EV Digest 5584
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: EV Conversion Business, comments
by Mike & Paula Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Daytime lights requirement?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: S10 conversion
by "Michael Mohlere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: S10 or Sonoma conversion
by "Michael Mohlere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: S10 conversion
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: is copper all the same?
by Janez Svetlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Cushman, Cushwoman & Sepex Recepe
by "Mark E. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: one for the Sinclair C5 owners...
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Daytime Running Lights
by "Mark E. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: EV Conversion Business
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
by "Peter Shabino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) EV Calculator
by jerry halstead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: is copper all the same? Piggyback question
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: is copper all the same? Piggyback question
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: S10 conversion
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Basic Manual Charger Schematic
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Jack Murray wrote:
> But it must be practical, both financially and operationally, or it
> can't sustain itself as more than an expensive hobby.
> I can buy a LOT of gasoline for a $10K+ conversion price, particularly
> if an alternative is a small car that gets 35mpg. And will the big
> automakers soon overrun any small-time conversion business?
If I pay $10K for an (used) ICE vehicle. Do I get that money back over time?
Nope, and I have to pay another $10 over 5 years for gasoline, fluids and
filter changes.
If I pay $10K for an electric conversion do I get that money back over time?
Nope, but I'll only pay $1K over 5 years for the electricity, and **maybe**
$2K for another battery pack.
I think the "financially" part proves itself. Then we're back to the
"operationally". But hey, if poor folks like me can do it without industry
support (as an expensiive hobby), just think what it'd be like if a variaty
of parts were professionally engineered and produced by the thousands. That
helps both problems. Then you could build and sell conversions with little
risk. As it stands right now there's probably a substantial risk.
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm an electrical engineer and crunched the numbers here awhile ago.
1. White LEDs are actually a bit LESS efficient than a large-scale
(headlight) halogen run at its proper voltage. Every once-in-awhile we
see a substantial improvement though, but we do not expect them to be
remarkably more efficient than a halogen. Now for smaller scale,
halogen efficiency takes a real dive. LED flashlights are much more
efficient than any small incandescent bulb. And for applications where
you need colored light, a halogen has to use a filter that throws away
most of the generated light because it's the wrong wavelength. An LED
of the appropriate color becomes much more efficient.
2. A headlight has to put out a LOT of lumens. It would take a
phenomenal number of even the most powerful LED pkgs ever made to equal
a headlight.
3. LED efficiency takes a substantial hit when they are not kept very
cool. There is a substantial hit in even allowing the package's thermal
mouting surface to get to 120 deg F. And the LED can easily be damaged
by high temperatures, this limit comes into play often. Often a
device's rating is based on how much power it can handle with an ideal
heatsink without reaching the die's maximum temperature, all non-ideal
heatsinks require the device be used at a reduced power. Making a
heatsink that stays that cool while a large amount of power is being
dissipated is very "challenging" and expensive.
4. A lot of LEDs become hard to focus and align. A single reflector or
lens's effectiveness depends on how small the area emitting light is so
it works great with halogens with a small bright filament. The larger
the emitting area, the worse the possible focus. Only by making a
larger lens can the situation be improved but there is only so much room
for a headlight here. For thermal reasons alone it is likely this power
level can never be made in a tiny area with LEDs, they must be
distributed across a heatsink. With distributed emitters, you need
separate lenses for each one which will do a great job in a small size.
However, aligning them all is kind of a trick. I seem to recall that
with some of the most powerful LED pkgs currently available, it was
going to take like 100 devices and lenses, and a kick-ass heatsink solution.
Bottom line, there's no way an LED headlight is going to have any
practical benefit on the road. But, it has a LOT of "wow" factor. If
you want to build an EV to get from point A to point B quietly, forget
it. If you want an EV to show off and spread the message of EVs to as
many people as possible, there's maybe something to it. It impresses
people and I've noted that "LED headlights" and anything associated with
them lingers in people's heads for a long time!
Danny
David Roden wrote:
However, I see three problems with LEDs for lighting, particularly for
headlights. I am not an engineer but the following is my understanding of
the problems, amenable to correction by those who are engineers familiar
with LED design.
1. They aren't yet very good for >illuminating< things (the basic job of the
headlights). A single unit doesn't produce many lumens, and multiple units
are a challenge to combine with optics to produce the beam patterns required
in headlights.
2. High output (hundreds of lumens) white LED arrays are just now beginning
to approach the efficiency of fluorescent lamps, and the best in this
respect are still engineering samples. Many inexpensive high output white
LEDs barely exceed halogen incandescents in efficiency. (The reason that
they perform well in flashlights is that they respond better than
incandescents to declining battery voltage.)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My thought (and from what I have gathered on the web) is that the chassis'
of these two are identical - I would imagine that the engines/trannies might
be different, which would obviously make the adaptor incompatible. I'll
have to do some more research - you would think that IF the Sonoma were
compatible w/ the S10 adaptor, you would see it on the blurb for the
adaptor, which I do not....I also do not see a lot (any?) sonomas that have
been converted.......
From: "steve clunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Subject: Re: S10 conversion
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:23:16 -0400
I think the Sonoma is bigger ( so the s 10 ois better) , don't know about
the adapter or tranny ,
steve clunn
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mohlere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: S10 conversion
All -
Okay, this is sort of a lazy question, but is there a difference between
the Chevy S10 and the GMC Sonoma?? Will the S10 adapter, etc, work on the
Sonoma - ergo, do they have the same engine/tranny setups??
Thx, Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All -
Everything I have read indicates that the chassis is the same for both
vehicles, however, the post below seems to indicate that the S10's
suspension would be more suited to an EV application - although I do not
think (anyone?) the difference would be enough to rule out using a Sonoma -
I just don't see many Sonoma EV conversions - perhaps because the Sonoma is
the pricier of the 2 vehicles and, after shelling out about 5k-10k for EV
parts, you definitely want to be frugal w/ what you pay for the donor
vehicle!!!
http://mys10.net/showthread.php?t=3347 :
"GMC's for the most part have nicer interiors and more options. I also have
noticed that chevrolet makes their trucks more for a work set up because my
friend's stock S-10, same year style and everything has stiffer stock coils
and an extra leaf in the leaf pack. GMC is more of an executive type of
truck like a foreman on a work site would drive vs the carpenters who haul a
lot with their chevy."
I would LOVE to hear from anyone that has done a Sonoma conversion - surely
there is one out there.....would just give me a bit larger pool of vehicles
to peruse for my donor chassis, as I am pretty well set on using an S10 for
the conversion.
Thx, Mike Mohlere, Huntsville, AL
From: "Peter Shabino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: S10 conversion
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:12:52 -0500
Don't rember where I read this but the GMC rear bed rails are spaced apart
farther and batteries fit better. Again not first hand info so take with
salt.
later,
Wire
From: "Michael Mohlere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: S10 conversion
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:08:30 -0500
All -
Okay, this is sort of a lazy question, but is there a difference between
the Chevy S10 and the GMC Sonoma?? Will the S10 adapter, etc, work on the
Sonoma - ergo, do they have the same engine/tranny setups??
Thx, Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_Sonoma
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 Michael Mohlere
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:09 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: S10 conversion
All -
Okay, this is sort of a lazy question, but is there a difference between the
Chevy S10 and the GMC Sonoma?? Will the S10 adapter, etc, work on the
Sonoma - ergo, do they have the same engine/tranny setups??
Thx, Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Staffanson Brian J Civ 309 EMXG/QPE wrote:
For all you material science type of people out there, I was curious. Is
there a difference between the type of copper used in the different types of
wires and cables, (such as house wire and stranded hook-up wire) bus-bars,
copper pipes, the big grounding rods, copper from a metal shop, scrap
copper, etc. Will each of these have differing amounts of resistance? Are
there potential problems with creating my own bus bars from a metal shop
that sells copper?
Copper resistance varies wildly with purity. You want to buy over 99.9%
pure copper to get minimum resistance for weight. Parts meant to carry
current usually are. Other non electrical copper stuff might be some
form of brass to improve mechanical properties. Brass has about twice
the specific resistance of copper.
regards,
Janez
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I was thinking of converting a Cushwoman for my wife and looked at my SepEx
motor last night. The field is 1 ohm at 11mh for the SepEx 7" version 36V
(operating at 72V). The existing series field ring in use was .6 milli-ohms
and arm 18.6 miili ohms measured with a Kelvin measurement and a 5A power
supply to measure the Vdrop across the coil. The SepEx recepe appears from my
notes & schematics of GE controls to operate as follows:
1. Monitor the ARM current and PWM the field based on that current during
motoring.
2. Have a diode drop opto-coupler field current monitor to shut off the ARM
PWM in case the field current is lost.
3. During Regen, put a spring loaded pot on the brake brake peddle to PWM the
field with the ARM off but still connected to the battery through the FET
chopper control body diode.
4. Limit full field when brake is pressed to turn off from the 100% duty
cycle when reverse ARM current back to the batteries goes below 26A below
10mph. (so 26V field winding hit with 72V doesn't smoke).
The formulae for regen is ArmV = RPM's x field strength. So field strength
is really watts as sometimes this relationship is shown as field current only.
So comparing a series field at 300A when I'm going up hill with the .6milli-ohm
field 2.25 drop x 300 = 675W of field power. To do that equivelent in the
SepEx 1 ohm field would be 26^2/1 ohm = 676 watts (26V or 36% duty cycle max
for motoring). During regen however to produce above the 72V buss, a greater
than 26V or 36% would be applied but only momentarily as if you had full PWM
while holding the brake peddle, the field windings would smoke at 72A through
twin #22 guage wires. (The field consists of twin #22 coils wired in parrallel
so each leg sees 36A worst case (was 18A when operated at nameplate 36V) ).
Thus the 26V field during regen would have to be under uP control monitoring
the reverse ARM current as the vehicle slowed below 10mph and the ARM current
back to the batteries goes below 26A, then shut off
the 100% duty cycle on the field (at this time your foot is fully depressed on
the brake at the stoplight).
Any other suggestions from SepEx folk's?
Have a renewable energy day,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Uh, you are still talkin about the Sinclair C5 right?
The C5 IS a three wheeled vehicle, two rear and one front.
> Too bad for us in the states. It has 4 wheels. In a number of states, that
> makes it neither fish nor fowl... even if it is pedal powered. (If it had
> 3
> wheels, it'd be a motor assisted bike.) It'd probably qualify as a NEV, if
> those are legal where you live. <g>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nikki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:16 AM
> Subject: Re: one for the Sinclair C5 owners...
>
>
>> What I'd really like to do is to hack the C5 so that it worked in
>> pedal mode above 15mph (at which point it would be human powered so
>> still exempt). Can't do anything about that of course until I get one :)
>>
>> Nikki
>
>
--
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 ---
I had to do this on my Cushman. NAPA and other auto suppliers sell a PWM
module that operates daytime headlights at 2/3rds brightness using less power
and so they don't burn out. I bought one (I think from a Geo Metro) and put in
my Cushman to meet the daytime motorcycle requirement. Don't just switch on
your headlights all the time since they will burn out quickly (and waste DC
converter power).
Mark
From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Daytime lights requirement? Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:08:03
-0700 Plain Text Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo!
Briefcase ]
I just ripped out the daytime running relay. Don Don Cameron,
Victoria, BC, Canada see the New Beetle EV project
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Potter Sent: June
20, 2006 5:34 PM To: 'EV List' Subject: Daytime lights requirement? I just
learned today that in order to register my imported-from-USA truck in
Ontario I will need to have it "upgraded" to run with lights on at all times.
SYMBOL 76 \f "Wingdings" \s 12 I expect this is one of the first things I'll
want to un-do as I convert to electric drive. Has anyone had any experience
with this requirement? Best to install a manual switch as an over ride to save
on amps? Steven Potter '98 Ranger / Toronto HYPERLINK "mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Roger,
The next test I am going to do, is to install a on board chassis mounted 60 amp
2-pole GFCI circuit breaker that will replace the existing circuit breaker that
is between the AC input plug and battery charger.
Again, no AC ground connected to the EV frame, only to the charger chassis.
Will use a 50 amp switch to connected or disconnect the AC ground to the frame
for this test.
With the ground connected, I will get a full battery charger DC out voltage
reading between any one battery terminal to the EV frame.
Connecting the ground, I will get no or some reduce voltage reading to the
frame.
While the EV frame is ungrounded, I will than short the any one of the battery
terminals to the EV frame. It is known when I did this test with a standard
breaker, the voltage between the battery terminal and frame would be at a very
low reading, and than when shorted, the circuit breaker did not trip.
But, if it is a GFCI unit, than may or may not trip off. If a person touches
the frame at the time it is shorted to the DC or AC line, it may trip the GFCI
unit if the person has a good ground return.
By turning off the ground connection to the frame, allows me to work on the
batteries live doing shunt connection testing on the battery links while
leaning against the EV chassis which I do not feel any current as I would if it
is grounded. In any case the GFCI would provide addition protection.
You are saying, what is Shunt Connection Testing of Battery links? The
procedure is as follows:
1. Connected a multimeter set to the ma scale in parallel with the battery
lines. Connect only to the battery post, not to the battery connectors.
2. Turn on the battery charger and set to a ampere below 5 amps.
3. Read the current values of several links and record the lowest readings
which you will now use for a reference for all the other battery links.
4. Using a inch-lbs torque wrench, that you slip on a foam rubber hose cover,
so as to prevent any shorting between any battery connections, tighten the
battery connectors until they all read same ma current value.
5. I also cover the top of the batteries with a electrical rubber blanket, we
use for overhead line work and rubber gloves design for a rating of at least
600 volts and a rubber floor like you now get for garages.
The above test is normally done on initial installation of the battery set.
You now can quickly test the connections after you have driven the EV the first
5 miles. In the first 5 miles, you will have the greatest shrink back, meaning
the brush battery post will melt down a little.
About once a month, I test the ma current flow of the links and than adjust as
needed.
Roland
In rewiring older houses that have two wire conductors
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stockton<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:24 AM
Subject: RE: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
Roland Wiench wrote:
> In a full isolation circuit system, it prevents any arcing if
> any non-grounding conductor is grounded to a un-grounded
> metal chassis. We used this type of system in explosive proof areas.
Gotcha; so you are trying to protect against the event of a non-grounded
conductor shorting to the vehicle chassis *while* charging is in
progress. If the short occurs before charging begins, then the
breaker/fuse will open and shut the charger down immediately when AC is
applied.
Once again, I think it is important to stress that unless one
specifically installs some sort of detection system to sense a
short/leakage from either non-grouned AC conductor to the vehicle
chassis, then isolating the charger/AC earth from the vehicle chassis
*degrades* safety by preventing the breaker/fuse from opening in the
event of a short to the vehicle chassis.
> In a GFCI system, you do not need to connected the grounding
> or a ground wire to a GFCI circuit. In the AC input circuit
> of a battery charger, this will still detect a unbalance
> current flow between Line 1 and Line 2 in a 240 VAC circuit
> or Line 1 and Neutral in a 120 VAC circuit, but I found it
> does not detect this unbalance on the DC side of the battery charger.
While you may not be able to use a GFCI on the DC side of the charger, I
would have expected a GFCI on the input side of a non-isolated charger
to trip if there is sufficient leakage between either DC output
conductor and the AC earth since this would represent some of the
current in one of the ungrounded input conductors beign diverted to
earth and should also appear as an imbalance in the current on the two
ungrounded AC input conductors. Perhaps since the two ungrounded AC
input conductors are alternately connected to the DC +ve and -ve
outputs, the leakage alternately appears on one and then the other, with
the net effect that the GFCI sees the leakage equally on both conductors
and as a result sees no net imbalance?
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jack,
I'd suggest doing a conversion or two to see if that's something you'd
even enjoy doing more than once. It's a lot of manual labor...
I'd also suggest talking to existing conversion businesses like Electro
Automotive (http://www.electroauto.com) or Canadian Electric Vehicles
(http://www.canev.com/) to see what sort of market there is for conversions.
Ralph
Jack Murray writes:
>
> Hello, I'm looking into starting a business converting cars to E-power.
> Is this a viable business? Will people buy converted e-cars with
> sufficient profit margin?
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback on the business idea.
>
> I'll be certain to have many technical questions to follow as I do my
> first car.
>
> Thanks,
> Jack Murray
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just from my experience with safety inspectors on industrial test equipment
(what I design) a non bonded frame is bad news and they will not let you put
it in service. All equipment must have a frame ground to protect the random
bystanders from short or stray current to ground. (even with a gfci they
take time to react and 100+ volt (even low leakage current) can / will
kill). Isolated batteries / DC system from frame ground sounds like a good
idea. Less chance on a accidental short your tools turning red. Isolation
from the AC line (not ground) also sounds like a good idea. (again on a
single point fault you do not have to worry about a low impedance path to
ground via the ac line.) But a Isolated frame from ground during charging
sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The only thing this gives you is
allows your frame to be at a higher potential than the environment around
you and soon as someone leans against the car they will get zapped.
Also on the GFIC on the input setups. If the frame is not grounded the only
time the input lines will become unbalanced (ie current in the hot does not
match current returning in the netral) is when some one touches the car and
creates a path to ground (not what you want) if you have the frame grounded
the GFIC will trip as soon as a fault develops (since there is a path to
ground to allow the input lines to get unbalanced)
Just my 2 cents,
Wire
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Joe,
This is true, if you are using a off - board GFCI. That's why a on-board GFCI
protects the EV all the time.
I find with a un-ground EV frame, the GFCI will still trip, because the EV
frame is a extension of the line conductor to a person who may be touching it.
According to NEC, we are allow to wire some devices with a GFCI unit without a
ground wire connection. The GFCI unit will still trip cause by the unbalance
between the two lines of either Line 1 and Neutral or between Line 1 and Line 2.
If I am not working on the EV doing a live shunt link test, I than turn on a
switch, which is a terminal board switch that connects the AC ground to the EV
frame.
The AC ground is always connected to the frame, when the EV is running, because
the DC-AC onboard inverters system require it and when I use a transfer switch
to transfer the AC heating system to off-board commercial power during that
time.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Smalley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
There are three barriers to getting a shock in an EV:
1. Isolating the battery terminals from the mains and chassis.
2. Detecting an imbalance in the line currents to open the feed.
3. Grounding all touchable surfaces of the vehicle.
I was surprised at Roland's suggestion of violating shock barrier #3. The
green chassis of the PFCXX chargers are connected to green wire ground of
the facility to facilitate this barrier. If the chassis of the car is
grounded, touching the chassis will produce no voltage across the user. If
the chassis of the car is grounded and all the battery terminals are covered
by covers connected to the chassis, there is no way to get shocked.
Someone can get shocked if:
1. a cover is removed allowing someone to touch a hot terminal.
2. the chassis wire is not connected to ground.
The problem comes up when using a non-isolated charger with a flooded
battery and a GFCI. The flooded batteries give off vapors that cause a
leakage path to ground. This path causes nuisance trips of the GFCI. There
are three ways to fix the nuisance trips:
1. Clean the batteries,
2. Remove the GFCI, or
3. Disconnect the ground wire.
The preferred method of dealing with the situation is option #1 but if
someone is in a hurry, they might do #2 or #3 creating a danger to
themselves and others.
Since the car is KNOWN to have a leak to chassis capable of opening the
GFCI, removing the GFCI will cause ground current to flow from the grid
through the battery pack leakage path to ground through the chassis and
green wire ground. This is safe as long as the outlet has a good ground. If
the car is plugged into an outlet with a bad green wire ground, there is
potential for a shock from chassis.
Since the car is KNOWN to have a leak to chassis capable of opening the
GFCI, removing the green wire ground WILL produce a hot chassis. If the GFCI
is present and operating properly, it will open when someone touches the
chassis, but will not open if no one touches the vehicle. This is a
dangerous hot chassis protected by a GFCI. If the car is plugged into a non
GFCI protected outlet, there is potential for a shock from chassis.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
> Roland Wiench wrote:
>
> >If it's an on board charger that is a non-isolated type, it is best to
> >install the charger inside a plastic or fiberglass enclosure.
> >The charger body is only AC grounded and not the frame.
>
> I've read these isolated vs. non-isolated threads so many times over the
> years, I thought I understood, but I guess I was wrong.
>
> So a PFC charger's case SHOULD NOT have any contact with the car's frame,
is
> that what Roland is saying? Therefore, the car's chassis is not grounded.
> Barring any leakages, then, touching the chassis and any battery terminal
> will not provide a path for current.
>
> Touching a cell terminal and the charger's case WILL provide a path to
> ground, and could thus be dangerous.
>
> There could, however, be small leakages from things like brush dust in the
> motor, or acid traces from PbA batteries, which might still provide a path
> from traction pack to ground. If the traction pack is totally
disconnected
> from the controller/motor/etc. by means of two contactors, then dust in
the
> motor won't matter. So in this case, it's only leakages from the battery
> pack & pack-to-contactor wiring that could possibly causes a leakage.
>
> Since you're standing on the ground, however, there will always be a path
> from a battery terminal to ground, because, well, it's the ground!
>
> Have I stated it correctly? Did I miss anything?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill Dennis
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folks,
I've been working on an updated EV Calculator (initially based on
Uve's & Hemp's work). The goal is to make it more database driven
(i.e. easy to add your own data), add comparison abilities, reduce
the page size, add print formatting, and maybe even make it so you
can bookmark or send configurations to others. Also, the underlying
data will be used in some other tools.
It's still a work in process (i.e. bugs) but you can try it out here:
http://www.evconvert.com/tools/evcalc/
Background info and caveats here:
http://www.evconvert.com/eve/battery-tools
I have a question regarding range calculations. I plan to add a DOD
field such that the range shown corresponds to the depth of discharge
entered, probably with a default of 80%. That way new EV planners
won't look at the range numbers and think, "Great, 100 miles of
range!" when it's really only 100 miles if you drain your batteries
completely.
My initial thought was to simply multiply the range by the DOD
percent. Is that the best place to do it or should it be done
earlier in the calculation? Here's Uve's formula for range:
batteryPower = motorVolts * motorAmps * (controllerEfficiency /100);
batteryAmps = (batteryPower / voltage) / numString;
range = (puekertNum/ pow (batteryAmps, puekertExp)) * speed;
Thanks.
-Jerry
http://www.evconvert.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd like to add to the question in regards to copper lugs. Is there a big
difference (performance,
durability, longevity) between the cast copper lugs versus the less expensive
lugs that look like
they are made from copper pipe? Would you be more inclined to crimp or solder
one type versus the
other?
Thanks
Dave Cover
--- Staffanson Brian J Civ 309 EMXG/QPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For all you material science type of people out there, I was curious. Is
> there a difference between the type of copper used in the different types of
> wires and cables, (such as house wire and stranded hook-up wire) bus-bars,
> copper pipes, the big grounding rods, copper from a metal shop, scrap
> copper, etc. Will each of these have differing amounts of resistance? Are
> there potential problems with creating my own bus bars from a metal shop
> that sells copper?
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Peter,
The GFCI will still trip with out a ground connection. If a isolated chassis
is shorted, the GFCI will not trip at that time, but will trip if a another
ground source touches that chassis.
If a Line wire is shorted to a isolated enclosure, than it will indicated this,
and than shut down the power using specific ground detection equipment.
In isolated wiring systems, if you install the proper equipment to detect a
grounded chassis or enclosure. All the devices, (receptacles, switches, lamps,
etc.) are design for isolated installation. They are not your standard devices
you see in your home.
In a full isolated installation, the metal conduit is suspended in insulators,
so it does not touch the any building structure that may be AC grounded.
These isolated devices derided there own grounding conductor which is color
code green with a yellow strip. This ground source comes from a large isolated
transformer which may go through another isolated transformer and than a
isolated capacitor bank.
Sometimes there is a separate ground conductor, that is insulated and install
in a steel conduit, that may go to a separate ground plane deep into the
earth.
All conduit in this system must be steel, not plastic or aluminum, where the
steel must shield any other inductions of any other magnetic or current fields.
There is a installation procedure in the NEC on how to do this. Many
electrical workers may never get into this type of installation in all of their
life, but is becoming more common in computer rooms and hospitals.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Shabino<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: Isolated vs. Non-isolated Battery Chargers
Just from my experience with safety inspectors on industrial test equipment
(what I design) a non bonded frame is bad news and they will not let you put
it in service. All equipment must have a frame ground to protect the random
bystanders from short or stray current to ground. (even with a gfci they
take time to react and 100+ volt (even low leakage current) can / will
kill). Isolated batteries / DC system from frame ground sounds like a good
idea. Less chance on a accidental short your tools turning red. Isolation
from the AC line (not ground) also sounds like a good idea. (again on a
single point fault you do not have to worry about a low impedance path to
ground via the ac line.) But a Isolated frame from ground during charging
sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The only thing this gives you is
allows your frame to be at a higher potential than the environment around
you and soon as someone leans against the car they will get zapped.
Also on the GFIC on the input setups. If the frame is not grounded the only
time the input lines will become unbalanced (ie current in the hot does not
match current returning in the netral) is when some one touches the car and
creates a path to ground (not what you want) if you have the frame grounded
the GFIC will trip as soon as a fault develops (since there is a path to
ground to allow the input lines to get unbalanced)
Just my 2 cents,
Wire
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Dave,
The copper un-plated terminal lugs will tarnish and even turn green in a
battery connection. I used a heavy duty plated terminal lug, not cast which I
got from NAPA for $2.50 each. These were even cheaper than I could get from a
wholesale electrical supplier.
I do not direct connected to a battery stud terminal, because these types of
stud terminals, will mushroom the battery post and sometimes will pull out.
Even a plated connector touching a lead post, will cause a tarnish spot between
the two, and increases the resistance.
In my electrical work, we always place a bi-metal barrier between any two
de-similar metals.
I therefore order gold plated battery clamps from
www.wirthco.com<http://www.wirthco.com/> for $1.75 each for 100 each all one
size to fit the large low profile pad on a Trojan T-145. I clamp it around the
pad below the stud and also use a stainless steel washer, lock washer and nut
on the stud to put down pressure on the battery clamp.
The battery clamp put pressure on the lead pad, which prevent the post from
mushrooming.
The battery clamps come with a 5/16 bolt and wing nut. I replace the wing nut
with a stainless washer, lock washer and nut that the existing terminal lug
connect to. I was able to be able to torque all these connections to a much
higher rating than specific.
This type of battery connections allows me to use the same links on any type of
batteries that may have different post spacing, by just rotating the battery
clamps.
After one year of usage, these connections are still as bright as the day I
install them.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Cover<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: is copper all the same? Piggyback question
I'd like to add to the question in regards to copper lugs. Is there a big
difference (performance,
durability, longevity) between the cast copper lugs versus the less expensive
lugs that look like
they are made from copper pipe? Would you be more inclined to crimp or solder
one type versus the
other?
Thanks
Dave Cover
--- Staffanson Brian J Civ 309 EMXG/QPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> For all you material science type of people out there, I was curious. Is
> there a difference between the type of copper used in the different types of
> wires and cables, (such as house wire and stranded hook-up wire) bus-bars,
> copper pipes, the big grounding rods, copper from a metal shop, scrap
> copper, etc. Will each of these have differing amounts of resistance? Are
> there potential problems with creating my own bus bars from a metal shop
> that sells copper?
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The information I've got from a GMC dealer was, that the Sonoma and the
S-10 only differ 'cosmetically', the chassis, transmission etc. are all
the same.
mm.
> Don't rember where I read this but the GMC rear bed rails are spaced apart
> farther and batteries fit better. Again not first hand info so take with
> salt.
>
> later,
> Wire
>
>
>>From: "Michael Mohlere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>>To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>>Subject: S10 conversion
>>Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:08:30 -0500
>>
>>All -
>>
>>Okay, this is sort of a lazy question, but is there a difference between
>>the Chevy S10 and the GMC Sonoma?? Will the S10 adapter, etc, work on
>> the
>>Sonoma - ergo, do they have the same engine/tranny setups??
>>
>>Thx, Mike
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is a good buy on a 20 amp variac here. (Staco #033-6565)
http://www.fairradio.com/variac.htm
http://www.fairradio.com/6565.htm
From: Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Basic Manual Charger Schematic
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
A variac charger is very simple, and would cost you about $200, with all
the parts available on-line very simply, except for the basic enclosure for
the parts other than the variac itself (small toolbox, lunchbox, etc.) some
wire and common connectors and a piece of sheet metal for a heat sink.
BUT
I would strongly recommend that you spend a little time educating yourself
on battery charging principles and how a basic rectifier charger works.
(Bad boy, modified bad boy, etc.) You should understand the (simple)
theory behind its operation, then you can make an educated decision about
the design you want, how many safety devices you want to incorporate, etc.
The basic design for a variac charger for a 108 volt pack is this: Buy a
10 to 20 amp 110 Volt Variac off EBay. (Search for "variac") Chinese
units are regularly available for $125 or so delivered; used domestic units
are also sold in large numbers.. When you plug the variac in, and turn the
dial, it gives you a variable voltage alternating current output. It's big,
and heavy, and dumb. You run 12 gauge wires from the output of the variac
to a bridge rectifier with a voltage and amperage rating higher than you're
working with. (Easy enough, 200 to 400 volt, 35 amp bridge rectifiers are
widely available online for about $5 apiece. Example:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/SearchResults.asp?SearchQuery=35+bridge+rectifier&SearchType=STANDARD&submit=search+again
The rectifier converts the alternating current to direct current. You will
want to buy a box of crimp on female wire disconnects to connect your wires
to the rectifier. (Any hardware store - $2 for 10 or so.) Voila! You now
have a charger. It's crude, and dangerous, and has the capacity to fill
(or ruin) your pack. You will need some means of connecting the wires from
the DC posts of the rectifier to your pack - battery charger style clamps
are, again, widely available in hardware stores; you may have some other
means in mind. After you connect it to your batteries, and raise the
voltage on the variac dial, the amps will climb You will need an ammeter
so that you can crank up the voltage until the charger is pushing the 10
amps you're aiming for into your battery pack - but no higher, (This
will be somewhere around the 75% zone of the variac dial) If you go too far
you may pop the circuit breaker or eventually cook your batteries. Again,
ammeters are widely
available online for $10 - $15. Example:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=698-8206&SEARCH=ammeter&ID=&MPN=8206Z&DESC=8206Z
Wire the ammeter in series on one of the DC wires coming out of the
rectifier. Okay, so now you can generate variable voltages of DC (pulsing
DC, actually, but that's not an issue yet) and can read the amps rising as
you increase the voltage, so you can turn it up to just the right voltage.
The next problem is that your bridge rectifier is going to get hot. So you
need some metal to bolt it to to absorb some of that heat and radiate it
out. If you don't have any around the house, you can buy a piece at a
hardware store. Aluminum is best; copper is okay, regular old sheet steel
will work too. No special size or shape - the bigger and more surface area
the better, up to about 6" or so, It's kind of funky to have all these
pieces just rattling around (you're talking about messing with around a
kilowatt of juice) so you want to put them in a box. You can pick up a
small toolbox or lunch box for about $5, and fasten the rectifier and
heatsink and ammeter inside it. But
now you've got the heat from the rectifier building up inside, so you
probably want to vent it with a fan. Another $10:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=997-1123&SEARCH=120+vac+fan&ID=&MPN=SP100A%2D1123XST&DESC=SP100A%2D1123XST
This will work. You've got your variac over here, connected to your box
with 12 gauge wires over there, with a meter in the box to read your amps
and two wires with adjustible DC coming out to connect to your pack.
That's your basic, no-frills variac charger. It's about as complicated as
a rock. You should be able to figure out which wire goes where just by
looking at it. If you try to plug it into a 15 Amp outlet you may blow the
breaker if you push too much juice through it. (The "power factor" is
bad.) 108V pack you should be okay at 10 amps, but you never know. Also,
you will only be charging at one voltage once you set the variac unless you
come out and manually adjust it from time to time. The amps will start to
drop shortly after you start charging, and then the voltage may be too high
when your batteries start to get full. There is a level that will push a
useful amount of juice into your pack without running the risk of hurting
your batteries - but it
won't charge as fast at that voltage. Etc. To optimize it's utility
for you will require a small amount of trial and error - if you understand
the principle behind what you're doing. If you don't, bad things will
probably happen. (And add-ons like circuit breakers or fuses and GFCI are
good, too.)
Again - educating yourself as to the basic priciples involved wil let you
make a cheap and workable (if crude) auxiliary charger. But if you don't
do the learning, you may do some burning!
Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- James Massey wrote:
> Sounds like you need a variac charger of some form - either a 10A variac
or
>
> These type of chargers are generally built based on things you "find",
> rather than buying everything needed. A variac from a 'hamfest' or if
luck
> has it a second-hand shop, an industrial 'junk dealer' (where my 240VAC
30A
Thanks James,
But I am unfortunately one of those people that (although I don't have alot
of
money) has more money than time. I really don't have the time to go
'scrounging
around' hamfests, surplus houses, junk dealers, etc. even if I knew where
to
find them. (Which would take even more time to find. ;-)
Although I may end up spending a bit more money I would like to just order
the
parts from some online place and then build it in a couple (few?) evenings.
I have tried quite a bit of searching and I find lots of different power
supply
and charger circuits and all of them are just not quite what I'm looking
for. I
know just enough to be dangerous so I need a little something a little more
'kit like'. Like the old Heath Kit sort of thing.
Regards,
Chet
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--- End Message ---
