EV Digest 4276
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by John Lussmyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Registering a pusher? was Re: ICE pusher trailer for sale
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity (correction)
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: article: Jay Leno to own America's First Lithium iCeL (TM)Powered
"R-Car"
by "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: adapters? / direct drive
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9) Re: Dave Cloud vs "White Zombie"
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: EVS-21 Report
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Coasting
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Coasting
by "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Low voltage 3-ph sinusoidal inverter
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Battpros
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Flywheel Weight (was: Re: downshift for regen?)
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EVS-21 Report
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 4/13/05 8:51:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Steve Cloud vs NEDRA Stupidity
Date: 4/13/05 8:51:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hart)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
[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! >>
I like the idea Lee,its kinda like the 90% nitro rule, after most every top
fuel run NHRA measures the fuel tank mix.Now fewer of the nitro teams blow
motors,less track downtime and the playing field is FAIR. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 09:30 AM 4/13/2005, you wrote:
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....
I was under the impression that none of the existing AC drives had the
power equivalent of, say, dual 11" DC motors.
If they DO, then I would like AC!
In the real-world though, I'm still somewhat price-conscious. As far as I
can tell, AC - for the same drive power - seems to be considerably more
expensive.
I'd be very interested in seeing a comparison of equivalent systems costs.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:27:12 -0400, Michael Shipway
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
Here in TN and in Ga, the process is simplicity itself. Simply apply
for a home-built trailer tag. You get the tag on the spot. In a
couple of weeks you get a metal tag in the mail with a state-issued
serial number. You permanently affix the tag (I use pop rivets) to
the tongue. That's all there is to it.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roderick Wilde (Steve Clouds) wrote:
...
> 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.
Let me correct a guru :-) Voltage (V) and Capacity (Ah) is NOT power
either yet. Classic example - thunder-sky LiIon cells
with high internal resistance.
You can stack them up to any voltage and they have giant capacities -
up to 1,600Ah cells are made. Yet, the power is very average - as soon
as you load them the voltage sags. It is adequate for normal driving
as it sags to a predictable point and sits there for hours giving you
range, but unacceptable for power demanding application like drag racing.
Put 100 Ohm resistor in series with your best battery.
Voltage is still there, Ah still there but the power is not even
enough to get your vehicle moving - just 2A load will cause 200V
battery+resistor "sag" to zero volts.
To illustrate misconception of equating Voltage and Ah to power take
a fuel cell as a source. Voltage is as much as you want, Ah is unlimited
(how large is your fuel tank?), yet pitiful power.
POWER of the battery times how many batteries minus losses gives you
total power for the vehicle. Plain and simple.
Energy of the battery gives you range and mathematically has NOTHING
to do with power. It just happens that real battery possessing more
power naturally possess more energy too, thus the possible confusion.
With great respect to Steve,
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:31:27 -0700, Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On our kid's BEST cars, we require a circuit breaker that we supply on
>the battery. The battery voltage is also specified (12v).
...
>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.
Tattletales won't work here for the same reason they don't work with
conventional racing - the advantage goes to the team that best
characterizes and works around the black box. That's why the major
sanctioning bodies that control "spec class" racing issue the actual
power limiters to the racers. Waste gates for Indy Cars. Whole
engines for other classes.
The EV equivalent would be to issue a standard spec controller to each
contestant. The controller would be made by one or more companies to
a rigid and open specification. Competitors could buy their own
controllers but for the actual racing, randomly selected and sealed
controllers would be issued by the sanctioning body for each race.
Such a system would be suitable for the higher end classes but for
run-of-the-mill grassroots racing, a much simpler formula will work.
No need to reinvent the wheel. NHRA has this pretty much sorted out
with their bracket racing classes based on ET. Break it up into one
second classes. 15 to 14, 14 to 13 seconds, etc.
I think one would want to avoid the major mistake NHRA made in
allowing timers, throttle stops and other automated controls. It's
boring, boring, boring to see almost everyone in a bracket bumping up
within a hundredth of a second of the breakout time. Ban any kind of
traction or throttle control other than the left foot (or finger or
whatever). Controllers must either be "dumb" (simple electronic or
contactor) or if there is a microprocessor, the code must be published
and audited to ensure it does nothing other than translate the
throttle pot input into output current with no non-linearities or
feedback.
This addresses the age-old question of whether a race should be won by
pocketbook or by skills.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What amazes me is that a smart, savvy guy like Jay Leno (who is as
knowledgeable about cars and the custom car business as anyone) could fall
for one of the (many) scams of such a notorious con artist like Chaz Haba.
Charles
<< hmmm, the crossfire isn't a huge car but I don't think
25 kW will get it to 100 mph (unless maybe it is
dropped from a plane).
Also, I assume when they say "168 Volts, 56 amps" they
mean 56 amp-hours ?
if they mean amps, then rather than 25 kW, they are
talking about 9.4 kW.
if they mean amp-hours, then they have 9408 watt-hours
on board. To get 100 miles range they are talkign
about 94 watt-hrs per mile (@100 mph). That would be
very impressive. that sounds more like a 1 person
solar endurance car than a crossfire conversion.
color me skeptical. also, doesn't whistler investments
set off alarm bells for some ?
~fortunat >>
Between Whistler and that "forward-looking statement" at the end, it's
just more
PR BS. Maybe they'll make one, but I also doubt they'll get those specs.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Kilowatt wrote:
> the 90% nitro rule, after most every top
> fuel run NHRA measures the fuel tank mix.Now fewer of the nitro teams blow
> motors,less track downtime and the playing field is FAIR.
I think the rules in Top Fuel are too restrictive and limit and
prevent any technological advances from taking a place.
Aren't the rules something like: Motor must be no more then 500 cu in,
car must not weigh less then ___, wing must be like this, wheel base
maybe no more then __, tires used must be ___ , must run old fashion
roots blower, etc, etc, etc.
I'd like to have an unlimited Top Fuel class. Run what ya brung..
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you are going to consider the extra expense of additional
motor/controller combination or even added batteries, how about this for an
option... keep the old ICE and turn it into a generator for the necessary
high speed or long distance running and use the direct drive motor for
in-and-around driving? Move the motor back between the frame rails and
connect directly to the drive shaft. Disconnect the transmission on the ICE
and use the front pulley as a drive sprocket on a small (4 cyl) ICE to run a
ADC 8" set up to be a generator instead of drive motor. Would that provide
the extra kick necessary to get up to highway speed and run for longer
distance at a very low almost idle rpm geared up to maybe 4000 at the
generator?
I know it sounds complicated but is it possible/realistic?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: adapters? / direct drive
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 ---
John Lussmyer wrote:
At 09:30 AM 4/13/2005, you wrote:
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....
I was under the impression that none of the existing AC drives had the
power equivalent of, say, dual 11" DC motors.
If they DO, then I would like AC!
Of course they do. THe fact is you can get AC motors for any power,
just like DC ones. Look at those for driving ships...
In the real-world though, I'm still somewhat price-conscious. As far as
I can tell, AC - for the same drive power - seems to be considerably
more expensive.
Assumption of this rhetorical discussion was money no object.
I'd be very interested in seeing a comparison of equivalent systems costs.
Any electronic commutator will always be more expensive than mechanical
one. So by removing commutation from the motor and implementing it
in the controller you always will make AC motor cheaper and controller
more expensive. Motor can get cheaper 5% (cost of commutator parts), but
the electronic one - 20% more expensive (IGBTs, software, etc).
So compariing raw power at some RPM per dollar will always make AC
systems look worse. It is only when you consider other characteristics
of AC setup which come "for free" (regen, 10k-15k RPM, easily
reversible), they may appeal "better" but you can't assign a dollar
sign for these "conveniences" because their relevance (and so value)
depends on the user and isn't always technical issue.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Joe Strubhar"
Subject: Re: Wire Gauge questions - current vs stranding
>
> 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
Joseph,
I understand what your are saying, that it is not the traditional 'cross-
sectional' area that we are used to deal with... but in any case it is a
cross-sectional area based on a 'round inch'.
Here is a definition of circular mil
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci778491,00.html
Rush
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, I just returned from a Motorola RF Zigbee seminar in DC I went to after
Monaco. Those Lithium Polymer batteries are still pricey but coming down it
appears. I don't have any further specific info on Rasertech. I should
have mentioned to check out.www.visforvoltage.com for past and present EV
articles.
Have a nice day,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "David C. Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Hanson" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: EVS-21 Report
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, this should be online in Voltage magazine with photos soon.
>
> Mark -- thanks for this, wish I coulda been there.
> Any info on Rasertech's demo motor? I'm a bit more than
> skeptical about that whole company, but would appreciate any info.
>
> Also:
> >He said they are ready to be installed in vehicles and are a prime
> >contractor with NASA and Microsoft for laptops. I looked at putting
> >some of these in my EV, and they will cost 4x my lead acid's, quite
> >a bit less than last year. (See further explanation in his
> >presentation below).
>
> In production quantity, they're assuming the cost of the batteries
> go down by a factor of ten. I wonder what quantity that is?
> Right now, their 160wh battery, which is the largest I see on their
> website, costs $450, so figure about $3k per kwh. Ouch.
> I see no charge rates documented, either.
>
> The battery design may have a 220wh/kg cell, but the 160wh battery
> they're selling is a little over a kg....
>
> Anyway, I have an email out, we'll see if I get a response.
>
> -Dave
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They passed a law in Virginia making it illegal to coast. I heard it was
also on the books in CO when I lived there (someone I knew got a traffic
ticket when admitting he was coasting). How do they inforce this? Why
would such a silly thing be a no-no? I thought all auto tranny's are
coasting anyway when you take your foot off the peddle.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Compressed air for regen
> Where did you get the idea that pneumatic systems were efficient? I'm
> sitting here trying to think up a system with lower efficiency than
> pneumatics, and quite frankly I'm stumped.
> I'm thinking Pneumatic energy storage tops out at about 20%, 25% tops.
> And that's if you use the energy fairly quickly. If you wait to long, the
> air will cool off and you'll loose even more energy
>
> Secondly, your idea to go into regen as soon as you take your foot of the
> gas is NOT a good idea for efficiency.
>
> Unless you are in stop and go traffic, the amount of energy you can
> recover through regen is pretty small. You will save FAR more energy
> coasting. Smart EVers will watch traffic lights way down the road and
> coast for up to a mile if they estimate it's neccesary. Coasting down
> slight declines is also an big energy saver.
>
> Most regen systems gain you little if any extra range. The main benifit
> of regen is the enhanced braking.
>
> Regen can help extend range with certain driving styles. For example if
> you are racing, you generally want to carry as much speed for as long as
> possible and then brake hard before corners. Braking hard represents a
> lot of energy, regen can recover a significant portion of this (perhaps
> 50% of this wasted energy). That might extend your racing range 2-3%.
> However, for normal driving, coasting to stops can gain you even more
> range. Every mile you coast is a mile of extra range, free.
>
> Regen can only recover a portion of the energy used to accelerate the
> vehicle (or climb a hill). The energy used to overcome losses; i.e.
> aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, friction, motor/controller losses;
> is all gone. You can't recover any of it, and these losses are the
> predominate energy expendeture while driving. Maintaining 50 mph on flat
> ground typically uses 10kw to 15kw (power). That's ~ 260 wh(energy) every
> mile, poof gone. You can't recover it.
>
> To accelerate a 4000lb vehicle from 0 mph to 50 mph, in say 20 seconds,
> takes approx 22.5 kw (power) or 125 wh. That's energy at the wheels,
> from your batteries it would be about 167 wh to overcome drivetrain/motor
> losses. A good EV regen system can recover 40-50% of this.
> So if you go from zero to 50 mph, drive for 2 miles and then regen to a
> stop, you spend 125 wh + 2* 260wh =~ 645 wh and you get back perhaps 55
> wh during regen for a total expenditure of 590 wh. If instead of regen,
> you coasted the last mile, you'd only spend 385wh.
>
> Your system, as described, would probably end up with less range than
> without it. I'm guessing that the freewheeling air motor will use more
> energy freewheeling than it will gain you in regen. Not to mention
> lugging around the extra weight and loosing the storage space.
>
> P.s. I may have scrwed up the math, if so I'm sure someone will correct
it.
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > The idea was to use a 10-20 hp motor/pump attached to the drivetrain,
> > using solenoid driven pneumatic valves (or servo-driven pneumatic valves
> > for variable pressure) triggered by throttle and brake inputs.
> >
> > If you set it up so that when your foot comes off the accelerator the
> > motor goes into braking mode, you've got regenerative braking. Vice
> > versa, when you step on the accelerator, it augments the motor. Leave
> > the brakes conventional for convenience and safety's sake. When the
> > tank goes empty, have a pressure sensor put the air motor into
> > free-wheel mode (until your foot comes off the pedal). Seems to me this
> > would work for gas or electric, and may actually be safer, as there
> > would be a more immediate deceleration when taking your foot off the
> > pedal. Pneumatics won't store that much energy, but IMO you don't need
> > huge regenerative braking capability unless you're a tractor-trailer
> > driver that goes through the mountains a lot.
> >
> > Realistically, cost/benefit will prevent doing this, as I estimate
> > ~$1000 for parts plus time spent installing (months at least). I spend
> > about that per year on fuel, and it at best would save 30% - so it would
> > be at least 6 years before I got the investment back, counting in the
> > time spent (unless gas gets up to around $4.00 a gallon... But by then
> > I'll have done an EV conversion...).
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > David Chapman wrote:
> >
> >> Cool, i have a couple of nice HP cylinders I have been trying to sell,
> >> lol. Can you share how you propose to do the energy transfer in and
> >> out of the air system?
> >>
> >> David Chapman
> >> Arizona Electropulsion / Fine-Junque
> >> http://stores.ebay.com/theworldoffinejunque
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Narby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:18 PM
> >> Subject: Compressed air for regen
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> I've been batting around various regenerative braking ideas, and
> >>> finally came to the conclusion that a compressed air braking/motor
> >>> system is probably the most efficient.
> >>>
> >>> I did a search and found someone patented this in 1998 - even went so
> >>> far as to include chemistry in the holding tanks to increase
> >>> efficiency (salts that go into solution to absorb heat energy from
> >>> compression, then release it when pressure drops, thus extending the
> >>> range of the air charge). Doesn't mean you couldn't make and use one
> >>> for yourself, though.
> >>>
> >>> The nice thing about a compressed air tank is that you can "recharge"
> >>> it practically infinitely, and it holds considerable energy. It also
> >>> allows simpler electric drive motors. The real question is energy
> >>> density - do compressed air tanks offer better total energy storage
> >>> than batteries? Anybody puzzled this one out?
> >>>
> >>> I realize this is a bit OT, but compressed air regen could at least
> >>> supplement an EV (if it doesn't turn out to actually be superior - I
> >>> know there is an inventor in India(?) who is trying to get a
> >>> compressed air car to market.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It has been illegal here for years. It's supposedly a safety issue -
they want you to be able to apply power at any time as needed to control
the vehicle. Automatic transmissions are still in gear and able to
apply power unless the driver has shifted to neutral.
Patrick
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/13/05 11:08:47 AM >>>
They passed a law in Virginia making it illegal to coast. I heard it
was
also on the books in CO when I lived there (someone I knew got a
traffic
ticket when admitting he was coasting). How do they inforce this?
Why
would such a silly thing be a no-no? I thought all auto tranny's are
coasting anyway when you take your foot off the peddle.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Compressed air for regen
> Where did you get the idea that pneumatic systems were efficient?
I'm
> sitting here trying to think up a system with lower efficiency than
> pneumatics, and quite frankly I'm stumped.
> I'm thinking Pneumatic energy storage tops out at about 20%, 25%
tops.
> And that's if you use the energy fairly quickly. If you wait to
long, the
> air will cool off and you'll loose even more energy
>
> Secondly, your idea to go into regen as soon as you take your foot of
the
> gas is NOT a good idea for efficiency.
>
> Unless you are in stop and go traffic, the amount of energy you can
> recover through regen is pretty small. You will save FAR more
energy
> coasting. Smart EVers will watch traffic lights way down the road
and
> coast for up to a mile if they estimate it's neccesary. Coasting
down
> slight declines is also an big energy saver.
>
> Most regen systems gain you little if any extra range. The main
benifit
> of regen is the enhanced braking.
>
> Regen can help extend range with certain driving styles. For example
if
> you are racing, you generally want to carry as much speed for as long
as
> possible and then brake hard before corners. Braking hard represents
a
> lot of energy, regen can recover a significant portion of this
(perhaps
> 50% of this wasted energy). That might extend your racing range
2-3%.
> However, for normal driving, coasting to stops can gain you even
more
> range. Every mile you coast is a mile of extra range, free.
>
> Regen can only recover a portion of the energy used to accelerate
the
> vehicle (or climb a hill). The energy used to overcome losses; i.e.
> aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, friction, motor/controller
losses;
> is all gone. You can't recover any of it, and these losses are the
> predominate energy expendeture while driving. Maintaining 50 mph on
flat
> ground typically uses 10kw to 15kw (power). That's ~ 260 wh(energy)
every
> mile, poof gone. You can't recover it.
>
> To accelerate a 4000lb vehicle from 0 mph to 50 mph, in say 20
seconds,
> takes approx 22.5 kw (power) or 125 wh. That's energy at the
wheels,
> from your batteries it would be about 167 wh to overcome
drivetrain/motor
> losses. A good EV regen system can recover 40-50% of this.
> So if you go from zero to 50 mph, drive for 2 miles and then regen to
a
> stop, you spend 125 wh + 2* 260wh =~ 645 wh and you get back perhaps
55
> wh during regen for a total expenditure of 590 wh. If instead of
regen,
> you coasted the last mile, you'd only spend 385wh.
>
> Your system, as described, would probably end up with less range
than
> without it. I'm guessing that the freewheeling air motor will use
more
> energy freewheeling than it will gain you in regen. Not to mention
> lugging around the extra weight and loosing the storage space.
>
> P.s. I may have scrwed up the math, if so I'm sure someone will
correct
it.
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > The idea was to use a 10-20 hp motor/pump attached to the
drivetrain,
> > using solenoid driven pneumatic valves (or servo-driven pneumatic
valves
> > for variable pressure) triggered by throttle and brake inputs.
> >
> > If you set it up so that when your foot comes off the accelerator
the
> > motor goes into braking mode, you've got regenerative braking.
Vice
> > versa, when you step on the accelerator, it augments the motor.
Leave
> > the brakes conventional for convenience and safety's sake. When
the
> > tank goes empty, have a pressure sensor put the air motor into
> > free-wheel mode (until your foot comes off the pedal). Seems to me
this
> > would work for gas or electric, and may actually be safer, as
there
> > would be a more immediate deceleration when taking your foot off
the
> > pedal. Pneumatics won't store that much energy, but IMO you don't
need
> > huge regenerative braking capability unless you're a
tractor-trailer
> > driver that goes through the mountains a lot.
> >
> > Realistically, cost/benefit will prevent doing this, as I estimate
> > ~$1000 for parts plus time spent installing (months at least). I
spend
> > about that per year on fuel, and it at best would save 30% - so it
would
> > be at least 6 years before I got the investment back, counting in
the
> > time spent (unless gas gets up to around $4.00 a gallon... But by
then
> > I'll have done an EV conversion...).
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > David Chapman wrote:
> >
> >> Cool, i have a couple of nice HP cylinders I have been trying to
sell,
> >> lol. Can you share how you propose to do the energy transfer in
and
> >> out of the air system?
> >>
> >> David Chapman
> >> Arizona Electropulsion / Fine-Junque
> >> http://stores.ebay.com/theworldoffinejunque
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Narby"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:18 PM
> >> Subject: Compressed air for regen
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> I've been batting around various regenerative braking ideas, and
> >>> finally came to the conclusion that a compressed air
braking/motor
> >>> system is probably the most efficient.
> >>>
> >>> I did a search and found someone patented this in 1998 - even
went so
> >>> far as to include chemistry in the holding tanks to increase
> >>> efficiency (salts that go into solution to absorb heat energy
from
> >>> compression, then release it when pressure drops, thus extending
the
> >>> range of the air charge). Doesn't mean you couldn't make and use
one
> >>> for yourself, though.
> >>>
> >>> The nice thing about a compressed air tank is that you can
"recharge"
> >>> it practically infinitely, and it holds considerable energy. It
also
> >>> allows simpler electric drive motors. The real question is
energy
> >>> density - do compressed air tanks offer better total energy
storage
> >>> than batteries? Anybody puzzled this one out?
> >>>
> >>> I realize this is a bit OT, but compressed air regen could at
least
> >>> supplement an EV (if it doesn't turn out to actually be superior
- I
> >>> know there is an inventor in India(?) who is trying to get a
> >>> compressed air car to market.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I design 3-phase trapezoidal inverters for BLDC
motors, but I'm not aware of anybody that makes
'sinusoidal'
low voltage inverters (I'm talking 12-24Vdc).
Anybody have a link?
I can make mine run an induction motor if I just had
time to write the software, but I need a control now
for a customer.
Thanks,
Rod
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, I made them for Roderick a few moons ago in 96'. It's just a
transistor - zener clamp that's adjustable within a range of 12 - 15V and
has a Raychem PTC so if it clamps more than two amps for more than a minute
or gets too toasty, it opens to protect itself. The heat is sinked into the
positive battery terminal to make it cheap. It's made primarily for sealed
batteries in low current final taper mode.
Mark www.solectrol.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael bearden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:17 PM
Subject: Battpros
> Can anybody remind me how the Battpros are supposed to work? Or be set
> up and adjusted?
> I am running a little low on Rudman Regs right now...and I REALLY want
> to be driving my new-to-me EV!
> Michael B.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Come to think about it, did not Ford way back in the 60's or to 80's built a
flywheel car? I read it in a Popular Science Mag. They used a electric motor
which you can plug in at home to run the flywheel up to speed which was mounted
in a horizontal plane to the car.
The flywheel had a thick center and ran out to a thin taper edge, which had a
better efficiency than a flywheel that was built light spokes of a wheel with a
thick edge.
The car ran on two wheels with two out riggers that would fold up after the
flywheel was up to speed which balances the car.
The car could run for 15 minutes on flywheel power. If you park it and the
flywheel would spin down to a certain speed, than the outriggers would come
down.
I don't remember, but I think there was a onboard motor of some type to spin
the flywheel back up to speed.
If this works, than why not have a large balance flywheel system ran by the
onboard electric motor to assist the EV on hills or extend the range.
I notice with my EV which has a very large heavy flywheel which is about 2
inches thick on the edge has a long run down time when I let up on the
accelerator. A lot longer time than a ICE.
When I come home from work going down a steep 2 mile hill, I enter the highway
at the exit at 35 mph and I gain speed up to 80 mph's at times. This speed
than propels me another 2 miles to the next exit of which I am still doing 45
miles per hour. Going through that exit slows me down to 35 mph which is a
slight up hill and than another down hill for another mile and than turning on
my street to my house and go right into my garage without any added power all
the way back for 5 miles!!!
When I went to work, I go a different route which is more flat with a slight
down hill grade before it started up the hill. Before the EV would go up the
hill, I would get it up to 60 mphs on the slight down hill so it would propel
me up the hill where it would slow me down to 35 mph as I just begin to enter
the next exit.
I find when I have to stop at a light about 3 to 4 blocks ahead of me, I can
let up on the accelerator at that time allowing the EV to coast down for that
distance.
On my next mod. I was thinking of removing the flywheel, pressure plate and
flywheel. No, what I may do is install a larger thicker flywheel center with a
taper edge, which is suppose to be more efficient and see what's happens.
Roland
-----
-----
Original Message -----
From: Matt Holthausen<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: Flywheel Weight (was: Re: downshift for regen?)
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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>> Reply-To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[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/<http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> "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.
>
Damn! And all these years I thought V * AH = Energy. Now I've got to go
update all my spreadsheets.
FWIW Classifying vehicles by onboard energy storage makes sense for a
distance race. I.e. time to go 100km or distance in 1 hour. But then of
course you run into the problems with Peukert and his friends, not to
mention how the battery manufacturer descided to rate the AH capacity of
the batteries. 20 hr rate? 10 hr rate? 2 hour rate?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The EV equivalent would be to issue a standard spec controller to each
contestant. The controller would be made by one or more companies to
a rigid and open specification. Competitors could buy their own
controllers but for the actual racing, randomly selected and sealed
controllers would be issued by the sanctioning body for each race.
Interesting idea.
Another tattletale possibility might be a standard fuse combined with
pack voltage limit.
Of course everyone would try to work around the fuse with big bus
bars and cooling, but it would be very cheap to implement and easy to
verify. A good fast fuse costs about $50 for under 300V.
Overall I agree that NEDRA meets our needs quite well as it is for now.
--
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the update. I'll pass onto Ken for tweaks in the upcoming
www.visforvoltage.com article. Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schacherl Jens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EVList (E-Mail)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: EVS-21 Report
> From: "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:24 pm
> Subject: EVS-21 Report [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >Hi, this should be online in Voltage magazine with photos soon. Had a
great
> >time, Mark
>
> >EVS-21 Sustainable Mobility Conference in Monaco
> >International (Electric Vehicle Symposium)
>
> >[...]
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> thank you for your report especially about the technical sessions, as I
only visited the exhibition.
>
> Just a few additional points:
>
> The Smart EV will not be made by Zytek directly, they only provide the
parts and conversion know-how. Production and marketing will be done by
http://www.rikerelectricvehicles.com and start in 12-13 month (according to
the Zytek guy). Price is said to be 25.000-30.000 Dollar, not Euros!
> The Zebra batteries are made by MES-DEA in Switzerland, this company also
offers electric versions of the Smart and Renault Twingo, but ONLY in the
Tessin province in Switzerland.
>
> On the Norwegian website, start price for the Kewet is mentioned as
116.500 NOK = 14.300 EUR.
> The orange one at the EVS21 Ride&Drive had Valence batteries, but I don't
know what the price of this version would be (probably >20.000 Euro).
>
> Website for the Maranello car, available as gas, diesel, electric and
hybrid, is http://www.maranello4cycle.com . Price range 11.000 - 15.000
Euro.
>
> Reva also displayed the "Reva NXG", a "design prototype" with 120 km/h /
200km range and Zebra battery: http://www.revaindia.com/design/events.htm
>
> Regards, Jens
>
--- End Message ---
