EV Digest 5863
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Car weights and tire pressure
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Battery choice and range
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery choice and range
by Ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Bar stock
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: battery costs/pricing
by "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: R/C
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Bar stock
by "Rick Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: My motor arrived -- Good News!
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Battery choice and range
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Helicoil in 3/16" aluminum.
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Another new battery... Hybrio
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: i'm Very skeptical
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: battery costs/pricing
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I quite disagree on the dry-rotting in the 3rd paragraph. My set
of P175-70R-13 Goodyear Invicta GLRs only lasted 15K miles.
Rolled like crazy, but didn't last very long. My current set of
P185-70R-13 Goodyear Integritys don't roll as well, but look like
they might last 30K or so, close to a normal tire, or maybe on
the low end; their carrying capacity also more closely matches
the weight of a converted VW Rabbit (VoltsRabbit). LRR tires
don't seem to last very long or handle well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: Car weights and tire pressure
> NOTE that in general car manufacturers specify recommended
> tire pressure much lower than the tire manufacturers,
> because the car's handling and performance (smooth ride,
> stick to road) is better at lower pressure.
> Unfortunately (as certain Ford Explorer owners discovered)
> this also reduces the margin of error on tire pressure.
>
> In general, you can pump the tires much higher than the
> car manufacturer's recommendation and only get a little
> harsher ride, while gaining lower resistance and better
> wear (some recommendations are so low that they will lead
> to excessive edge wear - one reason I have my Prius'
> tires up to 45 PSI instead of the recommended 32.
>
> My truck (4880 lbs) runs at 50 PSI for minimal friction.
> Most EVs will never wear their tires before they are
> dry-rotted from age, as long as they are well aligned.
>
> Regards,
>
> Cor van de Water
> Systems Architect
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
> Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
> Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
> Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
> Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Jeff Shanab
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:16 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Car weights and tire pressure
>
>
> As we have been talking about car weights recently I was
lloking for
> some kind of indication as to what tire pressure I should be
running not
> that my conversion is well above stock curb weight.
>
> I found this little tidbit
>
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0208scc_tire_pressure_guide/index.htm
> l
>
> "...In the event that you aren't able to find a recommendation
for your
> car, or the tires on your car are so different from those that
were
> originally fitted from the manufacturer as to be incomparable,
we
> received the following rule of thumb from Oscar Pereda, an
engineer for
> BFGoodrich. He calls it a "realistic starting point," saying it
has
> never been just right, but is a good place to start. The rule
is:
>
> (Vehicle Weight in lb/100) + 2 psi at heavier end + 2 psi all
around if
> suspension and alignment are stock.
>
> Example: Stock 911, 3,000 lb.
> (3000/100) = 30 psi
> Add 2 psi all around = 32 psi
> Add 2 psi to heavy end = 34 psi at rear
> With modified suspension, the result is 30 psi front, 32 psi
rear...."
>
> He goes on to talk about how to adjust using a pyrometer, which
is great
> advice, I have done that, but wanted to get an idea of what
tire
> pressure range to purchase.
>
> Let me see... 4050lb 300zx a little heavier in back.
>
> 4050/100 = 40.5 +2 and + 4 42.5 front and 44.5 back.
Looking at
> the amount of bulge, I think this is low. Gotta check percent
deflection
> as Roland has described.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Battery choice and range
> ----- 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
> >
The 75% SOC is only 25% DOD (Depth of Discharge)
Its 260 ah, not 225 ah for me
Or its 20 batts at 225 ah for you.
6V x 30 batts x 260 Ah / 360 wthr per mi = 130 mi x .57 = 74.1 miles
Its looks that the .57 factor would be correct if you use the full
ampere-hour rating of the battery in your calculation.
My range happens to be exactly 75.1 miles at 50 mph!
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Phillips wrote:
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.
Hm. I don't tighten down the top too much. My thought is if the truck
were to flip the batteries would have to lift the lid *and* the rear bed
off (with it's 6 main bolts) before anything interesting would happen.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Looking at the Red Beastie.
With 40 T-105's running two parallel strings of 20 (120V @ C/20*2 = 450 AH).
you get.
120V * .57 (Peukert Const) * 450 / X = 120
That gives the Amps/mile at about 250.
The formula works perfectly.
It would work the same if all batteries run serially (240V). Math is funny
that way.
240 V * .57 * 225 / 250 = 123.12 mi for range.
Originally I thought that the .57 was DoD and not the Peukert const.
The other way to look at is (the same as above but restated):
#Batteries * Voltage per battery * .57 * C20 Rating / Amps drawn per hour.
Range will vary based on many too many variables, but it gives you a
ballpark to
estimate your batteries.
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
>>
>>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm thinking more of wather proof. Since my bed can tilt up and does
not have the bed bolts in it, then I'd like the lid to be as durable as
possible.
Mike
--- Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Phillips wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hm. I don't tighten down the top too much. My thought is if the truck
>
> were to flip the batteries would have to lift the lid *and* the rear
> bed
> off (with it's 6 main bolts) before anything interesting would
> happen.
>
> Chris
>
>
Here's to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently
The ones that change the world!!
www.RotorDesign.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So the Peukert Const is for lead-acid only?
-Ralph
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:52:00 -0400
"Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at the Red Beastie.
>
> With 40 T-105's running two parallel strings of 20 (120V @ C/20*2 = 450 AH).
> you get.
>
> 120V * .57 (Peukert Const) * 450 / X = 120
>
> That gives the Amps/mile at about 250.
>
> The formula works perfectly.
>
> It would work the same if all batteries run serially (240V). Math is funny
> that way.
>
> 240 V * .57 * 225 / 250 = 123.12 mi for range.
>
> Originally I thought that the .57 was DoD and not the Peukert const.
>
> The other way to look at is (the same as above but restated):
>
> #Batteries * Voltage per battery * .57 * C20 Rating / Amps drawn per hour.
>
> Range will vary based on many too many variables, but it gives you a
> ballpark to
> estimate your batteries.
>
> >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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, I'm not sure how to size it, so let me describe the situation. I have a
300+ volt NiCad pack
feeding a Z1k through Curtis Albright SW200s on the + and - side of the pack. I
have 1/8" x .5"
nickel plated copper bussbars between all the cells. I will also split the pack
with a 500 amp
fuse and there will be a shunt (eMeter) between one contactor and the negative
side of the pack. I
have 2/0 cable running from the pack to the components. The bussbars seem to be
the limiting link
in the chain. I was planning on initially limiting the battery side current to
300 amps via the
Zilla.
I'd like to run the bar stock between the shunt and the contactor and both
contactors and the Z1k.
3 total. Each piece would be around 6 inches in length. All three would have 2
bends in them, kind
of a squared of Z. The eMeter shunt and contactors have 3/8 studs while the
Zilla uses 5/16 bolts.
I have some aluminum bar stock, 1/8" x 1" x 36". Would this work? I would use
NoAlOx on all the
connections, but is it advisable to use aluminum in this situation at all?
Searching for new ways to make it harder than it has to be,
Dave Cover
--- Rick Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave,
> I produce a lot of scrap Copper bar stock. How much and what size would you
> be looking for?
> -Rick Todd
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > Mike Phillips wrote:
> > > Has anyone heli coiled their battery box bolt holes on their USE
> > > trucks?
> > >
Can you drill the holes oversize and epoxy t-nuts in?
Dave Cover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
well, got in contact with US battery, they have a distribution in fortsmith
arkansas, like 5 miles away :o)
unfortunately, costs have gone up a LOT in 2 years
single price for US2200s is 70.09 each
if I buy 24 at one time, it's 67.89 each
*sighs*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: battery costs/pricing
I've sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking, thanks for the
information.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: battery costs/pricing
U.S. Battery used to offer a discount to EV hobbyists and would ship the
order to them. Don't know if they still do. IIRC, the US2200s were about
$43 each.
Blue skies,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mark McCurdy
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: battery costs/pricing
gah, battery prices are inSANE in arkansas
just called interstate batteries here, they said their 6v 115ah batteries
were $73 each
I think I'd rather order some and have them shipped from me
anyone got suggestions on a good place?
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Phillips wrote:
I'm thinking more of wather proof. Since my bed can tilt up and does
not have the bed bolts in it, then I'd like the lid to be as durable as
possible.
Ah. Drill a pair of holes in the bottom of your bed for drainage. The
plastic cover over the electrical goodies should keep things safe.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is always interesting to look at different angles and approaches, and
having been in the R/C world, using what you know is always a good
start. The results come out as Peter describes. It is simpler and more
reliable to use bigger motors when available. It seems there isn't a
good selection of large permanent magnet brushless motors for EV use,
but one just needs to look harder to find them, and even harder still to
find a controller for them.
I've also considered using R/C SubC batteries too, and again it turns
out bigger is better (at least D-cells :)
Jack
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave,
Based on your amperage requirements I would recommend using 1/8 X 3/4 CU for
your connections.
As far as the aluminum The size you have would be comparable to the 3/4" CU
since aluminum has a higher resistance. Either would work, however there is
more maintenance with aluminum connections especially when attached to
unlike metals.
It is really up to the user.
I have some 1/8" X 3/4" in stock
-Rick Jr.
Peterson Electric Panel Mfg. Co.
Department of Engineering
5550 McDermott Dr.
Berkeley, IL 60163
Phone (708) 449-2270
Fax (708) 449-2269
Website www.petersonpanel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Cover
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Bar stock
Well, I'm not sure how to size it, so let me describe the situation. I have
a 300+ volt NiCad pack feeding a Z1k through Curtis Albright SW200s on the +
and - side of the pack. I have 1/8" x .5"
nickel plated copper bussbars between all the cells. I will also split the
pack with a 500 amp fuse and there will be a shunt (eMeter) between one
contactor and the negative side of the pack. I have 2/0 cable running from
the pack to the components. The bussbars seem to be the limiting link in the
chain. I was planning on initially limiting the battery side current to 300
amps via the Zilla.
I'd like to run the bar stock between the shunt and the contactor and both
contactors and the Z1k.
3 total. Each piece would be around 6 inches in length. All three would have
2 bends in them, kind of a squared of Z. The eMeter shunt and contactors
have 3/8 studs while the Zilla uses 5/16 bolts.
I have some aluminum bar stock, 1/8" x 1" x 36". Would this work? I would
use NoAlOx on all the connections, but is it advisable to use aluminum in
this situation at all?
Searching for new ways to make it harder than it has to be,
Dave Cover
--- Rick Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave,
> I produce a lot of scrap Copper bar stock. How much and what size
> would you be looking for?
> -Rick Todd
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton was kind enough to stop by Princess Auto in Canada and
pick up a 14 tooth splined hub for me and drop it in the mail. It
arrived last night, and it fits _very_ snugly. The good thing about
this hub (If you're doing an EM) is that it's made to have a sprocket
welded directly onto it.
The splines of the motor become wider suddenly just before the shaft
enters the motor housing. This prevents any coupler from being put on
the shaft "too far," where it would rub on the housing. I don't see any
reason why the threaded hole in the end of the shaft could be used as a
hub retainer, with the proper lock washer, and a squirt of loctite.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wonder if that would be easier than a perma coil/heli coil ?
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Mike Phillips wrote:
> > > > Has anyone heli coiled their battery box bolt holes on their USE
> > > > trucks?
> > > >
>
> Can you drill the holes oversize and epoxy t-nuts in?
>
> Dave Cover
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> Ideally, you'd like to find the 1-hr rate (or the rate over
> whatever period you will be driving, but the 1-hr rate seems
> to be the standard among EVers) for your choice of 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 but
> that's very rough.
>
> Anyone got a better estimate for Matt?
Using Uve's calculator and DEKA's C/20 (79Ah) and reserve capacity
(140min) values, I get 51.76Ah C/1: let's call it 52Ah C/1.
> Therefore, for a single string of Deka 8A24 batteries, your
> formula becomes:
> 12 (v) x 10 (bats) x 60 (Ah at 1hr rate) / 350 = ~20 mi.
Or, using the 52Ah C/1 value:
12 (v) x 10 (bats) x 52 (Ah at 1hr rate) / 350 = ~17.8 mi. (to 100%DOD)
I'd actually work at this from the other direction; that is, start with
the required range and figure out how large a pack is required:
I think Matt referred to a 30mi round-trip commute, and the ability for
up to 10mi of additional side trips/errands, so 40mi range desired.
40mi * 350Wh/mi = 14000Wh (14kWh) of usable capacity required.
Now, for decent battery life you don't want to discharge them 100% every
time out, so you need to factor in some additional capacity. For
floodeds, you don't want to discharge below 80% too often, so you need:
14000/0.8 = 17500Wh (17.5kWh) of capacity.
For AGMs, conventional wisdom is that you don't want to discharge below
about 50% too often, so:
14000/0.5 = 28000Wh (28kWh) of capacity is required.
Gels are probably nearer the flooded end of discharge
handling/tolerance.
Given that either of these are fairly large packs, we might want to
re-evaluate our range needs. One possibility is to decide that what we
really need is to be able to do 30mi daily, but have enough reserve to
handle up to 10mi more on occasion. In this case, we need:
30mi * 350Wh/mi = 10500Wh (10.5kWh) of usable capacity
With our 80% max DOD, this means a pack of 10500/0.8 = 13125Wh
(13.125kWh) capacity. 13125/350 = 37.5mi to 100% DOD; not quite enough
to handle our occassional worst case days.
Let's try this: 40mi * 350Wh/mi = 14000Wh worst case required capacity.
Let's then assume 90% worst case DOD: 14000/0.9 = 15556Wh of pack
capacity required. Now our 30mi routine use (10500Wh) is just 67.5%DOD
for this pack). But this is a flooded pack...
For AGMs, let's assume 80% worst case DOD: 14000/0.8 = 17500Wh of pack
capacity required. Our 30mi routine use is now about 60%DOD for this
pack; a bit deeper than the 50% target, but perhaps not too
unacceptable. We could re-figure again: 10500/0.5 = 21000Wh of pack
capacity required so as to not exceed 50%DOD with our daily use, and
this results in a worst case of 14000/21000 = 67%DOD with up to 10mi of
additional side trips now and then.
You (Matt) have been considering a 120V pack:
15556Wh/120V = 129.6Ah of capacity required (at about the C/1 rate) for
a flooded pack.
17500Wh/120V = 145.8Ah of capacity required (at about the C/1 rate) for
an AGM pack, or
21000Wh/120V = 175.0Ah of capacity required (at about the C/1 rate) for
an AGM pack.
You could go to a higher pack voltage to reduce the required battery
size, or you need to use larger model batteries or parallel smaller
batteries. I personally would advocate for the use of a single string
of larger batteries instead of paralleled/buddied smaller ones whenever
possible.
I would also suggest that DEKA is best known for the quality of their
gel batteries, so I would be inclined to look at their gel product
rather than AGM. A single string of their 8G4DM would just about fit
the bill nicely: 127lbs each, 122Ah C/1. Assuming you treat them like
floodeds with respect to DOD, you could achieve (exceed, actually) the
required pack capacity of 15556Wh with either a 132V or 144V pack, both
of which are within the range of even the Curtis controllers.
Hope this helps,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The corners of my box came with 3/8" or 1/2" holes already. Mostly
don't want the standing water on top of the lid to seep into the box.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike Phillips wrote:
> > I'm thinking more of wather proof. Since my bed can tilt up and does
> > not have the bed bolts in it, then I'd like the lid to be as
durable as
> > possible.
>
> Ah. Drill a pair of holes in the bottom of your bed for drainage. The
> plastic cover over the electrical goodies should keep things safe.
>
> Chris
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I searched my archives of the list for the name but didn't find it:
http://www.hybriousa.com/
The website looks like a sham to me, but this is hitting all the eco news sites.
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Maybe it's a lesson learned from American automobile manufacturers. ;-)
-Mike
On 9/9/06, Electro Automotive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, recently encountered an interesting comment from someone who
had spent substantial time in China regarding shoddy workmanship. He
said that there is an attitude in China that a product doesn't have
to be well made as long as it looks good. Appearance is everything,
but it can fall apart tomorrow. I wonder if this is a cultural
legacy of the many years of Communism putting on a good face
(Potemkin factories, etc.).
Shari Prange
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Let me expand upon this a bit.
Emails have a thing called MIME types, which tell what the content of
the email is. For a "normal" email, the "content-type" field is
text/plain, which is just what it seems to be.
Many email programs send a type of "multipart/alternative." This means
that the _same_ content is sent in different formats. Typically this
means that there are two parts to the message. Each part also has a
type. Typically, one part is "text/plain" and the other is
"text/html." The idea behind this is that a graphical mail program can
show the (in theory) "better" HTML version with color, formatting,
images, etc, while a more text-centric email program (like Pine or Mutt)
would show only the plain text version, as these programs cannot render
HTML.
The SJSU list software is set up in such away that _all_ parts of the
message that are not "text/plain" are changed to "text/plain," and the
content of that part is replaced with the warning box.
Here's the important part: What you end up receiving is an email whose
overall type is "multipart/alternative", and it still has two parts, but
_both_ parts are text/plain, and one of them is different from the other.
When an email client scans through the part looking for the "best" one
to display, it typically chooses the _last_ one that is of a type it can
render. In this case, since both parts are text/plain, and the last
part is the warning box, that's what you see.
My email client (Thunderbird) works this way, and I only see the error
box. This is actually the correct thing to do, since RFC 1521 states
"... the order of body parts is significant. In this case, the
alternatives appear in an order of increasing faithfulness to the
original content. In general, the best choice is the LAST part of a type
supported by the recipient system's local environment."
It's important to note that the SJSU list program "breaks" emails, as
the RFC also states "Systems should recognize that the content of the
various parts are interchangeable." Since the listserver completely
changes the content of one part, this is no longer true. A more correct
thing to do would be to either:
A) Simply remove all parts that aren't text/plain, leaving a multipart
message that has only one part -- in practice, there's nothing wrong
with this.
B) Change the email's header from "multipart/alternative" to
"text/plain", and replace the body with the "text/plain" part's content.
Option B is more correct.
In any case, I know that there is very little that can be done about the
SJSU list software, but I thought I'd give a detailed explanation.
Workaround: Use the "view source" option of your email client. It
sucks, but it's the best that can be done for now.
EP
David Roden wrote:
On 9 Sep 2006 at 9:37, Matt Kenigson wrote:
Okay. Here's another example of a post that I don't see due to its being
sent in a non-text format.
There are two problems here.
1. Calvin King did not send a plain text post. His mail program (Apple
mail) sent a multipart MIME message in two formats, plain text and HTML. The
list's html filter whacked off the html and replaced it with the warning
message, but left the plain text.
2. Your mail reader (Gmail) assumed that since this was a multipart message
with html, that you'd want to see the html version. It had no idea that the
the html had been blasted.
Calvin should set Apple Mail to send plain text ONLY, and you should tell
Gmail (if possible) to let you see the plain version, not the html version,
in multpart messages.
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 ---
