EV Digest 5898
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Strange EV on Ebay...Stranger communication
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Strange EV on Ebay
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jukka_J=E4rvinen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: vacuum reservoir assembly
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Plug in Hybrids... people just don't get it?
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Dateline EV Episode direct download
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: New GM electric car
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: New GM electric car
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: New GM electric car
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Cost effective batteries as a structural component
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by John Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: newbie question - gears in or out?????
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Contactors holding shut after strong current
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: New GM electric car
by Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: New GM electric car
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: New GM electric car
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Distance Formula
by "Curtis Muhlestein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) RE: New GM electric car
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/21/06 at 02:33 Cor van de Water wrote:
Hahahahuuuu-sob...
> Anyone with a driver's license could step into the Sequel
> and go about their daily business with no effort or thought
whatsoever.
*If* there would be a place to fill up on Hydrogen.
*If* the price of Hydrogen would not be twice that of gas
as soon as it's mass produced (probably never).
*If* the price of a car with Fool cells would not be $1 mio or
thereabouts.
That's a lot of ifs, all right. The review acknowledges:
"Yes, there are still two major issues hanging over the hydrogen economy
- establishing a basic infrastructure (see below) and the cost of the
hydrogen storage tanks is still prohibitive for all but niche
production."
I believe that it was in last week's On The Table, though, that
apparently the oil industry says it would take $1M per station to add
hydrogen capability, and that would make the total infrastructure cost
$12B, a not insignificant amount, but about half the cost of the Alaska
pipeline - in other words, do-able.
Current production methods mostly crack hydrocarbons, but there are
other ways to get H2. The cost of production need not be double that of
gas. Especially if gas goes up.
I think we've been down this path often enough to know it by now:
Hydrogen fuel cells are dead. They only need to lie down, as
someone behind the curtain is holding them upright.
If they pour so much effort and energy in Electric Vehicles,
can we get some without the Hydrogen part that is not viable anyway?
As suggested many times: a bigger pack and we have a winner.
In a couple of years an upgrade to EEstor and the only place
where we will use oil is in lubrication, plastic production
and those kind of things, not burn it to move a vehicle.
Just my point of view here and a couple of respected fuel cell
researchers, who already stopped all activity on Hydrogen cells.
Sure, but there are many more researchers - including those at GM who
have a driving FC powered vehicle - who do not accept that fuel cells
are dead. For example, the US Department of Defense is very heavily
researching fuel cells. And again, they are actually using them, so I
would say the demise is exagerrated. It may be that it never pans out
economically, but any scientist stating baldly that such and such is
"impossible" usually has an upcoming date with humiliation.
Even with EEStor, we would still use a lot of oil for industrial uses,
for generating electricity (which we would have to do more of), and as a
heating fuel. Not to mention other non-automobile methods of transport
- airlines won't be switching to capacitor power, nor big trucks, nor,
rail, nor ships.... It doesn't scale. Hydrogen, however, could be
used in other applications, increasing the economy of scale for
production.
Cost will obviously be an issue - it has a 63kwhr battery Lion pack.
There is a 50kwhr pack in the Tesla and the whole car is $100k. But
then you have the fuel cells and the hydrogen tanks, etc. The Sequel is
a technology demonstrator, and it probably cost tens of millions of
dollars to reach the rolling testbed point. But there will have to be
huge improvements from scale to get it to compete with, say, a Chevy
Tahoe in price. But then, EV1's were a million dollars a copy, too.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike,
I have spoken with this guy who was unsure of several items but he claimed
that it was a smart ev. If you would be willing to look at them I can put
you in touch with the guy. Frankly I didn't get the warm and fuzzy from our
conversation today but it's worth a look. IF it's a real smart I'd be all
over it for the right price. I've got one 2002 fourtwo left we are
converting and I know Peter Drewes has done the same. (I know, I know, HEY
Peter I owe you a call )
Here's what he said was in the vehicle
6 - 12vt batteries (didn't know the chemistry or brand)
6.3 kw motor didn't know the brand
GE controller
2006 with Kansas title.
Claimed they were coming in from Japan but wouldn't commit. I asked if
someone could come by and drive it he said sure just call him. THEREFORE
please contact me off list and I'll forward the info.
smart AT electricsmart.com
Pete aka Pedroman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Strange EV on Ebay
Joe wrote:
Heads up Mike Chancey. My ? to seller was - What is the pick up city so I
could ? shipping cost ?
The replay that I got was - kansas what city are you in.
Sorry, I haven't been following this thread too closely. Yes, I am in
Kansas City, but I am somewhat dubious that the car is. :^) If it is and
if the seller is willing to let me drive by and take a look, I would be
happy to look it over and report what I find. We also have a couple local
chapter members who have seen a real Smart in person, so maybe they could
add their opinion as well. I have sent the seller an email via Ebay
asking if I can get a look at it. I will let you know what I find out.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
By being in there for a quite a many times I would bet it's from Beijing
area. Looks like a normal day in there (a LOT of smog).
They are showeling money to EV programs there. about 200 Billion USD in
current 5 year program.
Bijing olympics should have something for EV folks to talk about for a
long time ;)
-Jukka
Evan Tuer kirjoitti:
On 9/21/06, David Roden (Akron OH USA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From most angles it looks almost exactly like a Smart. The most
plausible
argument so far is that it's a Chinese knockoff of a Smart.
I wonder where the photos were taken. It's a long shot, but does anyone
recognize the area?
As I say, I think those banners are for Beijing 2008 olympics. Which
would narrow it down a bit.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, ok so you make the battery hugely more expensive and heavier.
Currently batteries aren't strong enough to be a structurale member so
they would need re-enforced cases in order to be used as a structural
member.
Also the battery would pretty much be custom made for that vehicle rather
than generic to any vehicle. Making it custom means few customers can use
them, which drives up the cost. Well that an the extra cost for the
re-enforcement.
Then when the battery needs to be replaced you have to basically
dissasemble the vehicle and throw part of it away, then spend extra money
on the new replacement battery, over the cost of a non re-enforced
battery.
A space frame or unibody would probably be just as light, if not lighter.
I'm not seeing the advantages here, but I'm probably being overly
negative. Please explain the advantages and how they overcome the
disadvantages.
> On 9/21/06, Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Using "many small batteries" instead of fewer large batteries has
>> numerous
>> dissadvantages; (generally) lower energy density, more interconnects,
>> higher complexity, higher costs, etc.
>> What would be the advantage(s) to your idea?
>
>
> I see more of a battery that say was 10' long and stiff enough to bolt
> everything else onto like a backbone type chassis and in theory, the
> weight
> of the battery gets double use 1. as power storage, 2. as the frame.
> almost like being able to throw out the frame on a car to save weight.
>
>
--
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 ---
Hello Robyn,
The unit I use was a Square D Class 9016, Type GAW2. Has a Range on
Decreasing Vacuum (ins. of Hg) of 0-25. Adjustable Differential range of
5-20.
There is 1 N.O. and 1 N.C. contact Diaphragm Actuated in a cast water tight
NEMA Type 4 Enclosure.
This unit size is about 2 inches deep and about 4 inches square with a 4
inch diameter diaphragm.
It is best not to operated a motor directly with this vacuum switch, but use
it to operated a contactor size for your vacuum motor ampere using a 12 VDC
coil.
These units may cost over $150.00 wholesale from a electrical supply house.
Another source may be auto parts store, that I have bought at one time,
which has a small plastic enclosure with no adjustments and one N.O. contact
which is design for a vehicle I do not recall. This type is small enough
will you can screw it right into the reservoir.
The differential should at least be 7 in. HG. or more, or you will be short
cycling the motor on and off.
The contacts are also light duty, so you will need a motor contactor to
operated the vacuum motor.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robyn Lundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: vacuum reservoir assembly
> >>The vacuum switch is also tap into the main tank, as to keep the vacuum
> >>between 15 and 22 in.hg. which at one time control a HoneyWell motor
> >>that
> >>ran off the battery pack.
>
> Hi Roland,
>
> Do you have a link (or just a brand/model number) to the vacuum
> switch(es)
> you refer to here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robyn
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes... they think that even Hybrids... run out of battery power and you
might get stuck..
So..education is needed.
A properly running Plug, is very hard to tell what mode it's in...
Unless it's really quite...
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:54 AM
Subject: Plug in Hybrids... people just don't get it?
> Yesterday I was talking with some coworkers about electrics, and how
> PHEVs would pave the way. I explained a little bit about how they
> work.
>
> "They're hybrids with bigger battery packs so that they can run on
> electric only for longer. You plug them in at night and depending on
> your driving habits and your route to work you could get the
> equivalent of 100-200 mpg."
>
> And then one coworker asks, "But what happens when you run out of
> electricity on the way? You're stuck there?"
>
> To which I replied, without talking down at all, "Well, then you
> switch to gas, like a regular hybrid."
>
> "Of course," he said.
>
> Then another coworker said, "Yeah, but what happens when your
> batteries run dry, you just sit there?"
>
> I repeated what I had said and I think the second coworker gets it
> now. But I was amazed that this was asked even once.
>
> Are the rest of you finding that the public just isn't getting the
> idea of PHEVs?
>
> -Mike
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I do not want to build another building to house a EV project and spend
another 5 years in customizing a vehicle to my standards and maybe another
$50,000.00. The paint job is in show car condition for car shows that alone
cost over $10,000.00.
Anyway, I only drive about 5 miles a day at the most, so I do not have to
squeeze every bit of range out of the EV. I just got done testing out my
cost per mile, and it is equal to 75.7 mpg.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> > Removing the engine, exhaust, gas tank and radiator, I got the
> weight down
> > to 4200 lbs.
> >
>
> This is your conversion weight *before* anything was added? My only
> reference point is my Ranger's *total* weight of 4750 lbs, so that
> seems like a lot - why not switch to something lighter now?
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sep 21, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Bill & Nancy wrote:
I was able to view the mp4 using Mozilla. Quicktime played it, but the
video wasn't very good. Firefox and IE as well as Windows media player
didn't work either.
Try the VideoLAN Client (VLC). It worked a treat on my Mac.
<http://www.videolan.org/vlc/>
Bill
Jude Anthony wrote:
I'm still working on a way to transcode it to MPEG. It's MP4 right
now; you may need to download a codec.
Jude
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
I just got the apple question mark & no video. Lawrence Rhodes......
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://learn-something.blogsite.org/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I realize this has all been said before, but since the topic still keeps
coming up, it still bears repeating.
300 miles for a car that fills with fuel isn't that impressive. Compared
to lead-acid batteries, it's an improvement, but my Prius can get over 500
miles on a tank. Show me a clean source of hydrogen (one that involves
burning less oil for that 300 miles than it takes for my Prius to go
500), and show me an attractive price, and maybe I'll be impressed. Plus,
its not like range matters if your fill-up is fast -- it's the 6-hour
recharge that makes range necessary. And what about carrying around 300
miles' worth of hydrogen? Not that gasoline is inert, but yikes!
I work in the fuel cell industry on sub-kilowatt systems. Judging by the
cost of materials for our stacks, there's no way anything big enough to
power a car is even remotely affordable, or likely to become so anytime
soon. I also have serious questions about the reliability and life of the
fuel cell. Also, what's the noise level of an FCV? Considerably more
than a battery EV, I'm sure.
So yes, it's a cool concept and a neat toy for GM, but no, you won't be
driving one in the next five-ten years, even if the millionaires of the
country are. You could've driven the EV-1 more than five years ago, and
you could still do so now if they hadn't destroyed them. With li-ion, you
might even get that 300 miles of range. So tell me why this "Sequel" is
any better?
-Ben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Seems that with the demand for PHEV that this would be a possibility.
> Though the guidelines for the project team were:
>
> "Make the new car an effortless transition for any driver - in other
> words, you shouldn't be challenged by the technology in some
off-putting
> way."
>
> Waiting several hours for recharge or requiring the
upgrade/installation
> of electrical infrastructure at your house are challenges to keeping
the
> experience similar.
>
Better to throw in a small ICE for those who can't take the time to
plug in, but then, in 2010 or 2015 I doubt you'll be able to
conveniently fill up with hydrogen unless you go 100's of miles of
your way, while electricity is much more accessible, even if you rely
on a long slow 120V charge.
I don't even have 240V available at my house, but I am willing to
trade walking a mile and a quarter to the public charger to keep my
truck running, and the Ranger is not designed to take 120V input - if
there wasn't this local infrastructure, I'd be looking at CNG
conversions, not H2, for my future car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> That's a lot of ifs, all right. The review acknowledges:
>
> "Yes, there are still two major issues hanging over the hydrogen
economy
> - establishing a basic infrastructure (see below) and the cost of the
> hydrogen storage tanks is still prohibitive for all but niche
> production."
>
>
> I believe that it was in last week's On The Table, though, that
> apparently the oil industry says it would take $1M per station to add
> hydrogen capability, and that would make the total infrastructure cost
> $12B, a not insignificant amount, but about half the cost of the Alaska
> pipeline - in other words, do-able.
>
> Current production methods mostly crack hydrocarbons, but there are
> other ways to get H2. The cost of production need not be double
that of
> gas. Especially if gas goes up.
>
>
>
> > I think we've been down this path often enough to know it by now:
> > Hydrogen fuel cells are dead. They only need to lie down, as
> > someone behind the curtain is holding them upright.
> >
> > If they pour so much effort and energy in Electric Vehicles,
> > can we get some without the Hydrogen part that is not viable anyway?
> > As suggested many times: a bigger pack and we have a winner.
> > In a couple of years an upgrade to EEstor and the only place
> > where we will use oil is in lubrication, plastic production
> > and those kind of things, not burn it to move a vehicle.
> >
> > Just my point of view here and a couple of respected fuel cell
> > researchers, who already stopped all activity on Hydrogen cells.
> >
>
> Sure, but there are many more researchers - including those at GM who
> have a driving FC powered vehicle - who do not accept that fuel cells
> are dead. For example, the US Department of Defense is very heavily
> researching fuel cells. And again, they are actually using them, so I
> would say the demise is exagerrated. It may be that it never pans out
> economically, but any scientist stating baldly that such and such is
> "impossible" usually has an upcoming date with humiliation.
>
> Even with EEStor, we would still use a lot of oil for industrial uses,
> for generating electricity (which we would have to do more of), and
as a
> heating fuel. Not to mention other non-automobile methods of transport
> - airlines won't be switching to capacitor power, nor big trucks, nor,
> rail, nor ships.... It doesn't scale. Hydrogen, however, could be
> used in other applications, increasing the economy of scale for
> production.
>
> Cost will obviously be an issue - it has a 63kwhr battery Lion pack.
> There is a 50kwhr pack in the Tesla and the whole car is $100k. But
> then you have the fuel cells and the hydrogen tanks, etc. The
Sequel is
> a technology demonstrator, and it probably cost tens of millions of
> dollars to reach the rolling testbed point. But there will have to be
> huge improvements from scale to get it to compete with, say, a Chevy
> Tahoe in price. But then, EV1's were a million dollars a copy, too.
>
Appropriate points, but ever hear the term "industry mouthpiece"?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: powertrain as a structural component
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:39:26 -0700 (MST)
>Hmm, ok so you make the battery hugely more expensive and
>heavier.
That's just not true. One could use raw standard
lead acid cells from say a
T-105-145 put into a composite center tube, only being 7"
high with composite webs seperating the cells electricly.
One should be able to buy individual cells stacks
for a lot less that assembled ones.
This is how older lead batteries were built.
If you were to put in electrolylte a pump to
circulate it, you will get much longer range and better spec
power deeper into the charge. Back in the 70's? someone did
this and held the EV range record for many yrs in So Cal I
think.
Currently batteries aren't strong enough to be a
>structurale member so they would need re-enforced cases in
>order to be used as a structural member.
Or build the structure to fit the cells adding no
extra weight and saving the battery case weight. For
instance in my battery box area, I could build a bunch of
cells boxes into it instead of using thicker, heavier
materials needed to hold the seperate batteries, tiedowns,
cables, ect. Either way would weigh about the same.
>Also the battery would pretty much be custom made for that
>vehicle rather than generic to any vehicle. Making it
>custom means few customers can use them, which drives up
>the cost. Well that an the extra cost for the
>re-enforcement.
You are making things up Peter. You can use standard
cells. No? They used them, replaceable cells for a century
for truck, industural, forklift batteries and still do for
some apps. One nice thing is you can replace individual
cells if one goes bad.
>
>Then when the battery needs to be replaced you have to
>basically dissasemble the vehicle and throw part of it away
>, then spend extra money on the new replacement battery,
>over the cost of a non re-enforced battery.
Why? Wouldn't one design it not to be that way? Try
thinking how one can, not how one can't. While it would take
longer to change a battery, the material costs would be much
less. And learning how to do it isn't hard. If one can
convert an ICE to EV, they could certainly learn how to
install lead cells.
And cells like Ni-cad need strong cases to keep them
from expending.
>
>A space frame or unibody would probably be just as light,
>if not lighter. I'm not seeing the advantages here, but
>I'm probably being overly negative. Please explain the
>advantages and how they overcome the disadvantages.
Ya think!! While I don't think it is worth it for us
in the US, in poorer countries, this is a good way to go
being much less expensive.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/21/06 at 12:30 you wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:50:58 -0400
John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> But "all this hype?" I dunno that it is all this hype. I am
surprised
> that on a list where the mention of an EV in passing in a movie
review
> will generate a flurry of swooning emails, that a highly capable
> electric vehicle just gets pooh poohed.
That's because it is not intended as an electric but as a hydrogen
powered vehicle. There is no hydrogen infrastructure and the car itself
costs about $1,000,000.00 (a *million* dollars :) -due to its hydrogen
fuel cell.
What do you mean it isn't intended as electric? It is electric! It has
litium ion batteries, the fuel cell pumps out electricity, and there's
this:
"In contrast to other electric-powered vehicles, the Sequel uses two
25kW wheel-hub motors to drive its rear wheels, while a 3-phase
asynchronous 65kW axle motor drives the front two wheels. Putting its
motors in the wheels makes for instant torque and lowers the car's
center of gravity. Together, the three motors generate a total of 2,920
lb-ft of torque--enough to propel the car from 0 to 60mph in less than
10 seconds."
IOW it is not realistic, won't get built and is merely a smoke screen
to keep consumers on the hook for their addiction to oil: blatently
inauthentic.
-Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's also had thoughts along the same
lines. A frame concept like the GM Autonomy "skateboard" chassis
(picture at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00034FE5-BA99-1D80-90FB809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=4)
could be imagined as a container for battery racks or capacitor banks that
could slide out sideways - a process that could also be automated for quick
pack exchange.
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:52 -0400, ZillaVIlla wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chris Tromley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Otmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing more about your ideas.
>
>
> well, 2 trains of thought,...
>
> 1. a backbone type of structure where the backbone of the EV is used as a
> supporting structure for all other components in the vehicle and internally
> used as a battery.
>
> 2. the Exoskeleton, where composite structure is layered together which
> includes the basic components of a battery. like a big shell which
> everything hangs onto from the inside. this would lend itself to being
> crash-worrthy (even if the structure was destroyed in a big crash) and
> encompass a large surface area for a large amount of energy stored. with
> all the different materials available for creating a composite structure,
> many of them sprayed on, some could be weaves of conductors, some could be
> electrolytes, some could be made from metals of different composition such
> that in the end you have a large battery. add some strategic wiring layers,
> and the right types of voltage converters, it would seem that you could
> make a big battery that could support everything else you'd need for a EV.
>
> I don't see recesses of electrolyte so much as layers of skin forming a big
> battery. it would seem that we use converters and controllers to get
> voltage and current from one level to another anyhow, why not a custom body
> that puts off some strange odd amount of voltage and then regulate back from
> there? Not that I know better, but I don't think electrolyte has to be
> completely fluid to be effective.
>
> how about the "home built battery"? is it such an insurmountable task?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sep 20, 2006, at 7:14 PM, Ron Archer wrote:
Does increasing voltage, result in max torque being available at
higher rpms?
Exactly. Every motor is also a generator. Its working as a motor
because the applied voltage is higher than the back voltage its
generating.
In a series motor this back voltage rises, at any given amp level, as
the rpm increases (reducing the amps will reduce the back voltage at
any given rpm.) So to get the higher amp levels at higher rpms you need
more voltage. With a series motor amps relates directly to torque with
voltage having virtually no effect on it. Raising the voltage will get
you the amp (torque) level you want at higher rpms (or fire-ball the
commutator if you get out of hand :-)
HTH,
Paul "neon" G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/21/06 at 13:25 Dmitri Hurik wrote:
Sure might be an effortless transition.......
Till you pay the bills.
So expensive hydrogen fuel, expensive car, and no / expensive
hydrogen infrastructure is Not off-putting?
All true enough. But enough people have commented in the past that the
problem is that people see evs as golf carts or slow or whatever else.
Here you have a real electric vehicle that is every bit as capable as
its gas counterpart.
And no doubt it cost tens of millions of dollars to put it on the
street. But it is a technology demonstrator, and it demonstrates quite
well that it is possible for a fuel cell powered vehicle to be every bit
as useful as a gas powered one - as well as have the attendant benefits
of being an EV.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Potentially high voltage blasted back through the 12v system when you
turn them off. Can your ignition switch (and all other electronics on
the car) take it? If the controller has control of one side of the
contactor coil can it take it? (I would guess NO to this question)
FWIW,
Paul "neon" G.
On Sep 21, 2006, at 6:14 AM, EV2 wrote:
Any downside to having nothing across the coils of large contactors?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/21/06 at 15:47 you wrote:
> That's a lot of ifs, all right. The review acknowledges:
>
> "Yes, there are still two major issues hanging over the hydrogen
economy
> - establishing a basic infrastructure (see below) and the cost of
the
> hydrogen storage tanks is still prohibitive for all but niche
> production."
>
>
> I believe that it was in last week's On The Table, though, that
> apparently the oil industry says it would take $1M per station to
add
> hydrogen capability, and that would make the total infrastructure
cost
> $12B, a not insignificant amount, but about half the cost of the
Alaska
> pipeline - in other words, do-able.
>
> Current production methods mostly crack hydrocarbons, but there are
> other ways to get H2. The cost of production need not be double
that of
> gas. Especially if gas goes up.
>
>
>
> > I think we've been down this path often enough to know it by now:
> > Hydrogen fuel cells are dead. They only need to lie down, as
> > someone behind the curtain is holding them upright.
> >
> > If they pour so much effort and energy in Electric Vehicles,
> > can we get some without the Hydrogen part that is not viable
anyway?
> > As suggested many times: a bigger pack and we have a winner.
> > In a couple of years an upgrade to EEstor and the only place
> > where we will use oil is in lubrication, plastic production
> > and those kind of things, not burn it to move a vehicle.
> >
> > Just my point of view here and a couple of respected fuel cell
> > researchers, who already stopped all activity on Hydrogen cells.
> >
>
> Sure, but there are many more researchers - including those at GM
who
> have a driving FC powered vehicle - who do not accept that fuel
cells
> are dead. For example, the US Department of Defense is very heavily
> researching fuel cells. And again, they are actually using them, so
I
> would say the demise is exagerrated. It may be that it never pans
out
> economically, but any scientist stating baldly that such and such is
> "impossible" usually has an upcoming date with humiliation.
>
> Even with EEStor, we would still use a lot of oil for industrial
uses,
> for generating electricity (which we would have to do more of), and
as a
> heating fuel. Not to mention other non-automobile methods of
transport
> - airlines won't be switching to capacitor power, nor big trucks,
nor,
> rail, nor ships.... It doesn't scale. Hydrogen, however, could be
> used in other applications, increasing the economy of scale for
> production.
>
> Cost will obviously be an issue - it has a 63kwhr battery Lion pack.
> There is a 50kwhr pack in the Tesla and the whole car is $100k. But
> then you have the fuel cells and the hydrogen tanks, etc. The
Sequel is
> a technology demonstrator, and it probably cost tens of millions of
> dollars to reach the rolling testbed point. But there will have to
be
> huge improvements from scale to get it to compete with, say, a Chevy
> Tahoe in price. But then, EV1's were a million dollars a copy, too.
>
Appropriate points, but ever hear the term "industry mouthpiece"?
Ever hear the term "shut your piehole?"
Essentially you think I make valid points, so you decide to try to
stifle me with a label. Not likely.
I'm an IT guy. I own 2 Chryslers and a Suzuki Samurai (remember that
thing about "you have the donor car so you think you are an EV'er" -
that's me at this point.) I've owned GM cars but I don't carry any
particular brief for GM - I don't even own any of their stock.
But I am also a car guy, and by nature a futurist (and optimist) on
technology. There are a lot of EV'ers who hate cars (not all of them,
but a lot), see them as a burden, and think that forcing other people
into some penalty box that gives them less for more just serves them
right. I love cars and always have, and I won't accept the imposition.
So we need to innovate and go forward, not backward.
But none of that matters to you - you just want to call me names. Maybe
that works for you, but, truthfully, it makes you look like a boob.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, John Norton wrote:
And no doubt it cost tens of millions of dollars to put it on the street.
But it is a technology demonstrator, and it demonstrates quite well that it
is possible for a fuel cell powered vehicle to be every bit as useful as a
gas powered one - as well as have the attendant benefits of being an EV.
And when I can buy one without a fuel cell as a glider, that would be even
better.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:32:30PM -0400, John Norton wrote:
<..snip..>
(I had to snip that with a chain saw :)
> > Appropriate points, but ever hear the term "industry mouthpiece"?
>
> Ever hear the term "shut your piehole?"
>
> Essentially you think I make valid points, so you decide to try to
> stifle me with a label. Not likely.
I think he was talking about the author of the original article, not you.
Everybody breathe. :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/08/europe-passes-death-sentence-on-hype.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I agree.
However I wonder how much power you could fit into the frame tubes of a
car if you used cylindrical easily changable batteries.
What it really does is make more interior space.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:40 pm, Mark Fowler wrote:
I think that making the battery part of the structure in an EV is a bad
idea.
Batteries tend to be full of squishy, sloppy, wet stuff. This is the
stuff that contributes the majority of the weight. The case itself
would
have to strengthened (made heavier) to be the structural part.
Batteries don't work well when they leak. Cases have a hard enough time
keeping the goo on the inside without putting the extra stresses of
load
bearing on them.
Battery guts make a mess of all the surrounding stuff. Whether it is
acid or alkaline, it will eat unprotected metal.
And perhaps the biggest reason of all...
Batteries need to be replaced reasonably regularly, at about the same
order of magnitude as tyres.
(As in, they need to be replaced when they wear out after x distance,
and they occasionally fail individually.)
Imagine if you had to perform major structural disassembly and
reassembly every time you changed a tyre.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ZillaVIlla
Subject: Re: powertrain as a structural component
I see more of a battery that say was 10' long and stiff enough to bolt
everything else onto like a backbone type chassis and in
theory, the weight
of the battery gets double use 1. as power storage, 2. as the frame.
almost like being able to throw out the frame on a car to save weight.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is there a formula that can calculate the distance an EV can travel, given
the battery specifications?
Curtis Muhlestein
Riverton Utah
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi John,
Thanks for shedding light from the other direction.
I agree that some of the claims are debatable and the
number of 12 billion for the H2 fillup capability sounds
reasonable. We still do not have any infrastructure or
production facilities that supply the H2 to the H2 capable
stations, but that is a matter of building them and converting
gas trucks to H2 trucks.
The big question is how to produce all that H2 without the need
to use more oil than we do today.
Electrolysis using Renewable Energy has been said to solve the
issue, but critics point out that it is still a loss-leader
compared to charging the RE electricity into EV, as the conversion
into H2 is (very) lossy, the transport consumes energy and the
back-conversion from H2 into electricity is lossy.
Better to cut the losses and use the basic energy source, instead
of the energy *carrier* H2.
That only requires an electricity storage capability in the vehicle
that can be quickly refilled and for the cars the whole H2 issue
will go away.
Airplanes andother transportation will not use H2 as their
operation is extremely cost-sensitive, so the planes will
likely burn kerosene until we have found a cheaper alternative
and trucks and ships will run diesel. Most of the transport
sector is cost-driven, so optimization of the efficiency of
ICE is key (Hybrid semi?), while H2 does not make sense until
the production of H2 has gotten an major price breakthrough.
Until that time, H2 can be considered (economically) dead.
(With enough subsidy, you can keep anything alive, especially
by calling it "strategically" -read politically- important.)
Of course the H2 prototypes are outrageously expensive and
that will come down in mass production, but I have never
heard of a gas car which was designed around the gas tank.
That is exactly what is necessary for the H2 cars, which
indicates how much of a burden the H2 storage is. This alone
would make H2 cars suffer, if the H2 cost would not kill them.
It comes close to the burden that battery electric vehicles
face: the battery takes so much room and weight that the
car design is affected and the battery becomes a focus,
instead of the driving experience.
I never said H2 fool cells were impossible, neither did the
researchers. It may be good to read up on the docs and the
detailed discussions on the EFCF (European Fuel Cell Forum)
who is still very much exporing all kinds of Fuel Cells, but
came to a well-funded conclusion that it made no sense to
continue the research and promotion of H2 fuel cells, so they
stopped the work and cancelled the yearly conference for the
H2 variant (which had its own program due to all the attention
that it was and still is getting):
http://www.efcf.com/
I recently saw a short promo-film about the testing of an H2
FCEV where the project leader honestly confessed that in his
opinion, there will not be mass-produced H2 vehicles for at
least 15 years. Main issue (again) the H2 production.
I agree that we will continue to need energy.
Houses need to be heated, so we better take care of not
wasting that heat and insulate those houses! Same for cooling.
Electricity needs to be generated and the majority of the
power plants are not using renewable energy (yet), though we
can add that to a large degree without problems.
Transportation may shift to different modes when the fuel
prices continue to go up, but still depend largely on oil.
Hopefully electric train gets a bigger market segment, which
they deserve.
My own vision is that as soon as "Hyper"-capacitor storage
has matured enough to store several tens of kWh in a few
hundred pounds, like EEstor, then there is no competing
technology that can match the efficiency and maintain
the same driving experience as a CEV (Capacitor EV).
There are many more arguments and details, but this response
is already long enough. Hope you enjoy the discussion.
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 John Norton
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New GM electric car
On 09/21/06 at 02:33 Cor van de Water wrote:
> Hahahahuuuu-sob...
>
> > Anyone with a driver's license could step into the Sequel
> > and go about their daily business with no effort or thought
> whatsoever.
>
> *If* there would be a place to fill up on Hydrogen.
> *If* the price of Hydrogen would not be twice that of gas
> as soon as it's mass produced (probably never).
> *If* the price of a car with Fool cells would not be $1 mio or
> thereabouts.
That's a lot of ifs, all right. The review acknowledges:
"Yes, there are still two major issues hanging over the hydrogen economy
- establishing a basic infrastructure (see below) and the cost of the
hydrogen storage tanks is still prohibitive for all but niche
production."
I believe that it was in last week's On The Table, though, that
apparently the oil industry says it would take $1M per station to add
hydrogen capability, and that would make the total infrastructure cost
$12B, a not insignificant amount, but about half the cost of the Alaska
pipeline - in other words, do-able.
Current production methods mostly crack hydrocarbons, but there are
other ways to get H2. The cost of production need not be double that of
gas. Especially if gas goes up.
> I think we've been down this path often enough to know it by now:
> Hydrogen fuel cells are dead. They only need to lie down, as
> someone behind the curtain is holding them upright.
>
> If they pour so much effort and energy in Electric Vehicles,
> can we get some without the Hydrogen part that is not viable anyway?
> As suggested many times: a bigger pack and we have a winner.
> In a couple of years an upgrade to EEstor and the only place
> where we will use oil is in lubrication, plastic production
> and those kind of things, not burn it to move a vehicle.
>
> Just my point of view here and a couple of respected fuel cell
> researchers, who already stopped all activity on Hydrogen cells.
>
Sure, but there are many more researchers - including those at GM who
have a driving FC powered vehicle - who do not accept that fuel cells
are dead. For example, the US Department of Defense is very heavily
researching fuel cells. And again, they are actually using them, so I
would say the demise is exagerrated. It may be that it never pans out
economically, but any scientist stating baldly that such and such is
"impossible" usually has an upcoming date with humiliation.
Even with EEStor, we would still use a lot of oil for industrial uses,
for generating electricity (which we would have to do more of), and as a
heating fuel. Not to mention other non-automobile methods of transport
- airlines won't be switching to capacitor power, nor big trucks, nor,
rail, nor ships.... It doesn't scale. Hydrogen, however, could be
used in other applications, increasing the economy of scale for
production.
Cost will obviously be an issue - it has a 63kwhr battery Lion pack.
There is a 50kwhr pack in the Tesla and the whole car is $100k. But
then you have the fuel cells and the hydrogen tanks, etc. The Sequel is
a technology demonstrator, and it probably cost tens of millions of
dollars to reach the rolling testbed point. But there will have to be
huge improvements from scale to get it to compete with, say, a Chevy
Tahoe in price. But then, EV1's were a million dollars a copy, too.
--- End Message ---
