EV Digest 5207
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Bursa NLG 412B
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Chargers - noise level (was: Brusa NLG 412B)
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) The Coaster EV - was Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Lee's battery balancer
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Using an AC rated fuse in DC.
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: EV digest 5205
by "francisco serna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Honda FC car, was Re: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint
Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) RE: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Battery charging in only 5 minutes battery life and cost
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: EV1 question
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Chargers - noise level (was: Brusa NLG 412B)
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EV1 question
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: It's the energy density problem (was: Battery charging in only
5 minutes)
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: EV1 question
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: It's the energy density problem (was: Battery charging in only
5minutes)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: It's the energy density problem (was: Battery charging in only 5
minutes)
by "David C. Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: EV1 question
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Brakes .. Vacuum to manual
by "jmygann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Lee's battery balancer
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: Brakes .. Vacuum to manual
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29) Re: C?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Actually, I caught this at the Calstart website about
a month or two ago. Interesting that Honda will
market their Fuel Cell Vehicle in three years with a
home re-fueling unit
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/04.html,
while toyota/gm are bagging the idea.
peace,
--- Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forwarded by Dean Taylor of Southern California
> Edison:
>
> Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell
> Vehicle
> Research
> 22 February 2006
>
> The Asahi Shimbun reports that Toyota Motor and
> General Motors plan to
> end their joint research on fuel-cell vehicle
> development at the end of
> March because of a lack of progress.
>
> The two companies are expected to agree to extend
> their alliance on
> advanced technologies in other areas such as safety
> and information
> until March 2008, according to the report, which
> suggests that the
> agreement will emerge in early march at the
> earliest.
>
> The two automakers agreed in 1999 to cooperate on
> fuel-cell research,
> in part to take the lead in fuel-cell vehicle
> technology and exchange
> information on technical requirements and build-up
> of infrastructure.
> Toyota officials said that close ties between the
> two companies will
> remain unchanged because they will continue to
> exchange information on
> the remaining issues such as safety and intelligent
> transportation
> systems.
>
> The officials also said the two companies will
> expand
> environment-related research if they find suitable
> areas, according to
> the paper.
>
> Toyota and GM apparently concluded that it is not
> necessary to include
> fuel-cell vehicle development in the extended accord
> also because
> commercial production of fuel-cell vehicles is not
> expected for about
> 10 more years.
>
>
>
> Chip Gribben
> Electric Vehicle Association of Washington DC
> http://www.evadc.org
>
> NEDRA
> http://www.nedra.com
>
>
>
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V (video or DVD available)!
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence,
There are a couple of versions of the NLG412. The standard version allows
you to set charging profiles for just about any battery type. The other
version has a pre-programmed profile for SAFT STM5-100 NiCads, and this
profile cannot be changed except to set the pack voltage. So you need to
know which version you would be getting. If I remember correctly, the SAFT
versions have 'SAFT' written on the label.
If you can get the standard version I'd say do it, and buy them both so
you have a spare.
If the chargers are the SAFT version, compare the SAFT charging profile
with that of the BB600 before you buy them.
If you do buy the chargers, try to get the mating connectors too. Both
the AC power connector and the round (18-pin?) circular connector are not
standard in the US. I replaced the power connector with a pig tail coming
out that hole, and replaced the 18-pin connector with a 16-pin circular
connector (fortunately there was an unused pin and a spare ground in the
orignial pin out).
Ralph
Lawrence Rhodes writes:
>
> I have a chance to aquire one or two of these chargers. Anyone have
> experience with these chargers and would they work well with the BB600
> batteries..
> Lawrence Rhodes
> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
> Reedmaker
> Book 4/5 doubler
> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
> Vegetable Oil Car.
> 415-821-3519
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
M Bianchi wrote:
So do tell -- what do you think of the idea? Viable? Going anywhere;-?
For urban transportation on relatively level track it looks interesting.
Do they have any way of switching? With cars that small one could imagine
each passenger selecting their destination and those would be the only places
the car would stop.
Do some research on PRT, or PAT. (Personal Rapid Transit, or Personal
Automated Transit) Taxi2000 is one system.
Basically the idea is a small (3-4 person) track powered, self guided,
vehicle. Stations are all off the main trunk, passengers choose their
destination as the enter the vehicle and it travels straight to their
destination using the best route. Since the cars are small and light
they can use a cheap low footprint elevated track like Victor's system,
which would be cheaper to install and require less right of way. The
idea is to bring the all the benefits of car travel, without parking
hassles and without drivers. Packet switched mass transit.
The technology has been kicked around for about 15 years now and quite a
few of the major components are commonly used in the industrial
materials handling field. Yet there still isn't a single demo system
installed in any city.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Osmo,
The simple, subjective answer is that the noise is "not much". It may be
too loud for some people, but I doubt it. I haven't heard of anyone
complaining about the fan noise from their chargers.
I used to have a Brusa NLG412 charger, and now have a PFC-20. Both are
air cooled, neither of them makes all that much noise. I have my charger
in the trunk, and when the lid is closed I can't hear the charger if the
car is parked outside. If the car is parked somewhere very quiet, or if
the trunk lid is open, I can hear the charger.
Ralph
Osmo S. writes:
>
> As I am working with my first ev conversion, I´d like to know how noisy
> air cooled chargers are generally, and these Brusa chargers
> particularly? I´d like my ev to be silent in my home yard as well as on
> the road... Anyone feel charger sound is a problem?
>
> Thanks, Osmo
>
>
> 24.2.2006 kello 11:14, David Roden (Akron OH USA) kirjoitti:
>
> On 24 Feb 2006 at 0:44, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> >
> >> I have a chance to aquire one or two of these chargers. Anyone have
> >> experience with these chargers and would they work well with the BB600
> >> batteries..
> >
> > They are outstanding chargers from the standpoint of programmability,
> > highly
> > flexible. They should be run only at 240 volts, with the 120 volt
> > input
> > capability used only as an emergency measure. They can provide up to
> > 3600 watts, but I recommend limiting them to 3000-3200. This is easy
> > to
> > adjust in the programming software. You'll need a computer with MSDOS
> > version 6 or an early version of Windows (95/98) to run the software.
> > I just
> > boot my laptop from a DOS 6 floppy with the Brusa software on it.
> >
> > They can benefit from a minor modification - move or change the value
> > of the
> > bleeder resistor across the mains input. It's too close to a fuse,
> > and the heat
> > it generates eventually causes the fuse to fail.
> >
> > If you are looking at the version with Saft STM firmware, there are
> > some
> > special issues and concerns. If that's the case email me privately
> > and I'll
> > explain in more detail.
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
M Bianchi wrote:
>>>Have a look at The Coaster ...
>>> http://www.coaster.at/?frs=30&lid=2
>>> http://www.coaster.at/?lid=2&pid=17&tid=53&mid=22
>>> http://www.brusa.biz/applications/e_coaster_details.htm
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> I can't find the right photo, but they do have it in urban areas
> similar to a city monorail type. Idea is to make stops in frequently
> used spots (large shopping centers, train stations, etc) so in essence
> it's what we call here a "shuttle".
>> Do they have any way of switching? With cars that small one could imagine
>> each passenger selecting their destination and those would be the only places
>> the car would stop.
> Swithcing what, destination places? The track is fixed and there is no
> de-railing to alternative route as for a railroads. Of course
> riders are free to skip a stop if there is no one to get off.
>
> Main use though is parks and ski resorts where you get fixed route
> uphill instead of using chair lifts. No one gets off on the middle :-)
I'm thinking that with computers and such it would be possible for people to
select their destination before boarding, the computer optimizes which stops to
make and stations can be bypassed. But if you cannot switch the trains, then
everything is strictly a loop and strictly sequential. You even have to run
empties around if there is more than one car on the loop.
Oh well.
Another variation on the theme was constructed in the 1970s and still is in
operation:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/morg.htm
--
Mike Bianchi
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
I'm going to be using Lee Harts new version of his battery balancers...
I'll let you all know how well they work!
Rush
Is their a new build going on , I didn't see anything about it , are we
still waiting for 10 people to order boards? Now that I think about it , I
don't think I saw that check clear , did I miss out . I think I could sell
one , anybody selling one ? don't want to tell people about a product ,
then not be able to get one , like ev's :-)
Steve Clunn
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
Ryan Bohm wrote:
Who else out there is planning on outfitting their rig with MK3s?
$75 x 29 = $2,175... I was just getting used to the MK2 prices too...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otmar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Still, in my view the comm should never be the limit. Usually the windings
on the end flay out first. But of course, that's probably what the posts I
missed were talking about.
I saw this in a motor that was towed ,left in gear , the com looked fine ,
it was the windings that flayed out . This all changes I gess when lots of
current is flowing , .
\
--
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/
The Zilla factory has moved to Corvallis Oregon.
Now accepting resumes. Please see:
http://www.cafeelectric.com/jobs.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Cor van de Water wrote:
John,
I was wondering about the fault current interrupt capability,
as most EV batteries won't be able to sustain more than 3,000
or maybe max 5,000 Amp, even on a dead short.
Hawkers have quite low internal resistance (when new or dried out) and
can put out a lot of current, even for a little 26ah battery.
Also remember DC AIR is a lot different than AC AIR. AC arcs tend to
self-quench. DC do not.
Try it and see. Start with my experiment; short a dopey auto fuse across
your AGM battery. Then move up to one of those 120 amp "main" fuses.
Then go try using 5 batteries in series and a Square D household breaker.
The NiCds can put out more current, though their cell voltage drops to
around .5 volts at a few thousand amps. Still they will put it out.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Can I come take a look at it?
Thanks,
Kiko
507-2015
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:44 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: EV digest 5205
EV Digest 5205
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Battery charging in only 5 minutes
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Battery charging in only 5 minutes
by "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) EV1 question
by Seth Rothenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: EV1 question
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: EV1 question
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Dump charge: off-grid on the cheap - if only we had more public
charging
stations;-)
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Using an AC rated fuse in DC.
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Need 48v Charger Advise
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Battey Breakthrough Article - Interesting !
by Brian Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Need 48v Charger Advise
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) signoff ev
by "Doug Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) precharge circuit
by Fortunat Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: precharge circuit
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Rev limiters, was : New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by Randall Prentice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Battery charging in only 5 minutes battery life and cost
by Lance Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Steel and Bake-A-Lite comm and bar pics up at Hi-Torque site
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Need 48v Charger Advise
by "jmygann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: It's the energy density problem (was: Battery charging in only
5 minutes)
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: Battery powered Trains, and hybrids
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
30) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
31) Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
32) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
33) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
34) Re: New pics up at the Hi-Torque site
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Actually, I caught this at the Calstart website about
> a month or two ago. Interesting that Honda will
> market their Fuel Cell Vehicle in three years with a
> home re-fueling unit
> http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/04.html
> while toyota/gm are bagging the idea.
> peace,
>
Wow! If you could get it without the FC stuff and just put in a pack, that would
be one cool looking EV!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A couple of years ago, a company called Metallic Power was working on
Zinc-Air fuel cells that looked promising. But then they went out of
business. A couple other companies are still working on them, but I don't
know the status. With their Zinc-Air system, you fed it in solid pellets,
which turned into liquid, if I remember, after use. You saved the liquid in
a tank, then you could either regen it back into pellets overnight by
supplying electricity, or you could drain the liquid and add more pellets.
So it could be recharged either like a battery, or like a fuel cell.
I think maybe PowerZinc and Electric Fuel are two other companies working on
Zinc-Air technology for vehicles.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Danny Miller
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: (probably dumb) rapid charge idea.
As a side note, a device which converts replaceable chemical energy
directly to electrical energy, whether solid, liquid, or gas is a fuel
cell, not a battery. Hydrogen fuel cell is only one type, though it's
the only type. If you're tied to rechanging the device with
electricity, it's a battery, if you can feed in additional energy from a
tank indefinitely, it's a fuel cell.
If such a thing were possible, you probably wouldn't just flush the
battery (fuel cell) at a charging station. You'd carry around a 10 gal
tank of fresh liquid and a 10 gal tank of spent waste liquid (assuming
it is unsafe to simply exhaust like hydrogen->H20). The cell would be
designed with an inlet and outlet and constantly replenish the liquid as
needed until the fresh liquid in the tank gets used up. You'd refill
the tank and dump the old stuff for recycling/recharging.
But, as we've said, the batteries I'm familiar with get their energy
from the solid plates rather than the electrolyte. It is probably
possible to get chemical energy from for example lead pellets or
lead-bearing paste, something that could be renewed on the fly, and thus
make a chemical fuel cell with a "fillup" tank and a tank of waste which
can be electrically recharged back into fresh fuel again. I know of no
promising possibilities standing out in this field though.
Danny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
><<<Hmmm?? Doesn't the electrolyte in the Nicad battery do the chemical
>thing, rather than the plates? I noticed in looking at blown up Nicads that
>the plates were squeeky clean, they don't seem to change themselves as a
>battery charges-discharges. Maybe I missed something or you COULD just
drain
>and dump fresh electrlyte in and go on yur way?You Chemistry geeks?>>>
>
>No, Bob, I think it's the opposite - the electrolyte in NiCd *isn't*
involved in
>the reaction, which is why you can't measure the charge by testing it but
can
>run one when it's frozen (although I've never seen data for that).
>
>The Vanadium Redox battery is the only one I've read about whose
electrolyte
>*is* the energy reactant, but it's still better suited to stationary
systems
>due to energy density (haven't seen mention of power density...a Redox
>dragster?).
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Ellis wrote:
> One of the things that makes gasoline so convenient is you just pour
> a bunch into a pipe, right? Is it possible to create a battery pack
> with an "old" electrolyte drain and a "fresh" electrolyte in?
This kind of works for a lead-acid battery. The acid is one of the two
materials that reacts; it gets used up when the battery is dead, and so
could be replaced by pumping in fresh electrolyte. But the lead is the
other reactant; the lead oxide gets converted to lead sulfate when the
battery is dead. It would be difficult to change the plates.
Most other common batteries react two metals. There has been some
interesting work with a battery that uses zinc as its reactant. The
battery is mechanically arranged so the zinc is in the form of a powder
in a liquid slurry, which can be pumped in/out of the cell almost like a
liquid.
The sodium-sulfur battery reacts two liquids. But it has to be hot
enough so the sodium and sulfur are molten; this is pretty hot, and
there were problems with fires.
Mercury cells react mercury and nitric acid. Both are liquids at room
temperature, so I'm sure you could make a cell that allowed easy pumping
to "recharge" it. However, there are lots of "human factor" problems
with having large volumes of mercury and nitric acid in a car!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>> It's not a cliff where life suddenly falls off the edge. Rather,
>> the deeper you discharge, the shorter your battery's life. 50% DOD
>> is a good number to aim for, because that's about where you get the
>> most total amphours out of the battery over its entire life (for
>> lead-acid).
>>
>> For example, a battery might have a life of 1000 cycles to 50% DOD,
>> or 300 cycles to 80% DOD. If it's a 100ah battery, then you get
>> - 1000 cycles x 0.5 x 100ah = 50,000 amphours total over its life
>> - 300 cycles x 0.8 x 100ah = 24,000 amphours total over its life
>>
>> So discharging it to 80% every cycle cuts your battery life in half,
>> i.e. makes your battery cost twice as much per mile.
Lance Smith wrote:
> But is this the complete analysis? Taking it one step further, using
> those figures as a guide, I figure the vehicle with 80% DOD went
> 8/5ths farther. So on a battery cost per mile basis the 80% dod
> vehicle battery cost might only be 30% more.
Yes, discharging to 80% vs. 50% DOD means you go 8/5 farther per charge.
But the number of times you can do this went down by 300/1000. Your
total miles from the pack over life is proportional to the total
amphours you can get; amphours per charge x number of charge cycles. So
for this example, you get half the total miles on the pack if you
discharge to 80% every cycle.
> On my small car project with little space for batteries I might well
> choose the discharge the batteries as far a practical and buy them
> more often. Is this correct?
Correct. Sometimes you deliberately discharge deeper, knowing that it
increases cost per mile. Maybe you don't have room or the weight
capacity for more batteries. Maybe it's more important to save money
now, rather than later. Maybe fast accelleration and good handling
matters more than range and life.
After all, the batteries might die of something else besides cycle life.
It is (unfortunately) common for people to "murder" batteries early,
from things like charging too much or too little, discharging them too
deeply, letting them sit around dead for weeks, forgetting to add water,
etc.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> Why not replace the live 3rd rail with a high frequency half of a
> inductive transformer, the train would contain the other half of the
> coil and the high freq would keep things small.
This has been done. There are several "people mover" vehicles in service
(Disneyland and the Dallas/Ft.Worth airports as I recall are two big
examples). Basically you have an "unrolled" induction motor, with the
"rotor" a long bar attached to the vehicle, and the "stator" attached to
the floor.
You can also do maglev (magnetic levitation) this way, so the train
floats on a magnetic field and doesn't need any wheels. At very high
speeds, maglev uses less power than wheels.
But, a direct electrical connection is more effiecient. Certainly a lot
simpler, too!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sounds like a "flow battery"
Mike Ellis wrote:
One of the things that makes gasoline so convenient is you just pour a bunch
into a pipe, right? Is it possible to create a battery pack with an "old"
electrolyte drain and a "fresh" electrolyte in? IE: pull up at an acid
station and drain and refill the pack? And the the "old" is then recycled?
I have a feeling I know (one of) the reason(s) this won't work, the
electrodes will foul and/or dissolve. But, like I have said, I'm pretty much
battery illiterate and thought I'd throw the idea out there... see who
shoots it down first :)
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
BYU still has one that they use for racing.
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Kind of a moot point though, since I believe that they've all been
> recovered and crushed by this point. Except a few that were
> refurbished
> and leased to government agencies on the east coast.
> ...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Looks like it will just quietly just die away. Good riddance.
LR>............
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
Forwarded by Dean Taylor of Southern California Edison:
Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research 22 February
2006
The Asahi Shimbun reports that Toyota Motor and General Motors plan to end
their joint research on fuel-cell vehicle development at the end of March
because of a lack of progress.
The two companies are expected to agree to extend their alliance on
advanced technologies in other areas such as safety and information until
March 2008, according to the report, which suggests that the agreement
will emerge in early march at the earliest.
The two automakers agreed in 1999 to cooperate on fuel-cell research, in
part to take the lead in fuel-cell vehicle technology and exchange
information on technical requirements and build-up of infrastructure.
Toyota officials said that close ties between the two companies will
remain unchanged because they will continue to exchange information on the
remaining issues such as safety and intelligent transportation systems.
The officials also said the two companies will expand environment-related
research if they find suitable areas, according to the paper.
Toyota and GM apparently concluded that it is not necessary to include
fuel-cell vehicle development in the extended accord also because
commercial production of fuel-cell vehicles is not expected for about 10
more years.
Chip Gribben
Electric Vehicle Association of Washington DC
http://www.evadc.org
NEDRA
http://www.nedra.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't get a Lester charger then. I had to put mine in the sub basement of
my house. Now it is tolerable. Lawrence Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Osmo S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:35 AM
Subject: Chargers - noise level (was: Brusa NLG 412B)
As I am working with my first ev conversion, I´d like to know how noisy
air cooled chargers are generally, and these Brusa chargers particularly?
I´d like my ev to be silent in my home yard as well as on the road...
Anyone feel charger sound is a problem?
Thanks, Osmo
24.2.2006 kello 11:14, David Roden (Akron OH USA) kirjoitti:
On 24 Feb 2006 at 0:44, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
I have a chance to aquire one or two of these chargers. Anyone have
experience with these chargers and would they work well with the BB600
batteries..
They are outstanding chargers from the standpoint of programmability,
highly
flexible. They should be run only at 240 volts, with the 120 volt input
capability used only as an emergency measure. They can provide up to
3600 watts, but I recommend limiting them to 3000-3200. This is easy to
adjust in the programming software. You'll need a computer with MSDOS
version 6 or an early version of Windows (95/98) to run the software. I
just
boot my laptop from a DOS 6 floppy with the Brusa software on it.
They can benefit from a minor modification - move or change the value of
the
bleeder resistor across the mains input. It's too close to a fuse, and
the heat
it generates eventually causes the fuse to fail.
If you are looking at the version with Saft STM firmware, there are some
special issues and concerns. If that's the case email me privately and
I'll
explain in more detail.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here's a link for it:
<http://research.et.byu.edu/e-blue/>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike & Paula Willmon wrote:
Remember though that the volumetric energy that you refer to for gasoline is
heat energy.
Not really -- I was referring to volumetric energy density -- it's
ability to store energy; heat isn't a factor. I think you're referring
to actually BURNING gasoline, and using the heat / gasses / expansion to
drive pistons?
You will lose ~70% of the heat energy in the engine and another
~10% in frictional heat loses, then you have the driveline inefficiencies
getting it to the wheels. So you get what, maybe 15% conversion efficiency
from gasoline to power at the wheels? If you take this into account the you
should rightly take into account the maybe ~85% efficiency in converting the
electricity from the battery to mechanical power, and a little less
transmission loss if you go some form of more direct drive.
Then you also need to figure that that 1 gallon of gasoline needs a 500 lb
engine to be able to get that ~15% of its energy to the wheels. 400 lb of
batteries and 100 lb of electric motor may get you near the same range as
the gallon of gas and a 500 lb motor.
Yeah, but now you're comparing ONE gallon of gas to TEN batteries.
So you figure that you can just keep
adding gasoline to increase the range. At most a small car may carry 20-25
gallons of gasoline.
My Honda Civic has a 10 gallon tank.
So from this simple analogy you could see that the
energy density of the gasoline "system" could be almost an order of
magnitude less than the 396 times you came up with.
I wasn't referring to systems, simply the raw energy storage of gasoline
vs batteries. In the (adjusted for efficiency) systems you describe,
you're right: gasoline vehicles don't go 396 times farther than electric
vehicles.
My example was intentionally simplistic. The 396 values is in reference
to specific energy (by weight), and makes no assumptions about how the
raw energy is converted into useful work.
I wish I had the time
this would be a fun problem to work through. I'm affraid some of my
generalized assumptions would need to be revised though.
There are SO MANY variables you could throw in there. It's better to
keep it simple, if you can avoid over-generalizing. Even so, your
average gasoline vehicle has far superior range on a single "charge"
despite the inefficiencies. Knowing the rough efficiencies of ICE (15%)
vs electric (>70%), then from a common sense standpoint (other numbers
aside), it's obvious this must be because of fuels having an much higher
energy density than batteries.
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
here is a link to the old page, the new one below is under construction...
http://research.et.byu.edu/e-blue/index_old.html
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dymaxion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: EV1 question
> Here's a link for it:
>
> <http://research.et.byu.edu/e-blue/>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike & Paula Willmon wrote:
> Remember though that the volumetric energy that you refer to for
> gasoline is heat energy. You will lose ~70% of the heat energy in
> the engine and another ~10% in frictional heat loses, then you have
> the driveline inefficiencies getting it to the wheels. So you get
> what, maybe 15% conversion efficiency from gasoline to power at the
> wheels?
Ok; so has anyone done cogeneration in a car? :-)
Don't just dump all that waste heat via the radiator and exhaust system.
Carry a water tank, and use it to boil water into steam. When you park
home, use the steam to heat your hime, water heater, pool, etc.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
> Looks like it will just quietly just die away. Good riddance.
> LR>............
After bilking the taxpayers out of how many Zillion Bux! Sigh!Along with
the money the Auto and Oil folks spent killing CARB!You tax dollars at work!
Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:45 PM
> Subject: Toyota and GM Reported to End Joint Fuel-Cell Vehicle Research
>> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While batts don't carry a lot of power for their
> weight, it's not really a problem for most transport needs.
> As the Sunrise has shown with it's 373 mile range, there is
> little reason a well design from scratch EV can't work well
> enough for many to have an EV as their only car.
Yes, but, the efficiencies you derive from an aero car apply
equally to gas cars. I think many of us look forward to being able
to purchase a Sunrise :) I know I do.
Putting aside purpose-built EVs, I think there's a simple way to
look at it. You have roughly 600lbs to play with to make a
neutral-weight conversion. You need roughly 100kwh to go 300-400
miles. Subtract 200lbs for the motor + controller, and the battery
has to hit 550wh/kg -- a true stretch goal for a standard battery
(with both reducer and oxidizers included).
>From a volume standpoint, if you want the batteries all under the
rear seat, you're probably talking about four cubic feet. If I
just did my math correctly, that's 108 liters. 100kwh in 100
liters is 1kwh/l. That appears to be a much more difficult goal.
[it is also somewhat more arbitrary]
>From a price standpoint, I think it unlikely that automakers want
to spend more than a couple grand to replace a $50 gas tank.
$2000/100kwh is a pricepoint of $20/kwh. Nearly ludicrous.
>From a reusability perspective, if you want a car to go 200k miles
over its life, and you get 400mpc, you only need 500 cycles. This
seems doable.
>From a power perspective, with a 100kwh pack, you probably wouldn't
need to draw more than 2C -- also very reasonable.
If you want to charge the pack in 5 minutes (which, btw, is longer
than it takes to fill my auto with gas -- I tend to get antsy around
3 minutes, and yes, I have timed myself), you have problems. 12C
charging is, likely, coming. But, feeding the necessary amps into
a 100kwh pack even at very high voltages sounds ... dangerous.
Maybe someone would calculate the size of the connects you'd need.
In my opinion, on the grand scale of things, we have a pricing
issue. We're a factor of 2-4 for weight and volume, and more than a
factor of 50 for price. I will be interested to see what A123
sells their DeWalt replacement packs for.
-Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dymaxion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: EV1 question
> BYU still has one that they use for racing.
> yeah, but it sure 'aint stock! HowEVer that BYU looses interest and wants
to get rid of the car, can they just sell it?Perfect Glider for conversion
to battery power.
Seeya
Bob
> --- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> > Kind of a moot point though, since I believe that they've all been
> > recovered and crushed by this point. Except a few that were
> > refurbished
> > and leased to government agencies on the east coast.
> > ...
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Can the diaphram be broken/ punctured to make manual brakes that are
easier to push than just removing the line ?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> I'm going to be using Lee Harts new version of his battery balancers...
STEVE CLUNN wrote:
> Is there a new build going on? I didn't see anything about it, are we
> still waiting for 10 people to order boards? Now that I think about it,
> I don't think I saw that check clear, did I miss out?
Yes, I got 8 confirmed orders with deposits, and started making another
batch last fall. But my computer died in Nov, and I got distracted in
trying to upgrade and fix it. (Upgrading was a waste of time; I gave up
and just fixed the old computer). Also, I got sidetracked in writing
EVILbus software so I can add it to the Balancer. It works, but won't be
compatible with Rich's system. (We couldn't get any agreement on a
standard protocol; everyone insists on doing it their way).
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If I remember correctly, there is a fairly large spring inside the housing that
counters some of
the vaccum. If you only remove the vacuum, you will have to deal with the
spring.
--- jmygann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can the diaphram be broken/ punctured to make manual brakes that are
> easier to push than just removing the line ?
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Cor van de Water wrote:
>
> Lee,
>
> I dare to disagree with the notion that most (not all)
> manufacturers specify over how many hours the capacity
> was measured, so it _is_ specified exactly for those.
Yes; some manufacturers do state the time over which C was measured. But
many times, when you see something like "charge at 0.1C" they do *not*
bother to tell you what rate that C was measured at.
The BCI standards were meant to standardize all this marketing nonsense.
They do help a lot. For instance, you can reliably expect that the
advertised "reserve capacity" of a 12v battery is the minutes with a
25-amp load, and that the minutes for a 6v battery are with a 75-amp
load.
But when it gets to charging, there are no reliable standards.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
