EV Digest 5772
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Controller question
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: What does it take to convert a truck?
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Lithium Safety
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: battery trailers
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: battery trailers
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) MAEAA and WKTEA on KCMO public radio
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Grants, Re: Plug in Hybrid retro fits for Prius, Escape wanted for NY
state fleet.
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Solectria BC3kW Chargers
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: DOD v pack life
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Fire results
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Optima YTs wanted in Seattle
by "Ryan Plut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) A bit cleaner air on the lake today
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Steorn Challenge
by Thomas Waltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: Steorn Challenge
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Making it more efficient
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: A bit cleaner air on the lake today
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Fred,
It is best to mount the controller on a metal chassis plate that is mounted
on extended brackets that attach to the fire wall.
My brackets are about eight inches long and I had a sheet metal shop bend
them up. The chassis plate is than either welded or bolted to the brackets.
The brackets are shape and cut so as to go around any equipment that may be
on the fire wall.
I use four 5/16 inch bolts with large fender washers that bolt all the way
through the firewall to mount the bracket.
The brackets are not just four bars in each corner, but two triangle sheet
metal brackets on the sides that extends about 4 to 6 inches in front of the
chassis plate. This allows for a 6 inch fan blower to be mounted on one
side and a lover grill on the other side.
The chassis plate is mounted vertical, with the top about 1 inch down from
the inside of the hood. The chassis plate as a 3/4 inch lip that is bent
back all around. This allows for the chassis plate to be mounted between
the two support brackets.
A metal cover is made that is bend up like a deep pan with 8 to 10 inch
sides on it. This is size to slip over the top and bottom lip of the
chassis plate and over the side support brackets.
The cover is cut and notch in certain places so it can clear the fan blower,
exit grill, and cable entrances.
The cover goes on just enough, about a 1, so there is plenty of space on the
side sheet metal brackets to install conduit holes for grommets, cables and
wirelooms connectors.
The cover is fasten on with three short No. 8 sheet metal screws that have a
flatted tip. They are only 1/4 inch long and place in areas so it does not
touch any inside components.
The chassis plate is size large enough, so when you install you components
on it, there is about a 2 inch gutter space all around and between comments
to run cables and wire harness.
This gutter space allows to have conduit openings for grommets coming in the
rear of the chassis plate. Because there is 8 inches of space behind the
chassis plate, I come off there with the battery and motor cables and have
room to radius it down to the motor which is right under this controller
box.
I made this enclosure large enough, so it will fit a controller, a main
contactor, amp meter shunt for the motor. The controller fuses are a panel
type that is mounted on the flat area on the side brackets.
I am using a Zilla controller, so I install a Lexan glass panel in the
chassis cover, so I can see the status LEDS.
If you have access to a wholesale electrical supply house, they may have
Hoffman panels and chassis plates that may fit you components. Hoffman
makes any size you would ever want in steel, stainless steel, aluminum,
plastic, fiberglass, with hinge cover, screw on cover, lift off cover and
clear window covers.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Hartsell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Controller question
> Ok, I am getting closer to getting my Dakota together. I have built the
> battery boxes and I am ready to start wiring up the electronics. The
> Curtis
> controller came in this week and after reading the manual (yes I actually
> do
> read the directions) it states to be sure to use a appropriate heat sink
> and
> to be sure to mount the controller in an area that will be dry but will
> still be able to get cooling air. I am going to put all of the other
> breaker, relays and fuses in a fiberglass box but I am not sure where I
> need
> to mount the controller. I want it in the engine compartment but I was
> not
> going to put it inside of a container that I will then have to put cooling
> fans in to keep it cool. I would appreciate anyone that has already been
> through this to give me their advice on where and how to mount the
> controller. I also want to keep the controller close to the motor and the
> other electronics so that I can keep the wiring as short as possible. Any
> advice or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a small truck and am considering it as my second conversion.
After converting the 300zx to a 9" dc motor and going to the trouble to
adapt it to the tranny I am, well, a little disappointed. The adaption
was a lot of work and the motor is in the way of batteries. It is such a
pain shifting all the time in an EV.
If you don't have the means to make your own adapter and it is already a
rear wheel drive. I think throwing a dual 8 or dual 9 setup down in the
tunnel (with a guard and a blower to a air filter, thus pressureized to
protect from water) allows more room for batteries and an all around
cleaner installation.
Comparison
no adapter but new driveline, 2 motors and $1000 in reversing relays.
possible smaller controller and wires for the same performance on the
low end.
possibly more room for batteries and they can go lower
Maybe a layer of batteries up front under a second floor making a trunk
up front and a pair of boxes on either side of the motor/driveline
under the bed.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
How come people are converting such large and heavy vehicles with poor
aerodynamics? Doesn't it make a little sense to convert something lighter so
that the expense would be less and there is greater chances of increased
range and performance?
Cheers
On 19/08/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey John,
How did you come out from the fire? I hope your insurance came through for
you!
Pedroman
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John G. Lussmyer
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What does it take to convert a truck?
At 11:35 AM 8/18/2006, Tom Shay wrote:
>I did read your message. We disagree about how much your proposed
>truck would weigh. I presume you want to carry 5000 lbs; 3000 lbs
>payload plus 2000 for batteries + controller(s) + motor(s) and other
>electric components - removed ICE stuff. So you need a truck that can
>carry 5000 lbs which I think is probably an F-350 with dual rear
>wheels. That's a 7000 lb truck to carry your 5000 lb load.
Okay, there is part of the confusion. I was picking a truck with a
big payload capacity (3700 lbs) so I could "spend" part of it on
batteries, and still have a useable payload capacity.
I do NOT want to go over rated GVW.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, it could be. Gasoline doesn't catch fire while sitting in the driveway,
not being tampered with. <g> Some lithiums have done *exactly* that... no
damage, no external source... whoosh, overheating, taking out the pile.
BTW, this was a noted problem before the recall of these laptops... and had
nothing to do with them. It was an FAA report, as reported by PBS, wondering
about the safety of these batts on commercial airlines. I'm hoping someone
will report which batts (makes and so forth) that are causing these fires.
*Usually* in the EV world, it's been a fire when the rig was left on the
charger too long.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Letton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Lithium Safety
> Couldn't be any worse than gasoline, eh?
> ;-)
> Andrew
>
> Edward Ang wrote:
> >
> > If they are recalling them because they might catch fire, do you
> > really want them in your car or any device?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A good point. There used to be. These trailers are usually good for about
300 pounds per wheel max. or so mine was designed. They were also designed
to be attached to heavy duty bumpers, such as on the older PUs. The one we
had ended up with caster probs, after 10 years, approaching its max load. At
above 45MPH, the wheels would wobble. I never did get around to finding the
true cause, since I used it to haul small loads of stuff, at slow speeds.
That's OK, as its tires were really too small to be safe at freeway speeds.
(They were rated at 40MPH, if I recall.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why aren't there any 2-wheel trailers with 2 hitches, where both wheels
> caster or steer to turn with the car?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I understand that some had a pivot to take care of this. Mine didn't, so
maybe the reason for its limited weight capacity. Ours also didn't have a
suspension.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: battery trailers
> I would think that if the ground is not level, you are running the
> risk of one wheel supporting the entire trailer on one side and the
> other wheel in the air causing the trailer to bend and damage itself.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all:
Late Thursday I received a phone call from a local news presentation show on
our local public radio station asking if someone from our club would like to
discuss electric vehicles and WKTEC on today's program. Two of us immediately
stepped forward.
The show can be heard at:
http://www.kcur.org/UTDarchive.html
Overall, we feel very good about the presentation.
Jim Donovan
________________________________________________________________________
Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month!
Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage.
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:53:15PM -0600, Doug Weathers wrote:
> Disclaimer: IANABCE (I Am Not A Battery Chemistry Expert).
>
> On Aug 18, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Nick Austin wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:33:58PM -0700, Rich Rudman wrote:
> >>Yea.. all the other PHEV kits want 1800 watt chargers.
> >So your approach seems reasonable as long as you can still charge on
> >110v.
>
> Isn't it more efficient to charge at 220v? It takes less than half the
> time to charge the pack than if you used 110v, so you're saving power
> overall. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Most of the time, 110v charging is at ~15amps, whereas 220v is at 40amps
or more.
So you may be charging at 1.8KW off 110v, but be at 8.8KW on 220v.
>
> Putting a random timer (like a turn-on-the-lights security timer) on
> the 220v feed to the charger would help smooth out the load, but then
> so would the random arrival times of people coming home.
True, but as you can see, the draw might be 5x higher or more, this is more
of a peak load then a nice slow base load to take up excess capacity.
But you can easily have a switch on a more powerful charger, to make it
draw less.
>
> Or cities could legislate EV charging like some of them legislate
> watering your lawn.
If you had any sort of communication with the power company, then you could
do so many cool things. Just say "I need 15Kwh before 9AM, do as you will"
then they can charge you fast or slow, whenever they want to. They could
start and stop you, all of this for a much lower rate.
> >It seems like level II charging a PHEV that can only do ~45MPH in pure
> >EV mode does not buy you that much.
> >
> >A next gen, truly gas optional PHEV would have far more use for level
> >II charging.
> >
> >Isn't that true?
>
> As I understand it, Rich's PiPrius system uses the PFC-40 not only to
> charge the add-on lead-acid pack from the wall plug, but also to charge
> the built-in NiMH Prius pack from the lead-acid pack while driving.
> That's why it needs to be a high-power charger, so that the NiMH pack
> can get replenished at a rate similar to to how fast power is drawn out
> of it while driving (and hopefully keep the gas engine from starting
> up). As Rich said, fast charging from the wall plug is just a bonus.
True. I'm just saying that the bonus is not really needed in this application,
so it might not give you any points over somebody with a 1.8Kw charger.
>
> >>Plus we all have that ...DELL laptop NIGHTMARE..to deal with as far
> >>as a
> >>Lithium based Plug in pack is concerned...
> >
> >Lithium seems like the clear future for EVs right?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. For sure, it's too expensive for ME right now, and
> into the foreseeable future.
Sure, but EVs with a 60 mile range are a non-starter it seems.
Don't get me wrong, I happily drive my ~50 mile range Solectria Force back
and forth to work everyday, but 60 mile range and ~20K mile life is not
good enough to easily sell to people.
> If I were a betting man, I'd bet on
> ultracapacitors instead of lithium as the technology we'll all be using
> in ten years.
The storage capacity of ultra capacitors is a couple of orders of magnitude
too low for use as a primary energy source for an EV.
But if EEstor comes through, it will change the world.
> Ultracaps can live for hundreds of thousands of cycles.
> Lithium batteries seem to have a shelf life, which means they only last
> a certain time no matter how you treat them.
Li cells last ~10 years now. They go for 3000 cycles.
That's pretty good.
> Ultracaps have an energy density problem, but perhaps nanotechnology will
> fix that.
Here's hoping.
> Or perhaps someone will fix the lithium shelf life problem. Or perhaps
> some other unforseen development will occur making everything else
> obsolete, like a Mr. Fusion reactor that runs on banana peels and beer.
True, the nanotech ultracap is the holy grail, and would make everything else
obsolete.
But it seems that Li is here now, and is a clear winner for the near term
and medium term. It can give you 300 miles of range, >2000 cycles, and >10
years of service.
That's pretty good.
>
> >Seems like we should be working to counter these arguments, by
> >switching to an inherently safe Li chemistry.
>
> There are other people working on the chemistry problems.
Chemistry problem == Solved.
You can buy an A123 cell, or Valance pack today. The Valance pack is a drop
in replacement for your old gel cell PbA pack.
> Rich has chosen to tackle the fast-charge issue, which a lot of us think is
> the best way to make a long-range EV.
Sure, fast charging is a huge benefit. But is not needed on a PHEV.
Plus, the fast charging approach to a long range EV seems suboptimal.
If I had an EV that could be charged in 1 second, I would still need a place
to charge it. This is a huge problem for a short range EV (ie <100 miles).
I think that unless you are just commuting on a known route, 60 miles is almost
a bare minimum range. 100 is much better, and with 300 you really don't need
fast charging, just level II charging.
> It's also necessary for an EV with a large lithium pack, unless you want
> to charge for as many hours as you've been driving.
Sure, level II charging is good for putting back a lot of energy in a huge
Li pack. But not when you have PHEV packs.
> The more approaches we try, the more likely we'll find one or more good
> answers.
That's true.
>
> >Having a pack that you never have to replace is a pretty nice perk.
>
> Having a pricey pack that will start saving me money in ten years,
> MAYBE, is not a perk, it's an expensive gamble.
True, if you don't have money to burn, PbA is a pretty safe bet.
> Some people have been taking that gamble, and hooray for them - we need the
> pioneers to go out and gather this data for us. People like Bill Dube' and
> Victor Tikhonov and John Lussmeyer and the other people who have put lithium
> packs in their vehicles, even though (or because!) there's not a lot of
> data on them yet. God bless 'em, but I'm more of a settler than a
> pioneer.
I've heard this statement a few times:
"A large manufacturer could make a car with a Li pack, and a 10 year,
100,000 mile warranty today, that would be affordable."
Is that true?
> I don't want to spend mucho bucks on a lithium pack until it
> comes with a guarantee.
A good plan for a mere mortal like me. :)
>
> And about that "never" part. EVs last a ridiculously long time
> compared to ICEs, basically until the frame rusts away or they get
> totalled in a wreck, because they're so mechanically simple.
It seems like most ICE cars die of heat death, or transmission failure. When I
say die, I mean they cost more to fix then they are worth and are scrapped.
> The electronics might get upgraded, the battery pack gets replaced, but the
> mechanical parts of the car can run for many decades with only minor
> maintenance. The only energy storage technology I know about right now
> that has the potential to last as long as the car would be
> ultracapacitors.
By the time you're ready to swap out your used Li pack, you can upgrade
to the great new ultracap pack that will be ready. If it's not, then there
will likely be cheaper Li batteries ready by this time.
> >>Not build some Tin can that barley gets the job done over night.
> >
> >It seems like (minus the tin can part) a charger that just gets the
> >job done
> >overnight is exactly what you want for a PHEV, right?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. If you never get out of range of your garage, then a
> slow charger will do the trick. But let's say your battery pack is
> exhausted and you're away from home. If you have a fast charger on
> board, you have the choice of filling up again with electrons instead
> of using gas. Cool!
True, but we can have ~Millions of new EVs on the grid without installing
any new power plants if they charge at night. If they plug in during
the day, we might not be able to handle that.
Now, if they had V2G ability, and a bigger pack that was not damaged by very
discharges. Then you might have a solution that could work.
> This is the same argument for fast charging non-hybrid EVs. The faster
> and more convenient it is to charge your EV, the smaller and lighter
> and less expensive your pack needs to be.
True, I think this works better if you have a min range of ~100 miles to
go with your fast charging.
Just a few thoughts.
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 18 Aug 2006 at 9:39, bruce parmenter wrote:
> Has anyone any experience using the Solectria BC3kW Charger?
Are these rebadged Brusa chargers, or actually made by Solectria?
> Is the BC3kW charge an isolated charger (isolated from the AC line
> via a transformer)?
I can't imagine Solectria or Brusa ever building a charger that WASN'T
isolated. They are very safety conscious.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ - the former contact address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will soon disappear.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you're looking for substantial carrying capacity without the daunting
mass of large US pickups, you might look into direct-importing a Kia or
Hyundai cab-over style pickup. They are fitted with huge beds and have
considerable payloads, but weigh much less than a big US pickup. These
trucks are sold in Asia and Europe, but not in the US.
I looked at this about 5 years ago. The bed on a 2000 Hyundai H100 Truck
(the successor to the earlier Porter) was
278.5 cm long
160 cm wide
35.5 cm deep
The bed on a 2000 Ford F-250 pickup (not counting the wheel wells'
intrusion) was
250 cm long
164 cm wide
50.8 cm deep
In terms of square area to carry stuff, the Hyundai won pretty handily with
about 9% more square carrying area. It had 44,560 sq cm of space in the
bed, compared with the Ford's 41,000 sq cm. And it weighed a LOT less.
Admittedly, if you compare total bed volume, the higher bed on the Ford
provides 32% greater volume. But that comes at considerable increase in the
cost of conversion components and operation. And how often do you
fill the bed to the top?
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ - the former contact address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will soon disappear.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 18 Aug 2006 at 14:53, Ken Albright wrote:
> I've been told by a very knowledgable source
> that the number of cycles obtained from a battery pack (flooded LA) is a
> bell-curve function when compared to the depth of discharge (DOD). Very deep
> discharge produces fewer cycles before pack death. Approximately 50% DOD
> produces the maximum number of cycles. And, on the other end of the curve,
> shallow DOD produces a small number of cycles.
>
This is a slight misunderstanding. A very shallow discharge doesn't produce
a small number of cycles. In every case with lead acid (and most other
chemistries), the shallower the discharge per cycle, the more cycles you can
obtain before the battery is worn out. ("Worn out" usually means "unable to
produce at least 80% of its rated capacity.")
The catch is that the shallower the discharge, the fewer the Watt-hours (and
the shorter the range) the battery produces per cycle.
What you're looking for in most cases is to maximize the total amount of
energy that passes through the battery in its lifetime - that is, you want
to get the most miles or km out of each battery. It turns out that this
happens when you routinely discharge to about 50% before charging.
So, the relationship you're thinking of is not between DOD and cycle life.
Rather, it's between the DOD and the total >distance you can drive< before
the battery is worn out. That curve peaks at about 50% DOD.
> So, what should I do? Charge early and often or wait until 50% DOD
> before charging.
Allowing a discharged battery to stand will accelerate sulfation. I'd
recommend charging any time you've used 20% or more of your battery's
energy.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ - the former contact address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will soon disappear.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 07:32 PM 8/18/2006, Ev Performance (Robert Chew) wrote:
How come people are converting such large and heavy vehicles with poor
aerodynamics? Doesn't it make a little sense to convert something lighter so
that the expense would be less and there is greater chances of increased
range and performance?
While the performance of a 6000 lb vehicle may not be great, it's
likely to have better range than a small light vehicle, AND have
something the small light vehicle doesn't have. Cargo capacity.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:53 PM 8/18/2006, David Roden wrote:
If you're looking for substantial carrying capacity without the daunting
mass of large US pickups, you might look into direct-importing a Kia or
Hyundai cab-over style pickup. They are fitted with huge beds and have
considerable payloads, but weigh much less than a big US pickup. These
trucks are sold in Asia and Europe, but not in the US.
I looked at this about 5 years ago. The bed on a 2000 Hyundai H100 Truck
(the successor to the earlier Porter) was
278.5 cm long
160 cm wide
35.5 cm deep
But what is the payload capacity? Volume without weight isn't helpful.
Also, if they aren't available in the US, you have to import it, and
parts become quite difficult to obtain.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 07:45 PM 8/18/2006, Jeff Shanab wrote:
If you don't have the means to make your own adapter and it is already a
rear wheel drive. I think throwing a dual 8 or dual 9 setup down in the
tunnel (with a guard and a blower to a air filter, thus pressureized to
protect from water) allows more room for batteries and an all around
cleaner installation.
I'm actually considering keeping the transmission, AND using dual 9" motors.
Since this is a truck, I do want to be able to pull something heavy
now and then. I may not have to pull it far, but I do want to be
able to pull it.
Also, even with dual 9" motors, accelerating something that weighs
6000 lbs (or more), using just a direct drive may give unsatisfactory results.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 06:43 PM 8/18/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How did you come out from the fire? I hope your insurance came through for
you!
So far they've been pretty good to me. (Safeco) The money for the
old building will pay for a new larger, better, building.
Old - 42x60 Steel Arch - curved walls, no insulation, single 14'
garage door in one end.
New - 50x80 Steel Frame - Insulated with 3 20x12 garage doors in the side.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 18 Aug 2006 at 21:04, John G. Lussmyer wrote:
> But what is the payload capacity?
For the H100, it's 1300kg in newer models. I seem to recall it was 1000kg
in older models, but I'm not sure about that. In any case 1300kg allows you
to drop in a ton of lead with 860lb left for cargo.
But you're right, getting spares would be a chore since the H100 has never
been sold in the states. And I was wrong about Europe - it's not available
there either. The H100 is sold in Asia, South Africa, and a bunch of other
places though.
There are several other similar cab-over pickups (and van variants) from
other Korean and Japanese manufacturers. It's a shame that these practical
trucks aren't sold in the states. I think they'd make good conversions for
city use (aero isn't too great on them). In fact for a short time Solectria
was offering such a conversion as either an LSV or an offroad utility
vehicle.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ - the former contact address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will soon disappear.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've read somewhere that you are *never* to store batteries on a concrete
surface because concrete attracts moisture and will harm the battery.
Ryan G. Plut
"Common sense is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it" - G.
Bernard Shaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Optima YTs wanted in Seattle
They have been maintained and are currently setting on
my garage floor reading; 13.05v, 13.01v, 13.01v, 12.98v, 12.98v. They
where last charged about 2 weeks ago.
Paul G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, finally got that EV grin! (sorta)
It's a 12 foot wooden pram I just finished building - design was
modified for the intent of electric drive. DF planking, Maple frame,
epoxy coated, no fiberglass. It's just under 140 lbs empty, yet is rated
for 4 adults + gear (900 lbs) - when done right, wood is powerfully
strong stuff! It's powered by a 40lb trolling motor with an over-sized
prop. Battery is a 110AH Exide flooded deep cycle, 68lbs. Cruises along
nicely at 5-6 knots with two aboard using around 30 amps. Had it on full
power for 1 hour and 20 odd minutes so far, battery should do twice that
easy ;)
Going to up the motors to a dual submerged setup with an outboard tiller
soon, and add one more bat for a 24V setup (motors in series, Curtis
perhaps? or should I run two 12V controllers + motors side-by-side?).
The Datsun Roadster is still chilling in the backyard, all the rust has
been exorcised and it's waiting for paint. But now it's time to fish!
I noticed that the difference between ICE and electric seems much more
striking on a boat, since there is little noise around you to begin
with. Some states are starting "financial incentives" for electric only
drive watercraft (or so I've heard).
I know this is a primarily an auto & cycle group, but had to share this
grin with someone ;)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx
Steorn develops free energy technology and issues challenge to the global
scientific community
London, 18th August 2006: Steorn, an Irish technology
development company, has today issued a challenge to the global scientific
community to test Steorn’s free energy technology and publish the findings.
Steorn’s technology is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows
the production of clean, free and constant energy. The technology can be
applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, from cellular phones to
cars.
Steorn has placed an advertisement in The Economist this week to attract the
attention of the world’s leading scientists working in the field of
experimental physics. From all the scientists who accept Steorn’s challenge,
twelve will be invited to take part in a rigorous testing exercise to prove
that Steorn’s technology creates free energy. The results will be published
worldwide.
Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, commented: “During the years of its development,
our technology has been validated by various independent scientists and
engineers. We are now seeking twelve of the most qualified and most cynical
from the world’s scientific community to form an independent jury, test the
technology in independent laboratories and publish their findings.
“We are under no illusions that there will be a lot of cynicism out there about
our proposition, as it currently challenges one of the basic principles of
physics. However, the implications of our technology go far beyond scientific
curiosity: addressing many urgent global needs including security of energy
supply and zero emission energy production. In order for these benefits to be
achieved, we need the public validation and endorsement of the scientific
community”.
“We’re playing our part in making that happen by throwing down the gauntlet
with today’s announcement – now it’s over to the scientists to ensure that the
real potential and benefits of our technology can be realised.”
Following the validation process, Steorn intends to license its technology to
organisations within the energy sector. It will allow use of its technology
royalty-free for certain purposes including water and rural electrification
projects in third world countries, details to be announced later.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This smells and I'll tell you why. It is clear these folks are not presenting
to you some basic concepts. They claim in the first paragraph to have
technology that is over 100% efficient which they would have a hard time
proving. They do however claim further down that the technology has a
Coefficient Of Performance (C.O.P.) greater than 1 (they say 100%, but
technically its the same). Those who do serious research in this field however
refer to it as C.O.P.>1. Now this in itself IS actually possible. Heat pumps,
solar panels and wind turbines are all C.O.P.>1 devices. They will actually
produce more energy in their lifetime that it took to make them. None of them
violate the laws of physics and none of the Zero Point Energy researchers claim
to. Their second claim can be proven well enough by the above examples. The
third however "There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy" is
the clincher. The above examples while not over 100% efficient derive t!
heir energy from the environment. While Zero Point Energy may exist and there
may be a way to harvest it has to come from somewhere. Their 3rd claim pretty
much invalidates the credibility of their work. I would not give them any
personal information in hopes you will find a new way to power your electric
vehicles. They have no details or specifics of their technology to critique
and I would venture to guess that this thread will not be allowed any further
by the moderators.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Thomas Waltz
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Steorn Challenge
>
>
> http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx
> Steorn develops free energy technology and issues challenge to the global
> scientific community
>snip<
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Some observations on picking up efficiency with my Saturn SC conversion.
It's a 144 volt pack of Trojan 30XHS batteries, not that much energy on board
Zilla 1K controller (limited to 500 pack murdering battery amps)
9" ADC motor
Stock "performance" manual transmission... performance version has higher
gear ratios which is more ideal for electric motors
When I first got the car converted it has some no name tires on it. I don't
do a whole lot of highway cruising with it so my baseline is amps at 40mph
steady on flat ground int he city. It took about 70 amps to hold 40mph
initially.
First modification was to get the old horrible rubber off of it and put some
decent tires with lower rolling resistance characteristics on it, and the old
tires were in bad shape too. Going to Goodyear Integrity tires in 185/60R15's
dropped 10 amps now requiring 60 amps to hold 40mph.
Second and third mod's happened at about the same time, I had it alligned for
0 toe in and removed the stock wing from the car. I noticed a little more from
the wing being gone on the highway, but overall these dropped the car down to
50 amps.
Fourth and fifth mod occured both pretty recently, but close enough together
to notice a difference with each. Fourth was playing with the brakes. The
flexible brake lines looked to be original. These rubber hoses will tend to
expand with age and not let all the brake fluid go back in to the resivor, I
replaced all of them and at the same time got the caliper rebuild kits for the
front disk brakes. This consisted basically of new rubber O-rings which help
retract the piston from the pads. I only drove it some before making
modification number 5, but this in itself made another good 5 amp difference.
Modification number five happened today, which was installing light weight
wheels. I found some 15X7" wheels weighing in at only 12.6 lbs! And even better
they didn't totally break the bank. They are Kosei K1's, tire rack sells them
and they are about $150 a piece, which included all necessary hardware, and
they look really good to boot. While at discount tire getting them installed I
observed three people crouched around the box the wheels came in writing the
information down. I chatted with one of the guys and they said the shop manager
had never felt a wheel so light weight and wanted to know what they were and
where I got them because he wanted a set. I should also mention that the 14"
version of these wheels weights in at 9.5 lbs for those of you with smaller
wheels and tires. I requested 40psi, which didn't happen. As I drove home the
amps had actually increased a tad, but upon checking the tire pressure it was
less than 30lbs so I pumped them back up and about an
hour later left for work. I'm now down to about 40 amps to hold 40mph.
Acceleration uses way less power. 150 amps accelerates quicker than 200 amps
used to! And the car already had alloy wheels, which upon lifting them by
theirselves it was apparent I had saved a lot of rotational mass (I need to
weigh the old wheels to see just how big of a difference I made, but it feels
like about half!).
So in short over the last year I've taken the car from 70 amps to hold 40mph
down to 40 amps to hold the same speed. This is a HUGE improvement! At this
point my pack is already on it's way out, however the range when I get a new
pack (probably in another year) will be far greater than what it was before.
This is nearing almost a 50% improvement over how it was when the car first
moved under it's own power as an electric conversion! Ok so granted that 3/8"
overall toe out wasn't helping any, but there are things you can to to gain
efficiency and therefore range.
I'm not 100% sure where I can go from here now. I'm thinking other
aerodynamic modificaitons are about all I can do. I suppose making a belly pan
is about all there if left. Anyone else have any other ideas?
Here are the wheels:
http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/DisplayWheel.jsp?wheelMake=Kosei&wheelModel=K1+TS&wheelFinish=Silver+Painted
Here's the manufacturers page for the wheels:
http://www.koseijp.co.jp/engfl/n_p5_k1.htm
Weight performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only wheels ligher I've ever found are Volk TE37's at abotu $300-$400 a
piece! And they aren't $300 a piece lighter either.
It's a totally different car with those wheels, highly recommended.
Later,
Ricky
02 Insight
92 Saturn SC2 EV 144 Volt
Glendale, AZ USA
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2¢/min or less.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Can you put some pics on evforge? I for one would love to see what
you did.
--- "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, finally got that EV grin! (sorta)
>
> It's a 12 foot wooden pram I just finished building - design was
> modified for the intent of electric drive. DF planking, Maple
> frame,
> epoxy coated, no fiberglass. It's just under 140 lbs empty, yet is
> rated
> for 4 adults + gear (900 lbs) - when done right, wood is powerfully
>
> strong stuff! It's powered by a 40lb trolling motor with an
> over-sized
> prop. Battery is a 110AH Exide flooded deep cycle, 68lbs. Cruises
> along
> nicely at 5-6 knots with two aboard using around 30 amps. Had it on
> full
> power for 1 hour and 20 odd minutes so far, battery should do twice
> that
> easy ;)
>
> Going to up the motors to a dual submerged setup with an outboard
> tiller
> soon, and add one more bat for a 24V setup (motors in series,
> Curtis
> perhaps? or should I run two 12V controllers + motors
> side-by-side?).
> The Datsun Roadster is still chilling in the backyard, all the rust
> has
> been exorcised and it's waiting for paint. But now it's time to
> fish!
>
> I noticed that the difference between ICE and electric seems much
> more
> striking on a boat, since there is little noise around you to begin
>
> with. Some states are starting "financial incentives" for electric
> only
> drive watercraft (or so I've heard).
>
> I know this is a primarily an auto & cycle group, but had to share
> this
> grin with someone ;)
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
