EV Digest 4843
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: can a plane be an electric vehicle (at least a little bit)?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: motor selection - AC55 vs Siemens - torque calculation
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: motor selection - AC55 vs Siemens
by Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Logisystems controller works well.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Emeter Test
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: clutchless vw
by "john" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: clutchless vw
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: charger woes, obsolete parts
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Meter polarity question
by TiM M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re:123 STREET E CLUB
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Meter polarity question
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: motor selection - AC55 vs Siemens
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Re: S-10 now stripped
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19) Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20) Re: 2 cars, 4 options.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Free Subaru 360/600 body no motor
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Autoclutching an EV, was Re: clutchless vw
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23) Clutchless EVs
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24) RE: can a plane be an electric vehicle (at least a little bit)?
by "Noel P. Luneau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) OT: LEDs Will Replace "everything!"
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Meter polarity question
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
You'd be amazed at the resistance to change the aircraft industry has
historically had. The resistance to adopt fuel injection comes to
mind. In fact, many craft even lack electronic ignition and still use a
points-based ignition. I'm not in the industry but I hear it's just
there isn't a lot of trust in new electronic designs for one. Not
entirely unwarranted, we've probably all heard of someone with a lemon
car whose computer just killed the engine for no apparent reason.
Nobody wants to be in that one lemon aircraft.
The general aviation market in the US has been quite dead for a long
time. Many of the craft in service were built in the 70's, then lack of
strong market in private planes and crushing liability lawsuits are
blamed for keeping it down and there isn't much for new craft available.
Danny
rcboyd wrote:
When you develop an electric system that weighs in at total of three
hundred pounds, puts out a hundred horsepower for over three hours, and
can be recharged in 15 minutes, then you can compete with a Cessna 150
or Piper super cub.
Bob Boyd (Over 15000 hours in all kinds of aircraft from gliders to four
engine jets. WW2 fighter pilot. Aircraft mechanics aircraft and power
plant license, and Instructor and Airline transport pilot ratings.)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:48 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: can a plane be an electric vehicle (at least a little bit)?
Is anyone familiar with work being done regarding fuel efficiency
improvements of personal or business aircraft? The incorporation of
solar electric or plug-in concepts within aviation is something that
I've been curious about for a long time and I'm very interested to chat
with people who are involved in this area. If anyone can advise about
resources related to alternative fuels for aviation, I would really
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Brad
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
FWIW, the efficiency numbers on the Solectria/ Azure dyno ran lower
than those at Baldor. Solectria measurement parts were NIST traceable,
and I presume Baldor's setup was traceable, also. So the efficiency
numbers they post are low compared to a measurement on a notable motor
manufacturers dyno. FWIW.
I always liked the AC55. I just thought it needed a bigger inverter to
drive it. A 420ARMS (600A peak) unit would be nice, as would a 600V
bus.
I always wanted to suff one in my VW Golf.
Seth
On 10/21/05, Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > > hp = torque * RPM / 5252
> >
> > This is in the USA. Everywhere else it's just
> > torque*rev per second, period. No need to memorize other numbers.
>
> Actually that formula for HP is true EVERYWHERE in the world.
>
> If you want to solve for a different measurement of power, then yes,
> obviously the formula will be different.
>
>
> --
> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
> legalistic signature is void.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Except the loss of power is the worst at high input shaft speeds. For
most of the speed range, it looks like a constant torque loss, rising
slightly with (I assume) viscous oil losses. So you want to maximize
the torque input to make the fraction of torque lost the least.
Running lightly loaded at high input speed was the worst condition I
observed when I tested a multispeed gearbox. This is the condition you
would operate in when running at highway speed in a single speed
gearbox.
Solectria Force single speed gearboxes are made with very light fluid,
small bearings and small gears, which help minimize this. But I am not
sure they are better than a multispeed box.
Seth
On 10/21/05, Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >> You are not reading the curves correctly.
> >> Power = RPM * Torque
> >> You can NOT keep torque and RPM constant and vary power. One, or the
> >> other, or both must vary.
> >
> > But the motor could have optimal torque/RPM in a relatively
> > steady-state, and the power to the _wheels_ could be changed with the
> > gears, right?
>
> No, a multispeed transmission just trades torque for RPM, power output
> remains the same as power input (minus losses, of course).
> I.e. If you cut the rpm in 1/2 you double the torque, power remains the same.
>
> > My admittedly naive reading of the torque/RPM charts tells me I would
> > get the best efficiency from my AC55 by shooting for a set of gears that
> > let me keep the motor in its sweet spot or range.
>
> True, keeping the motor in it's "sweet spot" maximizes efficiency.
> However, the sweet spot moves all over the place depending on the power,
> rpm, voltage applied, etc.
> The curves makes it look like the sweet spot happens at a narrow RPM, but
> that's because they are holding something constant. Apllied electrical
> power, voltage, whatever.
> In real life, when the inputs are fluctuating the sweet spot (RPM) moves.
> Don't fret it much though, this just means that you don't really need all
> that many gears.
> Generally speaking, when traveling on flat ground for example, the sweet
> spot moves at almost the same rate as the power required for different
> speeds. So, for the most part, a single gear will keep you in the sweet
> spot over a wide range of speeds.
> A second gear can help for hills, or heavy acceleration at low speeds.
>
> In fact, the efficiency advantage of changing gears is probably less than
> the extra losses of a multi-speed transmission. This is why all of the
> recent production EVs have single speed transmissions.
> They might loose some efficiency at low speeds or on hills, but over all
> these losses acount for little compared to over all driving.
>
> For example, lets say a single speed tranmission results in the motor
> running at 50% efficiency when traveling at 5 mph (parking lot speeds).
> Wow! THat's horrible right? Not really, it only takes a couple hundred
> watts to travel at 5 mph, so you only lose 100-150 watts. If you travel
> at 5 mph for an hour, you loose 150 wh. Big deal.
> Besides, when's the last time you drove at 5 mph for an hour?
>
> Now let's say that the multispeed transmission is 5% less efficient than a
> single speed transmission. At 65 mph, your EV probably requires at leat
> 15 kw. 5% of 15KW = 750 watts. That means the multispeed tranny is
> costing you 750 watts extra at low highway speeds. Spend an hour driving
> at 65 mph and you loose 750 WH, that's 5 times as much as you loose at 5
> mph due to motor inefficiency with a single speed tranny.
> And it's much more likely that you'll spend an hour driving at 65 mph,
> than an hour driving at 5 mph.
>
> 5% is possibly overly pessimistic, but even if the difference is only 1%
> it stills makes more sense to use the single speed tranny.
> That is if /efficiency/ is you primary concern.
>
>
> --
> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
> legalistic signature is void.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As some of you know the Aspire now has a 144v 1221B upgrade. It is totally
silent.(I hear a little FM noise on the radio) Chirps the tires pretty good
if you tromp the throttle. Has great Acceleration in 2nd and 3rd going to
Freeway speeds. I'd say it was equal or just a bit peppier than the
orginal. It cost me 750 dollars and worth every penny. The controller was
busted so I got a repair and upgrade for about half what a Zilla would cost.
The Aspire is about 2700 pounds now. The Delphi's are sagging badly. I
have a 10 to 15 mile range. Useful but disappointing. The pack is comming
back slowly but it's hard to say what the useful life of this 6 year old
pack will be. Battey MD in Sacramento is little use. They won't do
individual batteries or EVen offer to help. Not to mention their prices or
outragous. I'm still experimenting with different voltages but 10.1 seems
best. I have a feeling this little controller will do just fine for this
weight of vehicle and voltage. It's nice having a peppy EV. I'd highly
recommen Logixyxtems for upgrades or controller repair. LR........
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dennis wrote:
> #### SLICKS are not street legal###### in the 123 club
I meant to write DOT "Slicks". ;)
They have tread...
http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=15715&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=36685
http://www.mickeythompsontires.com/strip_et_street.html
Rock hard radials are actually dangerous. Slicks are safer in dry
conditions. If it's not raining(summer), the less tread the better.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger, Lynn and all,
You are perfectly right, my mistake. I read positive and typed neg.
I certainly would have rechecked the diagram again and hopefully would have
realized my mistake.
In any case, thanks for pointing it out.
Also thanks for pointing out that the meter needs to be powered only (pins 1 &
5) and the functions come alive. I guess also since I am sure of my power
supply, a single 12 V battery connected to nothing except the emeter, I don't
need the fuses.
Thanks again,
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Emeter Test
> Rush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The manual is downloaded from xantrex's site and according to
>> the diagram that I have, on page 13, what I said is exactly
>> what the diagram shows.
>
> Nope. Almost.
>
> Lynn wrote:
>
>> > My emeter wires as follows
>> >
>> > Pin 1: load side of shunt and negative 12V power. If you
>> > are powering off the same battery you are using for load
>> > testing this can be a problem.
>> > Pin 2 load side of shunt for current sense
>> > Pin 3 battery side of shunt
>> > Pin 4 positive pack voltage
>> > Pin 5 positive meter voltage
>
> You wrote:
>
>> > 1) Black from terminal 1 to load side, big bolt, of shunt
>> > 2) Green (part of twisted pair) from terminal 2 to load side, small
>> > screw, of shunt.
>> > 3) Orange (part of twisted pair) from terminal 3 to small screw on
>> > Battery side of shunt
>> > 4) Blue wire from terminal 4 thru 2 amp fuse (within 7" of
>> > battery) to battery pos.
>> > 5) Red wire from terminal 5 thru 2 amp fuse (within 7" of
>> > battery) to batter neg.
>
> Notice that you wrote that you were going to connect pin 5 (E-Meter
> power) to battery *negative*.
>
> A typo, I'm sure, but not what you want to do. ;^>
>
> Otherwise, what you wrote is fine. There is no problem powering the
> E-meter directly from the battery being monitored other than ensuring
> that the voltage remains in the appropriate range for the E-Meter. This
> means the E-Meter supply voltage must remain above 9V and below 40V.
> Some on the list have reported that they believe they've fried their
> meters by providing them with a supply voltage near, but under, the 40V
> spec in the manual, so you may want to err on the side of caution and
> keep the supply voltage below 36V to be safe.
>
> All that you need to connect to play with the E-Meter is the +/- supply
> connections (pin 1 & 5). The meter will come to life and you can fool
> with the programmable functions, etc. Connect pin 4 (voltage sense) to
> your supply +ve and the meter will now display the supply voltage (you
> can make/break this connection while the meter is powered without risk
> of damage). Add the shunt connections and you are set to monitor
> current as well.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
WOW thank you all for your suggestions. I do some studying of all of them.
We are in the planning stage right now. Thanks again
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Argon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: clutchless vw
John,
Really, you don't need a clutch AC or DC. I
drove/raced my Ghia (DC) with no clutch to save the
weight of the whole mechanism. On the road I just
left it in 2nd even from a stop, this is a good gear
for around town, I rarely used 3rd. If you want to
shift you "double accelerate" (to syncro the motor to
the trany output), they use to call it double clutch
before syncro tranys. When you get good, its not bad
upshifting, downshifting is harder but if your
stopping don't downshift until you've stopped (this is
good practice in an ICEmobile also).
When you need to shift in reverse your stopped anyway
- no problem. Your friend will have a clutch but if
someone wanted to eliminate it, the coupler is simple,
just use a keyed motor coupler and bolt on an old
clutch hub for the spline.
The most difficult skill is patience - take your time
and let the syncros do the work. A clutch is easier
but if you can't use one its not so bad without a
clutch.
If you have the bucks - Victor is right, go AC direct
drive, regen is great.
Jimmy
--- Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it is preferred to drive without clutch as is
best for your friend,
an AC setup may be ideal. No gear switching needed
at all, so no clutch
necessary as well. Does not need any extra
contactors to go
in reverse either.
Moreover, you can easily set it up off-throttle
regen so that 95%
of the time she won't have a need to touch the brake
pedal either.
Victor
john wrote:
> A friend wants me to build her a VW bug
conversion. Problem is she
> has one leg in a brace and can't use the clutch.
I know she could go
> clutchless and put into gear before taking off but
I was wondering if
> a set up like my Citicar would work on a VW?
Using contactors for
> forward and reverse? Any thoughts would be
welcomed.
>
> John in Tucson.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a racing clutch in my 300zx, no springs in the disk and .100
engaugement. (tilton 3plate 5.25)
When I shifted too quick the first time I used it, the hammer like shock
on the driveline was a surprise.
Even with the light flywheel and clutch(10 lbs) the mass of the
rotateing armature is still substantial.
I think some kind of load sensative enguagement delay would be a good
addition to this idea.
accelerating hard = short duration shifting ?
acceleration light = longer duration ?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 10/21/05 8:23:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: 123 STREET E CLUB
Date: 10/21/05 8:23:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Stotts)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Dennis wrote:
> #### SLICKS are not street legal###### in the 123 club
I meant to write DOT "Slicks". ;)
They have tread...
http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=15715&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=36685
http://www.mickeythompsontires.com/strip_et_street.html
Rock hard radials are actually dangerous. Slicks are safer in dry
conditions. If it's not raining(summer), the less tread the better.
>>legal DOT are fine
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am gonna second the sentement about electrolytics going bad.
And going bad by increased ESR not loss of capacitance, so much so that
I can see my meter takeing longer to get a reading.
I have been forced to repair some switchmode power supplies that are
obsolete and the oscilator just stops.
>From what I gather, designers can design to different levels of stress
on these caps and different degrees of dependence on the low ESR.
Are the electrolytics of today better than 10 years ago? Is there a way
around this problem?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
While my charger is down for repairs I'm using my 12V
charger to charge my batteries in pairs. This is
taking quite a bit longer than I expected it to, but I
don't have a choice right now. Anyway, I'm using a DMM
to monitor the charging process. I moved the charger
to the next pair and I put the meter leads across the
battery. I inadvertently reversed the probes and I got
a reading of -14.7V. This was higher than I expected,
I switched the leads around and got a reading of
12.5V. This was closer to what I expected to see. This
was before I turned on the charger. I went to a pair
that I had already charged and got the same difference
when I switched polarity on the meter. What would
cause this? I'm using a calibrated Fluke 87-III that I
borrowed from work, it's no $10 Harbor Freight meter.
Any thoughts?
TiM
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That's funny Dennis I never said that.
I just resent you tweaking your nose at us all.
You already have more cash and backing in that truck that anyone else in
Nedra has this year.
Ever feel you are bragging alone on a street corner????
After awhile even those of us who respect your efforts, Become tired of the
same old ," I can whip your ass anyday of the week" Line.
We know you can...
So politley do it, and let us know when you have.
NO Dennis you just don't get it. And IT has nothing to do with EV racing and
going fast.
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: Re:123 STREET E CLUB
> I have recently been told that my S10 pickup will not qualify for the
madman
> 100mph club SO.....................
> The
> 123 street E club is now open Thats 123 MPH in
the
> QT.MILE With just 3
>
rules.......................................................................
............................
>
> 1) Insurance and license
> 2) off the
shelf
> lead batteries
> 3) follow NHRA
> guidelines
> $1000 to the 1st EV there (myself excluded)Then a
THEY
> JUST DONT GET IT TROPHY from there on.
> DENNIS BERUBE
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:30 PM 21/10/05 -0700, TiM wrote:
<snip> I moved the charger
to the next pair and I put the meter leads across the
battery. I inadvertently reversed the probes and I got
a reading of -14.7V. This was higher than I expected,
I switched the leads around and got a reading of
12.5V. <snip> What would
cause this? I'm using a calibrated Fluke 87-III that I
borrowed from work, it's no $10 Harbor Freight meter.
Any thoughts?
Some Fluke models have a disclaimer to the extent of what you are seeing,
but I thought that it didn't start to happen until a lower % of range than
that.
The meter may be faulty, incorrectly reading 'reverse' polarity, and due to
always checking 'forward' polarity when calibration testing has not been
picked up. Type of thing that happens from time to time.
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For clarification so as not to confuse the non drag racers on this list the
only difference between a street legal wrinkle wall drag slick and a regular
racing drag slick is that the street legal ones have a DOT insignia and have
two straight grooves around the tire. All the different racing rubber
compounds are available. That is why you will see 9 second street legal cars
at the strip.
Roderick
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
#### SLICKS are not street legal###### in the 123 club
Will this run "the number"?
>>
**Its not what I am doing with my S10, but I sure do not have all the
answers. Dennis
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Except the loss of power is the worst at high input shaft speeds. For
> most of the speed range, it looks like a constant torque loss, rising
> slightly with (I assume) viscous oil losses. So you want to maximize
> the torque input to make the fraction of torque lost the least.
> Running lightly loaded at high input speed was the worst condition I
> observed when I tested a multispeed gearbox. This is the condition you
> would operate in when running at highway speed in a single speed
> gearbox.
>
Two problems here.
First data from multispeed transmissions doesn't neccessarily apply to
single speed trannies.
The second point is the big one, the transmission might run most
efficiently at low RPM high Torque inputs, but this is where the MOTOR
runs at it's lowest efficiency point.
You get better overall system efficiency running the motor at higher RPMs.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 10/21/05 11:41:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re:123 STREET E CLUB
Date: 10/21/05 11:41:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Rudman)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
That's funny Dennis I never said that.
I just resent you tweaking your nose at us all.
!!!!!!You have not agreed on the placement of my motor,or me using a full
cage,or having no sound system(I really do listen to just am talk radio)or the
lite weight seats ect.I should be able to have all this and still drive it on
the street complying with az.regulations.I thought the madman 100 club was for
street used vechs.
You already have more cash and backing in that truck that anyone else in
Nedra has this year.
!!!!!! Lets see Truck$200 Axel $900 Motor $100 + a lot of my own time
Wheels/tires$900 Hawkers$1700 Brake system $750 Steering $325 Suspension and
legal
cage$1000 Controller bowered from CE on non race days Charger same as used on
CE
ect.There is a limited $10000 budget(profit I made on the Ranger EV I sold
this year)Effective cost $0
Ever feel you are bragging alone on a street corner????
!!!!Many of the nedra folk including yourself have said the only reason CE
is quick is because its a lite dragster and for years have dared me to come and
play on your street corner well I am coming out to play with the S10.
After awhile even those of us who respect your efforts, Become tired of the
same old ," I can whip your ass anyday of the week" Line.
>>
!!! Put me up against a wall and yes I will fight.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 10/22/05 1:11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< "(Rich) will have a am
> radio. "
He must like listening to static :-).
I may have missed it from a previous post, I would
like to know some of the details like;
Motor size (I think you said 13" with moveable brush
rigging?).!!!!!!!A pinch larger
- control (I think you said a Zilla 2k) !!!!!!!! yes the 2k unless
miller gets involved
- Batteries - quantity and max voltage !!!!!!!!!!!30 hawkers
Thanks,
R >>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dennis,
I have these 2 big GE motors on the shelf from OJ-1. I've been thinking
about stuffing them in a street legal bike chassis along with my old
SVR's. If I can squeeze out 123 ( a very tall order considering my
overall best is 119 ) am I eligible? It seems that I would be within
the 3 rules. (Total Cost = ALOT of hrs + one old Z1 Kawasaki)
Shawn Lawless
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:20:01 EDT
Subject: Re:123 STREET E CLUB
I have recently been told that my S10 pickup will not qualify for the
madman
100mph club SO.....................
The
123 street E club is now open Thats 123 MPH
in the
QT.MILE With just 3
rules....................................................................
...............................
1) Insurance and license
2) off the
shelf
lead batteries
3) follow NHRA
guidelines
$1000 to the 1st EV there (myself excluded)Then a
THEY
JUST DONT GET IT TROPHY from there on.
DENNIS BERUBE
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 10/22/05 2:59:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Dennis,
I have these 2 big GE motors on the shelf from OJ-1. I've been thinking
about stuffing them in a street legal bike chassis along with my old
SVR's. If I can squeeze out 123 ( a very tall order considering my
overall best is 119 ) am I eligible? It seems that I would be within
the 3 rules. (Total Cost = ALOT of hrs + one old Z1 Kawasaki)
Shawn Lawless
>>
##### add a couple training wheels he he ha ha You need 4 tires on the
ground.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: 2 cars, 4 options.
: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 8:46 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: 2 cars, 4 options.
>
>
> Greetings,
> been googling, waiting for the mailman to bring the Brandt book, read
> Electric Dreams...now I need some advice...
>
> I have at this moment 2 donor cars in my driveway.
> I'd like to hear if there is any sage advice out there.
>
>
> 1. My father's 1993 Mazda 626. The ICE needs main seals and timing belt,
> $700 worth. It's mine as soon as the title turns up.
> Hi Seth an' All;
> 2, 1989 Lincoln Town Car. It was donated to my synagogue,
> and I haven't decided what to do with it. It's worth $50 by weight.
>
The Lincoln?? Well, whynot? You could do a Red Beastie 40 T 105's aboard,
like the Toyota pickup of that name done years ago. He clamed in excess of
100 miles, used it for towing OTHER EV's on trailers. I have fantesised
about Towncars, lincolns, See ENOUGH of them in NYC. They COULD be done. As
for beefing them up, the folks that make stretch limos out of them must get
hold of beefier springs brakes etc, a stretch would weigh more than a
standard limo, EVen electric. Finding a standard tranny, might be tricky,
though, guess ya COULD go with the auto that came with it?A 11 inch motor
by Warp would be just the thing.No tire burning thing, it would ooze along
like a Lincoln duz normally.The CD would be better than a pickup??
It would be the first Linc' on the EV Album, for sure!
> My two Watts worth
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd get it but I have one unfinished body in the Garage. No can do. Don't
contact me contact Tony. Nic and Mike this might be for you.
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Russel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Subaru 360 VAN body--Free?
Here is one in California, just north of San Francisco that needs to get
removed from the guy's property. it is listed for $50, but it sounds like
who ever agrees to take it away can probably do so for free.
ALL of the available information is in the listing at
http://www.craigslist.org/nby/car/105320596.html
in case this posting should expire, here is the text, but not the pictures,
from the ad.
Anyone Know what kind of van this is?? If you do you can have this, and fix
it up. No title, or motor, or any parts... Just come and get it out of here.
In north Petaluma..
Call Tony at 707-794-7258
Sincerely,
David
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Take a look at the Getrag 431 transmission. It is an auto shifting manual
transmission (it actually should be powerful enough for the VW) It is used in
Smart cars, and Mitsubishi colts
http://www.en.getrag.de/184/184
It uses electric solenoids to shift and sends a CANBUS signal back to slow down
throttle during shift, as well as an electic based clutch.
Peter
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I also have some interest in the clutchless set-up. Below are my ideas.
First, is a description of how my 3 EVs worked.
#1 - 1970 Saab Sonett - Had a series wound motor directly coupled to 4 speed
standard transmission (clutch was removed). I started in gear and shifted it
on the fly, relying on the syncros to let me shift gears. I had no concern
about stalling the motor (since it was electric). This seemed to work pretty
good, but it was hard on the transmission. After a few years the transmission
was completely destroyed. Also, I pulled A LOT of amps on startup. The
performance was acceptable off the line and shifting on the fly. So, I think
clutchless can be done. I primarily started in 2nd and used 3rd for speed.
You
can't do this with a shunt wound motor because it doesn't have the startup
torque.
#2 - 1979 ETV-1 - chain drive - fixed gear ratio - no shifting at all. Sep
Ex motor control. This could be equivalent to locking the car in second gear
(as I have heard of people doing). The downside is you need a very large motor
and a complex controller. I am not certain, but I believe this car also had
some kind of automatic brake lock to keep it from rolling backward when going
from a dead stop. This is one of the issues with clutchless - unless you
drive with two feet - as I did with my clutchless version. See my comments on
car
#4 in development.
#3 - 1980 Jet 007 - stock 4 speed with series wound motor. Always started
off in gear (2nd) and only used the clutch to shift from second to third.
Because of the limitations of the stock EV-1C controller (about 300 A), the
takeoff
was very slow, but 1st gear would spin the tires, so I stuck with 2nd. The
fix for this would have been a larger controller. You still need the clutch to
go from 2nd to 3rd and between 2nd and reverse.
#4 - in development - unknown - For my 4th car, I really didn't want a lot of
shifting. I thought I may go with a set-up like the 007 (but stick with 2nd
gear below 50 mph) and a much larger motor and controller for start-up or use
a custom gearbox that automatically shifts - expensive. What about a CVT
(Honda used those in the 97 Civic HX among others). But, based on all of your
inputs, I have the following ideas:
- retain the clutch, but automatically control it with something like a wiper
motor (a very good idea - thanks) - below a certain RPM (controller output
voltage) the clutch is engaged. Above that RPM (controller voltage), the
clutch
is let out. Some fine tuning would need to be done to get the shifting
smooth enough. In addition (as far as I know not previously discussed in the
most
recent thread), I want to do a brake lock based on the following criteria -
brake lock is applied (I would use the parking brake as the secondary brake
lock) if the driver presses the brake pedal and the car speed transitions from
some positive (or negative) speed to 0 MPH (+/- some tolerance). The brake
lock
is released only if the driver presses the accelerator (using start switch)
and the RPMs transition from a low value to a value above the threshold of the
clutch engagement (actually tuned just slightly higher to slightly warm the
motor just before take-off (very slightly)). This way, you won't roll backward
when starting from a dead stop. Does anyone have a good way to monitor vehicle
speed for this control circuit? Unfortunately, to shift from 2nd to 3rd, I
would need to let off the accelerator and let the RPMs go low enough to engage
the clutch. That is an undesirable side effect. Or, I could have a pressure
sensitive switch on the shifter to automatically engage the clutch if you grab
hold of it to shift. Also, the clutch would need to be tied to a switch on
the brake pedal (so that in automatically engages whenever the brake is
depressed no matter what the motor speed is). I like this as a safety feature.
This
would work great with a shunt wound motor where the RPMs are controlled very
well by motor voltage, but may not work well with a series motor.
- Alternatively (this idea may not be too popular with those interested in
the best efficiency). Use an automatic transmission, but lock it out so that
it
never shifts on its own. You still use the shifter to manually shift between
1, 2, and 3. You shift at the RPMs (motor parameters) that you want. I know
this can be done because a friend of mine had a car (gas powered) like this
where he intentionally locked out the automatic part of the transmission so
that he was forced to shift his automatic manually. The car was setup for
racing. Yes this does maintain the torque converter, and it is inefficient
(why it
won't be too popular with some people). But, it is better than using a
straight automatic transmission and letting it decide (based on the parameters
of
the original gas engine) where it wants to shift - most likely leaving you in
1st gear most of the time. Another side effect of this is that you need to
"idle" the electric motor just before take off, so you need to watch those stop
lights carefully. In my case, I'd probably just idle it all the time, because
the few minutes that I stop at that those 2 stop lights won't reduce my range
to an unacceptable level. I only want a 15 - 20 mile range out of 14, T-105
like batteries. So, I can afford to be a little inefficiency for the sake of
convenience. It is all a matter of what the owner wants for his / her car.
- The other idea - mentioned above - is to track down one of those Honda CVTs
and try to adapt that. Has anyone tried this?
I'm open to comments and suggestions. I think this car will be a long time
in development, so I have plenty of time to refine the concept. This
afternoon, I am going to the local junk yard to shop around for parts that I
will used
to build the drivetrain. For those unaware of what I am doing, I am building
the drivetrain first (making sure it will actually fit in the car of my
choice), working out the bugs, and then when it is ready install the entire
system
in the car. At the same time, I will work out the mechanical bugs in the gas
powered car (prior to the conversion) by driving it around and evaluating its
system as is. My way of reducing risk and spreading out the cost over time.
Unfortunately, it takes a 6 month project and spreads it over several years.
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are some promising designs for both electric powered light
aircraft and electric sailplanes in development.
This is my favorite:
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/english/menu/menu-akt.htm
A Lion powered 20 meter sailplane with a 56:1 glide ratio. Has a 13
minute silent motor operation. Even without the electric drive this is
one impressive machine. My 20 meter, 1974 ASW-17, could only achieve a
48:1 glide ratio.
Better battery chemistry and lighter, more efficiently designed, general
aviation aircraft are the answer. These will not come from Spam-can
Cessna but from innovative forward looking companies.
Noel (Sailplane pilot, Force owner and student)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of rcboyd
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 4:04 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: can a plane be an electric vehicle (at least a little bit)?
When you develop an electric system that weighs in at total of three
hundred pounds, puts out a hundred horsepower for over three hours, and
can be recharged in 15 minutes, then you can compete with a Cessna 150
or Piper super cub.
Bob Boyd (Over 15000 hours in all kinds of aircraft from gliders to four
engine jets. WW2 fighter pilot. Aircraft mechanics aircraft and power
plant license, and Instructor and Airline transport pilot ratings.)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:48 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: can a plane be an electric vehicle (at least a little bit)?
Is anyone familiar with work being done regarding fuel efficiency
improvements of personal or business aircraft? The incorporation of
solar electric or plug-in concepts within aviation is something that
I've been curious about for a long time and I'm very interested to chat
with people who are involved in this area. If anyone can advise about
resources related to alternative fuels for aviation, I would really
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Brad
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This should help energy consumption in EV Headlights. I hope.
From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20051021/sc_space/accidentalinventionpointstoendoflightbulbs
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I haven't worked on an 87 in so long I'm not sure my memory is correct
but... Most Flukes have a symmetry calibration adjustment. This
adjustment causes the meter to read exactly the same on both
polarities. That might be a problem but probably not.
More likely, what you're seeing is the effect of ripple on the meter's
A/D converter. Feed the meter through an RC network (say, 4.7k, 10uF)
and see what happens. The cap will filter the ripple and you should
get a constant reading each way. If not, then the symmetry adjustment
may need tweaking.
John
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT), TiM M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>While my charger is down for repairs I'm using my 12V
>charger to charge my batteries in pairs. This is
>taking quite a bit longer than I expected it to, but I
>don't have a choice right now. Anyway, I'm using a DMM
>to monitor the charging process. I moved the charger
>to the next pair and I put the meter leads across the
>battery. I inadvertently reversed the probes and I got
>a reading of -14.7V. This was higher than I expected,
>I switched the leads around and got a reading of
>12.5V. This was closer to what I expected to see. This
>was before I turned on the charger. I went to a pair
>that I had already charged and got the same difference
>when I switched polarity on the meter. What would
>cause this? I'm using a calibrated Fluke 87-III that I
>borrowed from work, it's no $10 Harbor Freight meter.
>Any thoughts?
>
>TiM
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
