EV Digest 4767
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Composite monocoque was-Unibody (was RE: We got the Sunrise !!!)
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV Donor car available (Saturn)
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: battery explosion
by "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
by Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Financing a conversion?
by Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: EV Donor car available (Saturn)
by "Matthew D. Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Trying to fix Pack Ground and Russco Problem.
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Siemens EV Motors
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
by "stU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: White Zombie Electrifies PIR ...12.424 @ 103.57 mph!
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Why solar cells are hard to get right now
by Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Siemens EV Motors
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Financing a conversion?
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: EV Donor car available (Saturn)
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Use of Photovoltaics for EVs
by "djsharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
From: jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Composite monocoque was-Unibody (was RE: We got the Sunrise
!!!)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Don and All,
Well said as moncoque/ unibody is not new at all as I've
used in it boats for yrs too prefering to put the weight in the skin rather
than frames/thinner skin saving much labor, interior room with better
puncture resistance, less overall weight.
The only difference in my Freedom EV, the future Sunrise
or Ferrari's is doing it in composites for cars. I expect in 10 yrs, it
will be much more common as a SUV could be built in 2,000 lbs that way.
You're probably right, Jerry - but not many would buy a 2000 lb SUV. People
buy SUVs because thay like to have 8000 pounds of steel around them, not
because they are concerned about mileage or usefulness. ( As well as an
attempt to compensate for certain inadequate body parts : - ).
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor, what kind of capacitors did you used?
I been looking at ESMA Asymmetric Supercapacitors, which are suppose to have a
long discharge time. Unlike standard capacitors where both electrodes are the
same, these capacitors have two different electrodes in a electrolyte of
potassium hydroxide (KOH).
Works like a battery, but can be charge very fast at a high ampere. Will vent
like a battery and can be refill with water like a battery. Suppose to have
over 500,000 charges/discharge cycles.
If this is true, than this would be the life of the EV and or the EV'er! I
suppose it would being like buying a house.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Danny Miller<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
Is that video available on the Web somewhere? If not please put it up,
I have some friends I'm sure would get a kick out of knowing it's
running on capacitors.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> I charged the bank to 370V rolled to the strip using cap's power, burn
> tires for perhaps 10 sec or so (I have video I can time) and run back
> to park on remaining energy. Turn out I haven't spent even half of it:
> The voltage was down to about 270V by the time I was done.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From my perspective the Saturn is one of the worst cars I can imagine for a
>conversion. Yes there have been a few of them done. My daughter had a 97 SL2
>model and it was the most horrible car I have ever had to deal with!
1. Brakes are possibly the the most puny on the face of the earth! Tiny drums
on the back, Tiny pads and rotors on the front. In short, they were trying to
save money. My daughter had one, it continually wore out brakes, and had
trouble stopping quickly ( which cause her to rearend someone once). Two master
cylinder replacements, at least 3 brake jobs..no better. I can just imagine it
with a load of batteries trying to stop!
2. VERY expensive parts compared to Chevy, Ford, etc. The only place to get
some of them is the Saturn Dealership and they were not cheap. Body parts
especially with the plastic panels, etc.
3. Very weak suspension, requiring extensive modification, springs, etc.
4. Narrow engine width, limiting choices of motor between the frame rails.
This of course is only my opinion, but if someone offered one to me for free I
wouldn't haul it away.
Mark Ward
St. Charles, MO
95 Saab 900SE "Saabrina"
www.saabrina.blogspot.com
>
> From: Tom Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/09/27 Tue AM 11:05:39 EST
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: EV Donor car available
>
> I have been contacted by a man who has a red 1994 Saturn SL2 that he is
> willing to donate to someone from Illinois or Wisconsin (or possibly
> outside that area) for use as an EV. The car is presently an ICE and
> will probably have to be towed wherever it's going. There is some body
> rust, from what I can see mainly below the doors.
>
> Anyone interested please contact me off-list and I'll send you photos
> and contact information.
>
> -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 ---
I've now around 35,000 miles using the stud posts torqued to 100 lbs and
have not had any problems. I clean the terminals and retorque once a
month. After a month of use (2000 miles), the torque on the studs is
around 70 inch pounds.
Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of TiM M
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:14 AM
To: EV-List-Post
Subject: RE: battery explosion
Hey Joe,
Did the battery actually explode, or did you blow
a terminal off the top of the battery? This happened
to me on my truck. The batteries were old and hadn't
been properly cared for, they had "universal"
terminals on them and the interconnects weren't the
best. I knew all this when I bought it and was
planning on addressing all these problems. Well the
truck decided I was taking too long. I was pulling
about 300 amps from a stop when I heard a bang and
lost power. I coasted to a conveniently located
parking spot and took a look. One battery in the
middle of the pack had almost no post left. There was
a scorch mark on the top of the battery box and little
trails across the top of the rest of he batteries from
the little balls of molten lead bouncing around.
A dirty connection leads to resistance which
causes heating, which causes higher resistance, which
causes more heating... if it goes on long enough,
bang!
I found out the hard way, you need to keep your
battery connections clean and tight.
TiM
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think if the cost of these ultracaps dropped by 10 fold, then they
would be much more feasible for this specific purpose and many others
as well.
But it is possible. The BYU EV-1 (an ultracap powered ride) set a record
at the DC event this year at 91mph and 14.080 seconds, and Victor's
ultracap powered Honda did a nice burnout at the Woodburn event. Maybe
BYU got their ultracaps donated, but I know Victor said he bought his
surplus.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've wondered about that too. Seems to me a tubular chassis would be
more rigid and pretty much impossible to just fracture the way a
composite monocoque would if it was hit hard. And the tubular frame
could begin to crush a little. The trouble with composites is they
are brittle. I imagine if you had a side impact, there is a chance
that broken rough edges could be shoved into the interior and that
would not be nice at all. But up to a certain threshold, it would
just bounce off the other vehicle and not be broken at all.
With steel unibodies, the idea is for it to crush in a controlled way
in an accident, to absorb the impact. But either a tubular chassis or
composite monocoque is designed to be stronger than that, so you will
increase your chance of whiplash injury I think. So if you design the
passenger compartment to be very rigid (a wise choice) you must still
have some components which are designed to be crushed in a controlled
way, and all the way around, not just on the ends.
With the tubular chassis, it's also important to have enough
cross-bracing that impacts from any angle cannot penetrate right
through the skin without actually contacting some of the tubular
framing, because that's where all the strength is.
I kindof like the idea of a tubular dune-buggy-like frame surrounded
by bumpers that are mounted on deformable arms, or on those juice-can
shock absorbers that Lee was talking about on the CitiVan. But it
should have the bumpers on the sides too, not just on the ends.
Something like the nacelles on a Star Trek shuttlecraft, maybe. :-)
And it does add weight and mess up the aerodynamics a bit,
unfortunately. But if you have a fore-and-aft 2-seater rather than
side-by-side seating, you can have more elbow room on both sides of
you, and still have the main body be narrower than most, so that you
have room for the side bumpers. Then there is plenty of crush space.
And it would be easier to get out of the car in a typical parking
space, too.
I've had 3 accidents so far in my life that were side impacts (the
first of which when I was a teenager was definitely my fault, and the
others were mistakes on the part of the other drivers), and another
one in which I was the one causing the side impact on the other
vehicle (the dude unexpectedly turned in front of me out of a 2-way
left turn lane and I had nowhere else to go but straight, and a small
fraction of a second to brake from the 45 mph limit, with a somewhat
heavy old car that didn't have antilock brakes). So from my
perspective a side impact is a very likely kind of accident. I've
never rear-ended anybody because I'm usually very alert while driving
and a little paranoid, and IMO those accidents are caused by
inadequate brakes or inadequate attention. Guess I'm just lucky that
I have also not been rear-ended by anybody else. And we won't get
into my 3 side-impact bicycle accidents, while I was in college and
riding every day on busy streets for 5 years. Anyway the point is I
think it's a little strange that cars only have bumpers on the ends,
and in a side impact you end up with the other car's bumper coming
within inches of your body as it crushes the side of the car inwards
towards you, and as the glass breaks and throws little shards all over
your face. It must be scary and dangerous as hell. Again I've been
lucky not to actually have this happen on the middle of the
driver-side door. Two were on the passenger side, and one hit behind
the driver side door, so that the solid axle on my Mustang took the
brunt of it.
At least a tubular frame could be so rigid that side impacts will
cause the vehicle to just bounce away. But then whiplash is a real
problem. I've been lucky so far, not having any noticeable long-term
effects from those accidents but I've got a lot of driving years left
too.
The Sparrow advertising pointed out that the composite monocoque is
like being completely inside a motorcycle helmet. The point I guess
is that because it is very round and rigid, it takes a lot of force to
break it, like trying to squish an eggshell. If that is true, it
increases the chance of whiplash. If it's not strong enough, you get
incursion of stuff into the passenger compartment. Either one can
injure you badly. And the Sparrow does not have side bumpers, so you
are relying on just the monocoque for protection.
On 9/27/05, stU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which would be stronger/safer in an accident, a composite monocoque or a
> tubular chassis (sand rail +) with paper-thin skin?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, I'm already to go buy Don's Solectria, having pre-qualified for a
used car loan, and give the VIN to my credit union, and they go "that's
a geo metro". Well, sorta, yeah. "We have to go by the vin." I.e.
taking it at a value of $1-2K, not the $10-12K market value. As in, if
I want a loan, it's treated as an unsecured personal loan.
Is there any recommended loan vendor that will actually look at the
market value of the vehicle in question?
--
NOTE TO OUTLOOK USERS: Some versions of Outlook have a bug in
dealing with digitally signed email like the one you're now reading:
when replying, before clicking Send, go to the Tools menu and make
sure that "Digitally Sign" is not checked (unless you actually
have a digital certificate, but most people don't yet --- see
https://www.thawte.com/email/ for information on getting one and
why you should. Feel free to ask me for help!).
Alan Batie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't believe the earlier Saturns suffered from so many problems as the
later ones. As a previous owner of the exact same car (1994 red SL2) I can
testify that in the 10 years I owned it, the only repair work I ever did on
it was to replace the alternator ($200).
So, 10 years and 170,000 miles on a $16,000 car that got 31 mpg. I'm sure
there are worse candidates out there! I'm surprised to hear that they put
drums on the later SL2 models.
Actually, I'm not surprised. The '92 to '94 Saturns probably got the highest
customer satisfaction rating of any U.S. car ever produced. That's why I
bought mine. Clearly that meant that there was plenty of room for
cost-cutting measures!
Matt Graham
Hobe Sound, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:45 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: EV Donor car available (Saturn)
>From my perspective the Saturn is one of the worst cars I can imagine for a
conversion. Yes there have been a few of them done. My daughter had a 97
SL2 model and it was the most horrible car I have ever had to deal with!
1. Brakes are possibly the the most puny on the face of the earth! Tiny
drums on the back, Tiny pads and rotors on the front. In short, they were
trying to save money. My daughter had one, it continually wore out brakes,
and had trouble stopping quickly ( which cause her to rearend someone once).
Two master cylinder replacements, at least 3 brake jobs..no better. I can
just imagine it with a load of batteries trying to stop!
2. VERY expensive parts compared to Chevy, Ford, etc. The only place to
get some of them is the Saturn Dealership and they were not cheap. Body
parts especially with the plastic panels, etc.
3. Very weak suspension, requiring extensive modification, springs, etc.
4. Narrow engine width, limiting choices of motor between the frame rails.
This of course is only my opinion, but if someone offered one to me for free
I wouldn't haul it away.
Mark Ward
St. Charles, MO
95 Saab 900SE "Saabrina"
www.saabrina.blogspot.com
>
> From: Tom Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/09/27 Tue AM 11:05:39 EST
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: EV Donor car available
>
> I have been contacted by a man who has a red 1994 Saturn SL2 that he
> is willing to donate to someone from Illinois or Wisconsin (or
> possibly outside that area) for use as an EV. The car is presently an
> ICE and will probably have to be towed wherever it's going. There is
> some body rust, from what I can see mainly below the doors.
>
> Anyone interested please contact me off-list and I'll send you photos
> and contact information.
>
> -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 ---
Problem 1) My GFCI tripped this weekend on the ruscco so I haven't driven my
truck since.
I think I tracked down my pack to frame grounding problem. There is one battery
which if measured from one post to the frame ground reads around ~5 volts and
from the other post to the frame read -~1.5 volts.
I cleaned off the batts and charged again and it was fine for a while but
tripped sometime during the night.
I cleaned off the batteries again especially the one in question and it is
still reading voltage to the frame ground but it wavers by a 10th of a volt
after I clean it each time. It continues to get more positive or negative when
I go into the pack different directions so I am pretty sure this is the
battery. It is in a fiberglass box with a metal post nearby but it isn't
touching it and I have washed both thouroughly. Any ideas how to clean it more
or to get rid of this?
Problem 2) I think this was caused by the first issue. I have never had a
problem with a Russco and I have used them on and off over 4 years or so. It
seems to be charging fine but the light on top and the digital readout died
just after the GFCI trip. Is it safe to use the charger like this or do I need
to replace it?
Thanks,
Mark Hastings
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's not too realistic either because your 120v bank will not be useful
down to 12v, or anywhere near there. At lower speeds lower voltage are
useful, but in this case voltage decreases as you take off and there
won't be enough voltage to keep the motor up. If you redo that for 100v
minimum it might be a little more realistic and the energy capacity is
far lower still. 70% less if I did my math right.
Still, they've got some potential, that's an astronomical amount for
caps. It's quite cool because the cap cycle is so crazy efficient and
easy to understand their state-of-charge. Hopefully this will trickle
down in a few years so large numbers of them can be found cheap or
scrapped out of hybrids.
Danny
Mark Dodrill wrote:
I plugged in 120v
start voltage, 12v finish voltage, 800 amps for 12 seconds. This totals to
176 watt/hours worth of energy storage, in 672 ultracaps (BCAP0350). Even if
you believe that this is enough energy to get a drag racer down the line
(which I don't), the cost is going to be astronomical.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor wrote:
> Can you find me any industrial 60 hz liquid cooled motor
> small enough to be usable in an EV?
I've searched and searched and I don't think there is such a thing.
I've also looked for suitable air cooled AC motors.. Even if found,
there is still the inverter issue...
Victor, will any of your inverters work with the motor Lee linked too?
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?&catname=&qty=1&item=10-1937
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shawn Rutledge
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:50 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
With steel unibodies, the idea is for it to crush in a controlled way
in an accident, to absorb the impact. But either a tubular chassis or
composite monocoque is designed to be stronger than that, so you will
increase your chance of whiplash injury I think. So if you design the
passenger compartment to be very rigid (a wise choice) you must still
have some components which are designed to be crushed in a controlled
way, and all the way around, not just on the ends.
Batteries up front would be perfect as they are squarish and they would
crush pretty evenly from all angles. Over the front axle.
stU
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Rice wrote:
> Would hafta pour the floors full of concrete to get it to stick to the
> trak<g>!
Just put some slicks on it and it will hook...
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/092a.jpg
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If the monocoque is properly engineered it can be lighter, stronger and
safer than a well engineered tube frame or space frame. Almost all F1
formula cars use monocoques for this reason.
However... good engineering is only good as the simulated crash designs. If
only designed for a head on collision at 200kmh, it may not be able to
handle a 50kmh side impact. The same applies for the engineering of any
style of chassis.
Good engineering requires good engineers (well trained) and good tools (FEA,
etc.) For composites it also requires skilled fabricators and good
equipment (vacuum bagging, prepregs, autoclaves).
Tube frames or space frames (there is a difference) are popular amongst
amateurs and practitioners as there are many rules of thumb available
(requiring less "engineering") and welding is easier than aerospace
composites.
Don
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of stU
Sent: September 27, 2005 1:51 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
Which would be stronger/safer in an accident, a composite monocoque or a
tubular chassis (sand rail +) with paper-thin skin?
BoyntonStu
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerry dycus
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:38 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Composite monocoque was-Unibody (was RE: We got the Sunrise
!!!)
Hi Don and All,
Well said as moncoque/ unibody is not new at all as I've
used in it boats for yrs too prefering to put the weight in the skin rather
than frames/thinner skin saving much labor, interior room with better
puncture resistance, less overall weight.
The only difference in my Freedom EV, the future Sunrise
or Ferrari's is doing it in composites for cars. I expect in 10 yrs, it will
be much more common as a SUV could be built in 2,000 lbs that way.
It's biggest problem and strength is it is an inherently
low production technic. But it's tooling is also many times cheaper than
steel uni body tooling so over the long run, it's just as cost effective as
steel. And if a model doesn't sell 100,000/yr, you can still make money. In
fact if done right, can be profitable on as few as 12 units/yr !! Great for
EV start ups !!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about this:
"The first automotive application of the monocoque technique was 1923's
Lancia Lambda. Citroën built the first mass-produced monocoque vehicle in
1934, the innovative Traction Avant. The popular Volkswagen Beetle also used
a semi-monocoque body (its frame required the body for support) in 1938.
In the post-war period the technique became more widely used. The Ford
Consul introduced an evolution called unit body or unibody. In this system,
separate body panels are still used but are bolted to a monocoque
body-shell. Spot welded unibody construction is now the dominant technique
in automobiles, though some vehicles (particularly trucks) still use the
older body-on-frame technique.
In automobiles, it is common to see true monocoque frames, where the
structural members around the window and door frames are built by folding
the skin material several times. In these situations the main concerns are
spreading the load evenly, having no holes for corrosion to start, and
reducing the overall workload. Compared to older techniques, in which a body
is bolted to a frame, monocoque cars are less expensive and stronger.
Monocoque design is so sophisticated that windshield and rear window glass
now often make an important contribution to the designed structural strength
of automobiles"
BTW - it was used extensively in aircraft before being applied to
automobiles.
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul G.
Sent: September 27, 2005 9:07 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: We got the Sunrise !!!
On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dave wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware it was a uni-body (Pioneered by
> Lincoln Zephyr in 1939, by the way). As I said, it was just a random
> thought.
Unibody construction was used before 1939. The Chrysler Airflow was a
unibody vehicle and was introduced in 1934. I doubt they invented the
concept either.
Paul
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This may be a temporary problem. Due to very large PV subsidies in Germany
right now (which has created a huge demand there) there's a
very tight market for PV panels - which has driven up prices and driven down
availability. The situation should ease in the next 6 - 18 months,
however. I don't know what the Germans are going to do, but it's been reported
that there's more than one new PV crystal factory under
construction right now, which should increase the supply significantly when
they come on line. If you can wait a while you may find the
situation has changed.
1) I've discovered in my research that even the so-called "commercial"
> panels are difficult to get. I have written to several online
> merchants, and all but one have ignored my mail. I am at the point
> where I will probably invent a business entity to gain distributor
> access, just so I can get in the queue for panels. With a planned
> purchase of about $12K (for four 4-packs, as the Sanyos come), and the
> cash available, I am stymied in my efforts. Lead times and waiting
> lists make it difficult, and finding stock is an ongoing effort.
Kluge
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Danny Miller wrote:
Is that video available on the Web somewhere? If not please put it up,
I have some friends I'm sure would get a kick out of knowing it's
running on capacitors.
Danny
http://www.metricmind.com/data/asf_0002.mpeg
I need to edit it though, separating from other parts of the video,
(because it is ~110 MEG file and few minutes download for
even for a fat DSL or cable connection).
All this was taken as one long shot and I believe is
saved in DIVX (MPEG4) format. I don't have right tools to do
the split, and not an expert in video editing things, unless it is
very basic operation.
Have fun watching,
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roland Wiench wrote:
Victor, what kind of capacitors did you used?
Maxwell PC2500
http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/images/cap_1.jpg
Look for other images here (scroll down):
http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/ultracaps.htm
I been looking at ESMA Asymmetric Supercapacitors, which are suppose
to have a long discharge time. Unlike standard capacitors where both
electrodes are the same, these capacitors have two different
electrodes in a electrolyte of potassium hydroxide (KOH).
Discharge time is only function of the capacity (all else being equal),
asymmetric capacitors just use different chemistry and design to achieve
higher capacity for given volume and weight.
2700F capacitor will discharge at the same rate for given current,
symmetrical or asymmetrical.
Works like a battery, but can be charge very fast at a high ampere.
Will vent like a battery and can be refill with water like a battery.
Suppose to have over 500,000 charges/discharge cycles.
If it stores energy by accepting charge on its electrodes
(whatever they are) without altering their chemistry, they are
still capacitors. If they convert electrolite from one
form to another or change its properties (like specific
gravity of the acid in PbA battery) thus storing energy
that way, it is rather a battery than the capacitor. Perhaps
one can come up with mixture of both (is is capattery or
battacitor? :-) )but then it is not apples to apples comparison
with pure capacitors (ultra- or plain).
If this is true, than this would be the life of the EV and or the
EV'er! I suppose it would being like buying a house.
You don't need to get *that* exotic to be a happy EVer.
A nice pack of Kokam lithiums would make me as happy as one can get.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have an idea then: why not set up a no-battery NEDRA class?
I'd qualify, and already set first unofficial record ;-)
Ken Trough wrote:
I think if the cost of these ultracaps dropped by 10 fold, then they
would be much more feasible for this specific purpose and many others
as well.
But it is possible. The BYU EV-1 (an ultracap powered ride) set a record
at the DC event this year at 91mph and 14.080 seconds, and Victor's
ultracap powered Honda did a nice burnout at the Woodburn event. Maybe
BYU got their ultracaps donated, but I know Victor said he bought his
surplus.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
THe motors have to have shaft position sensor.
Siemens uses 64 teeth quadrature output hall effect one.
If you provide similar output by fitting suitable sensor,
you can technically make it work, but the inverter's software
will be asking for the stator and rotor inductances and other
parameters. Perhaps you can make shaft rotate, but the outcome
will be far worse than Lee predicted (few percent efficiency
loss and running hotter).
If I connect inverter to a 5135WS14 (45kW) Siemens motor
and it is programmed for 5105WS12 (18kW) Siemens motor,
I can run it with no load, but it is dangerous because
invertrer expects certain inductance to be there and
calculates PWM parameters (ramp times) based for long enough time for
transients to settle (and this time depends on inductances,
entered and parasitic). Wrong timing my cause IGBT to conduct
in wrong moments.
Lee clearly presents theory behind, all AC induction motors
are induction motors, and should work fine if powered right.
It is more complicated in practice - inverters don't know
how to power "foreign" motors right - a thermal motor model
is stored in the inverter's memory as a set of lookup tables.
That allows de-rating as temp rises only as much as needed,
still having as much power as possible avaialble.
There are no software models for those surplus motors.
It is not recommended experiments, not to mention that
non-siemens motors connection is not supported and warranted.
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Victor wrote:
Can you find me any industrial 60 hz liquid cooled motor
small enough to be usable in an EV?
I've searched and searched and I don't think there is such a thing.
I've also looked for suitable air cooled AC motors.. Even if found,
there is still the inverter issue...
Victor, will any of your inverters work with the motor Lee linked too?
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?&catname=&qty=1&item=10-1937
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
With all due respect, be smart.
Insure it as an EV; actual cash value policy.
If Don had done so, the insurance papers would prove
the value, and the bank might be more inclined to lend
the market value.
Barring that, pull money out of your 403b investment.
Otherwise, I'm out of suggestions...
--- Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I'm already to go buy Don's Solectria, having
> pre-qualified for a
> used car loan, and give the VIN to my credit union,
> and they go "that's
> a geo metro". Well, sorta, yeah. "We have to go by
> the vin." I.e.
> taking it at a value of $1-2K, not the $10-12K
> market value. As in, if
> I want a loan, it's treated as an unsecured personal
> loan.
>
> Is there any recommended loan vendor that will
> actually look at the
> market value of the vehicle in question?
>
> --
> NOTE TO OUTLOOK USERS: Some versions of Outlook have
> a bug in
> dealing with digitally signed email like the one
> you're now reading:
> when replying, before clicking Send, go to the Tools
> menu and make
> sure that "Digitally Sign" is not checked (unless
> you actually
> have a digital certificate, but most people don't
> yet --- see
> https://www.thawte.com/email/ for information on
> getting one and
> why you should. Feel free to ask me for help!).
>
> Alan Batie
>
>
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V (video or DVD available)!
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just got my similar 92 SC2 conversion running. A few thoughts.
1. I do have to agree, the brakes are a little bit on the small side, but seem
to be enough to lock up the wheels thus far so I can't say they're too bad. On
the SC2 there was a rear disk brake option so I think I'm going to eventually
look in to obtaining the kit for this from a junkyard if I can.
2. Haven't had to deal with this yet, but plastic sure is a lot harder to get
door dings in.
3. Granted, I've got custom springs being made here soon
4. 9" ADC motor fit in mine, but your right it just barely fit. I was planning
on running the AC compressor off the tail shaft of the motor, but I don't think
there will be room to do this. Also if the newer one is anything like mine the
passenger side half shaft has a joint half way down that bolts to the engine
block which you'll have to make a bracket to mount it to the motor.
On the upside it turned out to be a rather efficient conversion. With my 800lb
144 volt pack the car cruises at ~45 mph at about 50 amps. On the freeway it's
about 75 amps at 55-60mph. I don't have the largest battery pack, but it does
help. Also on the SC2 the drag coefficient is pretty low at .31, which is only
2% worse than a C5 Corvette, but like you said they are a bit heavy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>From my perspective the Saturn is one of the worst cars I can imagine for a
>conversion. Yes there have been a few of them done. My daughter had a 97 SL2
>model and it was the most horrible car I have ever had to deal with!
1. Brakes are possibly the the most puny on the face of the earth! Tiny drums
on the back, Tiny pads and rotors on the front. In short, they were trying to
save money. My daughter had one, it continually wore out brakes, and had
trouble stopping quickly ( which cause her to rearend someone once). Two master
cylinder replacements, at least 3 brake jobs..no better. I can just imagine it
with a load of batteries trying to stop!
2. VERY expensive parts compared to Chevy, Ford, etc. The only place to get
some of them is the Saturn Dealership and they were not cheap. Body parts
especially with the plastic panels, etc.
3. Very weak suspension, requiring extensive modification, springs, etc.
4. Narrow engine width, limiting choices of motor between the frame rails.
This of course is only my opinion, but if someone offered one to me for free I
wouldn't haul it away.
Mark Ward
St. Charles, MO
95 Saab 900SE "Saabrina"
www.saabrina.blogspot.com
>
> From: Tom Hudson
> Date: 2005/09/27 Tue AM 11:05:39 EST
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: EV Donor car available
>
> I have been contacted by a man who has a red 1994 Saturn SL2 that he is
> willing to donate to someone from Illinois or Wisconsin (or possibly
> outside that area) for use as an EV. The car is presently an ICE and
> will probably have to be towed wherever it's going. There is some body
> rust, from what I can see mainly below the doors.
>
> Anyone interested please contact me off-list and I'll send you photos
> and contact information.
>
> -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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mounting PVs on vehicles with limited surface areas and the need to
mount them flat (at least whilst moving) is less preferred than locating
them in optimised fixed locations. Here the energy produced can be fed
into the grid for later recovery or stored directly in batteries. I have
heard that solar challenge PVs are sometimes damaged during the events.
They are fragile things. I have 3kW of PV on a roof & am planning 1.6kW
more. This is to power my house but it is not enough to charge my EV as
well.
David
--- End Message ---
