EV Digest 4277
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Coasting
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Flywheel Weight (was: Re: downshift for regen?)
by "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Coasting
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Rebulding brake shoes, Adhesive?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Nash Rambler as an EV candidate?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6) Re: article: Jay Leno to own America's First Lithium iCeL (TM)Powered
"R-Car"Stuff
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Watt to amp to volt conversions & why they aren't the same.
by "Philip Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Lithium Batteries US Military Surplus
by "Tim Humphrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Watt to amp to volt conversions & why they aren't the same.
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: article: Jay Leno to own America's First Lithium iCeL
(TM)Powered 'R-Car'Stuff
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: bus bars versus wire - was RE: Re: Wire Gauge questions
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Nash Rambler as an EV candidate?
by James Jarrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Dave Cloud vs 'White Zombie'
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Flywheel Weight (was: Re: downshift for regen?)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Coasting
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
This means putting the shift level into neutral while the car is still moving,
so as the compression of a engine does not performs some type of braking action.
In a EV there is no compression braking and leaving it in gear, will free
wheel. So the next step they will want is to have all EV's to have regenerative
or resistance braking, no free wheel circuits.
Yes, there was a switch on the dash to make the auto transmission free wheel,
back in the 50's or so.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Hanson<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Coasting
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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: <[email protected]<mailto:[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<http://stores.ebay.com/theworldoffinejunque>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Narby" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> >> To: <[email protected]<mailto:[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 ---
One of the problems with flywheel power is adjusting the speed to the
vehicle. The newer CVTs may help with this. Another problem is
aerodynamic drag. The most efficient flywheels are mounted in a vacuum
chamber to reduce the drag. Bearings will also consume some energy. A
flywheel with a thicker edge or perimeter actually has more energy
storage capability that the thin-edge type because the moment of inertia
is much higher. The thin-edge flywheels are made that way because of
materials considerations - they have to run at very high speeds to store
a lot of energy and would fly apart if more material were toward the
edge. In the EV application you will be accelerating the flywheel even
when you don't want/need to. Will the energy storage potential be worth
the losses?
Patrick
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/13/05 11:28:00 AM >>>
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 ---
I believe the law makes it illegal to coast with the transmission in neutral.
With most EVs it's not necessary to shift into neutral to coast. Just
take your foot off the accelerator. The friction from the E-motor is
miniscule compared to the inertia of the vehicle.
> 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 didn't realize there was such a booming market rebuilding brake shoes.
All things considered, it's probably easier to have a professional do it.
I'll look into it when I get home, thanks.
> I used to work at a brake and clutch rebuilders as few ice ages ago.
> The adhesive they use is heat cured and used for everything from gokarts
> to the big rigs. It shouldn't cost you a bunch to get a rebuilder to do
> the job. It's not difficult or complex by any means but you have to have
> the oven adhesive and do the right prep work. We did lots of odd ball
> or one off's and they are no harder than something like a Chevy or Ford.
> If you can find the adhesive some are cold cure, but the industrial ones
> we used were all oven cured at about 350-450 for 20ish minutes. Depended
> on the size of shoe as you had to get the entire bonded area up to temp.
> I think some of the new adhesives could cold cure over a few days which
> would be the way to go as the heat cured ones produced just wonderful
> smells. Araldite 71? is about the only one I can think of but there are
> dozens.
>
> Prep work is easy, all we did was sandblast the bare show, then grind the
> bonding area with 80 grit, clean with non-residue solvent. Brush on the
> adhesive onto shoe and friction material, clamp it in place with 4-6
> clamps
> (or the hot shoe sort of squirts out the side) toss it into the preheated
> oven, hold your nose, look at your watch and there you go.
>
> If you can't find someone to bond them on for you. You can rivet them on
> using brass rivets. On some real heavy duty shoes we did bonding and
> rivets.
> Rivets are not used as much as bonding is more cost effective to do. You
> can
> set the rivets with a vice, a hammer and a steel rod. You can buy the
> rivets
> at most hardware places ie Master McCarr's (sic?). They are a solid
> countersunk
> or flat head brass rivet with a semi hollow stem.
>
> All in all I'd really try and get someone to do this.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -> -----Original Message-----
> -> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -> Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
> -> Sent: April 12, 2005 5:00 PM
> -> To: [email protected]
> -> Subject: Rebulding brake shoes, Adhesive?
> ->
> ->
> -> I've got some moped wheels I used on my electric trike. They need new
> -> brake shoes, but nobody carries them.
> ->
> -> I was thinking of just buying some of the brake lining that Mcmasters
> -> sells and rebuilding them myself.
> ->
> -> What kind of adhesive should I use to bond the new lining to the
> -> old metal
> -> shoes?
> ->
> ->
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4543091981
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: article: Jay Leno to own America's First Lithium iCeL
(TM)Powered "R-Car"
> 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
> Hi All;
Yeah, Had Jay hopped on our List. asked and sniffed around , a bit, he
might of come up with a better choice. Just WHO are these guyz, anyhow?
Maybe Phoenix Motors offerings at about 100K gets ya custom built chassis,
retro Ford Coupe body , and Valamce Sapian battery system. I understand this
is a almost turnkey thing? A Fetish, Yeah, nice, if you just won the
Powerball, or T Zero's offering, I mean the outfit that MAKES T Zero.
OK on a roll now. If I had the Megabux, getting the Freedom EV going,
then maybe lightweight RR "Light Rail" cars up and running. You could walk
into my RR showroom and take a test trak spin in one of my production
offerings. Avalable for lease to any Municipality that wants to try commuter
rail over underused freight trax to see of folks would actually USE light
rail. No wires, just lend me your tracks, yearning to shine again, a few
Home Despot, cheepo decks ,trackside to get on an' off. Battery Buses would
bring folks in from the hinderlands, to ride to town. Say Boise or Ohama,
places ya don't think of of having trolley cars.......again.
Maybe to get some Better Batteries built. Lithium, EVen redesigned Led
Acids, MADE to do what WE need. Golf Cart ones are a tad wimpy inside, but
are built to pass 75 amps grudgingly. Not 200-400 like WE do!
>
> > << 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).
> >Or in the Baggage car of the 'Federal"Boston -Washington, I do that,
across Rhode Island, but not for long, RI 'Taint very big!
> > 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.
> > Hah! Has ANYBODY else done a Crossfire conversion??
> > color me skeptical. also, doesn't whistler investments
> > set off alarm bells for some ?
> > Yup! Same here!
> > ~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.
> And Jay will drive it awile, and diss the hell out of it ,on national TV,
when it doesn't work as sold to him.
OK, one more before class is out.
WHAT car , EV I mean, should Celebs, I; E. Jay Leno, put their hard
earned money down for??
Dreaming for Dollars
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This website is only partly right.
The site says ( over and over, in different ways) that Watts = Volts x
Amps.
That's true ONLY for DC, or AC if the power factor is one.
For AC, in general, Power ( watts) = Volts x Amps x PowerFactor. You can't
just measure the current (in amps) and the voltage, and multiply the two
together to get the power in watts.
That is why chargers with poor power factors ( light-dimmer based, for
example) draw more amps from the wall socket for the same output than high
PF units. You need more amps, for a given voltage and power, to make up
for a low ( less than one) power factor.
If you want to get a good feel for what power factor is, buy a Kilawatt
meter ( I got one on Ebay cheap) and play around with it. It will give you
watts, power factor, and watt hours. Try plugging in a transformer with no
load ( a wall wart will do) and you'll see that the current is relatively
high, the power factor low, with very low real power ( watts).
If you've got a 110V input charger, (less than 15 amps) it will also measure
and keep track of your charging power ( and display the power factor at the
same time)
Phil
BTW, not only are watts not amps, they're not volts either. : - )
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 ---
If they're stored at a lower SOC does the degradation slow down even further?
If they are stored with terminals
shorted, does it come close to stopping degradation? Or, does the separator
decompose no matter what?
--
Stay Charged!
Hump
"Ignorance is treatable, with a good prognosis. However, if left untreated, it
develops into Arrogance, which is often
fatal. :-)" -- Lee Hart
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Philippe Borges
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:43 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Lithium Batteries US Military Surplus
>
> surplus Li-ion (more than 1 year old) is no way, try a capacity test on
> surplus li-ion you will be disapointed.
> add that they have to be stored 50% SOC at 0� C otherwise they will lose
> faster capacity and even 1 years old may be near half dead.
>
> 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: "Evan Tuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Lithium Batteries US Military Surplus
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2005 1:02 AM, Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > An EV enthusiast was mentioning that large Lithium batteries can be
>> > > obtained from US Military Surplus. He says these batteries were from
>> > > dismantled missiles.
>> >
>> > If they were in missles, I doubt they were rechargable lithiums. 8^)
>> >
>> > Probably primary cells.
>>
>> Probably correct. But it's worth knowing that the military (UK
>> military I'm talking about) are large users of Li-Ion rechargeable
>> cells, typically the most expensive and energy dense kind, that they
>> use for portable equipment, of what purpose I don't know and don't
>> want to know :)
>> They basically buy an "energy pack" and return it for recharging or
>> recyling as appropriate when empty.
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Phil, aren't you just calling resistance the "power factor"?
This website is only partly right.
The site says ( over and over, in different ways) that Watts = Volts x
Amps.
That's true ONLY for DC, or AC if the power factor is one.
For AC, in general, Power ( watts) = Volts x Amps x PowerFactor. You can't
just measure the current (in amps) and the voltage, and multiply the two
together to get the power in watts.
That is why chargers with poor power factors ( light-dimmer based, for
example) draw more amps from the wall socket for the same output than high
PF units. You need more amps, for a given voltage and power, to make up
for a low ( less than one) power factor.
If you want to get a good feel for what power factor is, buy a Kilawatt
meter ( I got one on Ebay cheap) and play around with it. It will give you
watts, power factor, and watt hours. Try plugging in a transformer with no
load ( a wall wart will do) and you'll see that the current is relatively
high, the power factor low, with very low real power ( watts).
If you've got a 110V input charger, (less than 15 amps) it will also measure
and keep track of your charging power ( and display the power factor at the
same time)
Phil
BTW, not only are watts not amps, they're not volts either. : - )
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 ---
Why is everyone convinced that Jay has "fallen" for anything?
I mean as far as we know, they asked him "If we build one, would you like
the first one free?" and Jay said "Sure".
He hasn't endorsed it or anything, all the article says is that he gets
the first one. Then they go on to provide a lot of (public domain) info
on Jay to give themselves the appearance of credibitlity.
>> 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
>> Hi All;
>
> Yeah, Had Jay hopped on our List. asked and sniffed around , a bit,
> he
> might of come up with a better choice. Just WHO are these guyz, anyhow?
> Maybe Phoenix Motors offerings at about 100K gets ya custom built
> chassis,
> retro Ford Coupe body , and Valamce Sapian battery system. I understand
> this
> is a almost turnkey thing? A Fetish, Yeah, nice, if you just won the
> Powerball, or T Zero's offering, I mean the outfit that MAKES T Zero.
>
> OK on a roll now. If I had the Megabux, getting the Freedom EV going,
> then maybe lightweight RR "Light Rail" cars up and running. You could walk
> into my RR showroom and take a test trak spin in one of my production
> offerings. Avalable for lease to any Municipality that wants to try
> commuter
> rail over underused freight trax to see of folks would actually USE light
> rail. No wires, just lend me your tracks, yearning to shine again, a few
> Home Despot, cheepo decks ,trackside to get on an' off. Battery Buses
> would
> bring folks in from the hinderlands, to ride to town. Say Boise or Ohama,
> places ya don't think of of having trolley cars.......again.
>
> Maybe to get some Better Batteries built. Lithium, EVen redesigned Led
> Acids, MADE to do what WE need. Golf Cart ones are a tad wimpy inside, but
> are built to pass 75 amps grudgingly. Not 200-400 like WE do!
>>
>> > << 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).
>
>> >Or in the Baggage car of the 'Federal"Boston -Washington, I do that,
> across Rhode Island, but not for long, RI 'Taint very big!
>
>> > 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.
>
>> > Hah! Has ANYBODY else done a Crossfire conversion??
>
>> > color me skeptical. also, doesn't whistler investments
>> > set off alarm bells for some ?
>
>> > Yup! Same here!
>
>> > ~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.
>
>> And Jay will drive it awile, and diss the hell out of it ,on national
>> TV,
> when it doesn't work as sold to him.
>
> OK, one more before class is out.
>
> WHAT car , EV I mean, should Celebs, I; E. Jay Leno, put their hard
> earned money down for??
>
> Dreaming for Dollars
>
> Bob
>
>
--- 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.
Patrick Maston wrote:
> 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.
No; it *is* an optimal setup if you get it right.
Suppose you want to optimize range. You might think that you want the
voltage drop in all your high voltage wiring to be as low as possible,
for best efficiency. But, that leads to *huge* wire sizes which are very
heavy. Suppose you have 30 feet of 4/0 wire; that will weigh about 20
pounds. If your EV weighs 2000 lbs, then 1% of its weight is wire. Range
is proportional to weight; so the weight of the wire reduces your range
by 1%.
Let's say this EV has a 120v pack and draws 50 amps at cruise (6kw). 30
feet of 4/0 has a resistance of R = 30 x .049mohm/ft = 1.47mohm. At 50
amps, the wire burns up a total of P = I^2 x R = 50^2 x 1.47mohm = 3.68
watts. Our copper loss is 3.68w/6kw = 0.0006 or 0.06%.
Now the other extreme; we'll save weight and use #6 wire; that weighs
2.4 lbs. We've lightened our EV by 17.6 lbs; a 0.9% savings. So, we have
about 0.9% more range.
But 30 feet of #6 has a resistance R = 30 x 0.395mohm/foot = 11.85mohms.
At 50 amps, the wire burns up a total of P = I^2 x R = 50^2 x 11.85mohm
= 29.6 watts. Our copper loss is now 29.6w/6kw = 0.0049 or 0.49%. That
subtracts 0.49% from our range.
Conclusion: we added 0.9% but took away 0.49% -- we're ahead by 0.41%.
Now, all this assumes you are mad for perfection, and are optimizing
everything you do on the vehicle this way. It's something a solar car
team would do. But for the average person, such details are "lost in the
noise." You couldn't detect any difference in range either way.
So (thinking like a car manufacturer), why not be cheap? The smaller
wire saves a *lot* of money and labor! Well, the reason why becomes
apparent when you accellerate from a dead stop, and your carefully
optimized EV draws not 50a, but 500a. At 500a, your total copper loss P
= 500^2 x 0.01185 ohm = 2962 watts. That's almost 100 watts per foot!
So, what happens if you try to dissipate 100 watts in a 1-foot piece of
#6 wire? It will carry it for 10 seconds or so, and then the insulation
will melt. In another 10 seconds, the insulate catches fire. And in
another 10 seconds the wire itself will melt in half like a fuse!
So instead of wire, let's use a bussbar. #6 is 0.162" diameter = 0.04
sq. inches. So use a 1" wide piece of 0.040" thick copper. Now, there is
no insulation to melt or catch fire. And the flat sheet has 4 times the
surface area, and so can dissipate 4 times the heat. Instead of 30
seconds, it can carry 500 amps for several minutes. If there is some air
blowing across it, it can carry 400 amps indefinitely.
This is an admittedly extreme example; but it shows the principle at
work. You could apply the same principle if you wanted to maximize
accelleration instead of range. And it would lead to the same conclusion
-- a smaller lighter bus bar will produce better performance than a big
solid insulated wire.
--
"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 ---
It'd be cool, but way too much rust on that one. I would expect it to
fall apart if the driver sneezed.
James
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 15:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4543091981
>
--- 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....
Actually AC drive and LiPol batteries was the first thing I thought of,
but since it's a rather pointless question....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> 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.
>
There is a guy in Portland that is a little gaga over flywheels. He has
made a gyro stabilized motorcycle that will stay up while stopped (not
rolling) Of course it doesn't lean when cornering either, which would
seem to me to be a major problem with a motorcycle.
He especially likes those whachamacallit bikes with swingarm front end.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is only done to prevent your pads and disks being red hot on the long
downhill and fail when you really need them. With engine compression
breaking the disk brakes are not involved and ready at any moment.
Of course, AC drive regen naturally solves this "problem"...
Victor
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
I believe the law makes it illegal to coast with the transmission in neutral.
With most EVs it's not necessary to shift into neutral to coast. Just
take your foot off the accelerator. The friction from the E-motor is
miniscule compared to the inertia of the vehicle.
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
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
