EV Digest 5048
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Reverseing a siamese motor
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EV Warrior for quick sale
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Stuffing the Ballot Box
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: The Big Guy
by Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: The Big Guy
by Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Reverseing a siamese motor
by Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Postal van gone.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hey All
Couple of thoughts here. Although Waylands "We need more cable Captain"
philosiphy, and an 8" diameter motor has limited him with the ability of an
ABR. A 9"er would be easier to do because of the increase in diameter. The
biggest problem is that there is generally not enough window space to allow you
to swing a lever 90 degrees. Chris just posted some pics ( The big one) and
one of them shows an older style 2 window CE plate that would be ideal. On a
smaller four window plate you'd have to mill the windows down or create a slid
path through the end of the plate. I don't see rotating plates as being
feasable due to the torque, and the shear effort it would take to do it.
Although Waylands Siamese are actually comm. outies ; 0 would it better if
both comm's were located in the middle.
Possible Pros:
Being able to move both levers easier as they are close together.
Being able to vent both comms with a common vent hood.
Fans at both ends of motor.
Possible Cons:
Comms get hotter being closer together.
The point above is I believe comm placement will soon be where do you want
them.
As I see it creating a 90 degree swing motor is doable. Getting it to be a
viable workable reverse system would require you good gentlemen to work out.
Happy New Year All
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
Andre' Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:07 PM 1/1/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff Shanab wrote:
>
>>How about if the brush rigging was adjustable enough, rotating the brush
>>rigging 90 degrees?
>>weight added <10 lbs! Just a lever, perhaps with a cable and a vernier
>>to dial in advance once in FWD position, and a couple of microswitches
>>to drop out main contactor if the lever is not in one of the 2 positions.
>>
>On the Zombie's Siamese 8, against mild protests over how much work it
>would be to do so, I had Jim stuff in twin parallel 4 gauge brush
>interconnect leads at each brush end bell, to make sure all 2000 amps got
>delivered to all the brushes :-) Because of this, the brush riggings would
>be close to impossible to make rotateable (is that a word?). It's pretty
>well stuffed at each end bell. It was difficult enough to do this on the
>monster sized 13 inch 'Yellow Beast', and was only doable because of how
>huge the spaces are inside this thing. Even with the bigger spaces, the
>movable brush rigging and its multiple runs of flexible 4 gauge
>interconnects was difficult to pull off, thanks to Jim's artisan talents
>though, he pulled it off.
It would not work on your twin, if I remember correctly the coms were in
the center between the two motors.
But on a single motor rather then rotating the brush rigging it would
likely be easier to rotate the entire end bell. The armature connections
would need to be located in the end bell. That way the only wires that
need to flex are external to the motor and can be made long enough to do so
without much problem.
__________
Andre' B. Clear Lake, Wi.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just to clarify, I can deliver within Orange County, CA; otherwise
this is
pickup only. I'm in the process of switching jobs, so I don't have
the means
to box up and ship this.
Thanks.
Tim
On Jan 2, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Tim Clevenger wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry to post this here instead of the Tradin' Post, but I'm
changing jobs,
so this needs to go this week.
I have an EV Warrior bicycle in not running condition. Might need
tubes;
definitely needs some cleanup. It has good motors and unknown
batteries.
Has working charger. It also comes with the complete kit from
Industrial
Liquidators: new mirrors, controller, DC/DC, twist throttle,
headlight,
LED taillights, horn, switchgear.
Asking $50; the IL kit itself cost me $75, so even if you don't keep
the bicycle, the kit would make a great kit for a small scooter or
motorcycle. Buyer must pick up in Anaheim by this Thursday.
Please email (tjclevenger -at- gmail -dot- com) if interested.
Thanks.
Tim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The #1 car on the list is a stock mid-14 second Subaru SVX with three
times as many votes as the second place contender. I say stuff the
ballot box.
Tim
On Jan 2, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 2, 2006 9:18:35 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Stuffing the Ballot Box
Hello to All,
I wanted to clarify my position on this:
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the comments, Jim.
I'm definitely in this for the information; that I might be able to
provide helpful feedback about this new motor, and where it works or
doesn't.
One good example -- In an eleventh hour decision, we decided to reduce
the number of comm bars to trade off a bit of torque in favor of more
power at high revs, and this was complemented by the banding to raise
the redline. Less torque per amp, but more RPM per volt. I don't know if
this was a good idea, but I've been concerned (as I've written here
before) about how quickly such a high-torque motor would ramp up its
back-emf, perhaps reaching the motor voltage limit too soon. This
decision (65 bars instead of 99) may turn out to be an expensive
blunder. But at the moment, all Netgain, Warfield and I can really do is
guess, since there's no real experience with this motor, and no dyno
available to test it to its limits. Anything I find out will be new
information, and that will be worth the price.
BTW, as of yesterday I've sent in my payment and shortly I'll be a
lifetime NEDRA member. I don't necessarily expect to be competitive with
this truck since it's my first and I expect it to be more educational
than trophy-earning. But what I learn here will help with my next
vehicle(s); all big things start small.
--chris
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 08:53 -0800, Jim Husted wrote:
> Hey Chris
>
> I've been following your updates, so congats on the Warp13 completion.
> Your post seemed a bit melancholy so I thought I'd share my view here. First
> off, you got involved in your project and made changes that you felt would
> make improvements.
> Way to go, Kudos to you, Warfield, NetGain, and Dutchman for applying the
> effort to try something new. The shaft alone was probably worth it ; )
> Now as to being the first out of the box with the untried, well sometimes
> you're just the shmuck who threw a bunch of time and money at something that
> didn't work. As a motor guy it's gonna be fun to watch the heavy weights
> duke it out. Should put to rest whether bigger is better vs. longer smaller
> diameter motors.
> As to maybe not being able to run with the big dogs yet, well I bet they
> are pumped to have another racer out there to have some fun with, and
> remember they are great because they have refind their ability to craft
> proven racers.
> Anyway I just wanted to say I was pumped for you. Thanks for the pics,
> motor looks awesome, and best of luck this year. Who knows maybe you'll be
> eating with the big dogs before you know it...An even bigger issue is gonna
> be how you gonna make all those new NEDRA EVents popping up everywhere,hehehe.
> Cya
> Jim Husted
> Hi-Torque Electric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, what can ya do but laugh sometimes... Only a few months after I
> decide I'm going to build a compact pickup truck with a thirteen-inch
> motor, none other than the owner of the quickest [and most skillfully
> built] street-legal electric dragster informs me he's already doing the
> same thing. Not only with a lighter, stronger truck, but with a
> beautiful 13" Allis Chalmers motor salvaged, tweaked and blueprinted by
> the fastest rising star in high-performance EV motor wizardry, Jim
> Husted. To answer my nebulous plans of eventually adding variable brush
> timing, he tells me he's already done it, and in September I got to see
> how well it works, effortlessly varying speed with a shift of a lever
> under a constant 24V bench demonstration in the Wayland garage.
>
> And then a few months later I find out that the owner, driver and
> builder of the quickest [and most financially successful?] electric rail
> dragster in history is also doing the same thing, and has who knows how
> many artful tricks up his sleeve. Certainly a far cry from just throwing
> a motor into a truck, which is all I can afford for now, and all I have
> the experience to attempt.
>
> While the ego-buzzkill here might be a bit of a disappointment, these
> developments are just too darned awesome to get me down... I know in
> both cases we'll not only see a finished product that looks good and
> goes like stink, but they'll be built *right*. I for one can't wait for
> pictures. And videos... and timeslips! :o)
>
> But for those who might still be following my big-motor-in-a-truck, I
> got a long-awaited phone call on Friday .. after nearly eleven months of
> development (and that's only since I got involved). My motor is finally
> finished and ready to ship. The folks at Netgain were nice enough to
> take some pictures for me, a few of which I've posted in my gallery
> here:
>
> http://ohmbre.org/gallery/motor
>
> Latest weblog post on the subject is here:
>
> http://ohmbre.org/blog/2006/01/01/getting-close/
>
> Weblog itelf of course, here:
>
> http://ohmbre.org
>
>
> The motor has several customizations, including the custom Dutchman
> hardened chrome-moly shaft, a super-lightweight plastic fan, and banding
> around the armature, commutator, and "knuckles" (where the comm bars are
> attached to the windings).
>
> I just hope it runs as well as it looks! :o) I'll get some more
> close-up shots when the motor arrives, in about a week or so.
>
> --chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 10:29 -0700, Roland Wiench wrote:
> How did you fit in the Warp 13?
Well, I *haven't* fit it, yet. For one thing, I'm going without a
transmission for now, and I'm not going to worry about how things will
change if I add one (probably a powerglide). The motor will be where the
transmission was, or hopefully a little further back, to get the
driveshaft as short as possible and move the motor's weight (approx
360lbs) as close to the center of the truck as I can. The motor will
connect directly to the driveshaft, as in this picture of the current
White Zombie setup (what beautiful simplicity here):
http://ohmbre.org/gallery/woodburn_2005/dscn3131
I am assuming I will need a lot of modification to the floor of the
cabin, to "tub out" a spot for the motor to fit, and this may force me
to switch to bucket seats. I've removed basically everything from the
truck now including the seat and floor cover, and I've made a mockup of
the motor to help me figure out how it's going to work. Shots of all of
this are in the disassembly gallery. Two good shots of the cabin floor:
http://ohmbre.org/gallery/disassembly/img_0056
http://ohmbre.org/gallery/disassembly/img_0057
Since these pictures were taken, the dash has also been removed to get
to the heater core.
Also since this is a pickup truck, I may have a little more ground
clearance to deal with, though I'd really like the end result to ride
2-3 inches lower than stock.
Mounting is certainly going to be interesting. My current idea is to cut
off the feet they've added to the motor, but leave the legs and attach
to those. Of course, this will require all custom framework, no reuse of
the stock crossmember. And then there's shrouding for blowers and ....
This is going to be a long project. :o)
--chris
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 10:29 -0700, Roland Wiench wrote:
> How did you fit in the Warp 13? In my 1977 El Camino, the maximum diameter I
> can get in was a 11 inch GE. I have only 1/8 inch clearance to the
> transmission tunnel.
>
> If I used the 13 incher, my transmission would have to be raised 1 inch
> higher which would mean that I would have to cut out the transmission tunnel,
> modified the shifting console, and the drive line angle would not be correct.
>
> To drop it, it would required to drop the engine and transmission cross
> member units.
>
> It will work on my next car, which I'm going to build from scratch.
>
> Roland
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Husted<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: The Big Guy
>
>
> Hey Chris
>
> I've been following your updates, so congats on the Warp13 completion.
> Your post seemed a bit melancholy so I thought I'd share my view here. First
> off, you got involved in your project and made changes that you felt would
> make improvements.
> Way to go, Kudos to you, Warfield, NetGain, and Dutchman for applying the
> effort to try something new. The shaft alone was probably worth it ; )
> Now as to being the first out of the box with the untried, well sometimes
> you're just the shmuck who threw a bunch of time and money at something that
> didn't work. As a motor guy it's gonna be fun to watch the heavy weights
> duke it out. Should put to rest whether bigger is better vs. longer smaller
> diameter motors.
> As to maybe not being able to run with the big dogs yet, well I bet they
> are pumped to have another racer out there to have some fun with, and
> remember they are great because they have refind their ability to craft
> proven racers.
> Anyway I just wanted to say I was pumped for you. Thanks for the pics,
> motor looks awesome, and best of luck this year. Who knows maybe you'll be
> eating with the big dogs before you know it...An even bigger issue is gonna
> be how you gonna make all those new NEDRA EVents popping up everywhere,hehehe.
> Cya
> Jim Husted
> Hi-Torque Electric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Well, what can ya do but laugh sometimes... Only a few months after I
> decide I'm going to build a compact pickup truck with a thirteen-inch
> motor, none other than the owner of the quickest [and most skillfully
> built] street-legal electric dragster informs me he's already doing the
> same thing. Not only with a lighter, stronger truck, but with a
> beautiful 13" Allis Chalmers motor salvaged, tweaked and blueprinted by
> the fastest rising star in high-performance EV motor wizardry, Jim
> Husted. To answer my nebulous plans of eventually adding variable brush
> timing, he tells me he's already done it, and in September I got to see
> how well it works, effortlessly varying speed with a shift of a lever
> under a constant 24V bench demonstration in the Wayland garage.
>
> And then a few months later I find out that the owner, driver and
> builder of the quickest [and most financially successful?] electric rail
> dragster in history is also doing the same thing, and has who knows how
> many artful tricks up his sleeve. Certainly a far cry from just throwing
> a motor into a truck, which is all I can afford for now, and all I have
> the experience to attempt.
>
> While the ego-buzzkill here might be a bit of a disappointment, these
> developments are just too darned awesome to get me down... I know in
> both cases we'll not only see a finished product that looks good and
> goes like stink, but they'll be built *right*. I for one can't wait for
> pictures. And videos... and timeslips! :o)
>
> But for those who might still be following my big-motor-in-a-truck, I
> got a long-awaited phone call on Friday .. after nearly eleven months of
> development (and that's only since I got involved). My motor is finally
> finished and ready to ship. The folks at Netgain were nice enough to
> take some pictures for me, a few of which I've posted in my gallery
> here:
>
> http://ohmbre.org/gallery/motor<http://ohmbre.org/gallery/motor>
>
> Latest weblog post on the subject is here:
>
>
> http://ohmbre.org/blog/2006/01/01/getting-close/<http://ohmbre.org/blog/2006/01/01/getting-close/>
>
> Weblog itelf of course, here:
>
> http://ohmbre.org<http://ohmbre.org/>
>
>
> The motor has several customizations, including the custom Dutchman
> hardened chrome-moly shaft, a super-lightweight plastic fan, and banding
> around the armature, commutator, and "knuckles" (where the comm bars are
> attached to the windings).
>
> I just hope it runs as well as it looks! :o) I'll get some more
> close-up shots when the motor arrives, in about a week or so.
>
> --chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On the subject of moveable brushes -- I've been saying for a while that
DC EV motors need to break from their heritage as slightly-tweaked
industrial motors to reflect the real differences in how they're used.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record vs. my previous comments on
the subject, this could be the best example of how this would help.
I personally think that moveable brushes should be standard equipment on
*any* series DC EV motor, and manipulated via a standardized electronic
interface with the controller. If today's typical industrial motor
housings make this difficult, especially to achieve the full swing
needed for effective regen or reverse, then that should be a good reason
for EV motors to have a differently designed case or commutator end cap.
Maybe there's a more compact or durable way than actuating the brush
mount with a lever through the air vent. Maybe the brush mount has a
ring with gear teeth around it, and is actuated by a high speed
stepper-driven rod with a worm gear that penetrates the case from the
side. The stepper would be a "lump" on the side of the motor case, and
might become a common, recognizeable feature of an EV motor.
Once all motors have features like this (and perhaps interpoles and
high-rpm reinforcements), we'll look back on the popular motors of today
as being in the stone age. We'll look at EVs that can't do regenerative
braking and wonder why, when it could have been so easy, and the
alternative is so hard on the brakes with all the extra weight.
--chris
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 09:49 -0800, Jim Husted wrote:
> Hey All
>
> Couple of thoughts here. Although Waylands "We need more cable Captain"
> philosiphy, and an 8" diameter motor has limited him with the ability of an
> ABR. A 9"er would be easier to do because of the increase in diameter. The
> biggest problem is that there is generally not enough window space to allow
> you to swing a lever 90 degrees. Chris just posted some pics ( The big one)
> and one of them shows an older style 2 window CE plate that would be ideal.
> On a smaller four window plate you'd have to mill the windows down or create
> a slid path through the end of the plate. I don't see rotating plates as
> being feasable due to the torque, and the shear effort it would take to do
> it. Although Waylands Siamese are actually comm. outies ; 0 would it
> better if both comm's were located in the middle.
> Possible Pros:
> Being able to move both levers easier as they are close together.
> Being able to vent both comms with a common vent hood.
> Fans at both ends of motor.
>
> Possible Cons:
> Comms get hotter being closer together.
>
> The point above is I believe comm placement will soon be where do you want
> them.
>
> As I see it creating a 90 degree swing motor is doable. Getting it to be a
> viable workable reverse system would require you good gentlemen to work out.
> Happy New Year All
> Cya
> Jim Husted
> Hi-Torque Electric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andre' Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:07 PM 1/1/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >
> >>How about if the brush rigging was adjustable enough, rotating the brush
> >>rigging 90 degrees?
> >>weight added <10 lbs! Just a lever, perhaps with a cable and a vernier
> >>to dial in advance once in FWD position, and a couple of microswitches
> >>to drop out main contactor if the lever is not in one of the 2 positions.
> >>
> >On the Zombie's Siamese 8, against mild protests over how much work it
> >would be to do so, I had Jim stuff in twin parallel 4 gauge brush
> >interconnect leads at each brush end bell, to make sure all 2000 amps got
> >delivered to all the brushes :-) Because of this, the brush riggings would
> >be close to impossible to make rotateable (is that a word?). It's pretty
> >well stuffed at each end bell. It was difficult enough to do this on the
> >monster sized 13 inch 'Yellow Beast', and was only doable because of how
> >huge the spaces are inside this thing. Even with the bigger spaces, the
> >movable brush rigging and its multiple runs of flexible 4 gauge
> >interconnects was difficult to pull off, thanks to Jim's artisan talents
> >though, he pulled it off.
>
> It would not work on your twin, if I remember correctly the coms were in
> the center between the two motors.
> But on a single motor rather then rotating the brush rigging it would
> likely be easier to rotate the entire end bell. The armature connections
> would need to be located in the end bell. That way the only wires that
> need to flex are external to the motor and can be made long enough to do so
> without much problem.
>
>
> __________
> Andre' B. Clear Lake, Wi.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Why not have 3 sets of brushes that are at the correct advance position for
the job needed (1 set for forward, 1 for reverse, one for regen) and then
the controller just selects between which set to use as to which mode it is
in.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Robison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reverseing a siamese motor
On the subject of moveable brushes -- I've been saying for a while that
DC EV motors need to break from their heritage as slightly-tweaked
industrial motors to reflect the real differences in how they're used.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record vs. my previous comments on
the subject, this could be the best example of how this would help.
I personally think that moveable brushes should be standard equipment on
*any* series DC EV motor, and manipulated via a standardized electronic
interface with the controller. If today's typical industrial motor
housings make this difficult, especially to achieve the full swing
needed for effective regen or reverse, then that should be a good reason
for EV motors to have a differently designed case or commutator end cap.
Maybe there's a more compact or durable way than actuating the brush
mount with a lever through the air vent. Maybe the brush mount has a
ring with gear teeth around it, and is actuated by a high speed
stepper-driven rod with a worm gear that penetrates the case from the
side. The stepper would be a "lump" on the side of the motor case, and
might become a common, recognizeable feature of an EV motor.
Once all motors have features like this (and perhaps interpoles and
high-rpm reinforcements), we'll look back on the popular motors of today
as being in the stone age. We'll look at EVs that can't do regenerative
braking and wonder why, when it could have been so easy, and the
alternative is so hard on the brakes with all the extra weight.
--chris
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 09:49 -0800, Jim Husted wrote:
> Hey All
>
> Couple of thoughts here. Although Waylands "We need more cable Captain"
philosiphy, and an 8" diameter motor has limited him with the ability of an
ABR. A 9"er would be easier to do because of the increase in diameter. The
biggest problem is that there is generally not enough window space to allow
you to swing a lever 90 degrees. Chris just posted some pics ( The big one)
and one of them shows an older style 2 window CE plate that would be ideal.
On a smaller four window plate you'd have to mill the windows down or create
a slid path through the end of the plate. I don't see rotating plates as
being feasable due to the torque, and the shear effort it would take to do
it. Although Waylands Siamese are actually comm. outies ; 0 would it
better if both comm's were located in the middle.
> Possible Pros:
> Being able to move both levers easier as they are close together.
> Being able to vent both comms with a common vent hood.
> Fans at both ends of motor.
>
> Possible Cons:
> Comms get hotter being closer together.
>
> The point above is I believe comm placement will soon be where do you
want them.
>
> As I see it creating a 90 degree swing motor is doable. Getting it to
be a viable workable reverse system would require you good gentlemen to work
out.
> Happy New Year All
> Cya
> Jim Husted
> Hi-Torque Electric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andre' Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:07 PM 1/1/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >
> >>How about if the brush rigging was adjustable enough, rotating the brush
> >>rigging 90 degrees?
> >>weight added <10 lbs! Just a lever, perhaps with a cable and a vernier
> >>to dial in advance once in FWD position, and a couple of microswitches
> >>to drop out main contactor if the lever is not in one of the 2
positions.
> >>
> >On the Zombie's Siamese 8, against mild protests over how much work it
> >would be to do so, I had Jim stuff in twin parallel 4 gauge brush
> >interconnect leads at each brush end bell, to make sure all 2000 amps got
> >delivered to all the brushes :-) Because of this, the brush riggings
would
> >be close to impossible to make rotateable (is that a word?). It's pretty
> >well stuffed at each end bell. It was difficult enough to do this on the
> >monster sized 13 inch 'Yellow Beast', and was only doable because of how
> >huge the spaces are inside this thing. Even with the bigger spaces, the
> >movable brush rigging and its multiple runs of flexible 4 gauge
> >interconnects was difficult to pull off, thanks to Jim's artisan talents
> >though, he pulled it off.
>
> It would not work on your twin, if I remember correctly the coms were in
> the center between the two motors.
> But on a single motor rather then rotating the brush rigging it would
> likely be easier to rotate the entire end bell. The armature connections
> would need to be located in the end bell. That way the only wires that
> need to flex are external to the motor and can be made long enough to do
so
> without much problem.
>
>
> __________
> Andre' B. Clear Lake, Wi.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
> Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
... number 11 and ELECTRIC
Matt has climbed into the top 50 as well on 44th position!
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Roderick Wilde
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
"White Zombie" is now number 12 and on the front page of Drag Times. For
those of us in the industry who use Google and Yahoo know, being on the
front page has nothing whatsoever to do with marketing or the selling of an
idea, yeah, right!
Roderick Wilde
President, EV Parts, Inc.
www.evparts.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
>> Neon John wrote:
>> I just don't get it.
>
> A truer statement has never been made in this forum. I finally agree with
> something Neon John posted. Must be a holiday or something. 8^)
>
> -Ken Trough
> Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
> http://visforvoltage.com
> AIM/YM - ktrough
> FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 12/30/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.10/218 - Release Date: 1/2/2006
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At high (drag racing) power levels, I think it's because of the switching
itself. On the one hand IGBTs are expensive, and on the other, contactors
are heavy, and waste power through their contacts.
And, you'd need separate terminals on the motor to connect to each of
those sets of brushes, a longer commutator to support them, and heavy
wires to hook them all up... Plus the additional friction (probably
negligible).
But how about this -- what about making the brush ring moveable via a
cable? That way, the whole thing could be moved with any sort of rotary or
linear actuator, and most of the complex stuff stays mounted to the
outside of the motor. Want precise movements for good control during
acceleration, but to quickly SNAP into the proper position for sudden
braking? Combine a short range stepper with a solenoid, pneumatic or
vaccuum-powered range selector to move it the larger distance in a
hurry....
--chris
On Mon, January 2, 2006 3:32 pm, Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) said:
> Why not have 3 sets of brushes that are at the correct advance position
> for
> the job needed (1 set for forward, 1 for reverse, one for regen) and then
> the controller just selects between which set to use as to which mode it
> is
> in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The actuator stuff is what I am thinking should be avoided. By making them
moveable it opens them up to being stuck in the wrong position. Being in
the wrong advance even for a second at 400 amps would be catastrophic. Plus
most people would not know how to set the advance on their motors.
Manufacturers do though - they could set up the brushes for each part for
max efficiency. As for reverse and regen, switching to a different set of
brushes would be instantaneous on the multiple brush setup. Since the
contactors would only be energized for a short period in reverse and regen
they wouldnt waste much power. Regen isnt much of a boost anyways. I bet
you would only gain 1 mile from it anyways.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Robison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
At high (drag racing) power levels, I think it's because of the switching
itself. On the one hand IGBTs are expensive, and on the other, contactors
are heavy, and waste power through their contacts.
And, you'd need separate terminals on the motor to connect to each of
those sets of brushes, a longer commutator to support them, and heavy
wires to hook them all up... Plus the additional friction (probably
negligible).
But how about this -- what about making the brush ring moveable via a
cable? That way, the whole thing could be moved with any sort of rotary or
linear actuator, and most of the complex stuff stays mounted to the
outside of the motor. Want precise movements for good control during
acceleration, but to quickly SNAP into the proper position for sudden
braking? Combine a short range stepper with a solenoid, pneumatic or
vaccuum-powered range selector to move it the larger distance in a
hurry....
--chris
On Mon, January 2, 2006 3:32 pm, Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) said:
> Why not have 3 sets of brushes that are at the correct advance position
> for
> the job needed (1 set for forward, 1 for reverse, one for regen) and then
> the controller just selects between which set to use as to which mode it
> is
> in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It bothers me, and it should bother everyone!!! Honesty is always the
best policy - and the way the votes are going, I don't think we need to
be
dishonest about it.
Read the site. They encourage once a day voting. There is no dishonesty
going on except perhaps in Neon John's head.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM/YM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I like the idea of 2 or 3 brushes at ideal positions, as
there is NO impact on the main drive circuit to get braking
and regen. I expect that these functions be added to the
controller and performed electronically, instead of mechanical
switches, heavy wires and increased resistance in the main
drive path.
The power to get Reverse and Regen are anyhow not comparable
to the power for the main drive - I have never seen a spec
of 0 - 60 in reverse.
I know on a Prius the braking current is limited to about 50A
and several batteries have their limit around that current as
well, so the wiring and the additional controllers for the
braking (boost controller for a DC configuration) and the
Reverse (mini buck convertor with inverted polarity) will
likely have sufficient power when having 50 motor Amps, max
100 Amps.
That means they can be wired to the motor with 2 AWG wire
so this will be an easy install due to the thin wires.
You can also see that the amount of additional transistors
is about 10% of the main drive (100A versus 1000A) so the
cost increase should be minimal.
Each will be connected to the controller permanently, the
only question mark I have is in the flyback-diodes of the
main drive - will the reverse drive cause residual current
in the windings that will open the reverse diodes of the main
drive? that could be an unwanted drain of power, possibly
the "Reverse" drive will need to supply its reverse current
THROUGH the flyback diodes. Enough ideas to get Otmars brain
in a knot ;-)
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:06 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
The actuator stuff is what I am thinking should be avoided. By making them
moveable it opens them up to being stuck in the wrong position. Being in
the wrong advance even for a second at 400 amps would be catastrophic. Plus
most people would not know how to set the advance on their motors.
Manufacturers do though - they could set up the brushes for each part for
max efficiency. As for reverse and regen, switching to a different set of
brushes would be instantaneous on the multiple brush setup. Since the
contactors would only be energized for a short period in reverse and regen
they wouldnt waste much power. Regen isnt much of a boost anyways. I bet
you would only gain 1 mile from it anyways.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Robison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
At high (drag racing) power levels, I think it's because of the switching
itself. On the one hand IGBTs are expensive, and on the other, contactors
are heavy, and waste power through their contacts.
And, you'd need separate terminals on the motor to connect to each of
those sets of brushes, a longer commutator to support them, and heavy
wires to hook them all up... Plus the additional friction (probably
negligible).
But how about this -- what about making the brush ring moveable via a
cable? That way, the whole thing could be moved with any sort of rotary or
linear actuator, and most of the complex stuff stays mounted to the
outside of the motor. Want precise movements for good control during
acceleration, but to quickly SNAP into the proper position for sudden
braking? Combine a short range stepper with a solenoid, pneumatic or
vaccuum-powered range selector to move it the larger distance in a
hurry....
--chris
On Mon, January 2, 2006 3:32 pm, Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) said:
> Why not have 3 sets of brushes that are at the correct advance position
> for
> the job needed (1 set for forward, 1 for reverse, one for regen) and then
> the controller just selects between which set to use as to which mode it
> is
> in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am liking that idea more and more! I didnt think of the lower current
requirement at all. It makes a lot of sense though.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cor van de Water [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
I like the idea of 2 or 3 brushes at ideal positions, as
there is NO impact on the main drive circuit to get braking
and regen. I expect that these functions be added to the
controller and performed electronically, instead of mechanical
switches, heavy wires and increased resistance in the main
drive path.
The power to get Reverse and Regen are anyhow not comparable
to the power for the main drive - I have never seen a spec
of 0 - 60 in reverse.
I know on a Prius the braking current is limited to about 50A
and several batteries have their limit around that current as
well, so the wiring and the additional controllers for the
braking (boost controller for a DC configuration) and the
Reverse (mini buck convertor with inverted polarity) will
likely have sufficient power when having 50 motor Amps, max
100 Amps.
That means they can be wired to the motor with 2 AWG wire
so this will be an easy install due to the thin wires.
You can also see that the amount of additional transistors
is about 10% of the main drive (100A versus 1000A) so the
cost increase should be minimal.
Each will be connected to the controller permanently, the
only question mark I have is in the flyback-diodes of the
main drive - will the reverse drive cause residual current
in the windings that will open the reverse diodes of the main
drive? that could be an unwanted drain of power, possibly
the "Reverse" drive will need to supply its reverse current
THROUGH the flyback diodes. Enough ideas to get Otmars brain
in a knot ;-)
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:06 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
The actuator stuff is what I am thinking should be avoided. By making them
moveable it opens them up to being stuck in the wrong position. Being in
the wrong advance even for a second at 400 amps would be catastrophic. Plus
most people would not know how to set the advance on their motors.
Manufacturers do though - they could set up the brushes for each part for
max efficiency. As for reverse and regen, switching to a different set of
brushes would be instantaneous on the multiple brush setup. Since the
contactors would only be energized for a short period in reverse and regen
they wouldnt waste much power. Regen isnt much of a boost anyways. I bet
you would only gain 1 mile from it anyways.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Robison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reverseing a siamese motor
At high (drag racing) power levels, I think it's because of the switching
itself. On the one hand IGBTs are expensive, and on the other, contactors
are heavy, and waste power through their contacts.
And, you'd need separate terminals on the motor to connect to each of
those sets of brushes, a longer commutator to support them, and heavy
wires to hook them all up... Plus the additional friction (probably
negligible).
But how about this -- what about making the brush ring moveable via a
cable? That way, the whole thing could be moved with any sort of rotary or
linear actuator, and most of the complex stuff stays mounted to the
outside of the motor. Want precise movements for good control during
acceleration, but to quickly SNAP into the proper position for sudden
braking? Combine a short range stepper with a solenoid, pneumatic or
vaccuum-powered range selector to move it the larger distance in a
hurry....
--chris
On Mon, January 2, 2006 3:32 pm, Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) said:
> Why not have 3 sets of brushes that are at the correct advance position
> for
> the job needed (1 set for forward, 1 for reverse, one for regen) and then
> the controller just selects between which set to use as to which mode it
> is
> in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Scuse me - some were suggesting tricks to vote more than once a day.
That I do consider dishonest.
Voting each and every day is endorsed by the site.
Inviting friends and family to each vote once a day is welcomed.
Voting at home as well as at work is not detectable and hardly
seen as a problem, this is up to your own conscience and rules
of Internet usage at work.
Switching your PC to your neighbor's wireless internet and
voting twice a day is possible but not encouraged. (It's illegal)
Using your multi-ip server farm and a script to automatically vote
multiple times a day is clearly way over the top.
Hope this clarifies,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ken Trough
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zombie at DragTimes Web Site
> It bothers me, and it should bother everyone!!! Honesty is always the
> best policy - and the way the votes are going, I don't think we need to
> be
> dishonest about it.
Read the site. They encourage once a day voting. There is no dishonesty
going on except perhaps in Neon John's head.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM/YM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Burnside [EMAIL PROTECTED] got the Postal Van. Very nicely laid
out & easy to work on. Fixed the locks and hood latch today. The emergency
disconnect is very stiff in the cable but works under the hood. by hand.
Might have to take out the cable. The windshield is smashed. I can't
figure out how to get it out. Looks riveted in. If anyone has the manual
for this vehicle could you please email me & Bob Burnside a copy. The van
is in fair shape with good seats. Needs the stock sliding battery rack.
Thanks to all.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
