EV Digest 5862
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Nickel, Chromium or Tin Plating termninals
by "Mark E. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: battery spreadsheet
by "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Gear ratio vs. horsepower
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Who Killed the Electric Car, DVD preorder
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) R/C
by "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: battery spreadsheet
by "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Advance motor Timing
by "Mark E. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Who Killed the Electric Car in Utica, NY
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Gear ratio vs. horsepower
by Ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Battery monitor
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Gear ratio vs. horsepower
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) 914 conversion
by "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: R/C
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Battery choice and range
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Noise suppression: effect of bundling wires
by "Robyn Lundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Gear ratio vs. horsepower
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Modified Electric Scooter - Xport XLS - 20mph - 36v - $300 SF Bay area.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
FYI, Must use similar terminal material (Nickel) as not to have a disimilar
metal contact, Lee also recommended.
Mark
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Thanks Lou, Ill do that & pass along to other EV folks who were plating
their lugs as well.
Best Regards,
Mark
From: Magnarella, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Mark E. Hanson
Subject: RE: Nickel, Chromium or Tin Plating termninals
Hi Mark,
Nickel plating is what is recommended for copper parts that are exposed to
KOH and electric currents, because it:
gives KOH resistance, and
provides continued good conductivity between it and its mate.
I would not use tin plating in this environment, either applied by melting
solder onto it, or by plating it. Nickel plating can be applied by the
brush method, which really uses a nickel-solution-impregnated cloth, or sock,
placed over a positively charged spatula, while the negative polarity is
applied to the part to be plated, so that the positively charged Ni ions are
attracted to the part and are plated onto it as their positive charges are
neutralized.
Best regards,
Lou Magnarella
Lou Magnarella
Sales Manager, Electric Vehicles/AGV
(P) 229-245-3015
(F) 229-247-8486
(C) 229-251-9827
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: www.saftbatteries.com
---------------------------------
From: Mark E. Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:55 AM
To: Magnarella, Louis
Subject: Nickel, Chromium or Tin Plating termninals
Hi Lou,
There has been recent info on the EVlist regarding plating lugs that are in
contact with STM5-180s. I was curious whats ok. Can I just tin plate the
lugs with solder & a torch or os chromium or nickel plating better? Can it be
done with a simple dipping kit or do I need it to be done professionally?
Thanks,
Mark
Mark E. Hanson
Senior Design Engineer
Synchrony Inc.
6410 Commonwealth Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
(540) 989-1541
(540) 989-0467 Fax
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But don't take my advice. I'm a rank newb. There are quite a few
veterans on the list with the battle scars to prove it who will give
you similar advice, I'll wager.
- thanks for the info. Yes, lot's of feedback already. Overwhelming.
This may be better suited to a database application because if I tried
to merge all these spreadsheets it would be a beast. I spose it's
better to just leave them all as-is but I'll keep sorting thru it.
Thanks for all the spreadsheets!
gary
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles with shaft drive. I seem to
recall John Wayland way back in the dark ages being involved with a shaft
drive motorcycle. John uses a 9 inch with a rear end in the 4 to 1 range on
Zombie. Otmar uses 3rd gear only in Poppy. Not sure what that is or if
there is reduction from the dual motor setup. The Tropica uses two 72v
motors in a fixed ratio. The Sparrow is also fixed ratio. It seems to me
to get high speed and torque off the line to hill climb from a stop there
has to be a lot of horsepower if you are going to use a 3 to 1 ratio. If
you factor in weight there must be some formula to determine the hp to get a
useable fixed ratio EV. Since 4.5 to 1 works on the Lectra at 48v & 750
pounds with an 18 inch wheel I'd think quadrupling the hp & reducing the
ratio to 3 to 1 with a larger wheel would give more speed and still allow
hill climbing from a stop. My plan is to use a shaft drive crusier bike.
The ratio's I've seen are as low as 3.66 to 1 and as high as mid 2's to 1.
I'd like to use the smallest motor possible but it looks like I'd probably
need an L91 at 120v to get 70mph and still climb hills from a stop. I would
think heat to be an issue so the bigger the motor the better. But then
again it's a motorcycle. 150 pounds might be to heavy. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Even for those who have seen the movie, it's probably worth it as a
showing of support to put in a preorder for the DVD. Scheduled release is
on November 14.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Electric-Ac3-Dol/dp/B000I5Y8FU/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/104-4321506-2926347?ie=UTF8
--chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm just getting into EV's, looking at all battery and motor options and
I keep getting stuck on R/C stuff. I am probably missing something, but
it looks like ten motors, each with a controller and two LiPo batteries,
will provide 15KW of power with 3KWh of energy. This may be on the low
side, but I'm thinking of a very low drag, lightweight 3-wheeler
(motorcycle parts with a large carbonfiber or aluminum tube backbone
frame). Of course, anything that starts with "Li" is expensive, and
this would be about $10K (less possibly 40% at wholesale prices) but
would weigh about 35 lbs for motors/controllers/batteries (!). The
motors can be configured into a planetary gear system for a large
reduction ratio, with all driving the rear wheel or three per wheel
(mounted inside the wheels). Ok, so the mechanical stuff would be the
challenge.
Be gentle, I'm new to all this, but the potential weight savings (which
kinda snowballs itself into a more efficient system) seems amazing. A
distributed system allows for smaller parts and weight savings (like
battery cables, battery boxes and structure required to support the
weight). It sure is a lot of money, and would be a fair amount of work
to implement a system, but I'd like to build a prototype and this
approach keeps drawing me in. I obviously need to get much better
numbers together and figure out more detail but at first glance it seems
feasible. I started looking at laptop computer batteries and noticed
these were similar in size and cost, but the R/C stuff comes with
connectors and would be a plug-together system with chargers and
individual cell monitoring and balancing. The motor speed controller
seems pretty simple (PWM input for speed), but I'm not sure about
"forcing" all motors to run at the exact same speed when they may each
be off a little bit. Would that harm the motors (brushless DC)?
Does anyone want to bat this around off-list to see if it might work?
I'm throwing this out prematurely because someone just mentioned that
SAFT won't sell Li-Ion's so R/C stuff may be an alternative.
Motors;
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/brushless-axi5330.htm
http://www.maxxprod.com/mpi/mpi-2601.html
batteries;
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/lithium-polymer.htm
controllers;
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/jetiblue.htm
gary
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ampere-hour capacity, as stated by the Trojan Battery Co.:
A battery rated for 100 ampere-hours can deliver 5 amperes for 20 hours or
(5 amperes x 20 hours = 100 amp-hrs)
I take it as to mean 5 amperes per hour.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Battery choice and range
> On 12 Sep 2006 at 7:23, Roland Wiench wrote:
>
> > You could get that range, if you drove at the 20 hour rate to get the
> > full 225
> > ah, which would be 225/20 = 11.25 amp per hour.
>
> A little correction - 225 ah / 20 h = 11.25 amps. The time cancels out,
> so
> there's no "per hour" component.
>
> But the point is otherwise very well made. That's a mighty little bit of
> current. At 144 volts it's about 1.6kW. A very light, streamlined,
> efficient vehicle like Cedric Lynch's might be able to go, say, 30mph on
> that power, but definitely not any conversion I've ever seen and for darn
> sure NOT a pickup of ANY size.
>
>
> 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 ---
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the .57 modifier was intended to
convert the 20h rate to the 1hr rate.
I think I see the point of Roland's "reserved minutes" computation,
though. I was dealing with that by taking the final miles and
multiplying by 0.75 to arrive at the mileage at 75% SoC, the max I
would feel comfortable with. Is that valid?
Let's see. Using that method, Roland's range would be:
6V x 30 batts x 225 Ah / 360 w-h per mi = 112 mi * 0.75 = 84.38
Thus proving that my rudimentary SoC calcs, per Roland, are WAY off.
That brings me to the part I still don't understand. It looks as if
my assumption that Roland's "reserved minutes" had to do with only
using part of the Ah available was wrong. He's getting at something
else. Also, he seems to be saying that these range calculations are
based on a 2.2h rate (analogous to a 75a continuous amp draw, if I
understand correctly). In a pickup truck, wouldn't that be glacially
slow acceleration, even if you account for averaging initial accel and
cruising amps? Also, if you're already using a 2.2h rate, why still
use the .57 modifier?
I realize I may not be "getting" the fundamental concepts, so
hopefully this is enough thinking-out-loud to give you what you need
to set me straight.
Thanks,
Matt
On 9/12/06, David Roden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 at 7:23, Roland Wiench wrote:
> You could get that range, if you drove at the 20 hour rate to get the full 225
> ah, which would be 225/20 = 11.25 amp per hour.
A little correction - 225 ah / 20 h = 11.25 amps. The time cancels out, so
there's no "per hour" component.
But the point is otherwise very well made. That's a mighty little bit of
current. At 144 volts it's about 1.6kW. A very light, streamlined,
efficient vehicle like Cedric Lynch's might be able to go, say, 30mph on
that power, but definitely not any conversion I've ever seen and for darn
sure NOT a pickup of ANY size.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Gary,
If you'll forward the spreadsheets to me, I'd be glad to put it into a
DB and put it online.
Matt
On 9/12/06, gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But don't take my advice. I'm a rank newb. There are quite a few
veterans on the list with the battle scars to prove it who will give
you similar advice, I'll wager.
- thanks for the info. Yes, lot's of feedback already. Overwhelming.
This may be better suited to a database application because if I tried
to merge all these spreadsheets it would be a beast. I spose it's
better to just leave them all as-is but I'll keep sorting thru it.
Thanks for all the spreadsheets!
gary
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I just measure on the brush assembly (easier) 90 degrees, say it's 4" from
mark to mark. Cut in half to 2" and that's 45 degrees, then 1" is 22.5
degrees, half is 11.25, I then redrilled a scooch over at 7-8 degrees into the
motor rotation in the forward direction. This removed my arcing and helped me
sustain speed better going up hills on my direct drive 72V Cushman and has done
well for the last 1000 miles or 3 weeks of driving.
best Regards,
Mark
From: "Steve Condie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: John Wayland - Zebra motors brush advance?
The thing is, I figure that reverse should only be slow speed, low
voltage,
short term, where brush timing shouldn't be too critical. On the other
hand, high speed forward operation at (possibly) above the rated
voltage of
72 VDC might require brush advance to avoid arcing (or so I hear.) So
if
the Zebra ADC's are set with neutral brush advance, like the
Sparrow's
were, it seems to me that advancing a few degrees might be a good idea.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to eyeball it, so my next question was
going
to be how to A) see it and; B) advance it. But that question will
wait
until I pull one or both of the motors, and can actually see what I'm
asking
about.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry. Had the plain text switch off.
Wouldn't these be set t zero as the Tropica as electric reverse? I've
got one that's easy to look at if someone will tell me what to look
for.
Steve
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Battery choice and range
> Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the .57 modifier was intended to
> convert the 20h rate to the 1hr rate.
>
> I think I see the point of Roland's "reserved minutes" computation,
> though. I was dealing with that by taking the final miles and
> multiplying by 0.75 to arrive at the mileage at 75% SoC, the max I
> would feel comfortable with. Is that valid?
The 75% SOC (State of Charge) means that you still have 75% charge left in
the battery. This is the same as 25% DOD (Depth of Discharge). This be
about 6.22 volts at a SG of 1.23.
It is best not to go below 50% SOC or DOD for long battery life which would
be 6.05 volts at a SG of 1.172.
Maybe this is where the .57 is used to stay at 50% SOC or DOD and sometimes
known as POC.
If you discharge the battery to 10% SOC or 90% DOD then the voltage would be
5.75 and a SG of 1.073.
All this data is from the http://www.trojanbattery.com site.
They use POC instead of DOD or SOC which means Percentage of Charge.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chelsea..
You of course know that I am doing plugin Kits for Prius's and Escapes.
I have 2 installed and 3 kit in process and about 4 Bare Kit chargers..
More if you want to know.
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chelsea Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Who Killed the Electric Car in Utica, NY
>
> Aww... you guys really know how to make a girl blush, even via email!
>
> thank you!
>
> >From: "Matt Kenigson" Reply-To: [email protected] To:
> >[email protected] Subject: Re: Who Killed the Electric Car in Utica,
NY
> >Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:18:56 -0500
> >
> >I thought the same thing when I saw Chelsea's post. Got a big EV grin as
I
> >realized one of our favorite movie stars reads the EV list! :)
> >
> >Matt
> >
> >PS - Great work with PlugInAmerica!
> >
> >On 9/12/06, Rich Rudman wrote:
> >>Hey Chelsea!! Good to see you on the EV list!
> >>
> >>Madman
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: Chelsea Sexton To:
> >>[email protected] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:29 AM
> >>Subject: RE: Who Killed the Electric Car in Utica, NY
> >>
> >>
> >> The flyer is called "Why Plug In Cars", and is downloadable from Plug
> >>In America's website: www.pluginamerica.com. We created it so that
anyone
> >>can print them off and use them locally as needed.
> >>
> >> chelsea
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
FWIW chain-drive in motorbikes is considered to be more efficient. And
depending on the bike, a variety of ratios is probably availalbe. Plus the
weight would be an issue too! The chain will run longer without engine pulses...
If you had a wheel motor and a 24" diameter tire carcass, with 1200 rpm you
could do 90 easily enough. Then there would be only two moving parts!
-Ralph
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:28:16 -0700
"Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles with shaft drive. I seem to
> recall John Wayland way back in the dark ages being involved with a shaft
> drive motorcycle. John uses a 9 inch with a rear end in the 4 to 1 range on
> Zombie. Otmar uses 3rd gear only in Poppy. Not sure what that is or if
> there is reduction from the dual motor setup. The Tropica uses two 72v
> motors in a fixed ratio. The Sparrow is also fixed ratio. It seems to me
> to get high speed and torque off the line to hill climb from a stop there
> has to be a lot of horsepower if you are going to use a 3 to 1 ratio. If
> you factor in weight there must be some formula to determine the hp to get a
> useable fixed ratio EV. Since 4.5 to 1 works on the Lectra at 48v & 750
> pounds with an 18 inch wheel I'd think quadrupling the hp & reducing the
> ratio to 3 to 1 with a larger wheel would give more speed and still allow
> hill climbing from a stop. My plan is to use a shaft drive crusier bike.
> The ratio's I've seen are as low as 3.66 to 1 and as high as mid 2's to 1.
> I'd like to use the smallest motor possible but it looks like I'd probably
> need an L91 at 120v to get 70mph and still climb hills from a stop. I would
> think heat to be an issue so the bigger the motor the better. But then
> again it's a motorcycle. 150 pounds might be to heavy. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Storm Connors wrote:
Batteries in my Suzuki will be scattered all over the car...
I've been thinking of putting in a patch panel... to measure
each battery without crawling around... yes, I would put a
fuse on each line...
would I be able to put in some of Lee's battery shunts in this
location rather than putting them at each battery terminal?
Electrically, they'll work fine. Unlike the on/off switching type of
regulator like the Rudman regulator, these zener/lamp regulators don't
care about the resistance of the wires between them and the battery.
But, they depend on the battery terminals as their heat sinks. There are
two 5w zeners, one in each terminal. If you don't mount these on the
battery terminals, you'll need a substantial heatsink on each terminal.
If you put them all in one place (like along a terminal strip), you're
going to need a fan.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Matt,
I doing an S-10 conversion with 30 Trojan T-125's, a Zilla 1k controller and a
special charger/Battery balancer by Lee Hart.
I chose the T-125's because they have the most watts for all the 6 v bats and I
need to go about 50 miles between charges.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 6 (volts) x 20 (batteries) x 225 (20h Ah rating) x .57 (1 hr Ah
> modifier) / 350 (W-h per mi) = ~44 mi
so for the 125's the above would be
6v x 30 bats x 137Ah (C1 rate, 240Ah x.57) / 350 Wh/mile= 77 miles at 100% DOD
so at 60% DOD I should get about 45 miles. If I am careful I'll get more. I've
got a couple up and down hills so we'll see how they play into the ability to
conserve.
The weight is 1680 lbs for the 30 bats...
I chose the flooded instead of the gels/agms because I have used the trojans in
other renewable energy applications, Photovoltaics, and they are just
considered to be so much better in terms of life cycles, ability to drawn down
and recharge, and they can be watered.
Hopefully I'll be up and running in a month, so I'll be able to give some real
numbers.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The term you should be using is "Torque" not HP. For acceleration/hill
climbing HP is basically irrelevant, it's torque that matters.
I.e. to climb a giving hill at a given speed requires EXCACTLY the same HP
regardless of the reduction ratio. However, to do it with a lower ratio
reduction requires more motor TORQUE.
Quick 0-60 times require surprisingly small HP for the first second or
two, but lots of torque.
For EVs, torque depends on AMPs and that depends more on the controller
than the motor.
> I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles with shaft drive. I seem to
> recall John Wayland way back in the dark ages being involved with a shaft
> drive motorcycle. John uses a 9 inch with a rear end in the 4 to 1 range
> on
> Zombie. Otmar uses 3rd gear only in Poppy. Not sure what that is or if
> there is reduction from the dual motor setup. The Tropica uses two 72v
> motors in a fixed ratio. The Sparrow is also fixed ratio. It seems to me
> to get high speed and torque off the line to hill climb from a stop there
> has to be a lot of horsepower if you are going to use a 3 to 1 ratio. If
> you factor in weight there must be some formula to determine the hp to get
> a
> useable fixed ratio EV. Since 4.5 to 1 works on the Lectra at 48v & 750
> pounds with an 18 inch wheel I'd think quadrupling the hp & reducing the
> ratio to 3 to 1 with a larger wheel would give more speed and still allow
> hill climbing from a stop. My plan is to use a shaft drive crusier bike.
> The ratio's I've seen are as low as 3.66 to 1 and as high as mid 2's to 1.
> I'd like to use the smallest motor possible but it looks like I'd probably
> need an L91 at 120v to get 70mph and still climb hills from a stop. I
> would
> think heat to be an issue so the bigger the motor the better. But then
> again it's a motorcycle. 150 pounds might be to heavy. Lawrence
> Rhodes....
>
>
--
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 found a decent Porsche 914 and I'm thinking about the Electro Auto AC
conversion. I plan on driving the car for a while since I want an EV
and need a second car, but really want to do a conversion to get some
experience. What are the chances that I could recover my costs (not
labor) assuming that the car is pretty clean with new paint, tires and
better brakes? What are opinions on the 914 and the EA AC kit?
Thanks,
gary
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
People have used very large R/C motors for powering bikes before. The
biggest problem is that they tend to spin VERY fast and require huge
reduction ratios, these tend to waste a lot of power and give relatively
low efficiency.
So yes you could do what you propose, but you could also build the same
thing for far less moeny with probably less weight and definitely better
efficiency.
FOr example, there are motors currently available that cost less than
$1000 and produce as much or more power as your 15 RC motors and only
weight about 12 lbs. They also run around 90% efficient.
Suitable controllers weigh about 5 lbs.
> I'm just getting into EV's, looking at all battery and motor options and
> I keep getting stuck on R/C stuff. I am probably missing something, but
> it looks like ten motors, each with a controller and two LiPo batteries,
> will provide 15KW of power with 3KWh of energy. This may be on the low
> side, but I'm thinking of a very low drag, lightweight 3-wheeler
> (motorcycle parts with a large carbonfiber or aluminum tube backbone
> frame). Of course, anything that starts with "Li" is expensive, and
> this would be about $10K (less possibly 40% at wholesale prices) but
> would weigh about 35 lbs for motors/controllers/batteries (!). The
> motors can be configured into a planetary gear system for a large
> reduction ratio, with all driving the rear wheel or three per wheel
> (mounted inside the wheels). Ok, so the mechanical stuff would be the
> challenge.
>
> Be gentle, I'm new to all this, but the potential weight savings (which
> kinda snowballs itself into a more efficient system) seems amazing. A
> distributed system allows for smaller parts and weight savings (like
> battery cables, battery boxes and structure required to support the
> weight). It sure is a lot of money, and would be a fair amount of work
> to implement a system, but I'd like to build a prototype and this
> approach keeps drawing me in. I obviously need to get much better
> numbers together and figure out more detail but at first glance it seems
> feasible. I started looking at laptop computer batteries and noticed
> these were similar in size and cost, but the R/C stuff comes with
> connectors and would be a plug-together system with chargers and
> individual cell monitoring and balancing. The motor speed controller
> seems pretty simple (PWM input for speed), but I'm not sure about
> "forcing" all motors to run at the exact same speed when they may each
> be off a little bit. Would that harm the motors (brushless DC)?
>
> Does anyone want to bat this around off-list to see if it might work?
> I'm throwing this out prematurely because someone just mentioned that
> SAFT won't sell Li-Ion's so R/C stuff may be an alternative.
>
> Motors;
> http://www.hobby-lobby.com/brushless-axi5330.htm
> http://www.maxxprod.com/mpi/mpi-2601.html
> batteries;
> http://www.hobby-lobby.com/lithium-polymer.htm
> controllers;
> http://www.hobby-lobby.com/jetiblue.htm
>
>
> gary
>
>
--
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 ---
Matt wrote:
Thing is, I don't know if this type of range equation works out for
the AGMs/Gels or even by how much you would change the .57 modifier
Claudio Natoli wrote:
Ideally, you'd like to find the 1-hr rate... for your battery
(Deka 8A24). Applying Peukert's with the 100hr rate of 91Ah,
and the 20hr rate of 79Ah, I get ~60Ah at the 1-hr rate...
Matt, your estimates are pretty good -- as good as can be expected using
only published specs.
As Claudio said, if you have the battery's amphour capacity at two
different rates (20-hour and 1-hour, for example) you can use Peukert's
equation to estimate capacity at other rates. Or, graph it on log-scale
graph paper; draw a straight line between the two capacities, and other
capacities vs time will lie along that line.
To do better, you need ACTUAL test data for your chosen battery. If you
are trying to choose between two 12v candidates, I'd suggest buying one
of each, and test them yourself. Buy more of the "winner" for your
propulsion pack. Use the "loser" as your 12v accessory battery.
PS: An ADC 9" motor is a poor match for a Curtis 1221 controller. It
will work, but the controller will be the weak link -- it will overheat
and cut back long before the 9" motor ever warms up. If you expect to
stay with this controller, an 8" motor would cost less, be lighter, and
deliver exactly the same power.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee and Ted,
Thanks guys, that was more than I wanted to know :) I do understand
the difference between shielding and bundling, but I was a bit foggy
on the finer points. I'm thinking of doing a combination of the two:
side-by-side cables in a steel conduit, similar to the second to last
option in Lee's post above.
Thanks again,
Robyn
On 9/11/06, Ted C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shielding doesn't do anything to reduce inductance, or the noise being
> generated. It works by blocking the noise from escaping. The shield
> works when there is ZERO current in the shield itself. Often, it is
> grounded at only one point to insure that there is zero current in it.
[snip]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lawrence,
As you know, I've also been researching building an EV motorcycle.
Here's some of the stuff I've gleaned, from lots of reading and asking
questions:
Using a transmission is difficult because most bikes don't have a
separate transmission. Most Harleys do, and some foreign models. Most
of the cheap / easy to obtain rollers have an integrated transmission.
A transmission isn't always the answer. For a bike, the answer I seem
to get is "use a bigger motor, controller, and more batteries", then use
a fixed ratio that's geared for the top speed you desire. Simply make
sure you have a beefy enough setup so that your acceleration isn't
poor. IOW, use more amps, and less gears. This was the whole point of
the Zilla 2 motor setup.
Horsepower remains the same regardless of gear ratio (not accounting for
efficiency losses). HP = Torque * Speed. Gearing reduces speed and
raise torque as the power goes from the motor to the wheel. At zero
speed, torque is the only thing that makes you begin moving.
If you consider 6000RPM to be the max for your motor, and 18" to be your
wheel diameter and 70 MPH to be your target speed:
70MPH = 1.16 Miles Per Minute (mpm) = 6124.8 FPM
18" Diameter = 56.5" circumference = 4.72'
6124.8 FPM /4.72' = 1298 RPM @ rear wheel
6000RPM / 1298RPM =4.62:1 Gear ratio, or lower for 70 MPH
Now, if you use a 24" rear wheel:
70MPH = 1.16 Miles Per Minute (mpm) = 6124.8 FPM
24" Diameter = 75.398" Circ = 6.28'
6124.8 / 6.28' = 975 RPM
6000 / 975 = 6.153:1 ratio or lower for 70MPH
So, using an 18" wheel, and a 3.66 differential will definitely get you
to 70MPH, but how fast will you get there?
In the end, if you do find a suitable shaft drive for your uses, I'd be
interested to hear which one you picked and why. Seems a large shaft
drive touring bike (like a Gold Wing) is a good start because the GW is
a heavy bike with a rather powerful motor, and should be well suited to
EM torques and weights, at least compared to lighter donors.
EP
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles with shaft drive. I seem to
recall John Wayland way back in the dark ages being involved with a shaft
drive motorcycle. John uses a 9 inch with a rear end in the 4 to 1 range on
Zombie. Otmar uses 3rd gear only in Poppy. Not sure what that is or if
there is reduction from the dual motor setup. The Tropica uses two 72v
motors in a fixed ratio. The Sparrow is also fixed ratio. It seems to me
to get high speed and torque off the line to hill climb from a stop there
has to be a lot of horsepower if you are going to use a 3 to 1 ratio. If
you factor in weight there must be some formula to determine the hp to get a
useable fixed ratio EV. Since 4.5 to 1 works on the Lectra at 48v & 750
pounds with an 18 inch wheel I'd think quadrupling the hp & reducing the
ratio to 3 to 1 with a larger wheel would give more speed and still allow
hill climbing from a stop. My plan is to use a shaft drive crusier bike.
The ratio's I've seen are as low as 3.66 to 1 and as high as mid 2's to 1.
I'd like to use the smallest motor possible but it looks like I'd probably
need an L91 at 120v to get 70mph and still climb hills from a stop. I would
think heat to be an issue so the bigger the motor the better. But then
again it's a motorcycle. 150 pounds might be to heavy. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the .57 modifier was intended to
> convert the 20h rate to the 1hr rate.
That is absoulutely correct.
> I think I see the point of Roland's "reserved minutes" computation,
> though. I was dealing with that by taking the final miles and
> multiplying by 0.75 to arrive at the mileage at 75% SoC, the max I
> would feel comfortable with. Is that valid?
>
> Let's see. Using that method, Roland's range would be:
>
> 6V x 30 batts x 225 Ah / 360 w-h per mi = 112 mi * 0.75 = 84.38
>
> Thus proving that my rudimentary SoC calcs, per Roland, are WAY off.
I think that Rolands use of the combination of reserve minutes and C1 are
flawed. I think that he is doing the same step twice. Hopefully somebody will
help us out.
> That brings me to the part I still don't understand. It looks as if
> my assumption that Roland's "reserved minutes" had to do with only
> using part of the Ah available was wrong. He's getting at something
> else. Also, he seems to be saying that these range calculations are
> based on a 2.2h rate (analogous to a 75a continuous amp draw, if I
> understand correctly). In a pickup truck, wouldn't that be glacially
> slow acceleration, even if you account for averaging initial accel and
> cruising amps? Also, if you're already using a 2.2h rate, why still
> use the .57 modifier?
I pointed out the Red Beastie at http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/037.html, it
has 40 6 v T105's
Top Speed - 85 MPH (136 KPH)
Range 120 Miles (193 Kilometers) freeway
So between the specs of the Red Beastie and Rolands formula there is a great
difference.
> I realize I may not be "getting" the fundamental concepts, so
> hopefully this is enough thinking-out-loud to give you what you need
> to set me straight.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/mcy/206127309.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My understanding about using the Ah rating of Trojans is that you need to use
the C1 rating and not the Reserve capacity. Because the reserve capacity that
the EV will be driven at is the C1 rate.
Here is a formula that was published (I don't remember by who) on the list
Range = amp hrs at 20 C rate x .57 x pack voltage/ watt hrs per mile
The amp hrs of Trojans 6 v bats at 20 C rate x .57 is the C1 rate, or 137 Ah,
as defined by Trojan on their website.
If I understand what Roland is doing he is using the Reserve capacity that the
EV will be driven at and then multiplying it by the C1 rate which is basically
the Reserve capacity that the EV will be driven at. So he is using the rate at
which the EV will be driven 2 times in his formula.
As an example if you take the Red Beastie, the pickup that had 40 - T-105's
Trojans in it, the trip range was 120 miles. See
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/037.html for the specs. I tried to use the
formula on the Red Beastie, but the specs specifically say "runs on 120v" and
it has 40 - 6 v batteries.... so somewhere there were some of them in parallel.
But according to Roland's calculation below the 40 pack would only make 64
miles so something is wrong somewhere.
According to the Formula above, Roland should be able to get the same that I
will with my 30 batteries, well maybe not cause he is using R145's, but in any
case he should be able to get approx -
Range = amp hrs at 20 C rate * .57* pack voltage/ watt hrs per mile
Range = 260 Ah x .57 x 180v / 350 Wh per mile
Range = 76 miles at 100%DOD
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: Battery choice and range
> Hello Matt,
>
> You could get that range, if you drove at the 20 hour rate to get the full
> 225 ah, which would be 225/20 = 11.25 amp per hour.
>
> You have to use the ampere that the EV may be driven at, and then modified
> the ampere-hour by using the Reserve capacity.
>
> Most of the Deep cycle batteries will show a Reserve Capacity of at 75 amps
> which may be closer to what a EV drives at. I average this with a ampere
> range of 30 to 120 battery amps.
>
> At 225 ah @ 20 Hr, has 132 Reserved minutes at 75 amps.
>
> Therefore: 132 mins / 60 = 2.2 hrs
>
> 2.2 hrs x 75 mins = 165 AH
>
> Then using your formula:
>
> 6V x 20(bat) x 165 ah x .57 = 11286
>
> 11286/350 = 32 miles.
>
>
> I am using 30 ea 6V Trojan T-145's [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is 145 Reserved
> Minutes
> at 75 amps. I used 360 watts/mi.
>
> My modified ampere-hour is 181 ah and the range cal would be:
>
> (6V x 30 x 181ah x .57)/360 = 51 miles
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:47 AM
> Subject: Battery choice and range
>
>
>> I know this is an often-recurring thread but I promise I've done hours
>> and hours of reading on batteries and range calculation and the such.
>> I'm hoping some of you can help me figure out a couple of
>> things.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out what perfomance and range might be for a
>> light pickup truck with an ADC9 motor and a Curtis 1221B 120v/400A
>> controller (or maybe if i'm lucky a zilla 1kLV 156v/1000A) with AGMs
>> or Gels in a single string or buddy-paired. It's really hard to
>> figure out how range works with them. With the Trojans, there's lots
>> of info about range and I've managed to piece together this expected
>> range equation:
>>
>> 6 (volts) x 20 (batteries) x 225 (20h Ah rating) x .57 (1 hr Ah
>> modifier) / 350 (W-h per mi) = ~44 mi
>>
>> I figure this is probably about right because I hope I'll do better
>> than 350 w-h per mi (ease up on the lead-foot) and I don't expect to
>> always be able to get peak out of the batteries, especially using a
>> dumb charger. I'm happy with this figure because it gives me a 33mi
>> range to 75% SoC and that's good enough to get to and from work and
>> make a small 10mi detour if need be (or to compensate for hilly
>> terrain -- don't really know how much I will lose to geography yet).
>>
>> Thing is, I don't know if this type of range equation works out for
>> the AGMs/Gels or even by how much you would change the .57 modifier
>> (I'm assuming that the AGMs/Gels show less of a difference between
>> their 20h rates and their 1h rates than the floodies). Since I don't
>> know any better, I'll try it with the old modifier:
>>
>> 12 (v) x 10 (bats) x 158 (Ah) * .57 (mod) / 350 = ~30 mi.
>>
>> ...and assuming that's right, then if you do it in buddy pairs and
>> double the batts and Ah's, now you're at a comfortable 60 mi.
>>
>> ...and that's assuming I don't use the increased "peppiness" of the
>> buddied AGM batts to lower the w-h per mi by accelerating faster,
>> although I won't be doing that with a Curtis controller. The Zilla,
>> however, would probably tempt me sorely in that direction.
>>
>> Are my numbers right? There's got to be a way to compensate for the
>> lower weight of the AGM or Gels. Although with 20 of them the weight
>> starts to catch up:
>>
>> EP/Deka 8A24: 52x10 = 520 lbs
>> EP/Deka 8A24: 52x20 = 1040 lbs
>> Trojan T-105s: 62x20 = 1240 lbs
>>
>> So if I went with just the 10 batts, how much farther can I go given
>> that I'm 720 lbs lighter than with the T-105s?
>>
>> I'm also unclear about whether AGMs will get me more or fewer cycles.
>> Older documentation seems to indicate a pretty steep advantage to
>> floodies in terms of the life of the battery pack but newer docs seem
>> to point to increased life expectancy for AGMs and Gels.
>>
>> The 158Ah figure used above is for an East Penn (Deka) 8G24, which I
>> suspect is a gel rather than AGM given their nomenclature (I think the
>> corresponding AGM battery uses an A intead of a G -- 8A24). There
>> seems to be a definite anti-gel tone on the list as far as I can tell,
>> but that seems to stem from how easy it is to ruin them by
>> overcharging and causing them to gas into the gel, forming bubbles
>> that kill performance. I'm thinking that with a BMS in place (Lee
>> Hart style), that shouldn't be a big concern. Should I include in my
>> cost assessment a smarter charger in the mix for such batteries?
>>
>> I know it's a lot of questions, so I thank you all in advance and
>> pledge some free beer when I see any of you next.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt Kenigson
>>
>>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone heli coiled their battery box bolt holes on their USE
trucks?
I've noticed that the 6mm tapped holes get stripped easily. I've used
torque limiting on them when installed. But they are only 3/16" deep
threads, so they should be reinforced with a Helicoil or equivalent.
Mike
--- End Message ---
