EV Digest 5140
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by mike golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Hey man, your car is on fire !
by paul wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by Marc Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by paul wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Hey man, your car is on fire !
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by Seth Rothenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Blow DC converter question(long)
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by MIKE & PAULA WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Certainly the components in the E-Volks kit are viable. However it makes a
difference how it is implemented. Throwing 6 GC batteries behind the
rearseat of a VW Beetle works but is that how you want your ev to look? I
still think if you keep the weight down a 72v VW/Festiva/Metro works. You
just have to keep it light. Once the muffler and other unneeded components
are stripped off that Metro it aught to do better. LR.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
Mike Chancey wrote:
Last night I finally got a look at the latest EV to join our chapter and
I have to admit I was quite disappointed and a rather angry.
Just out of curiousity, is the actual owner of the Metro also dissapointed
and angry about the car?
I'm just wondering if he/she made an informed decision in acquiring a very
low-budget conversion, or whether the specs, performance & quality of the
vehicle came as a surprise after the fact (safety issues notwithstanding).
(FYI - my questions aren't meant to defend the conversion company - I have
no interest in the issue except that I'm researching building a "budget
NEV/LSV" myself.)
Darin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's up to Congress.
--- Chris Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening
> to the US President's
> State of the Union Address in the past few years,
> among other reasons
> because the current president's delivery pattern
> just rubs me the wrong
> way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I
> hear "nukular" I
> suppose.
>
> But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that
> yesterday's was one I
> shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it
> doesn't seem to have been
> brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way
> through the speech,
> Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our
> research in better
> batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other
> energy initiatives
> (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
>
> Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one
> sentence in a speech,
> but just that he included the terms "better
> batteries" and "electric cars"
> in the same sentence during such an important
> address seems absolutely
> huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I
> think it's safe to
> assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word,
> for days if not weeks.
> Could this imply even a small shift in policy?
> Perhaps this might bring a
> little less of the hydrogen extremism in government
> grant spending that
> killed so much battery research in the past few
> years...
>
> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading
> too much into this?
> Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if
> it's *really* negative,
> maybe mail me privately...)
>
> --chris
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
: It sounds like it would be difficult to impossible to do with your twist
grip throttle, however, it would be possible if you were using a
conventional motor cycle throttle twist grip to operate a throttle cable
that could connect to a conventional pot box (complete with
microswitch).
I have thought of that, and might go that way.
=
You only need to drop out one or the other. When you say you have the
precharge across both, do you mean that you have used 2 precharge
resistors, each having 1/2 the required total precharge resistance? If
so, unless you have provided some means (a small relay in series with
one of the precharge resistors) of disconnecting one or both of the
precharge resistors when the contactors are open then you are defeating
one of the purposes of having two contactors in the first place (to
disconnect the battery completely from the drivetrain when the key is
off), and are keeping the controller caps precharged at all times such
that a controller failure while charging could launch your vehicle into
something/someone.
Yes i did put two precharge resistors on (1/2 on each.) But i also have 2
disconnects, one operated by the clutch lever and the other just a really cool
one that i found in a supply house. Usually, i turn it off to disconnect when i
am away from the bike, since i dont have a key anymore.
If you use a single precharge resistor across one contactor, then when
the key is off and both contactors open, the controller bus caps are
allowed to discharge and while the drivetrain is still not completely
isolated from the battery pack at least it isn't being subjected to the
peak charging voltage any longer.
So i would have to turn on non precharged contactor first, then the other,
right?
> I have thought about running a safety circuit through the
> brake light circuit, so to drop them out when the brakes are
> on. (Unless i am in need of a nice burn out!) Is this a good
> plan or should one only do it with a off throttle swtich?
It has been suggested that most of the safety can be realised with much
less contactor clacking using a scheme that closes the contactor when
the throttle is pressed/twisted and drops it out when the brake is
pressed.
The downside of this scheme is that it would introduce an
additional delay before the vehicle is shut down in the event of a
runaway, though on a bike this delay could be less of an issue since the
rear brake can be applied even before one's fingers shift from the
throttle grip to the front brake lever.
So if you coast, without tapping the brakes, the contactors stay in?
I guess that i never really put a whole lot of thought into a runaway. Thanks
for the wake up call BEFORE something might have happenend!
Paul
---------------------------------
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am not sure if your post will get censured or not. There is a strong anti
political rule on this forum. Here is the official White House press release
from earlier today which goes into more details and mentions plug in hybrids
as well:
We Are On The Verge Of Dramatic Improvements
In How We Power Our Automobiles, And The
President's Initiative Will Bring Those
Improvements To The Forefront. The United States
must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and
develop new ways to power automobiles. The
President wants to accelerate the development of
domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and
diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate
research in cutting-edge methods of producing
"cellulosic ethanol" with the goal of making the
use of such ethanol practical and competitive
within 6 years. The Administration will also step
up the Nation's research in better batteries for
use in hybrid and electric cars and in
pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
Developing More Efficient Vehicles. Current
hybrids on the road run on a battery developed at
the DOE. The President's plan would accelerate
research in the next generation of battery
technology for hybrid vehicles and "plug-in
hybrids." Current hybrids can only use the
gasoline engine to charge the on-board battery. A
"plug-in" hybrid can run either on electricity or
on gasoline and can be plugged into the wall at
night to recharge its batteries. These vehicles
will enable drivers to meet most of their urban
commuting needs with virtually no gasoline use.
Advanced battery technologies offer the potential
to significantly reduce oil consumption in the
near-term. The 2007 Budget includes $30 million -
a $6.7 million increase over FY06 - to speed up
the development of this battery technology and
extend the range of these vehicles.
In addition, the president's 2007 budget includes
$289 million for hydrogen fuel cell research. The
statement also noted that the cost of a hydrogen
fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years.
posted by Roderick Wilde
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening to the US President's
State of the Union Address in the past few years, among other reasons
because the current president's delivery pattern just rubs me the wrong
way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I hear "nukular" I
suppose.
But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's was one I
shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to have been
brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the speech,
Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research in better
batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy initiatives
(nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a speech,
but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and "electric cars"
in the same sentence during such an important address seems absolutely
huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I think it's safe to
assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not weeks.
Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this might bring a
little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant spending that
killed so much battery research in the past few years...
What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really* negative,
maybe mail me privately...)
--chris
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I talked to the E-Volks guy on the phone a while back. He seems to have
thousands of the aircraft generators and also many of the smaller motors
with the odd inverted belt drive(Better suited to a motorcycle). I think if
you cherry pick his components you would do well and make a conversion for
about a thousand with an Altrax controller. The motor/adapter plate from
them is very reasonable. If Mikes fellow EV'er's motor and plate hold up it
might be well worth watching. This system is a shunt motor so it has built
in regen. LR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
Does the conversion run? If so what is the performance like? I've been
trying to find anyone that has one to talk about. It sounds like what
they advertised. If it was converted by Wilderness EV it sounds terrible.
Is it possible it was done by someone else with a Wilderness kit? It sure
sounds like the Wilderness kit done by a newbie. Still for 2500 if it
runs and had 15 miles usable range on flat ground it'd be worth it. Did
this one have a clutch or clutchless?
The car was purchased directly from Wilderness EV and had been converted
by them. It ran when it arrived, though it has been partially
disassembled now for upgrading to 72 Volts per their instructions. On 36
Volts it would do about 30-35 mph, on 72 Volts it went over 60mph. He
never tested the range. I saw those temporary terminals in the Wilderness
EV kit when it was first mentioned on the EVDL and I figured they were the
newbies. It does have a clutch, otherwise with a no controller setup it
would be completely undriveable. Keep in mind this is not a contactor
controlled system, at least not what we would consider one to be. Turning
on the ignition switch turns on the motor. Speed is controlled by
slipping the clutch and shifting gears. The accelerator pedal, as
delivered, did nothing. I guess you could consider it a single speed
contactor controller, though I would think that would mean the accelerator
would switch the motor on and off. He has purchased an Altrax controller
and I was invited over to suggest how to install it.
Darin wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is the actual owner of the Metro also dissapointed
and angry about the car?
The owner was simply not aware of what was wrong. He is very very new to
EVs, just saw one of ours once at a display and purchased this car without
discussing it with any of our chapter members. He seems very
philosophical about it, but I doubt he would recommend any follow his
example. :)
I'm just wondering if he/she made an informed decision in acquiring a very
low-budget conversion, or whether the specs, performance & quality of the
vehicle came as a surprise after the fact (safety issues notwithstanding).
I don't think this would could be called an informed decision.
David Dymaxion wrote:
Sounds like a case of getting what you pay for. Did $2500 include the
car, too? If so that's mighty cheap!
$2500 included a scrap yard 1994 Metro, six Exide batteries, and the
assorted components I described. I have seen many far nicer and far more
capable EVs sell for a fraction of this amount.
Have you contacted the E-volks folks? Maybe this is a case of
environmental enthusiasm but not knowing what standard safe
electrical practices are. They might appreciate the benefits of your
knowledge and experience.
Since it is not my car, I don't think it is my place to do so. I don't
believe they would care anyway, this looks like a rig up from scrap just
to make money. Some things can be blamed on ignorance, but this is just
way too much.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think it means the White House realizes it must get out in front of
the oil madness politically. Before it really bites them in the ass.
If they were intending to actually do something, they'd have called
on congress to repeal all the recent additional tax benefits for oil
companies, announced an excess profits tax, and provided tax credits
or actual rebates for the purchase of plug-in cars.
On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Chris Robison wrote:
I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening to the US
President's
State of the Union Address in the past few years, among other reasons
because the current president's delivery pattern just rubs me the
wrong
way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I hear "nukular" I
suppose.
But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's was
one I
shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to
have been
brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the
speech,
Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research in better
batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy initiatives
(nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a
speech,
but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and
"electric cars"
in the same sentence during such an important address seems absolutely
huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I think it's safe to
assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not
weeks.
Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this might
bring a
little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant spending
that
killed so much battery research in the past few years...
What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really*
negative,
maybe mail me privately...)
--chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I apologize if I've delved too far into a political realm, but I really
see US Government support as a factor that could greatly influence the
adoption of electric vehicles.
And the press release you posted, where it discusses Plug-in Hybrids, is
actually some of the best news yet. "These vehicles will enable drivers
to meet most of their urban commuting needs with virtually no gasoline
use." I can't help but to be impressed that our current administration is
making that statement. Even if it's all a game and they don't really
intend to invest in battery technology, it's a sign that at least someone
up there sees the benefit.
Maybe upon reading that, some people previously ignorant of the idea will
be convinced of its value.
--chris
On Wed, February 1, 2006 6:22 pm, Roderick Wilde said:
> I am not sure if your post will get censured or not. There is a strong
> anti
> political rule on this forum. Here is the official White House press
> release
> from earlier today which goes into more details and mentions plug in
> hybrids
> as well:
>
> We Are On The Verge Of Dramatic Improvements
> In How We Power Our Automobiles, And The
> President's Initiative Will Bring Those
> Improvements To The Forefront. The United States
> must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and
> develop new ways to power automobiles. The
> President wants to accelerate the development of
> domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and
> diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate
> research in cutting-edge methods of producing
> "cellulosic ethanol" with the goal of making the
> use of such ethanol practical and competitive
> within 6 years. The Administration will also step
> up the Nation's research in better batteries for
> use in hybrid and electric cars and in
> pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
>
> Developing More Efficient Vehicles. Current
> hybrids on the road run on a battery developed at
> the DOE. The President's plan would accelerate
> research in the next generation of battery
> technology for hybrid vehicles and "plug-in
> hybrids." Current hybrids can only use the
> gasoline engine to charge the on-board battery. A
> "plug-in" hybrid can run either on electricity or
> on gasoline and can be plugged into the wall at
> night to recharge its batteries. These vehicles
> will enable drivers to meet most of their urban
> commuting needs with virtually no gasoline use.
> Advanced battery technologies offer the potential
> to significantly reduce oil consumption in the
> near-term. The 2007 Budget includes $30 million -
> a $6.7 million increase over FY06 - to speed up
> the development of this battery technology and
> extend the range of these vehicles.
>
> In addition, the president's 2007 budget includes
> $289 million for hydrogen fuel cell research. The
> statement also noted that the cost of a hydrogen
> fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years.
>
> posted by Roderick Wilde
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:57 PM
> Subject: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
>
>
>> I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening to the US
>> President's
>> State of the Union Address in the past few years, among other reasons
>> because the current president's delivery pattern just rubs me the wrong
>> way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I hear "nukular" I
>> suppose.
>>
>> But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's was one
>> I
>> shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to have
>> been
>> brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the speech,
>> Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research in better
>> batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy initiatives
>> (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
>>
>> Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a
>> speech,
>> but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and "electric
>> cars"
>> in the same sentence during such an important address seems absolutely
>> huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I think it's safe to
>> assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not
>> weeks.
>> Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this might bring
>> a
>> little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant spending that
>> killed so much battery research in the past few years...
>>
>> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
>> Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really*
>> negative,
>> maybe mail me privately...)
>>
>> --chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date:
>> 1/31/2006
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date: 1/31/2006
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Judge Deeds, Not Words
All it would take to make me believe in his will to really change
something would be a call to his buddies at Texaco to revise Ovonics
strategy in regard to their battery technology. But, (IMHO) unfortunately
it is a big smoke screen again to make people believe he would actually
care about rising gas prices and environmental protection.
Just my two cents.
Michaela
> I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening to the US President's
> State of the Union Address in the past few years, among other reasons
> because the current president's delivery pattern just rubs me the wrong
> way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I hear "nukular" I
> suppose.
>
> But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's was one I
> shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to have been
> brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the speech,
> Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research in better
> batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy initiatives
> (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
>
> Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a speech,
> but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and "electric cars"
> in the same sentence during such an important address seems absolutely
> huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I think it's safe to
> assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not weeks.
> Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this might bring a
> little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant spending that
> killed so much battery research in the past few years...
>
> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
> Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really* negative,
> maybe mail me privately...)
>
> --chris
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What we need is a totally new idea, a few key investors, and some decent press.
The best press is the President up there telling us that we are oil pigs and
need cars that run on batteries. Every tv station, many nations. Oil is out and
electric is in.
personally, i want a "nuklar" powered minivan!
---------------------------------
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
paul wiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes i did put two precharge resistors on (1/2 on each.) But
> i also have 2 disconnects, one operated by the clutch lever
> and the other just a really cool one that i found in a supply
> house. Usually, i turn it off to disconnect when i am away
> from the bike, since i dont have a key anymore.
OK; let's see if I understand your setup: you have 2 contactors, each
with a precharge resistor across it. These contactors are controlled by
the run/stop switch (since you have ditched the keyswitch)? You also
have 2 manual disconnects, one operated by the clutch lever (for
emergencies, I presume), and one in a discreet location to disable the
bike when parked (wouldn't it have been easier to just retain the
factory keyswitch?).
When you turn off the main contactors, the pack is left connected to the
controller via the precharge resistors. If you forget to open the
manual disconnect before charging, the controller is subjected to the
peak charge voltage. This may not be such an issue if you are using an
Alltrax capable of accepting a 72V pack but only have a 48V pack
installed. However, it does mean that unless the manual disconnect is
opened the controller remains precharged at all times.
In the event of a runaway your likely sequence of actions will be:
release the throttle, pull in the clutch, apply rear brake, apply front
brake, and hit the kill switch. The first three will probably happen
near simultaneously as they each involve a different appendage, and the
order of the last two may be reversed depending on your past personal
biking history. The important thing to note is that it is unlikely that
you will drop out the contactors before opening the clutch-operated
disconnect since doing so requires shifting your thumb from the throttle
over to the kill switch at a minimum, and for most people the
instinctive reaction for their right hand will be to grab a fistfull of
brake lever.
I'm a little puzzled why you opted for two contactors instead of one
given the way you seem to be using them.
With a two contactor system, I would be inclined to wire them such that
the non-precharge contactor is controlled by the stock keyswitch
(assuming you had one), clutch switch, and kill switch in series; that
is to pull in the key must be on, the kill switch must be in the run
position, and the clutch must be engaged (lever released). The
precharge contactor would be controlled by the throttle microswitch and
run-stop switch (contactor closes only if kill switch is in the run
position and the throttle is applied). In this way, only one of the two
contactors is opening with each release of the throttle (less noise and
less mechanical wear on the non-precharge contactor). The kill switch
provides a means of dropping out all contactors since it is only likely
to be used in an emergency, and the clutch lever also provides an
instinctive emergency disconnect.
Although it is arguably overkill for a street-only bike, one could do
worse than to emulate the NEDRA rules for bikes and include a lanyard
type emergency stop provision (i.e. a bit of cord between you and the
bike that shuts the bike down should you and the bike go in separate
directions). I've always been impressed by Father Time's emergency
disconnects, but suspect that for other than all out racing something
more akin to the lanyard type kill switches found on snowmachines would
be quite adequate.
> > If you use a single precharge resistor across one
> > contactor,
> So i would have to turn on non
> precharged contactor first, then the other, right?
Right. Usually, the non-precharged contactor would be energised by the
keyswitch, so as soon as the key is turned on the controller begins
precharging. The second contactor would either be pulled in by the
controller (once it decides it is precharged and otherwise healthy), or
once an external circuit you provide determines that the caps are
precharged (voltage on the controller side of the contactors is over
some minimum fraction of the pack voltage), or simply after you decide
an appropriate amount of time has passed. Some people have used a light
bulb as their precharge resistor as it behaves much like the glow plug
light in a diesel vehicle: it will light brightly initially and then
dim/go out once the caps are charged, so you have a visual indicator
that lets you know when it is safe to close the second contactor.
> So if you coast, without tapping the brakes, the
> contactors stay in?
Right. The idea is that while your first instinct in the event of a
runaway is to release the throttle, hitting the brakes is a close
second. In normal driving there will be lots of times where you release
the throttle and coast, so not dropping the contactor out until the
brake is pressed reduces the click-clacking.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:57:20PM -0600, Chris Robison wrote:
<..snip..>
>
> But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's was one I
> shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to have been
> brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the speech,
> Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research in better
> batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy initiatives
> (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
This sure is a far cry from:
"If you're one of those people who puts solar panels on your
house or drives a battery powered car, you might as well
vote for Gore"
-- Dick Cheney, Oct 3, 2000.
Seems like they might be trying to swing people for the congressional
elections, but here's hoping I'm wrong.
> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
> Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really* negative,
> maybe mail me privately...)
I hope this marks a positive shift in policy, that would be fantastic!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris wrote -
> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much into this?
Yup, you're reading too much into this....
He has no intention of decreasing our dependance on oil, none whatsoever.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a speech,
> but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and "electric cars"
> in the same sentence during such an important address seems absolutely
> huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I think it's safe to
> assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not weeks.
> Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this might bring a
> little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant spending that
> killed so much battery research in the past few years...
I also missed the speech, but I did hear on the radio that
this was one of the promised topics.
What I would like to see is legislation forbidding
destruction of any vehicle built with technology that
received any federal funding or tax break or any incentives.
(I suspect that would apply to GM...call it GM law :-)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have been forced to try and repair dc-dc converters and SMPS at work,
I am learning. Of the about 10 I have been able to ressurect the
problems were remarkably similar. Bad caps on most, and on one, the
dreaded cascade style failure were everything took everthing else out as
it died. I wish I had a scope and I could probably fix the remainder
but a surprising amount can be fixed with just a meter.
Caps. The electrolytics dry out and the ESR(pukert for caps) goes way
up. I don't have an ESR meter but it turns out to be obvious when my
little wetek meter that has capacitance meter takes a long time to climb
up to and read capacitance. the actual Farads is usually still correct,
it just takes longer than the timing circuit is willing to wait. If it
is over 10-15 years old, there is a good chance the caps are shot.
steps to diagnose (Lee has helped with this in the past and can improve
these steps)
1) power down and drain caps. use a resister on a lead to discharge
them. Some DC-DC or SMPS have a DC buss of 300+volts
2) usually there is a NTC (Looks like a square resistor or ceramic cap)
to slow the inrush current on start, they get hot and burn open
sometimes. Sometimes a PTC is used to provide a "don't start yet, i'm
not ready" to the oscillator chip.
3) check main transistor for short or open.
4) check transformer for continuity
5) check all electrolytics.
6) GET a LIGHT BULB and put it in series with input power.
7) Power up.
7a Light flashes and goes out : Oscillator is not happy and
won't run.
If this is pure analog using the saturation of the
transformer and the caps to oscillate, recheck or just replace the
electrolytics (then look for a new dc-dc, this one is cheap and ineffient)
If it has a couple of chips on a daughter board or off in one
corner (like a TDA4718) Check the 5V or 12V power-supply to the chips.
This is usually just a resistor, diode and cap off of the main dc buss.
After this it gets complicated checking the feedback circuit and the
signals to the SMPS chip to make sure it is "happy"
7b Light flashes, goes out then flashes again. Could be a shorted
output, it tries to start, detects and overcurrent or overvoltage and
shuts down, thinks about it and tries again. This can happen if the unit
has no load. Some are internally loaded and some need a load to run, so
put a bulb on the output too.
7c no light, nothing. NTC is open? or main caps are charged already.
7d Light is on and steady or flickers nicely. The main converter is
working, There may be a downstream linear style regulator that is open
and the internal load is keeping the main supply running.
If you want to learn, Have fun and be careful. -or- If you want to get
it working with the least risk to self and unit, Seek a professional. I
found that the older TV repair guys, the ones that fix monitors can fix
SMPS. Because the ones in monitors are usually a highly stressed
design(translation: cheap) and they have experiance fixing them.
Cascade failure : Avoid temptation to power up unit when you first find
a bad main switching transistor or any other single bad component and
replace it. Check the rest and use the "series light trick". My first
lesson was to replace the weakest link in a unit and plug it in, The
next weakest link then let out it's smoke.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I cought the presidents words last night too. I'm highly impressed that I
heard these words come out of his mouth and will be dumbfounded if I see any
results within the next 5 years. Going through all the IEEE papers I've read I
notice there was a big spike in Battery research immediately prior to and
during the time the car companies were offering the electric only vehicles.
Since they started crushing them however those research papers have tapered
off. Of note though is an apparent increase in the number of papers published
on Super Capacitors and Lithiated Metal Polymer batteries. So maybe with this
little mention from the president, engineering and research companies will
again bring the studies back. We can already see high energy density batteries
and high power density batteries. Now we just need to figure out how to have
both qualities in the same battery. Here's to hoping it wil happen.
Mike,
Anchorage, AK.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
To: [email protected]
> I apologize if I've delved too far into a political realm, but I
> reallysee US Government support as a factor that could greatly
> influence the
> adoption of electric vehicles.
>
> And the press release you posted, where it discusses Plug-in
> Hybrids, is
> actually some of the best news yet. "These vehicles will enable
> driversto meet most of their urban commuting needs with virtually
> no gasoline
> use." I can't help but to be impressed that our current
> administration is
> making that statement. Even if it's all a game and they don't really
> intend to invest in battery technology, it's a sign that at least
> someoneup there sees the benefit.
>
> Maybe upon reading that, some people previously ignorant of the
> idea will
> be convinced of its value.
>
> --chris
>
>
>
> On Wed, February 1, 2006 6:22 pm, Roderick Wilde said:
> > I am not sure if your post will get censured or not. There is a
> strong> anti
> > political rule on this forum. Here is the official White House press
> > release
> > from earlier today which goes into more details and mentions
> plug in
> > hybrids
> > as well:
> >
> > We Are On The Verge Of Dramatic Improvements
> > In How We Power Our Automobiles, And The
> > President's Initiative Will Bring Those
> > Improvements To The Forefront. The United States
> > must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and
> > develop new ways to power automobiles. The
> > President wants to accelerate the development of
> > domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and
> > diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate
> > research in cutting-edge methods of producing
> > "cellulosic ethanol" with the goal of making the
> > use of such ethanol practical and competitive
> > within 6 years. The Administration will also step
> > up the Nation's research in better batteries for
> > use in hybrid and electric cars and in
> > pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
> >
> > Developing More Efficient Vehicles. Current
> > hybrids on the road run on a battery developed at
> > the DOE. The President's plan would accelerate
> > research in the next generation of battery
> > technology for hybrid vehicles and "plug-in
> > hybrids." Current hybrids can only use the
> > gasoline engine to charge the on-board battery. A
> > "plug-in" hybrid can run either on electricity or
> > on gasoline and can be plugged into the wall at
> > night to recharge its batteries. These vehicles
> > will enable drivers to meet most of their urban
> > commuting needs with virtually no gasoline use.
> > Advanced battery technologies offer the potential
> > to significantly reduce oil consumption in the
> > near-term. The 2007 Budget includes $30 million -
> > a $6.7 million increase over FY06 - to speed up
> > the development of this battery technology and
> > extend the range of these vehicles.
> >
> > In addition, the president's 2007 budget includes
> > $289 million for hydrogen fuel cell research. The
> > statement also noted that the cost of a hydrogen
> > fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years.
> >
> > posted by Roderick Wilde
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:57 PM
> > Subject: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
> >
> >
> >> I'll admit I've gotten out of the habit of listening to the US
> >> President's
> >> State of the Union Address in the past few years, among other
> reasons>> because the current president's delivery pattern just
> rubs me the wrong
> >> way. Something about uncontrollable twitching when I hear
> "nukular" I
> >> suppose.
> >>
> >> But a few moments ago, Mark Farver informed me that yesterday's
> was one
> >> I
> >> shouldn't have missed, and I'm surprised that it doesn't seem
> to have
> >> been
> >> brought up on the list today. About 3/4 of the way through the
> speech,>> Bush actually mentioned plans to "increase our research
> in better
> >> batteries for hybrid and electric cars" among other energy
> initiatives>> (nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, methanol, etc).
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm overreacting, and I realize it's just one sentence in a
> >> speech,
> >> but just that he included the terms "better batteries" and
> "electric>> cars"
> >> in the same sentence during such an important address seems
> absolutely>> huge to me. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment; I
> think it's safe to
> >> assume this was a speech worked over word-for-word, for days if not
> >> weeks.
> >> Could this imply even a small shift in policy? Perhaps this
> might bring
> >> a
> >> little less of the hydrogen extremism in government grant
> spending that
> >> killed so much battery research in the past few years...
> >>
> >> What do folks here think about this? Am I reading too much
> into this?
> >> Positve and negative opinions welcome. (I guess if it's *really*
> >> negative,
> >> maybe mail me privately...)
> >>
> >> --chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date:
> >> 1/31/2006
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/247 - Release Date:
> 1/31/2006>
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Chancey wrote:
Hi folks,
Last night I finally got a look at the latest EV to join our chapter and
I have to admit I was quite disappointed and a rather angry. The car is
a Geo Metro converted by E-Volks. It is really hard to see how they can
consider this a completed "turn-key" electric car. This is what I found:
Hm. I've been thinking about this one for a bit now. At first I also
thought this sort of thing (low power motor, 36 volt system, no
controller) was silly, but the more I drive the Prizm, the more I wonder.
The Prizm is a marvel of an electric car. 50kw AC motor, light Hawker
pack, seating for 5 and full trunk, MagneCharger, air conditioning,
heating, power brakes, power steering, regen, the works. It's incredible.
But for running around town here it's kind of overkill actually. Yes it
will do 90mph on the highway and can easily keep up with the ICE's at
traffic lights, but that's a lot of gear for a car that is mostly used
around town.
Yes, the clutch/go system seems really simple and underkill. The
Elec-Trak E8's had this sort of control. Basically you turned the key
and the PM drive motor came on. Then you used the belt clutch to get the
tractor going and you had 4 gears. Seems limiting, but to be honest I
spend 90% of my E20's time (with it's 8 speeds and 4 gears) in D1, speed
5. Low gear is used for tilling, resistors are nice for a smooth start
when pulling a tree, and high speed is nice to cover ground, but if I
was just mowing the lawn then an E8 style control system would be perfect.
I think the old commuta-car was the answer for that, or the Sparrow. But
the C-Car is not too safe by today's standards, and the Sparrow is
geared for highway use. Taking a small but safe basic car, adding a
motor to let it putter around to get milk/groceries, and enough battery
to go 10-12 miles would do over 60% of what I do with the Prizm. And the
Prizm handles 90+% of my driving.
So maybe that's what they are shooting for. Granted they need to spiff
things up a bit and make it more safe, but perhaps it's another
direction to look at instead of the spending $10,000 for a good
converted Rabbit or Prizm. Clean up the wiring, add fuses, secure the
batteries and you might have something that could do around town driving
better (and safer) than a NEV.
Chris
--- End Message ---
