EV Digest 4872
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Bits and Pieces - air vs water cooling, Comments
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Bits and Pieces - air vs water cooling
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Dreaming of 10's...my response to Neon John
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Lithium Pack vs TMF Cells?
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) FW: On getting back the EV grin
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Production 1-seater EV Tango
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) My Take On PulseTech PowerPulse modules
by "Michael Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Unsubscribe Me -- NOW
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Production 1-seater EV Tango
by "Christopher Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Bits and Pieces - air vs water cooling
by Jimmy Argon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: OJ2 to run at Mason Dixon on Nov. 5th
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) Re: Production 1-seater EV Tango
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Lithium Pack vs TMF Cells?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14) Re: Battery version of the Autonomy/Hy-wire skateboard
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Bits and Pieces - air vs water cooling
> ! Hi All;
> >
> > I always wondered how much of a difference air vs. water cooling made
for
> > EV's,
Given that a few thoughts, too.
A Cursit?They get hotter than hell! but my Raptur(Rapture) amazes me
with running quite cool, EVen in stop and go turnpike traffic in 90 degree
weather. Motor is hotter than hell, but the controller is cool enough to
touch. Fan rarely runs in anger.Mine's an air cooled one, most of the
controller is heatsink, so I guess that sez something?Or how the heart of an
EV can be so compact......a Modern Miricle, or just something we couldn't
have years ago, at any cost.
> As the water cooled controllers are a different brand controllers then the
> air we can't say what it is that seems to make them better. I have a very
> simple set up , small oil cooler for the radiator , my truck and trailer
> weigh about 6000 , and if I was using it to heat my coffee I wouldn't be
> happy , I guess you would have to have had both to really see how well
the
> water cooled ( zilla ) controllers work .
> Exactly, Guess the Zombie would have issues with an air cooled? After all
the Zombie's runs are pretty much a short circuit test for everything, a
series motor is just a rotary short circuit, anyhow<g>!>
> well if your thinking about the power it takes to pump the water , that's
> not much , and I've had 3 fans blowing on a Curtis , trying to keep it
> alive.
>
> It seems like having everything water cooled would require a
> > weight increase and would probably require a similar power draw to the
> > power system as you still have pumps and water is harder to push than
air.
> > Would it require more energy?
> >
I would think not, as a well placed water pump would take less
power and noise
> ah but with the new water cooled controller you don't have to carry a
spare
> controller :-) and you don't need 3 or 4 fans trying to cool that air
cooled
> controller off.
>
> > I would have thought that it would be easier to harness the heat being
> > drawn from the motor and controller for cabin heat, but Lee makes a good
> > point that it really not like an ICE which produces a _lot_ of heat so
> > it's not as straightforward.
> >
> ya both motor heat and controller heat wouldn't warm a cab in Florida on a
> sunny day .
>
> > Of course, water cooling is more effective than air cooling, but once
the
> > vehicle is moving, you can harness the natural airflow.
> The Hai Bao had a cute setup with the controller behind the grill, yes a
grill, to allow airflow to the controller . A Parthanon like setup with many
columns for airflow and convection cooling, or why Jerry made it to FLA
towing a Sunrise on a trailer WITHOUT the damn electric radiator fan
working. Didn't work wnen he left CT, I KNOW it used to work.On an 81
Diseasel Rabbbit.
Water cooling seems a nice setup, but it pains me a tad to hafta be able
to dump waste heat on anything, especially EV's. Of course E Locos hafta
depend on cooling , transformer oil and a hurricane of air through the
traction motors. When a TM blower goes down that automaticly kills the
motor, they don't EVen TRY to run the motor un cooled.On a Metro North 65
ton commuter car, MU car, motor is rated at 55hp unblown, and 185 cooled.
Small motor, yeah, but there is one on each axle. That adds up on a 10 car
train. These guyz blow us away in races off the line when we have only 4
motors on a lokie and 40 axles just coming along for the ride. Not free as
they carry the payload, ten cars of irate folks if your late<g>!Dry rail,
you have a fighting chance, AS HP IS hp no matter how it's spread out.
> I saw an ev with a big finned heat sink on the hood , look cool , still
> looks are not everything .
> We have big ugly radiaters in the carbody of the lokie. HOT on a hot day!
> is going to have a problem on a hot summer day.
> >
> > So, is water cooling definitely the best way to go?
>
> in my book it is .
> Especially where day temps are in the three digit zone!
Are there major
> > drawbacks to it (other than the potential for single point of failure)?
If the system fails on an EV it can cut power back to a limp home mode.
NOT like an ICE mobile when the #$%^ Idiot lite comes on to tell you you
have just burnt up your engine!
> I think the big drawback is the mind set , you think its more work that it
> is , but I would be very surprised if anyone who has had both would go
back
> to air cooling . of course there is the money thing ,
>
> > Of course it's probably yet another case of
> > six-of-one/half-a-dozen-of-another, depending on the goal of the
project.
> No water cooling is so far better for cars and truck, air for maybe a
golf
> cart or city car but a car , on the other hand my motor dose fine with
air
> cooling .
>
> Maybe I should get out the ol' physics books and study fluid
> > and thermodynamics again and stop my rambling!
> >
> This isn't a book kind of thing , we are talking about a product and how
> they work in the real world ,,,,, as somebody who has blown up more Curtis
> controllers than I can remember ( ya I know , a 9" motor and trailer what
> did I expect) ,
When towing stuff, I think of GG-1's on the Pennsy walking away with 150
cars of freight , singlehandidly! So towing stuff should be right up an EV
's alley. Gobs of torque off the line!
I thank Otmar every time I get in my ev and hear the
> contactor click. I also thank Rich every time I plug in .
> Yes! Steve you said it. We have stuff you couldn't own at ANY price back
in the bad old daze say 20-30 or EVen 10 years ago.
I feel that the time is now, for turnkey conversions that you could turn
your wife or Significent Other loose in and feel comfortable.
Seeya
Bob>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
These discussions on whether air or water cooling are better remind me
of the blind men describing the elephant. Each description is correct
within its limited perspective. But what is being missed is the overall
view.
Let's step back for a moment. Your EV is *always* air-cooled, regardless
of whether your cooling system uses water or not. 100% of the heat needs
to be transferred from the controller to the air. It's either done with
fins on the controller heatsink, or fins on the radiator. Water (if
used) is just a "middleman" so you can locate the fins some distance
away from the controller.
To transfer a lot of heat to air, you need a large surface area and/or a
large volume of airflow. The surface area and airflow needed are *not
affected* by whether you use water or not!
By using a fan, you are trading off the power/reliability/noise/cost of
the fan against the size/weight/cost of the finned surface. To go
fanless, you need a huge heatsink. To go heatsinkless, you need a huge
fan. The best compromise is usually in between; a modest-sized heatsink
with a modest fan.
The science of heatsinks is well established. Decide how much heat you
need to move and the temperature difference between the thing being
cooled and the air, and you can calculate precisely how big the heatsink
needs to be for any given airflow.
The next part of the problem is that the heat is being produced in a
very small location (the semiconductors in the controller). You need to
remove this heat from the semiconductor and spread it evenly across the
large surface area of your heatsink surface. There are many methods to
conduct heat, just as there are many materials that conduct electricity.
The better your heat conductor, the less of that material you need to
move the heat. It is exactly the same as choosing the wire size and
material to conduct electricity with minimal voltage drop.
Metals are good heat conductors. Copper is the best; followed by
aluminum and the other metals. Non-metals are much worse, but sometimes
we have to use them to get electrical insulation between the "live"
semiconductors" and exposed heatsink.
A copper heatsink will be the smallest for a given temperature drop and
heat flow (just as copper wire will be the smallest for a given voltage
drop and current flow). Aluminum is second-best, just as for
electricity; it's not as good, but is lighter and cheaper. Just like
electricity, you want the shortest and thickest conductor you can
arrange.
Liquids are worse heat conductors than metals; but a *moving* liquid can
be a better heat conductor than any metal. This is the "trick" that
makes water attractive. But now you need a pump. With a high enough
flowrate and high enough pressure, you can locate your heatsink as far
as you like away from your semiconductors. But the power used by the
pump is *not* doing any cooling; it's just transferring the heat. The
surface area of your heatsink (radiator) and associated plumbing is
doing *all* the heat dissipation. The pump is an *additional* energy
loss.
The tradeoff for the pump losses are that water is cheaper and lighter
than the amount of copper or aluminum it would take to do the same job.
The liquid-cooled heatsink (a.k.a radiator) with the same surface area
as a solid-metal heatsink works exactly the same; but costs less and
weighs less; but requires power to operate.
A liquid-gas phase change is an even better heat conductor. Basically,
the liquid boils when it touches the hot semiconductor, and the vapor
condenses again when it touches the cooler heatsink. Properly set up
(heat source on bottom, heatsink on top), no pump is needed. The hot
vapor rises, and the cooled liquid falls by gravity. This is the
principle of the heat pipe. But you need something that boils at a lower
temperature than water; semiconductors don't last long at 100 deg.C.
The final factor is thermal mass. Your controller doesn't run at full
power all the time; it spends most of its time at low power, and only
runs briefly at high power. So, you can have a cooling system that only
handles the *average* heat production. It depends on thermal mass to
temporarily "soak up" the peak heat production, and then dissipate it
slowly over time.
This is why heatsinks are big heavy lumps of metal, and liquid cooling
systems use gallons of water. This mass acts as a flywheel, to absorb
the peak heat. It adds weight, but lets the designer under-size the
cooling system to save money.
If you *really* want truly high efficiency and light weight, none of the
standard cooling system approaches will provide it -- they are all
compromising in the direction of "cheap" and "easy". Instead, you would
have something that looks like a big air-cooled copper finned heatsink;
but is actually a hollow shell. Inside, it would have freon or some
other low boiling point liquid, and work as a heat pipe. Semiconductors
would mount on the bottom, and fins on top.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Neon John wrote:
I've asked this of others before and I'm asking again. I'm interested
in seeing some specifics of what you'd do to run, say, 10 seconds.
After all, a plan is the first step to getting there! I've piddled
around with some numbers and I can't get there from here, at least not
without something vastly more exotic than Li batteries and hacked DC
motors. Dumping sufficient energy sufficiently fast enough seems to be
the major bottleneck to me.
See my post 'Lithium Pack vs TMF Cells?' Added to that post...you are
correct in assuming that the inherent limitations of mechanical
commutation of a DC motor 'might' be a limiting factor, but I'll only
concede in the 'might' area. If pockets were deep enough, a radical
inverter/AC drive could cure this. Also, remember that 10's were almost
bagged by Rod and Maniac Mazda more than 6 years ago....an 11.2 is damn
close to the 10's! Rod was knocking on the 10's door with hacked DC
motors and lead acid batteries, though they 'were' special batteries.
Have you ever watched the video of Rod's low 11 run at Bremerton? You
might want to if you haven't, as it will look quite similar to watching
your buddies' 10 second cars run. Rod still had work to do in perfecting
this car to run even quicker, but the TMF battery supply dried up before
he got there. I have no doubts he was on his way to mid 10's.
John, you weren't hanging around Rod, Bill, and Dennis when these three
had accesss to the TMF batteries. I was in the thick of it with these
guys, though I only got morsels in the form of 4 or 5 Inspira types (the
TMF 12V blocks JCI made and that Rod and Dennis ran with) and 50 or so
Bolder TMF cells from Bill to play around with. If you had been and had
seen the insane power delivery these batteries gave, you might be able
to 'get there from here'. I also, think you are too close to your ICE
buddies with their admittedly, super quick 10 second street cars, and
thus your brain seems to be stuck in the ICE horsepower / torque
universe. Trust me, electric motors deliver a far different kind of
power, a power that seems at odds with specs. For example, in the next
few weeks we plan on dynoing White Zombie. I'll predict right now, that
the measured hp will be way lower than what 1/4 mile calculators predict
my car needs to accomplish what it already has. I think you are using
what you know about ICE power requirements to get the job done, instead
of electric motor requirements....the two really can't be compared in an
apples to apples sort of way.
Bill Dube's electric drag bike is very competitive with ICE type 9.4
second bikes, yet, it has far lower rated hp than they do. By all
accounts, Bill hadn't reached the pinnacle of design while he still had
access to fresh Bolder cells, either. He hadn't tried series-to-parallel
shifting yet, he hadn't tried variable brush timing yet, etc. It's
conceivable that Kilocycle could have run in the low 8's or even in the
high 7's with these tricks applied. Dennis Berube has approached his
glory days 8.8 second run when using TMF cells, with regular AGM
batteries, because he's kept tweaking and trying new motor mods,
including variable brush timing...imagine what he could do if he were to
suddenly drop in a fresh pack of TMF cells, or, super high power lithiums?
The pack of Hawker Aerobatteries in White Zombie have been fantastic and
have propelled this car nearly into the 11's. Keeping the same motor
arrangement and perhaps improving the gear ratio to a more perfect
match-up, we believe we'll get into the 11's next year.
Dual variable brush timing of the Siamese 8 isn't out of the question,
either :-) With some kind of lithium sponsorship, a Zombie that's
hundreds of lbs. lighter with more power delivery on board could
possibly get into the high 10 second area....this, while still keeping
the brushed series-wound Siamese 8. I too, have buddies with 10 second
machines. One of them runs mid 10s with a big block AMX fitted with drag
slicks. His best 60 ft. time is 1.62....ours is 1.59 on street drag
radials!
In my dream world, a lithium pack of say, 600 volts and an AC drive with
the inverter designed and built by Otmar...yeah, your buddies with their
35 psi boosted Grand Nationals and V8 big blocks should be very afraid!
For now, I'm going to have to agree with you, that with what I've
currently got to work with, 10's don't seem too reasonable and your
buddies are safe...but 11's are coming!
You don't get anywhere if you don't dream, and as much of a Clint
Eastwood fan as I am, I guess I don't know my limitations yet :-)
See Ya...John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>>> TMF <<<<
Well researched answer. The TMF info is 100% correct.
It is possible to get TMF cells if you are willing to pay. Jim
Bohorquez
at Mesa Power <jimb[at]mesapower.com> (replace the "[at]" with an "@") is
putting together an order from the overseas manufacturer. If you are VERY
serious, and have your checkbook ready, you might want to get in on the
order. Don't pester Jim unless you have several thousand dollars to spend
right now, please.
TMF cells require a great deal of skill and caution. You MUST have
a BMS of some sort if you plan to get more than two or three cycles from
the battery pack. Even connecting them together is tricky. (You would be
wise to visit me in Denver for advice and training before you start
building your pack.)
On the drag strip, you can draw about 3,000 to 4,000 W/kg from TMF
cells. As John Wayland said, this works out to about 300 to 400 amps per
cell. They must be warmed up, freshly cycled, and carefully brought to 100%
SOC to pull 400 amps on the strip without blowing them up.
To feed a Zilla, you need to run the cells at least five wide (5
A-hr). You would also want to run full Zilla voltage, so this works out to
840 cells, minimum. (More for a heavier vehicle, like a sedan.)
At about $10 each, plus the cost of the BMS, a TMF drag racing
pack is going to set you back the best part of $10,000, even more for a
vehicle over 1,000 pounds.
Nobody ever said that drag racing was cheap. ;^)
>>>>> Li-Ion Cells <<<<
High-power Li-Ion cells are getting closer and closer to
commercial production. If you have VERY deep pockets, you could buy a
Li-Ion drag racing pack now, but the price would be 10's of thousands of
dollars. Without the correct BMS, however, it would likely go up in flames
on the first run. A BMS suitable for drag racing would add a couple more
thousand onto the cost.
A Li-Ion pack (with BMS) to feed a Zilla on the drag strip would
cost $20k to $30k. You would be likely to blow one up working out the bugs,
so you would be wise to double that number.
Bill Dube'
At 10:18 AM 10/30/2005, you wrote:
Hello to All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
One technical question; Can you get more power density out of a new
lithium pack then the TMF cells?
Don't know the answer to that yet. I do know, that a high quality lithium
pack can deliver both power and energy density, where the TMF (thin metal
film) lead acid batteries, while insanely high in the 'power delivery
aspect' (not to be confused with power density), don't have anymore energy
density than do regular plate design types of lead acid batteries. For me,
the key for a successful drag racing pack, is to have batteries that have
a very high power density, but at the same time, also have a lot of energy
density. Right now, the pack of Hawkers in the race car deliver on high
power density, but still suffer the same old lead acid bugaboo of low
energy density. That's why I need just shy of 700 lbs. of batteries to get
the job done at the track. The ~30 mile range the car has is a sidebar of
what I needed to be able to do a solid burnout and still be able to run at
a full 1000-11000 amps for 12-13 seconds. The idea, is to have that kind
of power density in a pack that weighs, say just 200 lbs.
Bolder TMF cells could definitely fit this description, but their energy
density was low and thus the car would only have a 5-6 mile range. A 200
lb. pack of lithiums in theory, could do the same thing and still deliver
high energy density to give the car the same 30 mile range, perhaps even
40, as the car would only weigh 1800 lbs. Take it a bit further....a 500
lb. pack of lithiums could more than double the high current capacity of a
200 lb. pack of lithiums, so that under that same 1000-1100 amp draw,
there would be a lot less voltage sag. Right now at the far end of the
track at 104-106 mph, the Hawker Aerobatteries sag to about 162 volts.
Again, in theory, a 200 lb. pack of high power lithiums might sag to the
same point as the current 700 lb. pack of lead acid batteries, but imagine
more than doubling the lithium's capacity with that 500 lb. pack of
them....maybe they would only sag to 200 volts or so? With a 500 lb. pack
of these theoretical batteries then, the race car would weigh 200 lbs.
less than it does right now, would have about 60 more horses on tap, and
would have at least a 100 mile range to boot!
Disregarding cost, reliability, complexity of manufacturing, etc...
Which one do you think will deliver the most horsepower for 1 8-9 second
run with the least weight?
I'd say the TMF cells, but I'd also add that Bill Dube would be more
qualified than me on this, and also perhaps Lee Hart might take a stab at
it? Though the TMF cells had their problems, the biggest one being their
horrible self discharge rate to where they'd kill themselves after left to
sit on a shelf without charging more than 2 or 3 weeks, they did have an
incredible discharge capability! I've not seen evidence that any current
lithium pack can match them in 'high rate discharge', again, not to be
confused with power density, but perhaps there are some that can. Bill
best described the Bolder TMF cells this way....a regular lead acid
battery lets you take the power out of them through a milkshake
straw....TMF cells let you use a firehose! A 2.1V TMF cell the size of a
roll of Lifesavers, could output a staggering 1000 amps for one
second!!!!! If my memory serves me right, that same cell could do 300 amps
for 4 seconds.
Here's my take on this, and again, I'm open to criticism.....a 200-300 lb.
pack of the original Bolder TMF cells would perhaps take White Zombie as
it currently is configured, into the high 10 second region. Wouldn't that
be a trip! The car would be more of a pure race car, than a streetable
type weekend racer, though, as it would have terrible range, terrible self
discharge, and would need constant attention to keep the pack alive....but
man, it would be quick! It would only weigh about 1800-1900 lbs. and would
have a solid 350 hp on tap. On the other hand, a 200-300 lb. pack of high
power lithiums would probably deliver a low 11 second run, but, could also
give the car about 40-60 miles range per charge, and, the pack would last
years. Because of their fairly flat discharge curve, I could drive to the
track, race all night without recharging between runs, then drive it home!
Ahh, the stuff of a racer's dreams....
See Ya....John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've started a mailing list, with archive, for the Ranger EV. Most of
the folks in the Ford / Blue Sky Motors / Battery MD lottery are on it.
I find many people don't like Yahoo mailing lists and won't join them
because of all the advertising and because of mail delivery problems.
I see that Yahoo moderators have been having trouble lately, too.
You can join the ranger-ev Mailman list by clicking on the link below,
and then you can check the archives to see what's been going on so far.
Let me know if you have any questions or problems.
_______________________________________________
ranger-ev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ranger-ev
Tom Dowling
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:53 PM
To: EV Discussion List
Subject: On getting back the EV grin
I finally got the message from Blue Sky that they will have a Ranger
ready for me! I was hoping for a NiMH but I'm getting a Lead-acid, so I
hope it can make near their quoted 52mi range to handle my commute.
This brings up another issue: if the Ranger can handle commute duties,
my son wants me to ditch the beater Saturn I currently use (ugly, but
runs like a top, gets ~36mpg and passed the stricter Smog II test for
N.Cal) and replace it with an older VW bug. The bug wouldn't get many
miles of use, but I shudder at the pollution output from a car that
predates emission controls! Driving the EV won't make up for the
emissions from a bug, which probably puts out more than a dozen ICE
Rangers!
So, is there *any* way to make an air-cooled bug less polluting? I
*did* google the idea, and get quotes like "it's a good thing these
cars are smog-exempt"!
My son wouldn't mind if the bug was an electric, but we're not capable
of doing a conversion (I once removed a Type 2's engine myself, but my
son would need the Idiot's Guide just to find the distributor). The
best I could think of was a CNG conversion, and Idon't know how
muchthatwould help.
If listees want to reply to the VW part of this post, I'm sure David
would rather you contact me directly (cowtown at spamcop dot net). As
for the Ranger, I have high hopes to buy it by late next week.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
0-60 mph in 4 sec! Fun!
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4048/
Now, if we could just bolt 2 together to make a 2-seater out of it...
Danny
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pulsetech Battery ProductsWaste Company Improves Battery Performance
The largest waste disposal company in North America implements PulseTech
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Carefully, We Never Found Out That This American Giant Of A Company
Really Implemented Them, Or Is There A Follow Up From This 1998 Story.
I Want To Believe, But Most Of The Statements Leave Me With The Impression
That Ok They Seem To Work, But I Don't Believe Waste Management
Bought The Product Beyond The Initial Purchase, If Even Then., It Concludes:
"Seeing the technology in action has proven to be invaluable. Based on the
final results in Wisconsin and Florida, a return of investment analysis
has been performed, and Waste Management executives are currently developing
an implementation strategy for their organization."
That's It
And That's All
MLO
The World Leader In Battery
Maintenance Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Company Improves Battery Performance
With thousands of trucks and tens of thousands of lead-acid batteries
in use every day, Waste Management, the largest waste disposal company in
North America, is well aware of the expense and labor involved in
battery-related issues and replacements. That's why, when the company
learned of the potential reduction in battery-related costs it could receive
by using the patented pulse technology battery maintenance systems offered
by Pulse Tech, it was very interested in taking a closer look.
Now, after working together for almost eighteen months and completing
a full twelve-month evaluation in two different cities, the test results are
in - and they are even more impressive than the executives at Waste
Management hoped they would be.
According to Don Johnson, Fleet Support Manager for North America,
Waste Management operates and maintains approximately 14,500 collection and
7,000 support vehicles within their hauling divisions. This equates to over
50,500 batteries. That number of batteries represents a multimillion dollar
investment. Based on years of experience and the motivation to cut back on
battery costs, Waste Management put pulse technology to the test at Waste
Management of Wisconsin (formerly Best Disposal).
During the twelve month evaluation (December 1996 to 1997), PulseTech
products were installed on a cross-section of collection vehicles consisting
of various types,makes and age. At the same time, a control group was
established of an equal number of similar vehicles to create a comparison
across identical usage patterns.
All of the vehicles had battery configurations of either two or three
batteries in parallel. The products installed included the 12-volt
PowerPulseT, the 12volt Industrial Solargizer, and the split-wire harness
version of the 12-volt Solargizer, specially designed for use with 12-volt
batteries in parallel. Each of these patented products are designed to
rejuvenate 12-volt lead-acid batteries by removing and preventing sulfate
accumulation on the lead battery plates, thus maintaining peak performance.
On the trucks using PowerPulse and Solargizer, the units were
installed one per battery. A single split-wire Solargizer (either with
two-wire or three-wire split harnesses) was installed on each of the
remaining trucks. This special unit is capable of maintaining either two or
three batteries in parallel, depending on the model.
To further evaluate the benefits PulseTech products had to offer,
Waste Management wanted to see how pulse technology would perform in a
totally different climate. Another evaluation was performed at Southern
Sanitation in Florida. With these duel tests, Waste Management was able to
see how the products handled the extreme cold of winter in Wisconsin, and
the heat and humidity of sunny South Florida, These factors are important
because extreme cases of heat or cold can actually increase sulfation
buildup in batteries.
It didn't take long for positive results to appear. In only two
months, there was a noticeable improvement in the Cold Cranking Amps (CCA)
on about 86% of the batteries installed with pulse technology. On the trucks
without the technology, CCA readings actually dropped on 76% of the
batteries.
Over the twelve-month period, the vehicles were rechecked six separate
times to record the performance of the batteries, both with and without the
technology. Final readings were taken December 17, 1997 and the information
was compared. The results were conclusive: The CCA readings improved in most
of the batteries that had the technology installed while the control
battery's CCA readings mostly declined. Not only that, but the overall
replacement of batteries on the vehicles with the technology was reduced by
66% versus the control group. That's a three to one rate!
Another benefit was dramatically observed one frosty December morning
in Wisconsin. As the drivers arrived to head out on their routes, six trucks
in the control group without the technology had to be jump started due to
the intense cold. Only one truck with the technology had to be jump started.
Once again, this is a six to one ratio for jump starts. When the
batteries are maintained in better condition consistently, a variety of
additional benefits (besides reduced battery replacement) come to light.
Results of the prolonged test showed Don Johnson and other Waste
Management personnel that battery efficiency will be improved by maintaining
peak capacity, and charge acceptance will be greater so batteries will
recharge faster and more efficiently. These tests also revealed the normal
battery life for the collection vehicles in the field. With the Pulse Tech
products installed, projections are now being made that extend that battery
life significantly, therefore reducing future replacement expenses
byhundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The extended benefits include
fewer jump starts, reduced road calls and labor hours, and a better
operating electrical system.
Seeing the technology in action has proven to be invaluable. Based on
the final results in Wisconsin and Florida, a return of investment analysis
has been performed, and Waste Management executives are currently developing
an implementation strategy for their organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © Pulsetech 1998
a.. More: PulseTech Testimonials
b.. Return to: OILTECH Homepage
c.. Contact Oiltech
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wish I had a nickel for every time the list admin has to explain that this
is not the addy to send list instructions to.
Clueless AND demanding. Typing your demand in caps don't make it so.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...
Marv
> From: "Wayne Foreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:55:01 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Unsubscribe Me -- NOW
>
> Please unsubscribe me now. I cannot participate in the forum any
> longer due to family emergencies. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Dial Broadband has arrived Nationwide! Up to 5 times faster than traditional
> dialup connections from $13.33/month! See the demo for yourself at <a
> href="http://www.BigValley.net";>www.BigValley.net</a>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Tango is a tandem two-seater; the passenger sits behind the driver.
The gizmag article is a bit stale. The first production Tango was
delivered to George Clooney a while back.
http://www.commutercars.com
In 2003, I had the pleasure of a brief ride in the back of the red
prototype with Rick Woodbury at the wheel. Even with a detuned controller
to ease the new batteries into service, it was a rocket. Nimble handling,
incredible acceleration; I'll never run out of good things to say about
this car.
--chris
Danny Miller said:
> 0-60 mph in 4 sec! Fun!
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/go/4048/
>
> Now, if we could just bolt 2 together to make a 2-seater out of it...
>
> Danny
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
lee,
You are correct, there is no one heat transfer
configuration that will suite all situations. As you
stated, the ultimate goal in EVs is to transfer the
heat from the "hot part" to air(unless you are in a
boat and have a large body of water available). The
best way to accomplish this is to do a proper thermal
analysis for each specific application. Once you have
the simulation you can try different materials,
heatsinks, heat spreaders, coolant (air or water) flow
rates and locations. The simulation is only the
beginning, but you can at least determine if the
situation warrants the use of using liquid coolant.
In my next vehicle I will start by cooling with air
and monitor the case temperature of the IGBTs as close
to the point of contact with the heat
spreader/heatsink. This will be a good source of data
during any particular type of run by my vehicle.
Does anyone know of thermal monitoring freeware I
could load on a laptop?
Jimmy,
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These discussions on whether air or water cooling
> are better remind me
> of the blind men describing the elephant. Each
> description is correct
> within its limited perspective. But what is being
> missed is the overall
> view.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Next weekend at Hagerstown would be great! We could talk about the
Eteks then.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: BadFishRacing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:27:28 -0500
Subject: Re: OJ2 to run at Mason Dixon on Nov. 5th
Shawn,Now why do I need 4 Eteks fed by 96V @ 600amps? Or 48V @
1200amps?I'll
skip the extra weight and just work the the ones I've got a bit
harder.My 2
Eteks can take a lot more abuse before I have to step up to 4. For the
next
bike I was planning 3, but maybe 4 now.How much voltage did you Eteks
see?Florida in January won't happen for me, but I'm happy you will be
inattendance.Next weekend at Hagerstown is a better option. Hummm.Darin
GilbertBadFishRacing>>Darin,
I wish we could hold the 120 volts @ 300 amps but given the expected
sag we should only see about 80 volts @ 300 amps each. This is how we
have it set up. The dyno torque numbers for the new motors look
pretty
good, 44 ft-lbs at 80 volts and 300 amps each. If we can get them all
working together, 530 ft-lbs should get us off the line ok. At 300
amps they should be MUCH more efficient than the poor Eteks we were
pounding with 900 amps in June. Those things were HOT after one run.
In the Etek's defense, they never failed once all summer. Granted the
brush leads are a deep shade of purple but they still run good as new.
My box full of melted Lemco brush holders tells me we can't do that
with these motors. 500 amps is about all they can stand. I've got the
start of a new liquid cooled brush gear in an autocad file but it has
a
long way to go. So we will see what we can get at 300 amps. If it's
not enough we will raise the pack voltage to 336 and wire for 75
volts(effective) @ 450 amps. Will 800 ft-lbs be enough to spin all 4
tires?
I'll loan you 2 Eteks if you promise to mount them in your bike (
Creating a 4 motor monster ) and bring it to Florida in January
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: BadFishRacing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:10:27 +0000
Subject: Re: OJ2 to run at Mason Dixon on Nov. 5th
Shawn,
Humm. 1.8K Zilla into 12 Lemcos. Either 80V across each motor,
450amps/motor.
Or 120V per motor @ 300 amps. Probably the first would put those
Lemcos right
in the sweet spot making great efficiency. Guess efficiency is
something we
lose when pushing motor way way past their ratings.
Darin Gilbert
BadFishRacing
-------------- Original message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --------------
We just brought the OJ2 dragster back from the East Coast Electric
Expo
in Philly where it was a huge hit. Chris, thanks for the kind words.
It was a pleasure to meet you and talk shop. I'm not exagerating when
I
say that HUNDREDS of people were shocked to find out an electric
dragster could run under 11 secs at 120 mph in the 1/4 mile. I sent
all of them to the NEDRA site for more info. Now that OJ2 is done
showing for the year it is imperative that we get in some runs with
the
new Lemcos before the January race in Florida. Quaker City is closed
for the season but if the weather allows we will be traveling to and
racing at Mason Dixon Dragway on Nov 5th. It's a pretty good haul
down
there but will give us a chance to redeem our sub-par showing at
Power
of DC earlier in the year. Don't worry Rich, we are going to run with
only one 1.8K Zilla this trip. If any of you are nearby, make plans
to
come out. Who knows what will happen?
Shawn Lawless
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Danny Miller wrote:
> Now, if we could just bolt 2 together to make a 2-seater out of it...
What makes you think it only has one seat?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I did ask two questions didn't I. My needs are slightly different than
yours. I'm looking at a pure drag race car. If I can get what I want
for a burnout + 1/4 mile I'm happy. I don't even mind towing back to
the pits if I have to. Does runs per dollar favor LI? I am also
looking at the NEW 2600 Mawell Caps. They are EXTREMELY expensive and
based on the info their engineer provided, still not close to the
TMF's. I ask for 350 HP for 8 secs. The pack they quoted weighs about
400 lbs, is good for 100,000 cycles + and costs about $30,000. Sounds
like alot until you consider a 1000 cell TMF pack weighs about 250 lbs,
is good for 6months?, and costs about $7500. How do the LI's compare
on cost per pack?
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:18:12 -0800
Subject: Lithium Pack vs TMF Cells?
Hello to All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
One technical question; Can you get more power density out of a new >
lithium pack then the TMF cells?
Don't know the answer to that yet. I do know, that a high quality
lithium pack can deliver both power and energy density, where the TMF
(thin metal film) lead acid batteries, while insanely high in the
'power delivery aspect' (not to be confused with power density), don't
have anymore energy density than do regular plate design types of lead
acid batteries. For me, the key for a successful drag racing pack, is
to have batteries that have a very high power density, but at the same
time, also have a lot of energy density. Right now, the pack of Hawkers
in the race car deliver on high power density, but still suffer the
same old lead acid bugaboo of low energy density. That's why I need
just shy of 700 lbs. of batteries to get the job done at the track. The
~30 mile range the car has is a sidebar of what I needed to be able to
do a solid burnout and still be able to run at a full 1000-11000 amps
for 12-13 seconds. The idea, is to have that kind of power density in a
pack that weighs, say just 200 lbs.
Bolder TMF cells could definitely fit this description, but their
energy density was low and thus the car would only have a 5-6 mile
range. A 200 lb. pack of lithiums in theory, could do the same thing
and still deliver high energy density to give the car the same 30 mile
range, perhaps even 40, as the car would only weigh 1800 lbs. Take it a
bit further....a 500 lb. pack of lithiums could more than double the
high current capacity of a 200 lb. pack of lithiums, so that under that
same 1000-1100 amp draw, there would be a lot less voltage sag. Right
now at the far end of the track at 104-106 mph, the Hawker
Aerobatteries sag to about 162 volts. Again, in theory, a 200 lb. pack
of high power lithiums might sag to the same point as the current 700
lb. pack of lead acid batteries, but imagine more than doubling the
lithium's capacity with that 500 lb. pack of them....maybe they would
only sag to 200 volts or so? With a 500 lb. pack of these theoretical
batteries then, the race car would weigh 200 lbs. less than it does
right now, would have about 60 more horses on tap, and would have at
least a 100 mile range to boot!
Disregarding cost, reliability, complexity of manufacturing, etc... >
Which one do you think will deliver the most horsepower for 1 8-9 >
second run with the least weight?
I'd say the TMF cells, but I'd also add that Bill Dube would be more
qualified than me on this, and also perhaps Lee Hart might take a stab
at it? Though the TMF cells had their problems, the biggest one being
their horrible self discharge rate to where they'd kill themselves
after left to sit on a shelf without charging more than 2 or 3 weeks,
they did have an incredible discharge capability! I've not seen
evidence that any current lithium pack can match them in 'high rate
discharge', again, not to be confused with power density, but perhaps
there are some that can. Bill best described the Bolder TMF cells this
way....a regular lead acid battery lets you take the power out of them
through a milkshake straw....TMF cells let you use a firehose! A 2.1V
TMF cell the size of a roll of Lifesavers, could output a staggering
1000 amps for one second!!!!! If my memory serves me right, that same
cell could do 300 amps for 4 seconds.
Here's my take on this, and again, I'm open to criticism.....a 200-300
lb. pack of the original Bolder TMF cells would perhaps take White
Zombie as it currently is configured, into the high 10 second region.
Wouldn't that be a trip! The car would be more of a pure race car, than
a streetable type weekend racer, though, as it would have terrible
range, terrible self discharge, and would need constant attention to
keep the pack alive....but man, it would be quick! It would only weigh
about 1800-1900 lbs. and would have a solid 350 hp on tap. On the other
hand, a 200-300 lb. pack of high power lithiums would probably deliver
a low 11 second run, but, could also give the car about 40-60 miles
range per charge, and, the pack would last years. Because of their
fairly flat discharge curve, I could drive to the track, race all night
without recharging between runs, then drive it home!
Ahh, the stuff of a racer's dreams....
See Ya....John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Oct 30, 2005, at 2:51 AM, Mike Ellis wrote:
There's a concept I've been thinking about for a few months. It was
inspired by GM's Autonomy/Hy-wire "skateboard" fuel cell platform.
...
Designing a frame from scratch would obviously be a lot of work, but
it seems to have great advantages. Has something like this ever been
discussed on the list?
Yup. The exchange I remember (because I participated) is from late
November 2004. There are other mentions. Search the archives for
"Hy-wire" here:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
In November we were discussing the Ridek concept.
<http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/Ridek.html>
<http://www.ridek.com/>
The idea is to have one body (the ride-on or Ridon) and a number of
chassis (motorized deck, or Modek) with batteries. The city keeps the
unused Modeks on charge, and when your battery pack is depleted, you
drive back to the depot where the Modeks are kept, drop off the
depleted Modek, and move your Ridon over to a Modek with full
batteries. Apparently the idea is to make the Modeks part of a public
infrastructure. You would only own the inexpensive Ridon which you
could customize to your tastes and needs. Modek plus Ridon equals
Ridek.
I posted:
I'd like to see the Ridek idea turned around. Something like the GM
Hy-Wire concept. I would prefer to own one chassis and several bodies
- sports car, minivan, mini pickup. Perhaps a body with a genset in
it for long trips, or one with an extra battery pack. Or maybe I'd
just buy one chassis and one sedan body, and rent the other bodies as
I need them. Or maybe I'd have two chassis - short range, high
performance and long range, low performance.
Having the ability to put a different body on your chassis would make
it more reasonable to spend a lot of money on an exotic battery pack
and/or drive system. You get to use it in several different vehicles!
From the Yahoo archives:
<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive/message/29596>
<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive/message/29644>
<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive/message/29685>
I've made some (bad) ASCII art that (in a fixed width font) tries to
show what I mean:
__ ____ _____________ _____ __
|B|| || BATTERIES || || \
|B|===== BATTERIES |====== B |
|BATTERIESBATTERIESBATTERIES A |
|BATTERIESBATTERIESBATTERIES T |
|BATTERIESBATTERIESBATTERIES T |
|BATTERIESBATTERIESBATTERIES S |
|B|===== BATTERIES |====== |
|B|| || BATTERIES || || /
--++---++------------++----++-
/---\ /---\
+-/ \------------/ \---+
|_\ /____________\ /___|
\___/ \___/
You left out the motors and electronics. I'd put them in the
skateboard too, just to make things neat.
-Mike
--
Doug Weathers
Bend, OR, USA
http://learn-something.blogsite.org
--- End Message ---
