EV Digest 4309
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Mechanical PWM Controllers
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Attempting to get a msg to the list
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Human Powered alternator, was Treadmill motor that...
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Attempting to get a msg to the list
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Treadmill motor that could be used for EV accesory power
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: ICE for series hybrid
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Direct Drive Racing Driveline
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Got my taperlock hub off!
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: ICE for series hybrid
by Matt Holthausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Brusa NLG412 programming fun!
by Tom Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Brusa NLG412 programming fun!
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Re EV water/aircraft, jet ski's , cats, tris, WIG's and Swaths
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Direct Drive Racing Driveline
by "Christopher Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> reasoning here is cost. I can get 800Volt 1170Amp diodes for around
> $60 or string cheaper ones in parallel. That much silicon is a lot
> more, like $37/1000V mosfet at 50A so 20 odd * ~40 or $800 in raw
> silicon, then there is the cost of the 5 lb coffe can worth until
> you get the drive circuits just right and programming the DSP and...
No; those MOSFETs would go into a high-end sophisticated modern
controller like a Zilla or DCP.
If you want cheap, then use SCRs as your "switch". SCR means Silicon
Controlled Rectifier, i.e. a diode that you can turn on and off. They
are priced like rectifiers, too. A 700volt 200amp SCR is $18.50 from C&H
(www.candhsales.com). Arbitrarily large ones are available (1000s of
volts and 1000s of amps) for similarly low prices.
SCRs are hard to kill, and very easy to turn on. Turning them *off*,
however, is entertaining. You basically need an LC circuit Look up the
"Jones Chopper" to see how it's done. It is possible to build extremely
simple, nearly indestructible controllers this way. The drawback is that
they "sing" audibly (as they switch in the low audio range), and
efficiency is a bit lower than a modern high-tech controller.
Or, use bipolar transistors. They cost about twice as much as SCRs, but
are easier to turn off (don't need the big inductor and capacitor. Still
less expensive than MOSFETs or IGBTs, though not quite as efficient.
Finally, what I think is the best solution; just get a big IGBT module.
It will cost a lot, but does almost all your work for you.
--
If you would not be forgotten
When your body's dead and rotten
Then write of great deeds worth the reading
Or do the great deeds worth repeating
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John G. Lussmyer wrote:
> http://www.casadelgato.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=61
So how does one go about getting blemish Optima's?
What is different about them compared to non blems?
What's the price for blems?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is from memory of web surfing and a paper Hugh Pigot wrote. I think
we have a few on this list that can add to this:
"is there a way to make a perm mag generator that will have the correct
number of poles..."
The output is related to the volocity of the magnetic field cutting a
conductor* strength of field* # of conductors
And the torque is related to the diameter(torque arm) and the current
squared.
so far an engine drive alternator; low torque/high rpm, the diameter is
usually small and the pole is relativly long. Big conductors give it the
amps but force a low turn count.
For a high torque/low rpm alternator the diameter is large and the
amperage is low using fine wires and a lots of turns. The magnetic
circuit is smaller and the unit has lower amps, so thin strong magnets
with a very small gap is optimum. (small but High density magnetic field)
The human is a high torque beast, I put out as much torque as my
mitsubishi truck engine. (ok, not so high), but relative to rpm it is :-)
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind_alternators.html
http://www.scoraigwind.com/
you may want to consider keeping the bike transmission, this steps up
the rpm and allows the user to adjust to they're current "fitness level"
or to "spin" I pedal 100rpm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 01:00 PM 4/24/2005, Ryan Stotts wrote:
> http://www.casadelgato.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=61
So how does one go about getting blemish Optima's?
Don't ask me. I think those came with the bird from Corbin motors.
At this time, they are all pretty much shot after sitting for 2 years, dead.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All your LifeCycles, StairMasters, Precor Bikes, and most other high-end
self-powered units use a car alternator for the resistance aspect- Bosch,
Mondo, Prestolite, etc. The fact that it also powers itself is happy
happenstance.
They also use a little 6v battery to start up. LifeCycles use a little 6v or
8v Hawker Cyclon.
Marv
> From: Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Treadmill motor that could be used for EV accesory power
>
> In fact, some of the more expensive ellipticals and bikes power the console
> from some kind of generator attached to the pedals. They don't plug in at
> all; instead, the console comes to life after 2-5 seconds of pedalling, and
> they have enough juice to run the console for about 15-30 seconds after
> you stop.
>
> Tim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Matt wrote:
Mike,
First of all, thanks for the input! I have a few more questions for you
(and anyone else)
<SNIP>
Keep in mind I haven' t built one, I am only trying to point you toward
folks who have.
You might want to check out Alain page about the smaller generator mounted
in his S-10. You can find it at:
http://www.rocler.qc.ca/levehiculevert/generateur.htm
That page is in both English and French. The larger generator would just
be the same concept scaled up.
I would think a single generator would be much easier to couple up to a gas
engine than several smaller ones. My line of thought would be to use the
bell housing section of the original transmission case and have it machined
to match up to the motor. A splined shaft coupled to the motor shaft could
then be fitted into the stock clutch assembly. It might be possible to
make the splined shaft from the original transmission input shaft. anyway,
just some ideas and links, you figure it out so I can copy you. :^)
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
'95 Solectria Force
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
Wasting imported oil is not an act of patriotism, conserving it is.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Unfortunately, I don't have a PDF handy of the speeds you can run
driveshafts at when at a certain compound angle. That is at my old job.
If you want to go with a 1410 or 1350 series U-joint that seems
reasonable. I will leave the determination about angle and speed up to
you. If I can find a reference then I can help you through the math.
For an unmultiplied torque driveshaft connected to an electric motor or
diesel engine or both I will tell you what I did. It worked for this
application, which is pretty similar to yours. We had 1710 series parts
as that is what came on the truck so we re-used them, also so they
would be a stocked service part for that particular Kenworth. Overkill
for the torque we were running, but easier than ordering smaller parts
in this case.
We used a companion flange connected to a flange yoke to a driveshaft.
The companion flange was custom, in that it integrated a B-loc clamp.
This isn't necessarily what you want to do.
When I browse www.roadranger.com I found a 1410 splined yoke at 1.972"
diameter, but it isn't involute, so it migh tbe more costly to get
made. A 1.878" involute spline was available in a 1410 series. A 1.750"
spline was available in 1350 series.
One thing that jumps out is that if a driveshaft is rated for much more
torque than you need, but the spline diameters are smaller than your
2" maximum, then barring truly exotic materials (and I would bet long
odds against it) the stresses in the shaft will be low enough for this
to work.
If that turns out to not be the case and we need the whole 2" diameter,
then I have a solution that is inexpensive. And it works really well.
(Keith hinted at this solution earlier) For that matter, it might be
the best solution, but I will start on math for a 1410 involute spline
first. Let me know if (when) you find a reference for driveshaft
compound angle and speed.
Seth
On Apr 24, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Christopher Robison wrote:
Seth Allen said:
The max rotational speed dictates the angle you can run U-joints at,
hence the question.
Do you have a breakdown for this? Assuming I'll never go over 5krpm
(and
if I do, it will be an unplanned, probably catastrophic circumstance),
is
the standard 3 degrees too much?
Also, I was looking at U-joint specs online (e.g. the Neapco catalog)
and
noticed that as joint sizes go up, max speed ratings go way down. Then
again, perhaps the catalog was being excessively pessimistic, as the
torque ratings seemed pretty low as well.
At any rate, perhaps CV joints would be a better fit for that reason --
being designed mainly for FWD half shafts, the assumption is to be
able to
handle the full torque at the wheels...
I can't help feel a bit discouraged though, as I have spent the entire
morning browsing through manufacturers' and vendors' sites linked from
www.sema.org, and so far have had no luck finding any sort of
reference to
CV joints used in this way. This may not be the best cross section of
the
automotive performance aftermarket, and I certainly haven't even
gotten to
half the sites they link to, but I'm beginning to feel like I'd be very
much on my own.
I guess I was thinking U-joint and CV joints being steel. I forgot you
want a CF or other light material driveshaft.
I've talked to the folks at Inland Empire (iedls.com) over the phone,
and
they say they can make me an aluminum or carbon fiber shaft set up for
1410-series U-joints. The more I think about it, the more I like this
plan. All that remains would be to find the longest and
largest-diameter
spline format I can (up to the diameter of the motor shaft) for a slip
yoke and give Netgain the go-ahead to start making the motor.
CV joints would also be a great way to go, theoretically better in many
ways. Again, the only thing making me hesitant about CV joints is my
complete failure to find any information about using them for anything
but
FWD or IRS setups. If anyone has a URL, please don't be shy!
I wasn't able to find anything on the Roadranger site you mentioned
either; a search for "CV JOINT" or "CV" in their parts search page
yields
zero hits. I'm finding their site really hard to navigate in general;
perhaps there's something I'm missing. On the other hand I can't help
thinking anything I find there would be far heavier than I want,
anyway.
I haev heard explanations about cryo treatments. Mostly from sales
types. Never used it. If we get to the point where we are worried
about
better material properties then we are too close to the edge ofthe
design envelope because at this point we don't have the system defined
well enough to understand all the possible loads. In my opinion, at
least.
You're probably right about this; I brought it up mainly to get
opinions
on it. Unfortunately, I don't have accurate information on the peak
torque the motor will produce, nor do I expect to have such data
before I
complete the truck. I'm suggesting 1600ft-lbs as a planning figure,
hoping
that this will turn out to be a comfortable exaggeration. I won't get
this much torque at 2000A, but later on with a bypass I'd like to have
*some* confidence that I can hit the switch without breaking the
driveline.
I understand that other forces contribute to the overall picture, shock
loads due to potholes and gear play in the differential, etc. Can
these
factors be quantified? (Would knowing the mass of the armature help?)
Are
they even important? What additional information is needed in order to
get
a better handle on the design envelope?
--chris
Seth
On Apr 23, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher Robison wrote:
Seth Allen said:
Do you have an estimate of maximum output speed? Or tire size and
top
speed. This is a concern when it comes to driveshaft angle,
especially
for u-joints.
Netgain has tested the motor out to 6000 RPM, but claim that the
absolute
maximum should be 5000 without serious modifications (kevlar comm
wrap,
ceramic bearings etc), which seems reasonable for a motor of this
size. My
choice of rear end and tire diameter will be constrained by this.
Perhaps
7000 RPM could be a comfortable planning figure for determining the
physical characteristics of the driveline...(?)
FWIW, I'd like to have a rear end gear setup for racing that allows
me
to
hit redline at 110-120mph or so, and another for street driving that
maxes
out at around 75mph for higher RPMs and better efficiency (with the
side
effect of harder launches). I've got the formulas in a spreadsheet,
but of
course the ratios I choose will depend on the wheels and tires I end
up
with.
Some platings affect the fatigue strength. In general, I wouldn't
do a
plating. There should be grease most any place there will be
splines,
so I don't think there is a reason to plate. And all the other
drivetrain parts will likely be steel or painted steel, wo why be
different.
Or aluminum, or carbon fiber. :o) At any rate, it doesn't seem
necessary. One process I might be interested in is cryo-hardening; I
understand it is helpful in increasing abrasion resistance which
might
be
helpful for the splines, and has some strengthening aspects as well
(though the extent of this is debated). Do you have any information
or
experience with this?
--chris
Seth
On Apr 23, 2005, at 2:21 AM, Christopher Robison wrote:
Seth Allen said:
Ok, before I start, I will make a few assumptions and such:
1: You don't want to greatly increase cost, so a material that
doesn't
need a rough machining, heat treat and grind to size is desirable
I agree with this (I've got plenty of other parts of the truck that
are
also demanding my money), though I'm not sure even what kind of
neighborhood to shoot for. Am I looking at a thousand bucks no
matter
what
I do, or am I just trying to save a hundred or so? I've already
spent
a
few grand; a couple hundred well-placed dollars aren't so much of
an
issue, but adding half the cost of the motor would be difficult.
2: You need some plunge on the output
I'm not sure what this means. Are you referring to the need for a
slip
yoke, or sliding element somewhere along the driveline? If so, yes
--
I am
not willing to lock down the rear end (at least not permanently); I
need
to allow for some suspension travel.
3: a standard interface is nice
I have bought from Inland Empire in the past; they make a wide
variety
of
slip yokes. In general though, yes, standard == good.
4: you want it sized for fatigue life at peak torque (many
dragstrip
runs)
Agreed. The motor will be heavy and expensive to ship, making the
cost
of
replacing the shaft pretty high, if I'm to have Netgain doing it.
Warfield
has a location in Dallas I'm told, but they don't work on the
Warps.
All
in all, I'd like the shaft to last. :o) I'm willing to spend a
little
more now to help with this.
5: you will not be getting it plated
I can't say without more information. What would be the benefit of
plating, and with what material? Is it expensive? Would it be worth
it? If
you're talking about aesthetics (chrome plating or whatever), then
no.
I
just don't want it rusting. :o)
If all this is right, then a suggestion for a steel might be a
pre-hardened AISI 4140 which is fairly common and fairly easy to
machine. It won't be fully hard, but you won't have to do the heat
treat and grind to size.
I will make a note of this -- thank you!
As for an output. I have done standard yokes with slip joint
driveshafts for trucks. Not sexy, but they work. But your torque
is
actually quite low if this is direct drive to the rear diff.
Compared to the potential if I had a transmission, yes, the torque
is
pretty low. It seemed high to me, but that was during my search
for a
suitable manual transmission. On the other hand, the existing
driveshaft
on my truck probably doesn't even see a third as much torque,
flooring
it
in first gear. The input shaft on my transmission is only rated for
175
ft-lbs; I don't have the ratios handy but output torque can't be
too
spectacular. In fact, in 1st I guess I probably get less peak
torque
at
the *wheels* today than I'll eventually get out of this motor. In
that
sense, it's not so bad. :o)
A CV joint
can easily handle this torque and requires no alignment of the
yokes
or
concern over driveshaft angle. A CV flange on the output of the
motor
with whay would normally be an IRS halfshaft could work quite
well.
I am not quite familiar with the setup you're referring to. Is it
possible
to get something like this that is long enough, and lightweight? I
have
been assuming the need for a traditional driveshaft and a slip-yoke
on
the
motor, in part because of the arrangement of the motor and
differential.
I'm planning on putting the motor under the passenger compartment,
between
the seats, where the transmission is now. I would put it further
back,
but
I'd like to put battery boxes between the frame rails. I've been
planning
on using a large diameter aluminum or carbon fiber shaft between
the
battery boxes to reduce spinning mass. Can I have this same
arrangement
with CV joints?
When you speak of CV joints, I'm imagining the three rollers at the
end of
a shaft which fits in a cup with three deep corresponding grooves,
allowing both the CV torque transfer as well as a small amount of
sliding
motion. Is this the sort of thing you're referring to?
It
is what I would do, but some people really refer U-joints.
At this point, I don't think I have enough knowledge to have a
valid
preference. I have come to certain conclusions based on what I've
learned
so far, but of course nothing is really concluded until I start
actually
acquiring the parts. Until then, the more I can learn, the better.
I'm
OK
with CV joints (actually, I like the idea of the smooth torque
transfer,
and not having to worry about matching angles and such), I just
don't
know
what else about my driveline plans would have to change.
If that is
the case, then at www.roadranger.com there are loads of U-joint
specs
there. ANd they will specify the spline options. Let me know what
your
preference is (CV joint or U-joint) and we can wade through the
options
and once a spline is found, see if it will work. Your torque is so
low
that with half-hard 4140 and an easily cut involute spline on a
~2"
diameter that I think there will be no problem with fatigue life,
even
after effects like corrosion are figured in.
What are the corrosion properties of 4140? What kind of
degradation
can I
expect, mechanically and aesthetically, assuming this will be
subjected to
water and road grime? For the most part though, this sounds like
what
I'm
looking for. Can we say that 1144 is out of the picture? I
understand
it
responds well to heat treating, though I don't know if this will
give
me
what I want.
I will see what info I can dig up on CV joints used in this
application.
Although I'm hesitant about using techniques that aren't popular in
racing, I realize the operating parameters here are a bit different
and
may call for an unusual solution. Mainly, if we can plan a
driveline
that's lightweight, can span from the cab to the differential, can
tolerate the torque and the RPM (I'll be running a 5.0-5.3 or so
rear
end
ratio, not quite sure yet), then I won't have much rational cause
to
disagree.
--chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:48:19 -0500, Ryan Stotts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If I had a hub without those tapped holes, could I remove the hub
>using a puller like this?
>
>http://www.mechaps.com/mps/mcf1/bilder/3%20JAW%20GEAR%20PULLER%20SET.gif
>
>http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/200000/207900/207937/Products/10692594.jpg
>
That tool is just about guaranteed to break off the flange of the
taperlock. Learned that the hard way many moons ago. The jacking
screws don't break the flange because they're located almost adjacent
to the hub body where the lever arm is a fraction of that at the rim.
Here's a trick for freeing all sorts of taper fits including taperlock
hubs, flywheels from motorcycle engines and so on. Apply a few
impacts from an air hammer in the right place. The shock pretty much
instantly frees the part.
A couple of important details. Cut the end off of a chisel and grind
it to fit whatever you're impacting. If it is the end of the motor
shaft, grind it with a point that fits in the shaft's center cone if
it has one.
Use a screwdriver or small pry bar to GENTLY pry the part you want
loose against the direction of impact. This takes up all the slop,
protecting bearings from impact, and it provides the force to
encourage the part to move when shocked.
It doesn't take much force. When removing a harmonic balancer from a
crankshaft, for instance, I can apply the necessary force with one
hand tugging on the pulley while I operate the air hammer against the
crank snout with the other.
If the shaft is delicate, threaded, small, soft, etc, I apply some
brazing brass to the end of the chisel. The brass alloy in brazing
rods is pretty hard so it won't mushroom away while still being soft
enough not to damage steel.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike wrote:
you figure it out so I can copy you. :^)
Lol, thanks Mike. I'll have some information on a website when the
project's complete, and I'll post the link here when the time comes.
Does anyone else out there have some good suggestions for me? I'm
actually trying to get this whole thing to fit under the hood, sharing
the space with a 9" WarP. This might force me to use a belt-drive to
keep the overall length down; I think I can use a 2" wide timing-belt
type.
-Matt
On Apr 24, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Mike Chancey wrote:
Matt wrote:
Mike,
First of all, thanks for the input! I have a few more questions for
you (and anyone else)
<SNIP>
Keep in mind I haven' t built one, I am only trying to point you
toward folks who have.
You might want to check out Alain page about the smaller generator
mounted in his S-10. You can find it at:
http://www.rocler.qc.ca/levehiculevert/generateur.htm
That page is in both English and French. The larger generator would
just be the same concept scaled up.
I would think a single generator would be much easier to couple up to
a gas engine than several smaller ones. My line of thought would be
to use the bell housing section of the original transmission case and
have it machined to match up to the motor. A splined shaft coupled to
the motor shaft could then be fitted into the stock clutch assembly.
It might be possible to make the splined shaft from the original
transmission input shaft. anyway, just some ideas and links, you
figure it out so I can copy you. :^)
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
'95 Solectria Force
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
Wasting imported oil is not an act of patriotism, conserving it is.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, I finally got the new Saft profile uploaded into my NLG412. What
an irritating ordeal.
I swapped in my original EPROMS and tried to upload the new parameters
and got the same result -- An error message. Not amusing. I took
another look at the logic boards from my charger and the one I got from
Ralph, and there were a few minor differences in some components (a
couple of little caps), so I bit the bullet and swapped the logic boards
(the EPROM daughter board was 100% identical so I left it alone). This
sucked because in between the time they built Ralph's board and mine,
they added a little two-pin header/plug for the cooling fan -- I had to
cut the fan wires and solder on the connector to work with my board. I
tried again to do the parameter change -- SAME ERROR MESSAGE! Arrggh.
As a last-ditch effort, I tried using the special command-line option to
load a profile and automatically upload it to the charger rather than
using the user interface. It worked! Beats me why it didn't work
otherwise, because you'd start the software and it would download the
profile from the charger initially but if you tried to use the download
option, that would fail!
Oh well, I think I'm back in the saddle. I did a quick charge test and
the charger is actually putting out 10 amps when it's supposed to.
Tomorrow I'll run the 15-hour initialization charge to get the car back
on the road.
-Tom
--
Thomas Hudson
http://portdistrict5.org -- 5th District Aldermanic Website
http://portev.org -- Electric Vehicles, Solar Power & More
http://portgardenclub.org -- Port Washington Garden Club
http://portlightstation.org -- Light Station Restoration
http://klanky.com -- Animation Projects
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Heat kills these chargers, or that's the rumor. So anything you can do
to get heat out when charging (fans blowing against the non heatsunk
sides, a cool air vent, etc) could save you some money down the road.
Seth
On Apr 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Tom Hudson wrote:
Well, I finally got the new Saft profile uploaded into my NLG412.
What an irritating ordeal.
I swapped in my original EPROMS and tried to upload the new parameters
and got the same result -- An error message. Not amusing. I took
another look at the logic boards from my charger and the one I got
from Ralph, and there were a few minor differences in some components
(a couple of little caps), so I bit the bullet and swapped the logic
boards (the EPROM daughter board was 100% identical so I left it
alone). This sucked because in between the time they built Ralph's
board and mine, they added a little two-pin header/plug for the
cooling fan -- I had to cut the fan wires and solder on the connector
to work with my board. I tried again to do the parameter change --
SAME ERROR MESSAGE! Arrggh.
As a last-ditch effort, I tried using the special command-line option
to load a profile and automatically upload it to the charger rather
than using the user interface. It worked! Beats me why it didn't
work otherwise, because you'd start the software and it would download
the profile from the charger initially but if you tried to use the
download option, that would fail!
Oh well, I think I'm back in the saddle. I did a quick charge test
and the charger is actually putting out 10 amps when it's supposed to.
Tomorrow I'll run the 15-hour initialization charge to get the car
back on the road.
-Tom
--
Thomas Hudson
http://portdistrict5.org -- 5th District Aldermanic Website
http://portev.org -- Electric Vehicles, Solar Power & More
http://portgardenclub.org -- Port Washington Garden Club
http://portlightstation.org -- Light Station Restoration
http://klanky.com -- Animation Projects
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lee and All,
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Goldschmidt wrote:
> >> I have always wanted to build an electric jetski,
> but did not
> >> know where to go for info. Any advice on the
> feasability would
> >> be appreciated.
>
> jerry dycus wrote:
> > While it will work, it won't for long as any
> planning watercraft
> > needs much more power to go fast for long. Also
> the small jets
> > are very low eff. On the water to go reasonably
> fast for longer
> > distances, us a Cat/tri hulls set up with
> length/beam ratios of
> > between 8 and 10-1.
>
> I've seen some human powered catamarans that zipped
> right along.
> Extremely long skinny twin hulls -- in fact they
> were round aluminum
> pipes that ran 75% submerged. Given the feeble power
> source, I would
> think that they would be a good design basis for an
> EV.
In displacement style boats as all of them, drag
comes in 2 forms, skin friction and wave making ,IE,
bow waves-wave making.
Lowest drag comes from hulls that are between 8-1
to 12-1 length to beam ratios.
Shorter than that and the bow wave gets bigger and
extra power is needed to overcome that drag.
Longer than that and the friction from the extra
wetted surface/skin friction becomes higher thus
slowing it down.
For a heavier weight, the 8-1 ratio is best and on
lightweight ones the 12-1 is better.
If the hulls are round and mostly or completely
submerged, SWATH's, the skin friction goes up for a
given weight.
So best is usually a U shaped hull of low surface
area and since ours need to carry battery weight,
around the 8-1/9-1 L/B ratios for best speed at the
lowest power, highest eff.
This doesn't mean they need to be slow as they can
easily cruise at 20mph+ eff.
The props should be as large as possible and slow
turning for most eff.
To compare, remember the America's Cup race where
they pitted a 128' monhull against a 60" cat and the
cat whipped it badly.
Also on aircraft, having 2 props the same size
driven by the same hp as 1, will be much more eff and
put out about 1.6-1.8x the thrust thru lower power
loading for the same power.
This is why helicopters need large rotors to
carry weight while being eff enough to do it.
>
> I've also seen human-powered hydrofoils. The speed
> they were getting
> make me guess they were pretty efficient as well.
If done right, hydrofoils are very eff but have
drawbacks like can be launched only in deeper water
and will foul by seaweed, plastic bags, ect which can
ruin your whole day ;-O.
On a US Navy Hydrofoil missle patrol boat, 136' long
cruising 55knots in the Gulf Stream in the Fla Straits
off Miami, got fouled by a whale and sent the whole
crew to the hospital, $1,000,000+ damage to the boat
and lets not talk about the poor whale!
I use to live next to them in Key West and it took
the whole bow, front foil out into a twisted mess!
While I like hydro foils, I don't use or build them
for those reasons.
There is another form of boat call the Wing In
Ground Effect craft that is like a seaplane that never
really gets airborne, instead gets out of the water
and flies, planning on air trapped between the bottom
of the wings and the waters surface, eff carrying
twice the load of an airplane would higher up.
This would get twice the range of a planning boat
under electric power but that still not worth it as it
just goes from say 4 miles to 8-10 miles with both
boats optimised. Though better if you have $100k of
li-ions!!
>
> Finally, of course there is the air car. Once you've
> used the power for
> lift (which is about the same at any speed), your
> speed over the water
> is basiclly only limited by how smooth the water is.
While true on land, hovercraft in water, they make
waves, drag just like any planning boat!!! Though once
you can get them on plane, like other planning boats,
the do ok but no where near as good as a Cat/Tri at
1/5 or so power use.
> Truly enormous
> speeds would be possible, even as an EV.
>
> Maybe a craft that was some combination of these
> three techniques? :-)
Best combo is the Cat hulls with 2 good size props
for speed, eff and load carrying capacity.
That's why I can and have built 32' cruising cats
that can go 25mph under power or sail. Something no
other kind of boat can match while carrying a full
load.
It was fun 1 night after a Reggae concert on the
beach in Key West where 10 girls and 4 guys took off
in 25knot winds and did 25knots with 20' high rooster
tails!!! Now that's a party!!! With a Lanteen rig no
less for those who know what that is!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
> --
> 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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Apparently I'm just not getting it. I don't think I'm seeing the right
stuff on the Roadranger website.
All I've found that mentions dimensions is here:
http://www.roadranger.com/NASApp/cs/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1082226640691
...and in the section for "transmission applications" (don't know what the
other sections are for) on page 15 of the pdf, the largest spline for a
1410 yoke is 1.616".
Please describe how to navigate to the data you're seeing, or at least let
me know the part number for the 1.878" 1410 yoke. Fortunately, they have a
distributor here in town (Austin Drivetrain) who should be able to get it
for me. BTW -- what is the C/L to end of spline dimension on that?
Assuming I go with that part, is the final question, whether a 2" 4140
shaft narrowed to a 1.878" 30-tooth spline will withstand 1600ft-lbs of
torque without twisting? Depending on how close to the edge we are, I
imagine the yoke plunge distance to allow for may be helpful -- I'll try
to figure that out if it becomes necessary.
I'll ask the driveline folks tomorrow about the U-joint RPM/angle
relationship.
--chris
Seth Allen said:
> Unfortunately, I don't have a PDF handy of the speeds you can run
> driveshafts at when at a certain compound angle. That is at my old job.
>
> If you want to go with a 1410 or 1350 series U-joint that seems
> reasonable. I will leave the determination about angle and speed up to
> you. If I can find a reference then I can help you through the math.
>
>
> For an unmultiplied torque driveshaft connected to an electric motor or
> diesel engine or both I will tell you what I did. It worked for this
> application, which is pretty similar to yours. We had 1710 series parts
> as that is what came on the truck so we re-used them, also so they
> would be a stocked service part for that particular Kenworth. Overkill
> for the torque we were running, but easier than ordering smaller parts
> in this case.
>
> We used a companion flange connected to a flange yoke to a driveshaft.
> The companion flange was custom, in that it integrated a B-loc clamp.
> This isn't necessarily what you want to do.
>
> When I browse www.roadranger.com I found a 1410 splined yoke at 1.972"
> diameter, but it isn't involute, so it migh tbe more costly to get
> made. A 1.878" involute spline was available in a 1410 series. A 1.750"
> spline was available in 1350 series.
>
> One thing that jumps out is that if a driveshaft is rated for much more
> torque than you need, but the spline diameters are smaller than your
> 2" maximum, then barring truly exotic materials (and I would bet long
> odds against it) the stresses in the shaft will be low enough for this
> to work.
>
> If that turns out to not be the case and we need the whole 2" diameter,
> then I have a solution that is inexpensive. And it works really well.
> (Keith hinted at this solution earlier) For that matter, it might be
> the best solution, but I will start on math for a 1410 involute spline
> first. Let me know if (when) you find a reference for driveshaft
> compound angle and speed.
>
> Seth
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Christopher Robison wrote:
>
>> Seth Allen said:
>>> The max rotational speed dictates the angle you can run U-joints at,
>>> hence the question.
>>
>> Do you have a breakdown for this? Assuming I'll never go over 5krpm
>> (and
>> if I do, it will be an unplanned, probably catastrophic circumstance),
>> is
>> the standard 3 degrees too much?
>>
>> Also, I was looking at U-joint specs online (e.g. the Neapco catalog)
>> and
>> noticed that as joint sizes go up, max speed ratings go way down. Then
>> again, perhaps the catalog was being excessively pessimistic, as the
>> torque ratings seemed pretty low as well.
>>
>> At any rate, perhaps CV joints would be a better fit for that reason --
>> being designed mainly for FWD half shafts, the assumption is to be
>> able to
>> handle the full torque at the wheels...
>>
>> I can't help feel a bit discouraged though, as I have spent the entire
>> morning browsing through manufacturers' and vendors' sites linked from
>> www.sema.org, and so far have had no luck finding any sort of
>> reference to
>> CV joints used in this way. This may not be the best cross section of
>> the
>> automotive performance aftermarket, and I certainly haven't even
>> gotten to
>> half the sites they link to, but I'm beginning to feel like I'd be very
>> much on my own.
>>
>>>
>>> I guess I was thinking U-joint and CV joints being steel. I forgot you
>>> want a CF or other light material driveshaft.
>>
>> I've talked to the folks at Inland Empire (iedls.com) over the phone,
>> and
>> they say they can make me an aluminum or carbon fiber shaft set up for
>> 1410-series U-joints. The more I think about it, the more I like this
>> plan. All that remains would be to find the longest and
>> largest-diameter
>> spline format I can (up to the diameter of the motor shaft) for a slip
>> yoke and give Netgain the go-ahead to start making the motor.
>>
>> CV joints would also be a great way to go, theoretically better in many
>> ways. Again, the only thing making me hesitant about CV joints is my
>> complete failure to find any information about using them for anything
>> but
>> FWD or IRS setups. If anyone has a URL, please don't be shy!
>>
>> I wasn't able to find anything on the Roadranger site you mentioned
>> either; a search for "CV JOINT" or "CV" in their parts search page
>> yields
>> zero hits. I'm finding their site really hard to navigate in general;
>> perhaps there's something I'm missing. On the other hand I can't help
>> thinking anything I find there would be far heavier than I want,
>> anyway.
>>
>>
>>> I haev heard explanations about cryo treatments. Mostly from sales
>>> types. Never used it. If we get to the point where we are worried
>>> about
>>> better material properties then we are too close to the edge ofthe
>>> design envelope because at this point we don't have the system defined
>>> well enough to understand all the possible loads. In my opinion, at
>>> least.
>>
>> You're probably right about this; I brought it up mainly to get
>> opinions
>> on it. Unfortunately, I don't have accurate information on the peak
>> torque the motor will produce, nor do I expect to have such data
>> before I
>> complete the truck. I'm suggesting 1600ft-lbs as a planning figure,
>> hoping
>> that this will turn out to be a comfortable exaggeration. I won't get
>> this much torque at 2000A, but later on with a bypass I'd like to have
>> *some* confidence that I can hit the switch without breaking the
>> driveline.
>>
>> I understand that other forces contribute to the overall picture, shock
>> loads due to potholes and gear play in the differential, etc. Can
>> these
>> factors be quantified? (Would knowing the mass of the armature help?)
>> Are
>> they even important? What additional information is needed in order to
>> get
>> a better handle on the design envelope?
>>
>> --chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher Robison wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seth Allen said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an estimate of maximum output speed? Or tire size and
>>>>> top
>>>>> speed. This is a concern when it comes to driveshaft angle,
>>>>> especially
>>>>> for u-joints.
>>>>
>>>> Netgain has tested the motor out to 6000 RPM, but claim that the
>>>> absolute
>>>> maximum should be 5000 without serious modifications (kevlar comm
>>>> wrap,
>>>> ceramic bearings etc), which seems reasonable for a motor of this
>>>> size. My
>>>> choice of rear end and tire diameter will be constrained by this.
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> 7000 RPM could be a comfortable planning figure for determining the
>>>> physical characteristics of the driveline...(?)
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I'd like to have a rear end gear setup for racing that allows
>>>> me
>>>> to
>>>> hit redline at 110-120mph or so, and another for street driving that
>>>> maxes
>>>> out at around 75mph for higher RPMs and better efficiency (with the
>>>> side
>>>> effect of harder launches). I've got the formulas in a spreadsheet,
>>>> but of
>>>> course the ratios I choose will depend on the wheels and tires I end
>>>> up
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some platings affect the fatigue strength. In general, I wouldn't
>>>>> do a
>>>>> plating. There should be grease most any place there will be
>>>>> splines,
>>>>> so I don't think there is a reason to plate. And all the other
>>>>> drivetrain parts will likely be steel or painted steel, wo why be
>>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> Or aluminum, or carbon fiber. :o) At any rate, it doesn't seem
>>>> necessary. One process I might be interested in is cryo-hardening; I
>>>> understand it is helpful in increasing abrasion resistance which
>>>> might
>>>> be
>>>> helpful for the splines, and has some strengthening aspects as well
>>>> (though the extent of this is debated). Do you have any information
>>>> or
>>>> experience with this?
>>>>
>>>> --chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 23, 2005, at 2:21 AM, Christopher Robison wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth Allen said:
>>>>>>> Ok, before I start, I will make a few assumptions and such:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1: You don't want to greatly increase cost, so a material that
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> need a rough machining, heat treat and grind to size is desirable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with this (I've got plenty of other parts of the truck that
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> also demanding my money), though I'm not sure even what kind of
>>>>>> neighborhood to shoot for. Am I looking at a thousand bucks no
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> I do, or am I just trying to save a hundred or so? I've already
>>>>>> spent
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> few grand; a couple hundred well-placed dollars aren't so much of
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> issue, but adding half the cost of the motor would be difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2: You need some plunge on the output
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what this means. Are you referring to the need for a
>>>>>> slip
>>>>>> yoke, or sliding element somewhere along the driveline? If so, yes
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> not willing to lock down the rear end (at least not permanently); I
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to allow for some suspension travel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3: a standard interface is nice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have bought from Inland Empire in the past; they make a wide
>>>>>> variety
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> slip yokes. In general though, yes, standard == good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4: you want it sized for fatigue life at peak torque (many
>>>>>>> dragstrip
>>>>>>> runs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. The motor will be heavy and expensive to ship, making the
>>>>>> cost
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> replacing the shaft pretty high, if I'm to have Netgain doing it.
>>>>>> Warfield
>>>>>> has a location in Dallas I'm told, but they don't work on the
>>>>>> Warps.
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> in all, I'd like the shaft to last. :o) I'm willing to spend a
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> more now to help with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5: you will not be getting it plated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't say without more information. What would be the benefit of
>>>>>> plating, and with what material? Is it expensive? Would it be worth
>>>>>> it? If
>>>>>> you're talking about aesthetics (chrome plating or whatever), then
>>>>>> no.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> just don't want it rusting. :o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If all this is right, then a suggestion for a steel might be a
>>>>>>> pre-hardened AISI 4140 which is fairly common and fairly easy to
>>>>>>> machine. It won't be fully hard, but you won't have to do the heat
>>>>>>> treat and grind to size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will make a note of this -- thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for an output. I have done standard yokes with slip joint
>>>>>>> driveshafts for trucks. Not sexy, but they work. But your torque
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> actually quite low if this is direct drive to the rear diff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compared to the potential if I had a transmission, yes, the torque
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> pretty low. It seemed high to me, but that was during my search
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> suitable manual transmission. On the other hand, the existing
>>>>>> driveshaft
>>>>>> on my truck probably doesn't even see a third as much torque,
>>>>>> flooring
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> in first gear. The input shaft on my transmission is only rated for
>>>>>> 175
>>>>>> ft-lbs; I don't have the ratios handy but output torque can't be
>>>>>> too
>>>>>> spectacular. In fact, in 1st I guess I probably get less peak
>>>>>> torque
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> the *wheels* today than I'll eventually get out of this motor. In
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> sense, it's not so bad. :o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A CV joint
>>>>>>> can easily handle this torque and requires no alignment of the
>>>>>>> yokes
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> concern over driveshaft angle. A CV flange on the output of the
>>>>>>> motor
>>>>>>> with whay would normally be an IRS halfshaft could work quite
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not quite familiar with the setup you're referring to. Is it
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> to get something like this that is long enough, and lightweight? I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been assuming the need for a traditional driveshaft and a slip-yoke
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> motor, in part because of the arrangement of the motor and
>>>>>> differential.
>>>>>> I'm planning on putting the motor under the passenger compartment,
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> the seats, where the transmission is now. I would put it further
>>>>>> back,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> I'd like to put battery boxes between the frame rails. I've been
>>>>>> planning
>>>>>> on using a large diameter aluminum or carbon fiber shaft between
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> battery boxes to reduce spinning mass. Can I have this same
>>>>>> arrangement
>>>>>> with CV joints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you speak of CV joints, I'm imagining the three rollers at the
>>>>>> end of
>>>>>> a shaft which fits in a cup with three deep corresponding grooves,
>>>>>> allowing both the CV torque transfer as well as a small amount of
>>>>>> sliding
>>>>>> motion. Is this the sort of thing you're referring to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is what I would do, but some people really refer U-joints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, I don't think I have enough knowledge to have a
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> preference. I have come to certain conclusions based on what I've
>>>>>> learned
>>>>>> so far, but of course nothing is really concluded until I start
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> acquiring the parts. Until then, the more I can learn, the better.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> OK
>>>>>> with CV joints (actually, I like the idea of the smooth torque
>>>>>> transfer,
>>>>>> and not having to worry about matching angles and such), I just
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> what else about my driveline plans would have to change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is
>>>>>>> the case, then at www.roadranger.com there are loads of U-joint
>>>>>>> specs
>>>>>>> there. ANd they will specify the spline options. Let me know what
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> preference is (CV joint or U-joint) and we can wade through the
>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>> and once a spline is found, see if it will work. Your torque is so
>>>>>>> low
>>>>>>> that with half-hard 4140 and an easily cut involute spline on a
>>>>>>> ~2"
>>>>>>> diameter that I think there will be no problem with fatigue life,
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> after effects like corrosion are figured in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the corrosion properties of 4140? What kind of
>>>>>> degradation
>>>>>> can I
>>>>>> expect, mechanically and aesthetically, assuming this will be
>>>>>> subjected to
>>>>>> water and road grime? For the most part though, this sounds like
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> looking for. Can we say that 1144 is out of the picture? I
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> responds well to heat treating, though I don't know if this will
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> me
>>>>>> what I want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will see what info I can dig up on CV joints used in this
>>>>>> application.
>>>>>> Although I'm hesitant about using techniques that aren't popular in
>>>>>> racing, I realize the operating parameters here are a bit different
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> may call for an unusual solution. Mainly, if we can plan a
>>>>>> driveline
>>>>>> that's lightweight, can span from the cab to the differential, can
>>>>>> tolerate the torque and the RPM (I'll be running a 5.0-5.3 or so
>>>>>> rear
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> ratio, not quite sure yet), then I won't have much rational cause
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
