> >> they both reverse as the electric pedal is
> floored where the shunt field
> >> is minimum and the series field is maximum. My
> ampmeter and some time
> >> this weekend should make me more sure. Thanks for
> your time, Jack.
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
