EV Digest 5854
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: battery costs/pricing
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Noise suppression: effect of bundling wires
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) EVList e-mail issues (was RE: battery costs/pricing)
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: battery costs/pricing
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Veggie oil hybrid
by "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: ev vs diesel was: I'm not that sceptical
by "Osmo S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Generator Trailer
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: i'm Very skeptical
by "Jerry Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Who Killed the Electric Car in Utica, NY
by "Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Permanent Interconnections needed
by Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Help -- Just get me off the list -- Please.
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) SOS. Please help!
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: i'm Very skeptical
by "ROBERT GOUDREAU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) It Crashed?
by "Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Generator Trailer
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: battery costs/pricing
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Ford Ranger Battery lift on Ebay Warning!!!!
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) driving an A/C compressor
by DM3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Freeway Flyer
by Ron Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: battery costs/pricing
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Removing HTML Re: battery costs/pricing
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Freeway Flyer
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) HTML (was: battery costs/pricing)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) battery welding
by "Jim Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Freeway Flyer
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: battery welding
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Noise suppression: effect of bundling wires
by "steve clunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: Tin Plating lugs for Ni-Cads
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I don't know much about email issues, but the HTML I know wouldn't take
up any increased bandwidth traffic to speak of. I mean the ones that
come to mind that would show up in a text email are just text color,
italics, indents, link hrefs, whatever which are only a few characters
to declare.
Most HTML should be readable just fine as plain text, unless the writer
did some fancy feature (which is unlikely). I don't have any
particular like for having HTML features either, it's just that banning
it seems to be causing some aggravating trouble for the list. I mean
this "Results Truncated" and telling people how to avoid it isn't going
to stop. Even if you got everybody well trained to avoid it, new
members keep popping up.
Danny
David Roden wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 at 2:09, Danny Miller wrote:
I think the simpler question is why is this list set to prohibit HTML?
I don't know all the reasons, but I think the main one is that it vastly
increases the bandwidth and load on the server. This is especially true for
the generated html that most email programs produce.
SJSU's listserver is plenty well-loaded already. I suspect that allowing
html in all traffic would slow it to a crawl.
disabling HTML in sent messages is problematic because it would
disable HTML for other recipients which you don't want to remove it
from ...
I'd much rather receive plain text in my email. I'm probably a rare beast,
but I actually find html mail rather annoying. I read mail to get the
information, which is in the text. Most of what html adds is just
gingerbread.
I use Pegasus, which allows one to have multiple mail identities. One can
switch identities with one drop-down box setting. These can be different
email addresses, or different mail servers, or just different setups. Thus
should you adopt this client you could have one identity that sends plain
text and reads plain text (even when html is available) and use that for the
list. You could also have another identity for your friends who don't mind
receiving html messages from you.
IMO, the EV list provides a wealth of information for EV hobbyists. I
return for tapping a pretty deep reservoir of experience we ask list members
(among a few other matters) to comply with the request to not use html or
attachments. I really don't think it's that big a hardship, but perhaps I'm
atypical.
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 ---
There were some recent posts on bundling high power cables to reduce the
amount of interference they cause in AM radios and other sensitive
equipment. I found some data that bears pretty closely on this problem.
All wires have inductance; but the size, shape, and routing of the wires
determines how MUCH inductance they have. The greater the inductance,
the greater the external magnetic field they produce. If there is a
changing current in the wires, this produces a changing magnetic field.
And this is what cause EMI (Electro Magnetic Fields). Therefore, you get
the most noise with the most inductance; and the least noise with the
least inductance.
Assume you have to run wires 3 feet from your controller to your motor.
The total wire length is 6 feet, and the wire gauge is #6. Here are
the actual inductances of various configurations:
1.5 uH = Circle. The two wires are spread as far apart as possible,
so they form a circle (a one turn coil). This is the *worst*
way to route them!
1.0 uH = Parallel, 2" apart.
0.75 uH = Parallel, with their insulation right against each other.
0.6 uH = Loosely twisted together, one twist every 4".
0.48 uH = Tightly twisted together, one twist every 2".
0.25 uH = Each wire replaced by 8 insulated smaller wires, with the
same total cross-sectional area. The resulting bundle of
16 wires then twisted or braided together.
0.15 uH = Adding a 3rd conductor over both of the wires; which is a
insulated, grounded metal shield that does not carry current.
0.1 uH = Coaxial conductors; one wire replaced with a hollow tube
with the same cross-sectional area, and with the other
wire placed inside it.
Basically, this says as much as a 10:1 improvement is possible, by
choosing how you package the wires.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Content of the original subject on battery costs/pricing was interesting. This
subject however has hijacked the original reason
for the thread. Should we change the subject heading? so future archive
viewers are not lost due to subject mismanagement?
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Danny Miller
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:00 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: battery costs/pricing
>
>
> I don't know much about email issues, but the HTML I know wouldn't take
> up any increased bandwidth traffic to speak of. I mean the ones that
> come to mind that would show up in a text email are just text color,
> italics, indents, link hrefs, whatever which are only a few characters
> to declare.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Danny Miller wrote:
I don't know much about email issues, but the HTML I know wouldn't
take up any increased bandwidth traffic to speak of. I mean the ones
that come to mind that would show up in a text email are just text
color, italics, indents, link hrefs, whatever which are only a few
characters to declare.
Most HTML should be readable just fine as plain text, unless the
writer did some fancy feature (which is unlikely). I don't have any
particular like for having HTML features either, it's just that
banning it seems to be causing some aggravating trouble for the list.
I mean this "Results Truncated" and telling people how to avoid it
isn't going to stop. Even if you got everybody well trained to avoid
it, new members keep popping up.
Danny
Perhaps the list server could just *remove* the offending attachment
(HTML in this case) and replace it with a plain text '-- Attachment
Removed --' or something like that... I've seen other list do it that
way. That way just the plain text version - sans any attachments - is
what is received.
~ Peanut Gallery ~
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yo All,
After running my veggie oil powered hilux diesel for over a week now with
good economy @ around 7-8 L/100km, i was thinkin of making it a hybrid.
After building my first EV and having a rest for over 4 months, i have the
EV itch!
I want to leave the current drive train the way it is, no point adding a
genset, it just doesn't make any sense. The trick to running this kind of
setup is that i want to somehow run the electric motor to the rear diff. The
car weighs a bit at the moment, something like 1.4 tonne. i was thinking of
chaining up the motor to the first section of the propshaft somehow. And
just run the car on a relatively low voltage @ around 96-120 volts for low
speed travel which is 5 out of 7 days a week for me. And use the diesel
engine on high speed 100 km/hr roads while using a litle bit of the diesel
to re-charge my batteries, or use the electric motor to provide some
electrical braking through regen.
The ute can handle 1000kg payload, so why not use some. It is a heavy glider
comapred to my converted Fiat of 700kg. But, at least this baby can handle
the extra weight. Its boring driving around with only one fuel source, why
not use two!
Cheers
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Morjens Jukka,
you mean a diesel car consumes 3 times more energy, or money? In the
first case, can you give a source? I didn´t miss your point, just
interested in this energy comparison issue.
Osmo
Jukka Järvinen kirjoitti 10.9.2006 kello 1.47:
4 litres per 100 km diesel car consumes at least 3 times more
energy compared to same sized Lithium battery EV.
So during first 150 000 km (93 000 miles) diesel car consumes say
6000 eur ($7620) diesel and EV 2250 eur ($2860) electricity. One
Lithium battery pack survives that out nicely.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael,
I will be building an APU. Sorry, your opinion that it is
a worthless idea is simply wrong. I may not get 50+ MPG, but
it doesn't matter. 25 MPG will do just fine. I may not
save money by doing it, but it's not about money for me.
Everyone has different goals.
One APU can be hooked to any EV (if more than one) and
convert it to a hybrid. It's a proof of the concept.
I know about ICE rent option, but APU is not only used
for an EV - it's a stand-by backup power as well.
Victor
Michael Perry wrote:
But, if you are using a 1.5L VW diesel, why not just build a diesel pusher
trailer? It's much easier to do than retrofitting, re-engineering, and
rube-goldberging such a nasty fit.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Cor, you are right, it's a very doable project, an it could be done there in
the US just as well. I've been Project Mgr on several business vend. that
started that way.
You put together a sellable business plan, say $10m for 3yrs, you setup a
deal with Honda, Ford, Saturn, who ever to purchase 10k units (USDOT
Approved) in 24 mos without any drive train, you hire, on contract, 5 people
from this list to design the drive train, ..ie..motor, drive line ,
control, battery sys, etc, you contract 4 more to build the frame, you
marry the body and frame ... hey you have a driveable electric car to
sell...you do not need to redesign every nut bolt hanger, you use standard
parts...
sorry did not mean to make this this long but I can see this is something
that THEY may have done...take proven design, design an underdrive an
married them together, all I can say it is doable people..marketing will be
one of the bigges,
Jerry NWO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Lawrence,
To un-subscribe:
Send the following email message:
TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUBJECT: thanks
MESSAGE: signoff ev
Note, that the signoff ev must be in the MESSAGE box.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Help -- Just get me off the list -- Please.
> Help -- Just get me off the list -- Please.Leo and Margret are getting
> desperate. Could someone explain to them the how to procedures. Lawrence
> Rhodes....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leo & Margaret Galcher
> To: Lawrence Rhodes
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 8:09 PM
> Subject: Help -- Just get me off the list -- Please.
>
>
> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:39:43 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Leo & Margaret Galcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: signoff ev
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> X-Attachments:
>
> I PLAYED BY YOUR RULES -- AND YOU REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I
> WANT OUT!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To discontinue receiving any mail from the EV discussion list, send the
> following email message:
>
> * signoff ev
> *
> to the list processor address
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Our local EV group - BEVOB - are doing a demonstration in near Bath,
UK on the 24th September. We want to have a video playing of as many
different EV footage as possible from all around the UK. We're going
to have it playing at our stand during the day on a loop so the more
clips we have the better!
If you have any decent AVI, MPG or MOV files of your EV or EV events
that you'd like to share with us please email me off list. I
currently have a few selections from the BVS etc - but it'd be great
to have stuff from anyone on here who has videos they don't mind
letting us use.
Cheers
Nikki.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you have a close up on the red car,you can see the Suzuki Emblem.
On 9/10/06, Death to All Spammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to contact them you can send an email
> from their website, or you can check who registered
> their domain name:
> http://www.fevehicle.com/
>
They could advertise "looks like a car, drives like a moped" since
they have NEV/LSV speed limits. At least they look more solid than
that other Chinese import, ZAP's Xebra - they have 2 front wheels!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:56 PM 9/9/2006, Michael Perry wrote:
Tell your agent it's a "collector's car" and get it insured for $80 a year.
I sincerely doubt that's true everywhere.
Of all the EV ideas, the auxiliary generator is the lamest. This makes as
much sense as the guy who wanted his donkey to win the Kentucky Derby. You
waste your time, money, and in the end, you are both jackasses. <vbg> If
your EV can't do the job for a few trips, find something that can... or ride
Greyhound, for crying out loud.
So, you are of the opinion that having a 2nd car, (with taxes,
insurance, registration, and parking costs) is a better idea than
having a clean, efficient generator that can also be used to power
your house during a power failure?
Of course, if you only use it 4 or 5 times a year, your gas car is
also going to have more maintenance problems that usual for a car.
Each to his own I guess.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 10 Sep 2006 at 1:40, Stefan T. Peters wrote:
> Perhaps the list server could just *remove* the offending attachment
> (HTML in this case) and replace it with a plain text '-- Attachment
> Removed --' or something like that...
That's exactly what it does.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Warning do not buy!!!
This would not hold a Ford Ranger EV Battery pack. It is only rated for 600
pounds. Ford Ranger pack alone is 1918.24 pounds or 870.1 kg.
Sorry for the yelling but I wanted the EV list to realize this may be a scam as
I have removed a pack of Lead Acid from an OEM Ford Ranger and it was heavy
even with using the suggested tools. Pack weight can be verified on line.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Item #150030410630
No connection to the sale, and I usually avoid spoiling others' luck and leave
searching to the buyers, but this tool is too specialized to let it leave the
hobby!
-Jay
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave,
The best controllers I have seen for tese applications are the ones
Solectria used on the AC and Power steering units. I think these
controllers were pulse width modulated and also reduced the voltage output
depending on the pack and motor voltages. These controllers were
typically 120vdc 10 amp output continuous. This is around 1,200 watts
which makes it around 1.6 HP. An AC compressor needes at least a 1Hp
motor to keep it from stalling. The controllers that are under 500 watts
will probably have problems. I may build some of these controllers but
dont know if there would be much of a demand.
Jimmy
https://www.dm3electrics.com/
Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 04:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dave Cover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: driving an A/C compressor
To: [email protected]
Plain Text Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo!
Briefcase ]
--- Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My 1.5HP motor over-revved, turning the brushes glowing orange in
> seconds. I'm not sure why; it appears to be a 120V permanent magnet
> motor. Anyone willing to say if this ebay motor would work instead from
> 144V of Optimas?
>
I also have a treadmill motor I'd like to use for AC and power steering.
My issue is finding a
controller for it. Has anyone found a reasonable controller for a small
motor? I've seen very
small PWM controllers, but nothing appropriate for this sized motor. (And
if I put another Zilla
in my car, it's going to be part of the drivetrain.)
Thanks
Dave COver
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If my design goal is 50 miles at 50 mph, it seems final drive ratio and
continuous motor rpm is important.
If 2400 watts moves 100 lbs of weight at 50 mph using a 1:1 gear ratio,
then the following table is for a 2400 lb car with final drive ratios
for a four speed transmission.
Ratio Wthr Wh/mile RPM
12 4,800 96 8104
9 6,400 128 6078
6 9,600 192 4052
4.5 12,800 256 3039
The drive ratio of 12, Wthr and Wh/mile is 50% of the drive ratio of 6.
Therefore the range for any given battery pack would be twice as much,
however the motor rpm is also twice as much.
Do AC motors operate at continuous 8000 rpm? If you have an AC motor,
what gear, final drive ratio or motor rpm do you use for 50 mph?
What am I missing? Is the available torque at 6000-8000 rpm
insufficient for 50 mph?
Another calculator indicates that a 2400 lb car would require 162 ftlb
torque at 6000 motor rpm for a 100 mph 1/4 mile... or 121 ftlb @ 8000
rpm. Are there AC motors with this much torque at these rpm's?
How much torque/hp is required to accelerate a 2400 lb ev from 0-60mph
in 7 seconds?
Thanks,
Ron Archer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
HTML messages are three to four times as large as plain text. Most send
the same messge twice (in plain text and encoded in the HTML) and then the
HTML tags themselves often use more space than the message.
Then there is the issue of viruses and malware which can also be included
in the HTML.
Plus this is a world wide list and some people still have to pay for
bandwidth when downloading messages, or have very limited email storage
limits on their servers, or very slooowwww connections.
HTML offers no advantage over plain text except causing a few
configuration problems for newbies.
This issue comes up every year or so, and the vast majority of the list
want to keep it HTML free.
As with all things on the Net, anyone that isn't happy with the list is
free to go off and start their own list and run it anyway they want.
Cheers.
> I don't know much about email issues, but the HTML I know wouldn't take
> up any increased bandwidth traffic to speak of. I mean the ones that
> come to mind that would show up in a text email are just text color,
> italics, indents, link hrefs, whatever which are only a few characters
> to declare.
>
> Most HTML should be readable just fine as plain text, unless the writer
> did some fancy feature (which is unlikely). I don't have any
> particular like for having HTML features either, it's just that banning
> it seems to be causing some aggravating trouble for the list. I mean
> this "Results Truncated" and telling people how to avoid it isn't going
> to stop. Even if you got everybody well trained to avoid it, new
> members keep popping up.
>
> Danny
>
> David Roden wrote:
>
>>On 10 Sep 2006 at 2:09, Danny Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think the simpler question is why is this list set to prohibit HTML?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't know all the reasons, but I think the main one is that it vastly
>>increases the bandwidth and load on the server. This is especially true
>> for
>>the generated html that most email programs produce.
>>
>>SJSU's listserver is plenty well-loaded already. I suspect that allowing
>>html in all traffic would slow it to a crawl.
>>
>>
>>
>>>disabling HTML in sent messages is problematic because it would
>>>disable HTML for other recipients which you don't want to remove it
>>>from ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'd much rather receive plain text in my email. I'm probably a rare
>> beast,
>>but I actually find html mail rather annoying. I read mail to get the
>>information, which is in the text. Most of what html adds is just
>>gingerbread.
>>
>>I use Pegasus, which allows one to have multiple mail identities. One
>> can
>>switch identities with one drop-down box setting. These can be different
>>email addresses, or different mail servers, or just different setups.
>> Thus
>>should you adopt this client you could have one identity that sends plain
>>text and reads plain text (even when html is available) and use that for
>> the
>>list. You could also have another identity for your friends who don't
>> mind
>>receiving html messages from you.
>>
>>IMO, the EV list provides a wealth of information for EV hobbyists. I
>>return for tapping a pretty deep reservoir of experience we ask list
>> members
>>(among a few other matters) to comply with the request to not use html or
>>attachments. I really don't think it's that big a hardship, but perhaps
>> I'm
>>atypical.
>>
>>
>>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.
>>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 10 Sep 2006 at 1:40, Stefan T. Peters wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the list server could just *remove* the offending attachment
>> (HTML in this case) and replace it with a plain text '-- Attachment
>> Removed --' or something like that...
>
> That's exactly what it does.
>
Yes, except it's not quite done exactly. The list server removes the
HTML, but apparently leaves part of the headers indciating that the
message contains HTML. My email reader sees that and doesn't display the
text (I have it set to NOT display HTML), all I get is the box stating
that the HTML has been removed.
Not a big deal to me though. I figure if it's important the noob will
eventually get their act together and switch to plain text.
--
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'm not sure where you got your 2400 watts per 100 lbs from, but at
constant freeway speeds the weight of the vehicle has very little to do
with the energy consumed. The aerodynamics (size and shape) are much more
important).
There was some research done a few decades back and imperical data from
the seems to back this up, at 50 mph it takes 10 to 15kw to move a vehicle
at 50 mph. Extreemly aerodynamic vehicles can get down to 7-8kw, bricks
can take 15-20kw or more.
Final drive ratio has no effect on the power required to move the vehicle,
all it effects is what RPM the motor runs at and that can effect motor
efficiency.
The best way to pick the ratio (assuming that picking a particular ratio
is an option) is to determine what would be the optimum motor RPM at that
speed and go with that ratio.
However, !!!!, if you are going with a fiwed ratio drive system (I.e. a
single speed vehicle) you also need to take into account the torque needed
for starting and climbing hills.
It will do you no good to use a ratio that is a perfect match to your
motor at 50 mph, if it doesn't have enough torque to climb a 4% grade and
your driveway is a 5% grade.
Oh, and just to make things fun, the perfect ratio, and perfect RPM
depends upon the motor, dfferent motors can be VASTLY different, so you
can't just come up with a generic formula and assume it's good. You might
be lucky and it works, but chances are it won't.
As for the AC vs DC question. Currently available AC motors are generally
limited to lower current than currently available DC motors. This
generally limits their torque output to less than DC motors. HOWEVER,
these same AC motors (for the most part) have a maximum RPM that is twice
as high as most DC traction motors. THis means that you can use twice as
high a final drive ratio and get the same top speed, PLUS get twice as
much torque. Which means that, unless you use a very powerful DC
controller, the AC motors can probably produce more WHEEL torque than the
DC motor.
AS for your drag racing questions, I don't know the answers but they are
easy to find on the net since they are common drag racing questions. You
feed your question into google, etc.
> If my design goal is 50 miles at 50 mph, it seems final drive ratio and
> continuous motor rpm is important.
>
> If 2400 watts moves 100 lbs of weight at 50 mph using a 1:1 gear ratio,
> then the following table is for a 2400 lb car with final drive ratios
> for a four speed transmission.
>
> Ratio Wthr Wh/mile RPM
> 12 4,800 96 8104
> 9 6,400 128 6078
> 6 9,600 192 4052
> 4.5 12,800 256 3039
>
> The drive ratio of 12, Wthr and Wh/mile is 50% of the drive ratio of 6.
> Therefore the range for any given battery pack would be twice as much,
> however the motor rpm is also twice as much.
>
> Do AC motors operate at continuous 8000 rpm? If you have an AC motor,
> what gear, final drive ratio or motor rpm do you use for 50 mph?
>
> What am I missing? Is the available torque at 6000-8000 rpm
> insufficient for 50 mph?
>
> Another calculator indicates that a 2400 lb car would require 162 ftlb
> torque at 6000 motor rpm for a 100 mph 1/4 mile... or 121 ftlb @ 8000
> rpm. Are there AC motors with this much torque at these rpm's?
>
> How much torque/hp is required to accelerate a 2400 lb ev from 0-60mph
> in 7 seconds?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Archer
>
>
--
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 ---
Danny Miller wrote:
> why is this list set to prohibit HTML?
Lots of reasons. For me, I'm limited to dial-up. HTML drastically slows
down my downloading and sending mail.
I am more interested in the email's contents, not its appearance. I find
all the different fonts, colors, and formats that people use in HTML
distracting.
HTML is not as well standardized as plain text. Its appearance changes
depending on your computer and software. Some characters and formatting
are lost completely.
HTML opens the door to all sorts of malware. It's impossible to mess up
someone's computer with plain text, but you certainly can with HTML.
Yes, you can take precautions and use special software; but you're
entering an arms race that requires constant vigilance. It's easier to
avoid the problem entirely with plain text.
I save good emails; many are over 10 years old. I sort and compile them
into related topics for easer retrieval. This would be a hopeless task
with them all in different formats.
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
my battery shop will not weld a battery until it sets 24 hours in his
shop....he said one exploded in his face , though the customer SAID it had not
been charged.
I have had 3 posts welded on.
safety first
jim lockwood
144 volts 24 batterys
toyota pickup
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ron Archer wrote:
> If my design goal is 50 miles at 50 mph, it seems final drive ratio
> and continuous motor rpm is important.
Yes, but not the way you think. The vehicle requires a particular
mechanical horsepower to go any given speed. The transmission and final
gear ratio do not change the power required (except by a trivial amount
due to their efficiency).
All the gear ratio does is change the motor's rpm at that given speed.
And *this* only affects horsepower to the extent that rpm affects the
motor's efficiency. Electric motors generally have a pretty broad
efficiency curve; like 85% at 2000 rpm, or 80% at 1000-4000 rpm.
> Do AC motors operate at continuous 8000 rpm?
The speed of an CA motor is directly proportionalto frequency. Double
the frequency, double the rpm, etc.
> What am I missing? Is the available torque at 6000-8000 rpm
> insufficient for 50 mph?
What you're missing is that it is the CONTROLLER that determines the
motor's torque, speed, and horsepower. The right controller can make a
motor provide just about any torque-speed combination.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Jim,
I found it best for me to have the battery discharge to 50 to 60% SOC. Let
set for a day or two with the caps loosen a bit in a room that has fresh air
intake and a exhaust fan in the ceiling.
You could do it outside too.
I than remove the caps and make up plugs with roll up wet paper towel. Do
not insert the plug so it touches the electrolyte.
Next, cover the surface of the battery with a wet heavy cotton cloth and
than a triple layer of wet paper towels, leaving a hole for the post to come
up which is also tightly pack around the bottom of these offset posts.
I did hundreds of these welding on links and building up post with no boom.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: battery welding
> my battery shop will not weld a battery until it sets 24 hours in his
> shop....he said one exploded in his face , though the customer SAID it had
> not been charged.
> I have had 3 posts welded on.
>
> safety first
> jim lockwood
> 144 volts 24 batterys
> toyota pickup
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Looks like a lot of work to get a bit of improvment . How much improvment
would shorting the power cables %50 be ? About the most we can do is ">
0.75 uH = Parallel, with their insulation right against each other." .
Twisting them together can make a unsightly mess and "> 0.1 uH = Coaxial
conductors; one wire replaced with a hollow tube with the same
cross-sectional area, and with the other wire placed inside it." is not
going to happen often . But one could place thing closer to make the wires
shorter .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:00 AM
Subject: Noise suppression: effect of bundling wires
There were some recent posts on bundling high power cables to reduce the
amount of interference they cause in AM radios and other sensitive
equipment. I found some data that bears pretty closely on this problem.
All wires have inductance; but the size, shape, and routing of the wires
determines how MUCH inductance they have. The greater the inductance,
the greater the external magnetic field they produce. If there is a
changing current in the wires, this produces a changing magnetic field.
And this is what cause EMI (Electro Magnetic Fields). Therefore, you get
the most noise with the most inductance; and the least noise with the
least inductance.
Assume you have to run wires 3 feet from your controller to your motor.
The total wire length is 6 feet, and the wire gauge is #6. Here are
the actual inductances of various configurations:
1.5 uH = Circle. The two wires are spread as far apart as possible,
so they form a circle (a one turn coil). This is the *worst*
way to route them!
1.0 uH = Parallel, 2" apart.
0.75 uH = Parallel, with their insulation right against each other.
0.6 uH = Loosely twisted together, one twist every 4".
0.48 uH = Tightly twisted together, one twist every 2".
0.25 uH = Each wire replaced by 8 insulated smaller wires, with the
same total cross-sectional area. The resulting bundle of
16 wires then twisted or braided together.
0.15 uH = Adding a 3rd conductor over both of the wires; which is a
insulated, grounded metal shield that does not carry current.
0.1 uH = Coaxial conductors; one wire replaced with a hollow tube
with the same cross-sectional area, and with the other
wire placed inside it.
Basically, this says as much as a 10:1 improvement is possible, by
choosing how you package the wires.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton writes:
>
> I certainly don't see any good reason why tin should be an less reactive
> than copper in this application. Are you sure your bars were tin
> plated, or that there was *only* a layer of tin applied (for instance,
> if you take something to be chrome plated, it actually receives at least
> one or two layers of plating underneath the shiny surface plating)?
I had the bus bars "tinned" by Oregon Retinning. They use a dip process
using food-grade tin. They typically retin the inside of copper cooking
bowls, pans, vessels, etc.
Ralph
--- End Message ---
