EV Digest 5452
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Contactor for 192 V and Zilla, Cableform A1200 questions
by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Baylor)
2) Re: Contactor for 192 V and Zilla, Cableform A1200 questions
by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Baylor)
3) Re: Article 625. comments
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Does 220mpg violate the laws of physics?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Does 220mpg violate the laws of physics?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
by "Dmitri Hurik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: High Voltage Nationals
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Does 220mpg violate the laws of physics?
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Sources of Energy
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Still Blowing Fuses
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
by Stefan Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Sources of Energy
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Article 625 .. face to face .. with that ONE "genius" who
inflicted this "absurdity" on the rest of us .....
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Article 625 .. face to face .. with that ONE "genius" who inflicted
this "absurdity" on the rest of us .....
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Article 625 Interlock
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Article 625 Interlock
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Safe charging (Was Art. 625 etc.)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Safe charging (Was Art. 625 etc.)
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Safe charging (Was Art. 625 etc.)
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
by "David Ankers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
>Contactors opening and closing in paralel are only a problem if current is
>present. If the contactors are opened and closed without current present
>there is no issue. Do make sure that they are wired in a way that they
>evenly share the current when it is present.
Ya but when I need it, might be when 1000 A is flowing and controller
has melted full on and cars are ahead, and knowing my Murphys Law
luck, several Albrights would fail welded just right so that power
keeps flowing... Even though my ultimate circuit breaker will be an
Anderson with pull handle in the cockpit, doing that takes a few more
ms and those cars are really really close ahead.. :) Plus the
simplicity of one big contactor I like.
Brad Baylor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the info! I've sent off a request for quote to Cableform
for a 12 V one with the blowouts and no aux switches or diodes and
I'll get one of the NTE suppressors you mentioned.
One item down, a bazillion more to go.. :)
Brad Baylor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: Article 625
> Rich Rudman wrote:
>
> > Gramma can plug in the RV... She should be also capable of
> > plugging in her EV.. with the same level of saftey. Two
> > hots and a ground, That's it!
> And Gramma fills up her RV at the self serv gas place, too.
> The arguable difference here is that gramma does not plug and unplug her
> RV from shore power at least once daily, 365 days a year.
But she could, like if she had to?
>
> While it may be just as safe (or otherwise) to plug in an EV with the
> same connector as an RV, the simple fact that it is going to be done
> *much* more frequently greatly increases the probability of an accident.
> Likewise, a connector that might last years on an RV might wear out and
> present a fire hazard within a few weeks or months of use on a public
> charging station.
Stop using those cheepo Mexican plugs<g>!
>
> I'm not a fan of Art 625, and don't want to be in a position of
> defending it, but I do recognise that it is not unreasonable to have
> safety concerns with regard to *public* charging stations that are
> likely to be connected and disconnected several times a day, by people
> with a wide variety of competence.
That's why the standard plug we all are used to works just fine! I have
one standard 120 plug wired for 240 in my garage, now for my PFC-30, and
when I'm away I use anybody elses 120 volt plug. All 'stench chords run
cool, nomatter what voltage I charge with.With the built in PFC charger I
have sorta reached charging perfection, for an On Board charger. No more
nuicence tripping or molten plugs!
All this article 625 fadarah? Gees what a waste of time and space. But as
SOMEbody commented on Avcon's and other oddball stuff, it may apply. I don't
care as I just plug a long with the stasndard, common Wall Outlet found
EVerywhere.Rich will set the new standard for zillion amp charging, and we
will enjoy the fruits of his labor.
As I have harped on EV's We can't EVen settle on a standard PLUG to use
momatter WHAT EV you build or by, I mean beyond the average wall outlets. I
say well enough alone! But for public charge stations a 240 volt range or RV
plug would be nice.
My two prongs worth
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike, good math, but 238MPG has been demonstrated already:
http://www.greatchange.org/footnotes-1-liter-car.html
Victor
Mike Ellis wrote:
The recent discussion about the dubious gun-engine saw some claims
that I challenged people to back up with numbers. Since that challenge
wasn't taken up I thought I'd do the math myself:
The claim was that there was not enough energy in gasoline to get 220
mpg in a car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's not impossible, it depends on how high tech you make the car and
how much you're willing to adapt to vehicles of greatly reduced size and
difficult shapes. For example, I don't want to lay down on a vehicle
that is little more than waist high and would probably get squashed by
somebody changing lanes who didn't see you down there. That's just one
example. A downside is that some of these designs become little more
than motorcycles with the addition of protection against the weather.
If they do not have the passenger and cargo capacity, highway speed
capability, and safe in a crash, it may not be accepted for the simple
and logical reason that it will not be capable of doing what a customer
needs from it. It may make no sense to get a highly efficient vehicle
that will only be used a limited number of miles per year because you
need a second more conventional vehicle to drive for your common tasks.
Again I didn't bother to explain all my logic in saying 220 mpg was
impossible. He doesn't talk about innovations in lowering rolling
resistance, drag, and vehicle mass. No, he claimed advances from his
engine idea alone. So assuming a baseline of a vehicle getting 30 mpg,
I read that as a claim that the engine would be able to increase output
per gallon by 7.333x. This would require turning around 100% (possibly
more!) of the fuel's energy into hp, which is nowhere near possible.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Mike, good math, but 238MPG has been demonstrated already:
http://www.greatchange.org/footnotes-1-liter-car.html
Victor
Mike Ellis wrote:
The recent discussion about the dubious gun-engine saw some claims
that I challenged people to back up with numbers. Since that challenge
wasn't taken up I thought I'd do the math myself:
The claim was that there was not enough energy in gasoline to get 220
mpg in a car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Haha, I try to avoid reading these type of comments anymore to keep my
sanity. After reading the first page of the comments there, and the "8 mpg"
comment, I think we have now reached a conclusion: An idiot is born every
minute.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stensland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
Yes, and that CNN story helps Mr. Wright while also raising public
awareness -- and expectations -- for electrics. This latest CNN story is
generating the largest traffic spike that my site has ever seen.
Here's a related link for those of you who like to watch the non-EVDL
crowd critique EVs...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627475/posts
Cheers,
-Dave
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com
On May 5, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Mike Ellis wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jorg Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of their ex-employees, Ian Wright, was so serious that
he want off to found his own company (Wrightspeed); you may have seen
or heard of his prototype, based on the Ariel Atom, which does 0-60 in
3 seconds using a Lithium-Ion battery pack.
Speaking of the Wrightspeed it's on CNN Business today, with some
pictures of the internals I hadn't seen before.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/
index.htm
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jim Husted wrote:
First I remember hearing about you having 15" motors
Same here..
Hey Ryan S. you see this>15" motors,
With really big eyes I read that! ;)
Can't wait to see some pics of those. (I've never even seen a 15" motor..)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I believe I was one of the ones that said that.
Your equations look bang on, same ones I remember, I was just useing
different assumptions.
The honda insight is truly a great combination of effects, it is NOT
just the motor.
I don't think it is a co-incidence that the original article chose
220mpg and the phrase "quadruple the effiency"
220/4 is 55mpg and is the answer to the example problem in the first
year thermo dynamics book that uses a 1988 oldsmobile cutlass on level
grade in still air at 70degrees F. Again, the claim is with just the
motor improvements.
While this is off topic, I would like to point out 1 more thing.
Time.(this is often ignored) It may be possible to recover enough heat
if given enough time but as the temperatures get close, it is like
chargeing batteries near full, the rate of change slows down. This added
variable of time(impeanece to change) gets in the way of usefull
effiency level recovery schemes (unless the heat equivilent of
superconductors is developed.)
Tying this back into on-topic : Compareing to an electric motor system.
ICE makes good use of 20% wastes 80%, we have to try and recover from
the 80% but it is recovered after we already expended what we needed say
to accelerate up to 88mph.
Electric drive trains make good use of 60%-90% wasteing 10%-40%. we have
already gone 3-4 times furthor or faster before trying to recover
energy. Less to recover in the time alotted.
If it truly takes 12kwh to refine a gallon of gas, they I say, "why
bother?" Even if you can get 69% effiency, i can still go furthor on
12kwh than you can on a gallon of gas.
I would like to know how far an insight would go on electricity for
comparison. What would the wh/mile be with all the low rolling
resistance, low mass, low drag, and low frontal area mods;
Guessing 150 wh/mile means that 12kwh would go 80 miles ???
This does bring up a hybrid idea. If we could recover say 1/2 the energy
in the exhaust heat from an ICE engiine, we would recover more energy
than is going out the shaft. ie 25:75-->75/2=37.5*.8=30% So including
effiency losses to convert to shaft power electrically, we should be
able to have a goal of doubling mileage. The reason this may have merit
is that it would increase mileage when cruising too, not just recaptured
from deceleration. Unfortunantly the math for conversion of heat to
electricity is, at the moment, poor, but there is a silver lining.
Saying that a thermoelectric module is ineffient means that the heat
that doesn't get converted into energy, also means enough energy goes
thru to allow a second stage. The limit being how much it slows heat
transfer. and since energy is related to deltaQ/deltaT, there would be
an optimum. At least a storage mass could be used; Your cooling down
thermal converter would continue after you shut off the ICE.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:22:12 -0500, "Mike Ellis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rich said:
>> Gun engines.. and stupidity.. really should be kicked out or flamed off the
>> list.
>
>I should be kicked off the list for my gun-engine post? I admit, had a
>read the article more carefully (which I should have done!) I would
>not have posted it.
>
>I kinda looked up to you Rich and now I feel kicked in the gut.
I think that the problem is that there are way too many people on this
list with great big chips on their shoulders just cocked and waiting
for them to get knocked off. I'm afraid that there may be a little of
that here, Mike. I certainly didn't take Madman's comments as a kick
in the guts.
As someone who has spent his life looking for the Right Answers, it is
frustrating at the extreme to see this same old quack-science crap
coming around again and again. Between quack-science, conspiracy
theories, hate-the-car-company rants and all the other distractions
that seem to take up so much bandwidth both here and in the media, it
gets painful to continue participating.
Couple that with "relative science" (that is, if it feels like good
science then it must be good science) and people who talk just to be
heard and it makes people like me wonder why we even try. Like
Forrest Mars once said in reply to rumors of union activity to the
assembled company when I worked for M&M Mars: "I already have mine.
If you want to lose the opportunity to never get yours, continue
talking union."
In this context, the meaning is, I already have my learning (to date,
at least). The way NOT to benefit from my free advice and learning is
to make this list so unpleasant that the enjoyment I gain by helping
people is offset by having to put up with the lids.
The problem with posting quack-science stuff is that to those of us
who know, you look like a fool. I hate to waste time helping fools so
in the future I will probably just sit on my finger when I know an
answer to your question. ("You" being used generically here.)
I could somewhat understand ignorant discussion BI (before Internet)
because it took so much work and sometimes expense to find the right
answers. But now with the net at your fingertips and google knowing
everything, why risk making a fool out of yourself when 30 seconds
with Google can prevent that?
The reason why the charger bans discussions of politics, quack-science
and other topics not having to do with EV specifically is because past
experience has shown that these topics stimulate a lot of smoke but no
substance and that forever bad feelings are formed.
Mike, I didn't notice that you started the thread and didn't really
care. I simply saw another perpetual flamefest about to get underway
and tried to head it off. Asking the group nicely hasn't worked in
the past so I thought I'd experiment with something more aggressive.
At least it didn't do any worse.
This begs the fundamental question of why so many people seem to work
so hard to make this list unpleasant? Everyone knows (or should know)
the charter. Why do things guaranteed to generate a firestorm.
A diminutive person such as Trough would immediately jump in and claim
that I'm doing the same thing. Not so. Two truisms address this: 1)
a lie told often enough becomes the truth and 2) those who forget
history are doomed to repeat it.
Recent history is rife with examples, from the phlogiston theory of
combustion to burning witches to quacky medical procedures such as
blood letting to today's quack science masquerading as much of
contemporary environmental thinking. I would be remiss if I didn't do
my part to prevent this sort of historical repetition.
I guess that my plea is, think before you post, observe the list rules
and do at least a tiny bit of research before posting. Or post in the
form of a question.
Mad "Mad Dog" John. Hmmmm. "Mad Dog".... I think I like that, Rich!
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Calvin King wrote:
>> I connect the charger, set it at 15 amps, it runs for about ten
>> minutes and blows the DC fuse. K&W BC20 on a 108 volt pack. The
>> batteries are new and I am not aware of any change to have cause the
>> fuse to blow.
Lee Hart wrote:
> What size fuse is is blowing?
>> I use a 30 amp 600 watt fuse.
[600 volt, not watt].
A 30a fuse should hold with 15 amps flowing in it, even with the BC20's
high peak current.
> Other possibilities...
> - loose fuseholder or connections to the fuse
> - running it in a hot location
> - blocking air circulation around the fuseCalvin King wrote:
Are any of these a problem? Is the fuse getting hot? Is the fuseholder
not rated for the current? There are a lot of really junky fuseholders
on the market.
--
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 ---
Dmitri Hurik wrote:
Haha, I try to avoid reading these type of comments anymore to keep my
sanity. After reading the first page of the comments there, and the "8
mpg" comment, I think we have now reached a conclusion: An idiot is
born every minute.
Remember, this country has idolized ICE cars for over half a century -
it's been hammered into most of our subconsciouses with a phenomenal
amount of marketing (because that is what was needed to sustain constant
new car sales). If people were truly reasonable about their personal
autos, they would go buy a new one every three or four years....
My favorite is this one:
"When he builds an EV that will go from San Francisco to Denver in two
days without recharging and not run the last leg from Salt Lake City to
Denver at 20 mph, then I'll take a look at it. Until then, its just an
expensive toy for phony, money-heavy enviro nuts."
I'd like to see any car run for two days (~950 miles) without refueling!
No one would expect that from a "normal" auto. I think the EV is being
held to a much higher level of expectations (and subject to such
rumor-mongering) simply because it is *not* this countries pride & joy.
We tend to forgive so much of a autos vices (like the noise and the
smell, most have learned to like it by associating it with good
memories), simply because we *do* love 'em, rattle & stink and all.
But that can change, as some on this list has showed us by example. Even
the most red-blooded, hotrod loving, hum to the sound of a V8,
yes-I-take-gasoline-in-my-beer (a little over the top, perhaps?) fellow
can learn to appreciate the unique strengths of a EV and drive that
bugger around town while running errands.
So don't dis spare, and please do go all book-thumpin' (that just makes
'em dig in harder), just politely educate and things will change over
time...
~ Peanut Gallery ~
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVer heard of the tZero?
Is 285 miles close enough?
http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_tzero/SEMAtrip2003.htm
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: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jorg Brown
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:44 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
Careful, there. You're thinking about the past too much. Not that long ago
300 miles at highway speeds was indeed impossible. But Li-Ion keeps coming
down in price, and increasing in capacity. (I've heard 8% per year
improvement on both fronts) If all you were concerned about was range, you
could make a 300-mile EV right now - though it would be prohibitively
expensive for the mass market. But the cost will come down as surely as the
price of RAM and hard drives and every other high-tech thing comes down.
And meanwhile, the cost of oil just keeps going up.
On 5/5/06, Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> WOW! Got to the link on Free Republic and read the posts. Amazing
> viewpoints on that list. One of
> them is convinced that EVs will never match the efficiency of ICEs.
> Another said that until you
> can go 300 miles at highway speeds, it won't fly. The biggest obstacle we
> face is not technology.
>
> Dave Cover
>
> --- Dave Stensland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, and that CNN story helps Mr. Wright while also raising public
> > awareness -- and expectations -- for electrics. This latest CNN story
> > is generating the largest traffic spike that my site has ever seen.
> >
> > Here's a related link for those of you who like to watch the non-EVDL
> > crowd critique EVs...
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627475/posts
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Dave
> > http://www.megawattmotorworks.com
> >
> > On May 5, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Mike Ellis wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/4/06, Jorg Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> One of their ex-employees, Ian Wright, was so serious that
> > >> he want off to found his own company (Wrightspeed); you may have seen
> > >> or heard of his prototype, based on the Ariel Atom, which does 0-60
> in
> > >> 3 seconds using a Lithium-Ion battery pack.
> > >
> > > Speaking of the Wrightspeed it's on CNN Business today, with some
> > > pictures of the internals I hadn't seen before.
> > >
> > > http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/
> > > index.htm
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just a few years ago, people were told that the sun revolves around the
earth. Heck, there are still millions out there who believe, that the
earth started with adam and eve. Now - I don't believe in unicorns and
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.....
... but to call for 'kicking' and 'flaming' sounds too much like 'burning
on stakes' to me. There must be some slack for those who think in
different ways even if those ways are, well, questionable.
Just my one and a half cents.
Michaela
> Ken... time to act as the quite profesional...
>
> Some of the preachers on this list need to taken to task...
>
> Neon is good at that task...
>
> And the yearly Tilly Fray is in full Scream.. we do need to clean house a
> little bit here.
> Gun engines.. and stupidity.. really should be kicked out or flamed off
> the
> list.
>
> Neon "Attack Dog" John.. Go get 'Em!!
>
> Madman
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
-
> From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Sources of Energy
>
>
>> Neon John said:
>> > This type of discussion is prohibited. It is not welcome here.
>>
>> So is name calling, personal attacks, and hate speach but that has never
>> stopped you in the past.
>>
>> The pot is calling the kettle black.
>>
>> -Ken Trough
>> V is for Voltage
>> http://visforvoltage.com
>> AIM/YM - ktrough
>> FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> >>>> "Contacts Made Live" <<<<<
>
> One of the worst phrases in 625 is "contacts made live". The
> article requires that all contacts on the plug be covered when it is
> removed from the receptacle, if they ever had voltage of any sort.
> This makes the connector very expensive needlessly. Even if the
> contacts are dead before the connector comes apart, they must be
> covered after it is apart. Even if the contacts carry very low
> voltage signals, they must be covered.
>
> This is the difference between "live contacts" and "contacts
> made live".
What if your "contacts made live" fail live?
When you unplug your vacuum cleaner, the prongs could not
possibly "fail live".
If you unplug the serial port on your computer, you don't
care if they are live or not because the voltage is low enough to be harmless.
Bad day to have exposed contacts.
>
> It is also very stupid to require a locking connector on a
> vehicle that might roll away.
Do you really require a locking connector?
Magnicharge does not lock.
Read article 625. Conductive charging requires and locking connector.
> If the car rolls away, is towed away,
> is hit by another car, or somehow drives away while plugged in,
> sparks are going to fly. When the cord breaks or the charger is
> ripped off the wall, bare live conductors will be left dangling.
The cord unit non-destructively pulls out of an AVcon head. The first
thing to pull loose is the interlock signal, thus killing the power.
If the inlet doesn't tear out of the car first.
Seems pretty good and well though out.
> The connector should be required to be NON-LOCKING instead so that
> nothing bad happens if the vehicle moves while plugged in.
Yea, we need to consider the pros and cons of locking vs non-locking.
You bring up a good point for the non-locking side.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:45:53PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> This is the difference between "live contacts" and "contacts
> >> made live".
> >
> >What if your "contacts made live" fail live?
>
> When you unplug your vacuum cleaner, the prongs could not
> possibly "fail live".
True. My vacuum cleaner does not have a 180V battery installed :)
Anderson connectors have contacts you could touch on both sides. AVcon has
pins you could touch on both side if the cover was missing.
If you are disconnecting an Anderson connector and the charger side is
failed hot, then you could shock yourself.
> If you unplug the serial port on your computer, you don't
> care if they are live or not because the voltage is low enough to be
> harmless.
True.
But, if your computer case is hot due to a power supply failure, you
might care.
> Read article 625. Conductive charging requires and locking
> connector.
Do you mean the Unintentional Disconnection clause? This does not
specify any difference between inductive or conductive coupling.
> >The cord unit non-destructively pulls out of an AVcon head. The first
> >thing to pull loose is the interlock signal, thus killing the power.
>
> If the inlet doesn't tear out of the car first.
If you use a nice AVcon head, the power will be killed when you put more
then ~15 lbs of force on the cable.
I guess it depends on how flimsy your inlet is :)
I assume that SAE J1772 would cover this. I would hope the interlock would
be the same on the car as the AVcon head. The pilot should be the first
thing to break.
Good conversation,
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> On 5/5/06, Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The point isn't that it's difficult to achieve, the point is that it's a
>> dangerously stupid requirement.
>
> I can see that it's pointless but "dangerously stupid?" Given that
> you can't drive away with it connected, the risk is pretty small.
> Even if you do, the "automatic de-energisation" part would prevent any
> exposed parts being live.
> What do you mean.. tripping hazard?
I don't recall anything in Art 625 to prevent you from driving away while
connected. But even if the drive is disabled while charging, there are
other things to consider: driver forgets to set parking brake and the car
rolls away. Car gets slammed away by a drunk driver. Car gets towed away
by skippy who doesn't notice that it's plugged in. Etc.
>
>>
>> This us probably why the OEM chargers do NOT incorporate this feature.
>>
>> See, even the OEM chargers, Magnacharge/Avcon, don't meet the
>> requirements
>> outlined by Art 625.
>
> Really? Can you pull the Avcon connector apart "unintentionally"?
> Again, my EV has a connector that looks very similar to Avcon, and you
> must pull a lever inside the car and then press a button on the handle
> to release it. Perhaps it's not as similar as I thought..
Hmm, perhaps I'm wrong then. The Avcon connector I saw didn't have any
handle on the inside. I know there are at least two different versions
though...
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:03:04AM -0700, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
> I don't recall anything in Art 625 to prevent you from driving away while
> connected.
I don't think that NEC would even cover that. That would be handled by
SAE J1775 right?
> But even if the drive is disabled while charging, there are
> other things to consider: driver forgets to set parking brake and the car
> rolls away. Car gets slammed away by a drunk driver. Car gets towed away
> by skippy who doesn't notice that it's plugged in. Etc.
Good point. All of these cases are handled by 625-19.
> >
> > Really? Can you pull the Avcon connector apart "unintentionally"?
>
> Hmm, perhaps I'm wrong then. The Avcon connector I saw didn't have any
> handle on the inside. I know there are at least two different versions
> though...
The US Avcon requires you to push a button on the handle to release.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
First off, I agree that safety is a good thing and some parts of Art 625
make fairly good sense from a safety standpoint. However, large parts of
it seem to serve no purpose besides making it prohibitively expensive for
hobbyists to comply with.
Here are /my/ thoughts on a safe EV charging scheme. Comments are
encouraged.
1. Use a good quality standard 110/220V outlet.
Some folks claim these might fail with in a few months of EV use :rolls
eyes: If they can stand up to decades worth of RVs being plugged in and
unplugged on a daily basis, then I think they can handle a few years of
EV use. A simple safety check once in a while will ensure they are up to
snuff.
2. Use a GFCI
'nough said. Oh alright, use a 20ma GFCI if you are too
lazy to keep your batteries clean :D
3. Prevent inadvertent contact with live conductors.
Seems to me that a standard extension cord already does this. I can't
touch the live contacts inside the socket end unless I shove something
metallic down them, and that certainly isn't "inadvertent". Personally
I don't' see the need for fancy spring loaded covers, that's just
something that will eventually break and cause problems.
4. If pulled on, the charge cable should disconnect from the EV before it
pulls out of the outlet. No sense dragging a cord around.
A. Might be a good idea to have a micro switch sense the cord being
unplugged and automatically turn off the charger.
B. Might be a good idea to have an alarm sound if the cord is pulled
out before charging is completed.
C. might be handy to have some way to eject the cord from inside the
vehicle.
5. Ventilation for flooded batteries is a good idea. Force ventilation of
the battery boxes is probably a good idea. Since hydrogen will rapidly
rise to the ceiling, provide it with a simple escape path near the ceiling
so it won't accumulate.
Those of you that use off board chargers can add your own rules.
So... what did I forget?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Make sure it can be pulled out from any angle, in particular the
direction of EV travel, without damage.
For example, most plugs may be damaged if pulled away at 90 deg which is
very likely if you forgot and pulled out with it still hooked up. The
prongs will bend at least. The prongs would likely be on the EV side.
I think if the outlet side could flex 45 deg safely then it would allow
the plug to break away. Or if the cord was guaranteed to have another
inline plug which is only meant to be separated in an emergency.
Another thing perhaps worth mentioning is the EV shouldn't leave live
connections to the battery on either side of its prongs. It's not
likely, though a poor charger design like a diode and ballast load in
series with the battery would leave the other side of the battery hooked
up to the other prong all the time. So while you're handling the cord,
not hooked up to the outlet, you've got side of the battery on an
exposed male prong. This in itself will not electrocute you but any
leakage from the other side of the pack could make HV from that prong to
the car body.
Danny
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
4. If pulled on, the charge cable should disconnect from the EV before it
pulls out of the outlet. No sense dragging a cord around.
A. Might be a good idea to have a micro switch sense the cord being
unplugged and automatically turn off the charger.
B. Might be a good idea to have an alarm sound if the cord is pulled
out before charging is completed.
C. might be handy to have some way to eject the cord from inside the
vehicle.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 6 May 2006 01:58:17 -0700 (MST), "Peter VanDerWal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here are /my/ thoughts on a safe EV charging scheme. Comments are
>encouraged.
>
>1. Use a good quality standard 110/220V outlet.
> Some folks claim these might fail with in a few months of EV use :rolls
>eyes: If they can stand up to decades worth of RVs being plugged in and
>unplugged on a daily basis, then I think they can handle a few years of
>EV use. A simple safety check once in a while will ensure they are up to
>snuff.
Nothing more than is being done now need be done. With most camp
ground operators, that involves waiting until a customer reports a
defective outlet. I have a CG that I frequent and I like one
particular spot right on the creek. The 120vac convenience outlet has
been missing most of its bakelite for years. Yeah, a hot prong is
exposed. No, no one has helped Darwin along yet.
>
>2. Use a GFCI…'nough said. Oh alright, use a 20ma GFCI if you are too
>lazy to keep your batteries clean :D
Rolls eyes. This would be a matter of doing something just to be
doing something while trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Unfortunately there is a lot of that DSJTBDS going on in the "safety
nazi" community.
Put the GFI back in the bathroom where it belongs. As you've
correctly observed, thousands of RVers plug and unplug 30 amp 120vac
RV outlets and 50 amp range outlets every day. The 30 amp outlet is
the way that more rational minds among those who DSJTBDS let RVers
have non-GFI contaminated power without having to admit that GFIs on
power pedestals is a really bad idea.
The RV experience is more than ample to prove just what a PITA GFIs on
power outlets are. I curse every day that I've awakened sweating my
'nads off because the friggin GFI in the 20 amp convenience outlet
that I had to use tripped because dew settled out on the power cable
and plug overnight. (At least now I have my generator START button
right over my head in the bed.)
This same GFI crap has made it almost impossible to operate a
concession booth or trailer at an outdoor event using line power. Most
experienced operators learn to request 240 volt power even though the
booth doesn't need it just to get away from the $%^%^&%^& GFIs. And/or
as I do and carry a generator just in case.
I hate to think how many times I've gone in the night before an event
where 240 volt power isn't available and rendered the GFI on the
outlet I'm to use.
(Tip: Move the wires from the LINE to the LOAD terminals on the GFI.
This lets that cute little pilot light come on and even lets the GFI
"trip" when the TEST button is pressed but it bypasses the actual
disconnect contacts. Tip2: Keep in the vehicle/trailer either a set
of hot gloves or enough disposable PVC gloves to apply 4-5 layers for
when you can't find or get access to the breaker panel.)
>
>3. Prevent inadvertent contact with live conductors.
> Seems to me that a standard extension cord already does this. I can't
>touch the live contacts inside the socket end unless I shove something
>metallic down them, and that certainly isn't "inadvertent". Personally
>I don't' see the need for fancy spring loaded covers, that's just
>something that will eventually break and cause problems.
Yup.
>
>4. If pulled on, the charge cable should disconnect from the EV before it
>pulls out of the outlet. No sense dragging a cord around.
> A. Might be a good idea to have a micro switch sense the cord being
>unplugged and automatically turn off the charger.
If the charger is internal to the EV then no. Just something else to
go wrong while not addressing any real problem.
> B. Might be a good idea to have an alarm sound if the cord is pulled
>out before charging is completed.
What would that accomplish? Perhaps a "push to reset" annunciator on
the dash so the driver would know the charge isn't complete. Or just
rely on the "gas gauge".
> C. might be handy to have some way to eject the cord from inside the
>vehicle.
Those automatic cord ejectors that ambulances use would be handy. I
posted a URL to one last year. Since all it consists of is a solenoid
and a push rod that pushes on the cord end, that would be easy enough
to make if you didn't want to pay the moderately steep price. This is
something an EV converter could build in as a feature.
The problem still remains of potentially running over the cord after
it is ejected. A couple of solutions, put the charging outlet on the
rear of the car and/or have the cord on a retractor that can be
triggered by a solenoid. The total loss of load current would be a
good signal to trigger the retractor.
I keep a portable freezer in my car quite a bit of the time during the
summer so that I'm ready for impromptu picnics and/or buying stashes
of frozen food at good prices when I'm away from home. I hate to
admit how many times I've driven off with THAT cord plugged in.
My simple solution to not running over it is to suspend the cord by
bungee cords so that the cord end never hits the floor. Simple, cheap
and nothing much to go wrong. I have a couple of inches of pigtail
sticking out of the trunk so there's nothing to drag on the car end.
If pressed, I'll have to admit that I have come to rely on that thing
disconnecting cleanly and most of the time just drive off :-)
>
>5. Ventilation for flooded batteries is a good idea. Force ventilation of
>the battery boxes is probably a good idea. Since hydrogen will rapidly
>rise to the ceiling, provide it with a simple escape path near the ceiling
>so it won't accumulate.
Not really. It is VERY difficult to generate enough hydrogen to form
an explosive mixture outside the batteries themselves. Most "hydrogen
explosions", I think, end up being like the one reported here last
week, when something inside a cell arced and ignited trapped hydrogen.
I have TRIED (just to see if I could) to create a hazardous condition
inside a closed space, in particular the space under the couch where
the 4 batteries in my RV are stored. I've tried sealing up all the
cracks in the couch with duct tape and boiling the H*LL out of the
batteries while monitoring the space with an MSA brand (really good
one) explosive gas monitor. I've never even seen the needle wiggle.
A little chemistry math involving how much water must be dissociated
to form an explosive mix in a given volume will easily confirm this.
Unless one is adding water every day then he's not producing enough
hydrogen to matter.
It's simply that so little hydrogen is produced and that the hydrogen
molecule is so small and so much lighter than air that it is
practically impossible to build up an explosive mix. What little does
escape from the battery rises at break-neck speed outta there.
To fully appreciate this, if you ever have access to a hydrogen (or
even better helium) compressed gas tank, rig up a hunk of tubing and a
regulator so that you can discharge hydrogen from the end of the tube
at low velocity. Arrange to view the end of the tube with either a
Schilleran or even a simple light and shadow arrangement where the
different densities of air and hydrogen will cast diffraction shadows
on the wall when a bright light is shown through the stream.
Most gases when discharged horizontally at low velocity will still
drift along for a distance before starting up or down, depending on
the density. Hydrogen and helium charge upward like it was
jet-propelled right out of the opening. The velocity is so great that
mixing happens so fast that the shadow disappears within inches.
Trying to light the stream of hydrogen with a (long) match proves
futile above a couple of inches from the outlet. The vigorous mixing,
even in still air, very quickly results in too lean a mix to light.
Another rather dramatic example is the rather huge 250 volt, >100,000
amp-hour battery banks installed at the Sequoyah nuclear plant as
vital power backup. Because this is a vital safety-related component,
each bank is contained in a vault of concrete with 6 ft thick walls.
To protect against that mythical 500 year flood, there is one
submarine type door providing access to the room, one rather heavily
armored air in vent and one similar air out vent duct. No more than
6" square. There is a small fractional HP explosion-proof fan on the
exhaust and a hydrogen gas detector.
When this pack is given its full periodic equalization charge, it
sounds like a Jacuzzi in the battery room! Yet that hydrogen detector
(NOT just an explosive gas detector but a hydrogen-specific detector)
never moves off zero.
I'm not posting to discourage anyone who wants to vent his pack from
doing so. I'm simply offering objective information for why some
silly standard should not be written into the rules. None of my packs
are vented (other than what leaks in and out through cracks, of
course) and in the case of my Citi, my 'nads are sitting on the lid of
the main box :-)
The safety nazis and their movie plot threat scenarios can easily push
one into doing something just to be doing something. We need to avoid
that whenever possible or we'll find ourselves as paralyzed as the
nukes are.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Free Republic has a certain reputation - it where the people that believe
Fox new hang out. Out of all the forums on the internet these guys would be
amongst the last to get EVs.
It was interesting to learn that the Wrightspeed seems to be a conversion
project though. As I'd never seen an Ariel Atom before, hence I assumed that
the WrightSpeed was specially built chassis. The wrightspeed seems to be the
Atom with the advanced AC motor and controller replacing the Honda VTEC, is
this correct?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Cover
Sent: Saturday, 6 May 2006 9:54 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: More Wrightspeed (was Re: Tesla Motors)
WOW! Got to the link on Free Republic and read the posts. Amazing viewpoints
on that list. One of
them is convinced that EVs will never match the efficiency of ICEs. Another
said that until you
can go 300 miles at highway speeds, it won't fly. The biggest obstacle we
face is not technology.
Dave Cover
--- Dave Stensland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and that CNN story helps Mr. Wright while also raising public
> awareness -- and expectations -- for electrics. This latest CNN story
> is generating the largest traffic spike that my site has ever seen.
>
> Here's a related link for those of you who like to watch the non-EVDL
> crowd critique EVs...
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627475/posts
>
> Cheers,
> -Dave
> http://www.megawattmotorworks.com
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Mike Ellis wrote:
>
> > On 5/4/06, Jorg Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> One of their ex-employees, Ian Wright, was so serious that
> >> he want off to found his own company (Wrightspeed); you may have seen
> >> or heard of his prototype, based on the Ariel Atom, which does 0-60 in
> >> 3 seconds using a Lithium-Ion battery pack.
> >
> > Speaking of the Wrightspeed it's on CNN Business today, with some
> > pictures of the internals I hadn't seen before.
> >
> > http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/
> > index.htm
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
