EV Digest 4275
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Possible gliders from Arcane autos.
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Work looking into an EV parking spot. Question on plug type?
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) AC Stuff (was: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie")
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Watt to amp to volt conversions & why they aren't the same.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: downshift for regen?
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
by "Joe Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Registering a pusher? was Re: ICE pusher trailer for sale
by Michael Shipway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) bus bars versus wire - was RE: Re: Wire Gauge questions
by Brian Staffanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Hydraulic Hybrids
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
by "Philip Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: What it Takes to Run 9s (in a street bodied car)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) Re: downshift for regen?
by "Philip Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) DC Motor Timing
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Better EV's Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by "David C. Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Flywheel Weight (was: Re: downshift for regen?)
by Matt Holthausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: adapters? / direct drive
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: adapters?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Genset
by Matt Holthausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) bus bars versus wire - was RE: Re: Wire Gauge questions
by "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
So John, It is obvious you have figured it out. Now don't go telling
everyone. Pretty soon other people will be doing it :-)
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Wayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
Hello to All,
Roderick Wilde wrote:
David intends to prove once and for all that voltage
doesn't matter by putting the batteries in series at the track at 192 to
prove it goes no better. ....
Yeah, right...it's really that simple...not!
Merely reconfiguring the pack track side from 96V to 192V, of course won't
change much, in
fact, minus all the other mandatory changes to take advantage of higher
voltage,
reconfiguring the pack track side from 96V to 192V might actually make the
car slower.
Now, look at it done right....reconfigure the pack, add an aggressive
Zilla controller to
take advantage of that higher voltage, change the final drive ratio to a
higher numerical
value (a lower gear ratio), modify the motor(s) to run best at higher
voltages (read that
timing), and still tell me it won't be any quicker and or faster in the
1/4 mile! The
higher voltage car can stay in current limit longer, extending the torque
farther down the
track, while at the same time, the motor(s) will run up to a much higher
rpm. The lower
ratio final drive will multiply off line torque, and the higher rpm
seeking motor(s) will
give high top speed, even with a lower ratio drive....hmmm, this all
sounds an awful lot
like a certain little Datsun I know of :-)
See Ya...John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
White Zombie....4:57 gears, high voltage, Zilla controller, afterburner
bypass, 12.99 @
101 mph!
Stay tuned for Friday's announcement of a lighter, higher voltage, higher
powered White Zombie.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yah parts availability is a real trick with most of those cars listed. I
have had a few of them. I really liked the Honda 360s (totalled 1 in an
accident), Austin Mini (traded it and the guy still drives it)and the Subaru
Vans (2). Had 2, used parts from one to make the second one into a pretty
nice rig. Blew the syncros the first week I had it and had to hand make new
ones. Then it got run over by a Ford 4x4 pickup and that was that. Salvaged
the rack and pinion mechanism before I crushed the remainder. Still have it
laying around somewhere. I understand they made decent EVs, there is a guy
here in Phx that was still driving one last I knew. Still have one he didn't
list, Suzuki J-10. Its still in the Photo album I think. Stripped that out
couple years ago to build into an EV but never found suitable batts or a
motor. Would like to get to it someday. Worlds smallest 2 pass 4X4 EV.
Hopefully with gas bumping 2.50 a gallon and still going up the Excursions
and the like will be dwindling and make it less risky to life and limb to
drive a small efficient vehicle. Even a Bug is risky around here. David
Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Possible gliders from Arcane autos.
> They might be small cars, but it would be tough cramming enough
> batteries in them to get any decent range/power. Plus getting parts
> for them could be a nightmare. Those vehicles are on the edge of
> obsolesce.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For some of us who have not seen the light. For those few of us in NEDRA who
can not understand why a generator on a wheel won't allow you to go
indefinitely without a charge and the others of us who just aren't
intelligent enough to see how much range we can get by adding a windmill to
the front of our car, I give you the latest from Steve Cloud's web site:
Special Note! For some who have limited vision (some EV discussion list
participants) the rules have yet to be published but are in development. To
give some kind of hint - the racing classes will be sensible and will not be
arranged as the ridiculous "voltage classes" that NEDRA has used in Drag
Racing! Some other forms of EV racing have seen this mistake but there are
some die-hard individuals of NEDRA that can't seem to be educated on this
subject. These classes should be arranged as "type of vehicle" and then
"divided by POWER". Voltage is not power. In electric vehicles power is
generated by batteries of given VOLTAGE and CAPACITY (Amp/hours) . Please
see our FAQ's section for more information on this subject.
Some of us in NEDRA are so stupid to not realize that if we had more amp/hrs
on board we would go much quicker and faster. That is why Bill Dube ONLY
went over 150 mph in the quarter mile on 2.4 amp/hrs of batteries. Obviously
not enough amp/hrs to make a respectable run. Two strings of 2 volt 1.2
amp/hr batteries at 312 volts. Voltage had nothing to do with it. We must
listen to this guru if we ever want to make fast cars. Amp hours is king in
drag racing so get out your T-105s and parrallel them. We are just still too
nieve to get it. ;-)
Roderick Wilde
NEDRA President
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Try a Power Outlet Panel (POP) as documented at
http://www.eatonelectrical.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=C-H/Common/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid=983558189481&Sec=products
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Work looking into an EV parking spot. Question on plug type?
> At 03:33 PM 4/12/2005, you wrote:
> >2) The real issue is if they do find out they can give me something but
it
> >will be a new installation what to ask for? Is Avcon still good if it's
> >going to be 220/208 to work with all the code? I think a regular 110
> >outlet is fine but might not be for them is there anything new in the
last
> >couple years for 110 an EVs?
>
> How about just getting the same panel they install in parks for people
with
> Motorhomes?
> Both 240V and 120V outlets with standard jacks.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Some of us in NEDRA are so stupid to not realize that if we had more
amp/hrs on board we would go much quicker and faster. That is why Bill
Dube ONLY went over 150 mph in the quarter mile on 2.4 amp/hrs of
batteries. Obviously not enough amp/hrs to make a respectable run. Two
strings of 2 volt 1.2 amp/hr batteries at 312 volts. Voltage had nothing
to do with it. We must listen to this guru if we ever want to make fast
cars. Amp hours is king in drag racing so get out your T-105s and
parrallel them. We are just still too nieve to get it. ;-)
Actually, the pack was 4 amp/hrs, when we broke 150 mph with the
bike, but we only used about 1.1 amp/hrs on each run.
If we went by battery weight, what class would the Killacycle be
in? When it set the present record, the battery pack weighed 135 pounds.
This would group it one step above the typical Electrathon car. Come on
Steve, load a double set of 24NF flooded batteries in your Electrathon car
and let's go drag race. Sounds fair to me.
In theory, the ideal way to class vehicles would be
power-to-weight ratio. The problem is, how do you simply and fairly
determine power in the tech inspection lane? It can't be done. At least I
have not seen or heard of a way to do it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice......
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 09:06 PM 4/12/2005, you wrote:
Bill Dube wrote:
> ...
Do you have any info on the tantalizing future and possibilities that
AC motors and inverters can offer?
What might the future hold for AC performance EV's?
(tell it in the same way as you did in that excellent post about the
current state of DC)
If you don't mind that is..
Series-wound DC motors are limited by what the commutator can
stand. You also must spin the commutator. There is nothing inherently
different about an AC motor (or a BLDC motor) compared to a DC motor except
the commutation is done electronically.
An AC motor (or BLDC motor) does not have the limitations of the
commutator. Given the motivation and the resources, you can build a much
more powerful AC drive than you can a DC drive of the same weight. This is
because you can go to much higher voltages and spin at higher RPM without
commutation limitations.
Of course, you are talking about a lot more $ per HP.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.powerstream.com/Amps-Watts.htm
Nice little site that explains watts to amps to volts etc.... Explains why
watts aren't amps.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
sounds great to me if you don't miss and over-rev
Seth
On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Jim Seibert wrote:
I've been driving my EV to work for about a week now, and find that if
I have to stop without the luxury of a long coasting approach
(stoplight turns red for example), that I can downshift as I approach
the stop, and get my motor/clutch/flywheel spinning very quickly. I
have to pay attention to my ground speed and gear selection, as I
don't want to over-rev anything, but the point is, when I'm at a dead
stop, my motor is still spinning around 3000 rpm (clutch in at this
point).
If the light turns green, or I otherwise want to start to move, I can
just put the car in 2nd, let out the clutch, and wala, I get a small
boost of stored energy as the flywheel/motor matches the transmission
input shaft speed (zero at the start).
It's not a lot, but it does make the car move, and recovers some of
the energy that would have just been burnt up in brake dust.
This seems to be a more efficient way of driving that just leaving the
clutch engaged as I come to a stop, which forces all rotation to a
stop.
Is there any reason I should not be doing this (aside from a small
amount of clutch wear)?
Thanks, Jim Seibert
1992 Celica.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just a thought...
Considering the limitations on weight and actual power output of lead-acid
batteries, wouldn't capacitors work better for a drag bike. They are much
more efficient at power output and can be recharged much faster than
batteries. The weight difference is not even comparable (apple to orange).
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
>
>Some of us in NEDRA are so stupid to not realize that if we had more
>amp/hrs on board we would go much quicker and faster. That is why Bill
>Dube ONLY went over 150 mph in the quarter mile on 2.4 amp/hrs of
>batteries. Obviously not enough amp/hrs to make a respectable run. Two
>strings of 2 volt 1.2 amp/hr batteries at 312 volts. Voltage had nothing
>to do with it. We must listen to this guru if we ever want to make fast
>cars. Amp hours is king in drag racing so get out your T-105s and
>parrallel them. We are just still too nieve to get it. ;-)
Actually, the pack was 4 amp/hrs, when we broke 150 mph with the
bike, but we only used about 1.1 amp/hrs on each run.
If we went by battery weight, what class would the Killacycle be
in? When it set the present record, the battery pack weighed 135 pounds.
This would group it one step above the typical Electrathon car. Come on
Steve, load a double set of 24NF flooded batteries in your Electrathon car
and let's go drag race. Sounds fair to me.
In theory, the ideal way to class vehicles would be
power-to-weight ratio. The problem is, how do you simply and fairly
determine power in the tech inspection lane? It can't be done. At least I
have not seen or heard of a way to do it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice......
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
> From: "Ryan Stotts"
> Subject: Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
>
>
> > Philip Marino wrote:
> >> All copper cable of the same gauge should be "rated" for the same
current.
> >> Finer stranding will help only at very high (radio) frequencies, but
not at
> >> DC ( or DC chopped at 10's of KHz, like EV controllers do it).
> >>
> >> There are advantages to very finely stranded welding cable, but current
> >> capability, resistance, and heating will be the same as for coarser
stranded
> >> cable of the same gauge.
> >
> > It seems like their table conflicts with that though?
> >
> >
http://www.mcmaster.com/ctlg/DisplCtlgPage.asp?ReqTyp=CATALOG&CtlgPgNbr=3142
> >
>
> I'm confused also... their How to Determine Proper Cable Size states -
"For example, a total
> circuit of 150 ft. at 150 amps would require a 2/0 standard cable or a #2
Vu-Tron cable." The cost
> of standard 2/0 is $2.23/ft and Vu-Tron #2 is $1.86, a difference of
$.37/ft. So for 250 ft there is
> a cost savings of $92.50, wow!
>
> I thought that the formula for ampacity was based on the cross section of
the wire, so if there are
> more strands, that basically means there is less cross sectional area of
the total 'cable' since
> there is less circumference of the individual wires (also more space
wasted because of more
> strands).
>
> Or is that in AC only?
It is not based on cross-section, but on circular mils - I believe that has
to do with the surface area, as stranded wire has a greater circular mils
than solid. This does apply to A/C; I'm not sure about D/C.
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
How did it get registered as a trailer?
I would think that the Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would view it as a
"motored vehicle".
I've heard that here in Maryland, the DMV is vary bureaucratic about new
things. For instance, Sparrow owners have had trouble registering
because the DMV defines a 3 wheeled motorcycle as having two wheels in
the rear.
Has anyone tried this kind of thing in other states or countries?
Mike Shipway
Grannes, Dean wrote:
Folks,
I don't know how many folks saw my previous post, so I'll repost:
My pusher trailer is up for sale. See
http://www.jstraubel.com/EVpusher/EVpusher.htm for more information.
History: This is JB Straubel's original Pusher "version 1". I bought
it from him several years ago, ready to go, for $500. I used it to get
my Rabbit up to Sacramento, and it worked great! On the way back,
though, the engine overheated (I pushed it too hard), and I had it
completely rebuilt (several hundred more bucks). I thought it would be
a worthwhile investment, as I was spending hundreds bringing my car to
various NEDRA races, but my situation changed, and the arrival of a baby
1.5 years ago means the days of long roadtrips to racetracks are over
for a while. I haven't used it much since then, but it is still legally
registered as a trailer in CA.
--
Michael Shipway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3418 Croydon Road
Gwynn Oak, MD 21207
(301) 237-5563
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
"The extreme end of this is to connect your batteries with bare buss
bars. With their large surface area and no insulation to melt or catch
fire, they can be 1/4th the cross-section of an insulated wire. That
makes them 1/4th the weight. The battery terminals will melt before you
reach the melting point of copper."
"If you literally want to optimize things for 1/4 mile performance, use
the smallest wire or buss bar size you can get away with. What you're
doing is trading off voltage to save weight. For instance, a 2%
reduction in vehicle weight for a 1% voltage drop is a "good" deal. But
a 1% weight reduction for a 2% voltage drop is not."
Reading what Lee had written about wire gauges, brought up bus bars, I was
wondering why most people use wire. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to copper bus bars? I am thinking
of using bus bars instead of 2/0 wire, but I think I would like to know the
tradeoffs first. Anybody have some good answers for me?
Thanks,
Brian
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I looked into the specs on the equipment to do this and was very
dissapointed with the efficiencies. What I looked at, was as efficient
at only 1 output as the lowere end of a DC motor. :-(
I just changed a variable volume hydralic pump on a machine and it
weighed 175 lbs and was turned by a 75 HP 1750 rpm motor.
80gpm 2500psi
Maybe it is like forklift motors, and what we will need to make this
work is variable volume pumps that operate at higher rpm's so they can
be lighter.
The acumulators are a lot of steel, great for a fed-ex truck but perhaps
we will need a aluminum accumulator and a low pressure (<1000psi) system.
One last thought, what do you do with the hydraulic oil when not in the
accumulator? put it in a tank So we end up carring 3x system volume;
oil in tank, oil in accumulator, nitrogen charge.
On second thought maybe an air system might not be too bad, the tank is
around us and is an integrated working fluid and accumulator. Thus the
system is lightweight. It is just so darn compressable which actually
causes the problem in the motor/compressor. Whould using a gas that
undergoes a phase change help or hurt this process?
I missed the beggining of this thread, why is this being considered in
place of an electric system?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is not based on cross-section, but on circular mils - I believe that has
to do with the surface area, as stranded wire has a greater circular mils
than solid. This does apply to A/C; I'm not sure about D/C.
No - circular mils has nothing to do with surface area. Circular mils is
just a different unit used to specify the total cross sectional area of the
wire. Here is a definition:
The circular mil is a unit of area used especially when denoting the
cross-sectional size of a wire or cable. It is the equivalent area of a
circle whose diameter is 0.001 (10-3) inch, or approximately 0.7854
millionths of a square inch (or 2.5 x 10-7 times pi).
ANY two cables of the same actual gauge, regardless of the number of
strands, will have the same total cross sectional area, the same number of
circular mils, the same weight of copper per foot of wire, the same DC
resistance per foot, and for EV purposes, the same voltage drop, power loss,
and heat generated (per foot) for a given current ( at the same cable
temperature).
Note that I said ACTUAL gauge. Some less than ethical cable manufactures
label their cable optimistically. An accurate comparison would be to weigh
the cable ( copper only) - two cables of the same gauge should be the same
weight/foot.
Phil Marino
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 4/12/05 8:47:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< A guy here in town also, has a 300ZX with a 350
V8 and a monster turbo setup. It has been extensively lightened to about
2500 lbs. and is
claimed to be dynoed at 850 hp....he runs high 9s >>
If this guy was sticking all his power he should be running mid 9s,I also
would expect a lot of mph from such a car. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is an interesting idea, but it may turn out that most of the energy in
the flywheel is used to heat (and wear ) the clutch during startup.
The problem is the speed difference between the flywheel and the
transmission input as you start the car moving from rest. It's similar to
an electrical impedance mismatch - lots of energy loss, little useful work.
Just guessing (without doing the calculation) I would be surprised if you
recovered more than 10% of the flywheel's energy.
Another possible benefit to doing this would be motor cooling ( assuming
the motor, like an ADC, has an internal cooling fan) . You would get this
extra cooling for free while sitting at a stop light . A cooler motor is a
bit more efficient.
Phil
From: Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: downshift for regen?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:15:50 -0400
sounds great to me if you don't miss and over-rev
Seth
On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Jim Seibert wrote
I've been driving my EV to work for about a week now, and find that
if I have to stop without the luxury of a long coasting approach
(stoplight turns red for example), that I can downshift as I approach the
stop, and get my motor/clutch/flywheel spinning very quickly. I have to
pay attention to my ground speed and gear selection, as I don't want to
over-rev anything, but the point is, when I'm at a dead stop, my motor is
still spinning around 3000 rpm (clutch in at this point).
If the light turns green, or I otherwise want to start to move, I can just
put the car in 2nd, let out the clutch, and wala, I get a small boost of
stored energy as the flywheel/motor matches the transmission input shaft
speed (zero at the start).
It's not a lot, but it does make the car move, and recovers some of the
energy that would have just been burnt up in brake dust.
This seems to be a more efficient way of driving that just leaving the
clutch engaged as I come to a stop, which forces all rotation to a stop.
Is there any reason I should not be doing this (aside from a small amount
of clutch wear)?
Thanks, Jim Seibert
1992 Celica.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I remember seeing rich using a meter to optimize the timeing on the
motors for gone postal in the video. T think I even understand how the
armature reaction pulls the field around movint the neutral point.
I want to know how to do this with a meter, rich, rod, otmar, lee...?
Is there a procedure listed someplace?
I take it "advanced" is brushes moved after the neutral position when
looking at the rotation, just the opposite of "advanced" timing in an ICE.
( Convention : Forward=normal=counteclockwise as viewed into motor drive
end. (clockwise looking at brushes)
(
( So looking at brush end of motor or into tranny, brush rigging is
rotated clockwise to advance
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David C. Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In Mark Hanson's piece on EVS21, Electronova?
> > claims $300/kw LiPoly? batts!! I'm going to call them
>
> I have yet to hear back from them -- I sent an email.
We have contact!
$300/kwh will NOT be available for 33kwh demand sizes. Not a
surprise at all.
He's back in the office next Monday, and I'll try to get more then.
-Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I'm new on the list and this is my first post. I'm putting together an
EV out of a '94 Ford Ranger. Would it be better to retain the massive
flywheel for such applications as the 'regen' or cooling, or lighten it
for better acceleration/efficiency? Does anyone have any experience
with turning down a flywheel?
Thanks,
-Matt Holthausen
On Apr 13, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Philip Marino wrote:
This is an interesting idea, but it may turn out that most of the
energy in the flywheel is used to heat (and wear ) the clutch during
startup.
The problem is the speed difference between the flywheel and the
transmission input as you start the car moving from rest. It's
similar to an electrical impedance mismatch - lots of energy loss,
little useful work.
Just guessing (without doing the calculation) I would be surprised if
you recovered more than 10% of the flywheel's energy.
Another possible benefit to doing this would be motor cooling (
assuming the motor, like an ADC, has an internal cooling fan) . You
would get this extra cooling for free while sitting at a stop light .
A cooler motor is a bit more efficient.
Phil
From: Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: downshift for regen?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:15:50 -0400
sounds great to me if you don't miss and over-rev
Seth
On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Jim Seibert wrote
I've been driving my EV to work for about a week now, and find that
if I have to stop without the luxury of a long coasting approach
(stoplight turns red for example), that I can downshift as I
approach the stop, and get my motor/clutch/flywheel spinning very
quickly. I have to pay attention to my ground speed and gear
selection, as I don't want to over-rev anything, but the point is,
when I'm at a dead stop, my motor is still spinning around 3000 rpm
(clutch in at this point).
If the light turns green, or I otherwise want to start to move, I
can just put the car in 2nd, let out the clutch, and wala, I get a
small boost of stored energy as the flywheel/motor matches the
transmission input shaft speed (zero at the start).
It's not a lot, but it does make the car move, and recovers some of
the energy that would have just been burnt up in brake dust.
This seems to be a more efficient way of driving that just leaving
the clutch engaged as I come to a stop, which forces all rotation to
a stop.
Is there any reason I should not be doing this (aside from a small
amount of clutch wear)?
Thanks, Jim Seibert
1992 Celica.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Randy Holmquist wrote:
> Don't do it!
>
> We converted a Geo Metro with a 192 volt / 9" motor with direct drive
> and it worked very well. Lots of fun but any heavier vehicle and this
> setup would be a DOG!
>
> We also converted a 1989 Dakota with an automatic tranny, 10" Kostov
> and a DCP controller @ 144 volts. The Dakota ended up a little under
> 5000lbs. Not enough power to pull that much weight around even with
> a trany, luckily it was just an "on site" vehicle at a university
> and didn't have to compete in regular traffic.
Randy, what were the gear ratios and top speeds for these vehicles?
Also, what was the controller's current limit?? I'm wondering if the
problem was that the maximum motor torque (controller current limit) was
too low for the gear ratio and vehicle's weight.
> Sell the Dak and build an S-10, it will give you 40-50 mile range,
> I don't think the Dak will.
I agree; it is a rather heavy inefficient vehicle. A 40-50 mile range is
going to take a *lot* of batteries.
> It does not take a little more power to go direct drive; it takes a
> S--- load more power in a heavier vehicle if you want hiway speeds.
It is not "power" per se; having a transmission does not change the
horsepower of the system. It just changes the torque-speed at which the
horsepower is produced.
Assume that your vehicle has a 4-speed transmission as an ICE. As an EV,
a "normal" motor and controller will only need 2nd and 3rd gear. The
electric motor produces so much torque that 1st is unnecessary (the
wheels would spin on dry pavement before the maximum motor torque is
reached). And 4th is unnecessary because the electric motor has such ha
high upper rpm limit.
Now, the difference between 2nd and 3rd gear is probably around 2/3. For
instance let's say you have a 3:1 differential, 2nd gear is 2:1, and 3rd
gear is 1.5:1 (overall ratios 6:1 in 2nd and 4.5:1 in 3rd). So if you
increase motor torque by 50%, you can run in 3rd gear all the time. If
you can get a 4.5:1 differential, you can eliminate the transmission
entirely, and connect the motor directly to the differential.
50% more motor is going to make it 50% heavier; but that's probably less
weight and cost increase than if you had to add a transmission.
Likewise, a 50% increase in controller motor current adds at lest 50% to
its cost. This probably pushes you out of a Curtis controller and into a
DCP or Zilla. Of course, you could also use two motors and two
controllers, and have more than enough torque to run with a single range
-- but now you are more expensive and heavier than if you used a
transmsission.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
> 300 volts x 2000 amps = 600,000 watts / 1000(thousand what?) = 600 kw
Divide by 1000 to convert watts to kilowatts.
> 600 hp... Nice! Very nice...
That's the peak power that the batteries (might) be capable of
delivering. It doesn't say that the motor can stand this much power.
> 9" or 13" motor though? How is that decided? (money notwithstanding..)
You get the motor curves. They will tell you how much torque it can
produce per amp, and what rpm it can reach per volt. (Ok, they won't
show data at 2000 amps and 300 volts for a motor rated at 200 amps and
120 volts; you're going to have to extrapolate).
You decide how much torque you need at the wheels to get the
accelleration and hill-climbing rate you want. The ratio of the torque
needed divided by the torque available tells you the gear ratio
required.
If this gear ratio would not allow you to reach the top speed needed,
then you need a transmission.
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >Some of us in NEDRA are so stupid to not realize that if we had more
> >amp/hrs on board we would go much quicker and faster. That is why Bill
> >Dube ONLY went over 150 mph in the quarter mile on 2.4 amp/hrs of
> >batteries. Obviously not enough amp/hrs to make a respectable run. Two
> >strings of 2 volt 1.2 amp/hr batteries at 312 volts. Voltage had nothing
> >to do with it. We must listen to this guru if we ever want to make fast
> >cars. Amp hours is king in drag racing so get out your T-105s and
> >parrallel them. We are just still too nieve to get it. ;-)
>
> Actually, the pack was 4 amp/hrs, when we broke 150 mph with the
> bike, but we only used about 1.1 amp/hrs on each run.
>
> If we went by battery weight, what class would the Killacycle be
> in? When it set the present record, the battery pack weighed 135 pounds.
> This would group it one step above the typical Electrathon car. Come on
> Steve, load a double set of 24NF flooded batteries in your Electrathon car
> and let's go drag race. Sounds fair to me.
>
> In theory, the ideal way to class vehicles would be
> power-to-weight ratio. The problem is, how do you simply and fairly
> determine power in the tech inspection lane? It can't be done. At least I
> have not seen or heard of a way to do it.
On our kid's BEST cars, we require a circuit breaker that we supply on
the battery. The battery voltage is also specified (12v). With the
voltage and current both limited, the power is limited. Thus, everyone
has the same power. We don't care how many or what type of motors,
batteries or controllers are used. The challenge for the students is to
find out what setup will have the best performance. One 12v battery, two
6v in series, or two 12v in parallel? One big motor, or several little
ones? Contactor or electronic controller? Fixed gearing or shiftable
transmissions? We don't care!
This works pretty good for the kids. We just depend on a "12 volt"
battery not delivering (much) more voltage, and a "20amp" circuit
breaker not delivering more than 40 amps for more than a few seconds.
They don't have the money to get unobtainium supermotors. Very easy to
inspect. We've only had once instance where a parent wired a car so some
things were not powered thru our required circuit breaker.
It would be harder for adults. You'd need a "black box" for each car
that literally measured voltage and current, and 'tripped' if you
exceeded the power level allowed for your class. When he gets back to
the pits, they'd look to see if the Red Light is on; if so, he went over
the power level.
Then you could have Power classes -- under 1kw, 1-10kw, 10-100kw, etc.
You could run the same car in different classes, if the driver could set
his controller or run his throttle so as to keep from tripping the black
box.
You'd need a pile of these black boxes at the track, and get people to
agree to a standard connector to plug it into a car.
All in all, possible -- but VERY hard to implement. Not from a technical
standpoint; that's fairly easy. From a human/political standpoint!
--
Ring the bells that you can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
-- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Apr 12, 2005, at 6:31 PM, jerry dycus wrote:
An water cooled motorcycle engine of 250cc or so
and drive a 8" ADC, ect with shunt fields for the gen
would be fairly light, simple and powerful.
I'm very curious about this. I have a lot to learn regarding
generators/alternators, and I plan to make one integral to my vehicle.
Can anyone point me in the right direction to learn about generators
with shunt fields? Where can one find an ADC wound like this?
Thanks,
-Matt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
"The extreme end of this is to connect your batteries with bare buss
bars. With their large surface area and no insulation to melt or catch
fire, they can be 1/4th the cross-section of an insulated wire. That
makes them 1/4th the weight. The battery terminals will melt before
you
reach the melting point of copper."
How much power are you losing heating the bus bars up to the melting
point of lead? Seems like it would not be an optimum setup.
Patrick
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
James D Thompson wrote:
>Hmmmm. Who makes/made this sub-1000 pound production car
>body that can
>put 600hp down on the pavement without tearing itself
>apart trying to do
>so?
No one I know of. You could do such with some sort of small
British sports car or a kit car, but would take extensive
modifications. Rod came very close to this goal with his
modified RX7, which is quite a big car in my opinion. Not
out of the realm of possibility to do this to say, a Lotus
or a Datsun.
With very deep pockets, the Ultima GTR looks like a good
candidate.
My Triumph has a 1,793 pound dry weight. Removing the
engine, gas tank, ect. would cut 500 pounds off its weight,
with the published engine weight alone being 402 pounds. The
seats in this thing could be replaced with Miata seats
shaving another 50 pounds of weight, along with removing
sound deadener, crapets, ect. Then there is replacing the
bumpers with lighter models of themselves to shave another
30 pounds, along with other small things that can be cut
from the car. 1,200 or less pound glider weight possible
when all is said and done, before even going to fiberglass
body parts and lexan windows, or drilling holes in the
unibody where the steel is not needed in order to shave dead
weight off. Certainly won't handle 600 horsepower, UNLESS it
had some modifications, but again, looking at Wilde's RX7,
it appears possible. Like the Triumph GT6 or Spitfire, the
RX7 is a unibody.
Lots of potential candidates...
>And you need about 4000 pounds of Kokam li-polys to
>produce a megawatt
>of peak power burst.
Megawatt? I'm just looking for about 600 kW of peak battery
power. That's what would get the 600 rwh with an efficient
direct drive setup.
Although if a Megawatt was desired, according to Kokam's
published specs of 1220 W/kg for its 40 ah cells, you'd need
1800 pounds of batteries for 1 MW peak power, not 4,000
pounds. Still a lot of batteries, but this doesn't count all
the ancillary components that would go with the batteries,
and with the biggest fallacy being that this is entirely
relying on conjecture and manufacturer's specs could all be
hype(Doesn't appear so, looking at the Electric IMP and its
performance).
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is funny, with money no object assumption no one considered
AC drive(s). I suppose this was an entertaining question only
for racing heads then....
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
Lee Hart wrote:
James D Thompson wrote:
If money were no object (Loottery, rich Uncle died, Government grant) what
kind of EV would you build? What batteries, controller, motor(s), and why?
I'd build Rick Woodbury's second-generation Tango, which he calls the
"Foxtrot". This is to be a commuter version of the Tango, lower
performance but 1/2 to 1/4 the price. The key is to build the first one;
thereafter, it's much easier to build more!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:17:51 -0400, James D Thompson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If money were no object (Loottery, rich Uncle died, Government grant) what
>>kind of EV would you build? What batteries, controller, motor(s), and why?
>
> I'd build an R32 Skyline GTS4 sedan (money is no object, so I can afford
>the several million to get it federalized) into an AC-motored AWD
>superbeast to scare Wayland at the track, then add a tow hitch and
>connectors for a 25kw diesel genset trailer for daily driving.
Hey, you were doing great, one of the only posts in this series that
demonstrated innovative thinking, until the last line. A diesel with
a "cost is no object" car? Nyet! A microturbine, preferably small
enough to be onboard the car, would fit this cost and performance
model much better :-) I'd probably also want a flywheel battery or
two for regen absorption and acceleration power dumps.
I'd further expand on your description to include high powered hub
motors (or maybe mounted inboard and connected to the wheel via short
jackshafts like the brakes on some formula cars) to eliminate the
drivetrain. If technology would allow, superconducting motors, the
major technological problem being a self-contained refrigeration
system.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
