EV Digest 5900
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: EV digest 5896
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: New GM electric car
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Workplace charging
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Keeping batteries warm during the winter
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by "Tom Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Keeping batteries - follow up
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Plug in Hybrids... people just don't get it?
by "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: New GM electric car
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: New GM electric car
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Sparrow efficiency, was Re: Powercheq
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Telsamotors blog presentation
by "Kaido Kert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: fuel cell cost
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) Re: distance formula
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Re: article: Electric Harley
by lyle sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) L91 vs. K91 vs A89
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) PowerCheqs in General was RE: Sparrow efficiency
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Telsamotors blog presentation
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Rendezvous, was Ultimate Tesla Promo
by "paul compton \(RRes-Roth\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) OT Re: Strange EV on Ebay
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: L91 vs. K91 vs A89
by "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) siemens ac drive questions
by "Lawrie, Robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Zilla Update
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:42 PM 9/21/2006, Cor van de Water wrote:
You may want to do what a number of people on this list have done
when they were not allowed to plug in at work:
See if you can find a friendly neighbor such as a store that you
frequent, a lunch place or just any other business nearby where
you can plug in and ask if they object that you do that, you may
At my last workplace, I found a neighboring house (just off the edge
of the parking lot) who's owner was perfectly happy to let me run a
(locked) extension cord to the lot, and pay him $20/month for the electricity.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
seeesh we do need a FAQ
There are many types of fuel cells, and most of them have great
stationary applications because of the cogeneration, Only a few fuel
cells are at room temp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Types_of_fuel_cells
But a fuel cell EV is still an EV and batteries can have a 90%
efficiency and fuel cells are stuck in the 60% range. 3 times the
radiator as ICE because it is a low grade heat so it won't move to the
air as well.
Hydrogen comes from 3 possible sources in these scenarios. Petroleum,
electrolysis, and a hydride
Petroleum: Natural gas? we need that for other tings, we are near the
limit of our capacity and why not just burn it directly. Compressing
hydrogen to 5 or 10 Kpsi is at best 40% effient
Electrolysis of water at best 70% efficient
Drivetrain at best 85% eff.
lets say we start with 100kwh
fuelcell hydrogen from electricity
100kwh electricity * .7electrolysis *.4compressing * .6 fuelcell *.85
drivetrain = 14.3kwh remaining
but what if we use a battery for load leveling? and a dc-dc to
shore up against SAG? (makes pukert look trivial), this gets worse!
Electric vehicle
100kwh *.85 charger *.9batteryeff *.85 drivetrain = 65KWH remaining.
The EV costs less to make, has less parts.
My other favorite back of the napkin number is that it takes about 12kwh
to refine a gallon of gas, why bother?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> At my last workplace, I found a neighboring house (just off the edge
> of the parking lot) who's owner was perfectly happy to let me run a
> (locked) extension cord to the lot, and pay him $20/month for the
electricity.
>
I wish this was possible with the Avcon in my Ranger, but I'd have to
figure out how to take generic 240V... and then find 240V to use! One
of these days, maybe I can solder up my unopened signal generator kit
and wire it into the Avcon handle/cable to see if that will fake out
the circuit that protects me from myself. Then I'd have to approach
someone in the over-managed corporation I work for and find out if
there is any way to get access to the 240V they hide behind a chain
link fence! And no friendly neighbors in the part of town where I
work...guess I'll have a few thousand less miles on this pack than if
I *could* charge at work. Right now it's almost 8000 miles in just
under a year of driving (the NiMH version I leased topped 35K before
it was towed away, performing as good as the day I got it).
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
After four days of driving or 20 miles, my percentage of charge is still at
or above 80%. I charge for 60 minutes at average of 30 amps at 240 volts,
so that is 7.2kw. We pay 0.10 per kw which comes to $0.72 for 20 miles or
$0.036 per mile.
Gasoline is now at $2.69 a gallon which makes this equal to 74.7 mpg.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> > 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
>
> Oh no, if it works for you, there is no need to do that! The car is a
> bit of an obsession with you, so for your piece of mind, best to leave
> things as they are. Personally, I just want the thing to work -
> plug-and-play, no fiddling with acid or scanning meters except to know
> how much range I have left.
>
> Is your wt-hrs/mi based on energy from the mains or actual energy from
> the pack? Better to just stick with wt-hrs/mi based on the electricity
> *into* the charger, don't you think? That will be affected by both
> battery chemistry (e.g.- NiMH or NiFe waste more energy than
> lead-acid) and charger efficiency (not only the unit itself, but
> whether conductive or inductive connection).
>
> Your way of figuring mpg equivalence will vary with market prices, not
> just EV efficiency - based on the kwh from the Avcon (no energy
> metering on-board), PG&E rates at $0.12/kwh, and gas at $2.69, my
> Ranger's 350wt-hrs/mi would equal 64mpg, but when gas was as high as
> $3.29, it would have been over 77mpg.
>
> Of course, driving more than 3/4ths of the time on the freeway makes a
> difference vs staying at surface street speed - if I cruised along at
> 45mph, I'd use less than 250wt-hrs/mi (nearing 90mpg-equivalent), and
> lower average speeds would be even lower energy use. Don't know how
> Mike can get a basis for comparison on the EV Album.
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Richard,
Sorry for delay with reply on this
I use to carry there heaters, but no longer - ho one asked for them
for years. Here is what you're asking for: http://tinyurl.com/es2xb
click on "HEIZFOLIE" (heating foil) 35W version. They are sold out of
Conrad catalog, but Conrad does business within EU only. They won't
ship to USA. Find someone, say, in Germany to help you.
Sorry, no, I'm not going to carry or individually order them anymore.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
Richard Rau wrote:
Don,
In your website, listed under 'Battery Heaters', is a link to conductive
film heaters sold by Metric Mind. Do you know (or anyone else on the list
....Victor?) , if these heaters are still available? I asked around for
these a few months ago and had no success. Also, they are not currently
shown in Victor's price list.
Does anyone know of a source for these?
Thanks in advance,
Richard Rau - Northwest Electric Vehicles
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Death to All Spammers wrote:
> Your way of figuring mpg equivalence will vary with market prices, not
> just EV efficiency - based on the kwh from the Avcon (no energy
> metering on-board), PG&E rates at $0.12/kwh, and gas at $2.69, my
> Ranger's 350wt-hrs/mi would equal 64mpg, but when gas was as high as
> $3.29, it would have been over 77mpg.
I suppose you guys understand that what you are discussing is not
mpg-equivalence except with respect to *cost*?
Just to make sure that it is clear to others:
A gallon of gasoline contains about 124,000BTU or 36.17kWh of energy
(not a number I'm wedded to, just one of the first I came across in a
quick web search).
An EV that consumes 350Wh/mi is the *energy* equivalent of about 103mpg
(36.17kWh/gal / 0.350kWh/mi).
What it *costs* for this energy in electrical form vs gasoline form will
vary from place to place and time to time, but the energy equivalent mpg
remains unchanged (just as the mpg of an ICE vehicle remains the same
regardless of what the cost of fuel happens to be at the time and place
you happen to fuel it up).
Roland Wiench wrote:
> After four days of driving or 20 miles, my percentage of
> charge is still at or above 80%. I charge for 60 minutes
> at average of 30 amps at 240 volts, so that is 7.2kw. We
> pay 0.10 per kw which comes to $0.72 for 20 miles or
> $0.036 per mile.
>
> Gasoline is now at $2.69 a gallon which makes this equal
> to 74.7 mpg.
This is only true in the context of your original statement:
> I just got done testing out my cost per mile
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On an energy basis, you consumed 7.2kWh for 20mi of travel, which is
360W/mi. This is equivalent to about 100mpg in terms of energy
consumption.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Mother Earth News article was an interesting read. I was more amused
than angered by the load of lies and nonsense in this article. But,
articles
like this do sadden me a little. The sad thing
about articles like this is that some people will believe them and waste a
lot
of time, money and energy trying to build things that will work poorly or
not
at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Mother Earth News Hybrid
I just came across this article from 1993 in Mother Earth News:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative_Energy/1993_June_July/1993_Update__Dave_Arthur_s_Amazing_Hybrid_Electric_Car.
It was a reprint of Dave Arthur's 1979 article about using a five
horsepower Briggs and Stratten to power a car driven by a surplus
starter/generator with 36 volts of 12 volt batteries with outlandish BS
claims of 86.3 mpg. What got to me so upset was that they had 60,000
requests in one year for the plans. It just made me so utterly sick. Even
worse is that they did the update in 1993. It is making me seriously think
of another career. Fifteen years of fighting this kind of crap takes it's
toll. I do not think I could feel any lower than I do right now. Maybe
there are openings in the insurance industry or government.
Roderick Wilde
EV Parts, Inc.
www.evparts.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You may have better luck with these:
http://www.minco.com/products/heaters.aspx?gclid=CLydoqPGwIcCFSxZDgodTA0mKw
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mike,
I and my colleagues in the Florida EAA have spoken with hundreds of people
at numerous public EVents this year about both BEVs and PHEVs. Speaking
only for myself, I have found that people *do* get the PHEV concept, but
just as you have found, it *does* take a lot more education and explanation
of just how it works. Once having taken the time to do that, however, the
overwhelming majority of people I speak with are very positive and receptive
to the idea of buying and driving a PHEV, much more so than a BEV. Most
people I speak with don't like and aren't willing to accept what they
perceive to be the lifestyle compromises and inconveniences arising out of
the range limitations and recharge times of a pure BEV, even my 120-mile
range RAV4-EV, no matter what arguments I make about 90% of Americans
driving 30 miles a day or less for 90% of their daily driving, etc., and
asking how much does that person drive a day. Everyone seems to think
he/she needs a 300+ mile range car, and to be honest, I guess they probably
do, at least occasionally, for that occasional weekend trip or week-long
vacation. The problem with a pure BEV is that one needs to have two cars --
a BEV for daily driving, and an ICE for those occasional longer trips. What
people really like about the concept of a PHEV is the lack of any range
restrictions and that they would only need one car for all their driving
missions, not two specialized cars as with a BEV. So with a PHEV, one can
kill two birds with one stone and have the best of both in one car. With
this versatility of a PHEV, people also really like all of the flexibility
and options; it's gas-optional and plug-optional, your choice. If one gets
home from work late and is too tired or too lazy to remember to plug in at
night, no problem, just drive off on gas the next morning. But as gasoline
prices continue to rise, it will become a lot more costly to be lazy and
forget to plug in at night. As the difference between electric cost per
mile and gasoline cost per mile -- now at around a 4X differential (for me
in my area with my RAV4-EV at $.12/kWh vs. a conventional gasoline RAV4 at
$3/gallon) -- continues to expand and that gap continues to widen, people
with PHEVs will have greater incentive and motivation to remember to plug in
*every* night, as they see their electric bill go up by a lot less than
their gasoline bill goes down. In this respect, PHEVs are an excellent
transitional bridging technology for gradually weaning the driving public
off of gasoline and onto electricity in small baby steps where each person
can control the pace of his own transition by deciding when and how often to
plug in vs. filling up at the gas station. Once people get comfortable with
plugging in and start to see the financial savings, they will get hooked on
using electricity and will plug in all the time. Then they will start
demanding PHEVs with longer and longer initial all-electric ranges,
necessitating larger and larger battery pack capacities.
But yes, it does take time to explain all of this to people, and it gets
tiring and tedious when you're repeating it all 100 times over and over
again during an 8-hour stretch, standing on your feet the whole time.
That's why it's great to have 5 or 6 or more of us working the crowds as a
team to share the load. One of the benefits of a vibrant, active EAA
chapter and excellent leadership of Shawn Waggoner, Steve Clunn, and Matt
Graham!
Charles Whalen
Florida EAA
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:54 AM, Mike Ellis wrote:
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 ---
Sorry, not knocking your points, but I always get a chuckle when
advertising folks try to use "miles per tank" as an indication of fuel
effeciency.
For what it's worth, my F250 Super Duty (translation, really big pickup
truck) gets way over 500 miles per tank, I guess that makes it as fuel
efficient as your hybrid ;-)
> 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
>
>
--
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 ---
> Agred.
>
> I am just saying the three heaviest things in an electric car are
> The motor,
> The frame
> The batteries
>
> If both the motor casing and the batteries are make a structural
> component of the car it has to be worth losing at least 1/3 total
> weight.
>
How do you figure? Assuming you have a vehicle with a frame (vs a
unibody) the frame is relatively light, less than 10% of the vehicles
weight.
Even if you could eliminate the frame entirely, you'd still need to beef
up the battery and motor, the best I can see is /maybe/ 5% and even that
is doubtful.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> On 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.
Well, if what you start with is basically gasoline, how do you figure it
won't cost more than gasoline when you add processing to it?
The reason that 99.9% of hydrogen is made by cracking hydrocarbon, is
because that is the cheapest way to make it. All other methods would cost
even MORE.
Personally, I think double the cost of gasoline is optimistic.
The biggest runner up to hydrocarbon cracking is cracking water, which
uses electricity. Using the electricity to propell the vehicle directly
(via batteries) is far more efficient.
--
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 use to have early ($40 ones) powercheqs on 28 Optimas.
They worked as advertised, but this did not prevent ruining
my pack. My mistake was that I installed them all remotely
thinking that with thick enough wiring and only 1-2A current
voltage drop difference will not contribute to alarming imbalance.
It wasn't. Problem is, with the software back then (I didn't
realize and still not sure if these used micros) the modules
stop working when voltage difference is 40mV or less.
Well, 40 mV per battery means 1.12V from one end to another.
My low (most negative) end was chronically undercharged and high
end - overcharged. This killed batteries one by one on the high end.
So:
- Use them if you have 10 batteries or so. For more the difference
between extreme ones is too great (unless they improved this
40mV parameter since then).
- Install directly on the batteries. No remote sense.
Victor
John G. Lussmyer wrote:
At 07:34 PM 9/20/2006, Michael Perry wrote:
I've never figured out if it was defective batteries, a defective
charging
scheme, or perhaps their heavy draw on batts that caused this,
All of the above have happened with Sparrows.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I suspect many people on this list read Tesla blog anyway ( 22
subscribers to their RSS on bloglines )
But here is an interesting presentation they just posted, comparing
the "well-to-wheels" energy efficiencies of hydrogen, ethanol, biomass
and BEVs.
( Requires flash )
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=25
I wonder how the hydrogen pimps would respond to that
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/21/gm-vice-chair-lutzs-blog-post-on-gms-future/
-kert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>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.
>-Ben
Hey Ben where do you work?
I work in a SOFC lab in Israel, where it seems like we can
do away with reformer and platinum catalyst. Are your companies
stacks based on PEM or what?
curious and perhaps looking for a job after PhD -
Jeremy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The range is given by an empirical formula taking into account battery
capacity and vehicle weight. The range R (in km)
is given as a function of battery capacity B(of any type, in kWh) and total
vehicle weight W (in kg) by:
R[kilometers] = 250 B [kWh] / (W[kilograms]^0.6)
There is a lucky cancellation that makes the formula look exactly
the same in cowboy units:
R[miles] = 250 B [kWh] / (W[lbs]^.6)
see http://physics.technion.ac.il/~rutman/range.htm for details.
the formula comes from real data of peoples evs on austinev.org
to get the kWh of you batt multiply the Ah by the V
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Do you have anymore info on this bike and perhaps a
photo?
Lyle
--- Ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harley actually built an electric cycle back in the
> 70s. I saw one (the same one) at the Farmington, MN
> antique motorbike rally and then later the same year
> at the Davenport antique rally- about 8 years ago or
> so.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:38:18 -0400
> Paul Wujek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Harley as lead sled?
> >
> >
>
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/09/electric_harley.php
> >
> > or manufacturer's site:
> >
> > http://www.vogelbilt.com/
> >
> > --
> > Paul Wujek ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I thought the A89 was the little brother of the L91. Is the K91 an
inbetween motor? From the pictures the L looks longer. I thought the L91
single shaft was the next size up. If the K & L are the same size are they
just wound differently for more or less volts. Can you run the A89 through
K91 at 120v successfully? At 120v Would the K be the same HP as the L? I
only need single shaft. I thought the L came with a single shaft. Lawrence
Rhodes.....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rod, I feel your pain but....
Why are you getting upset about a 13-year-old article?
That's about the same time frame as when the first web browser was
released. Things have changed since then. I'd say they are almost
entirely better, and in the EV part of the world, it's partly due to
YOUR efforts.
So cheer up. You're a hero to us here on the list.
On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Roderick Wilde wrote:
I just came across this article from 1993 in Mother Earth News:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative_Energy/1993_June_July/
1993_Update__Dave_Arthur_s_Amazing_Hybrid_Electric_Car. It was a
reprint of Dave Arthur's 1979 article about using a five horsepower
Briggs and Stratten to power a car driven by a surplus
starter/generator with 36 volts of 12 volt batteries with outlandish
BS claims of 86.3 mpg. What got to me so upset was that they had
60,000 requests in one year for the plans. It just made me so utterly
sick. Even worse is that they did the update in 1993. It is making me
seriously think of another career. Fifteen years of fighting this kind
of crap takes it's toll. I do not think I could feel any lower than I
do right now. Maybe there are openings in the insurance industry or
government.
Roderick Wilde
EV Parts, Inc.
www.evparts.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date:
9/20/2006
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
<http://learn-something.blogsite.org/>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have this problem too with 16 batteries. It happens sometimes that
throughout the pack there can be about 0.5V to 0.7V
difference across a span of several batteries. Not a problem for most of the
charge cycle. But when one is at 14.4V and several
batteries down its 15.0V this could be a problem. Since my significant
discharge event last week the pack has not stayed very
well balanced. I know now because I'm checking battery voltages DURING the
charge cycle. It seems after the cycle they all level
out with a nice even surface charge that looks as if they are balanced. The
last few days I've been babysitting them and watching
the voltages near the end of the acceptance cycle. The ones that dare rise
past 14.4 I hit them with a 300W DC heater element for
30 seconds or so until the voltage on that block drops to 13.5V after the load
is removed. This forces the voltages up on all the
lower batteries and allows the two adjecent batteries (which are usually the
next highest) to shuttle current back into the one I
just smacked down. Its interesting watching the lights react as you would
expect when the strong ones are holding up the weaker
ones. However this is a thankless job to do manually. Since the charge current
is usually low at this point (less than 2A) it
would be nice if the PowerCheqs had connectors for an external shunt load to
positively clamp the balancer at a value selectable
according to temperature. But then why not go wih shunt regs in the first
place. It seems these PowerCheqs (as Lee has pointed
out many times) do not handle a whole lot of energy transfer. They work like a
charm with an already balanced pack and probably
contribute to keeping them that way. However I've pretty much determined they
were the cause of my significant discharge event.
If you pull them lower than 10.5 volts while pulling 1000A (which I admit I did
often, as long as S.O.C. was still high) they shut
off and the subsequent inrush from the adjecent battery blows their fuses. If
I could have readily seen that the fuses were blown
(no fault light to indicate this) I wouldn't have run through a couple charge
cycles with half the regs not working. So for the
couple of cycles the pack must have grown woefully out of balance. Since
discovering it I have been babysitting each charge cycle
and thinking I must either tame my Zilla and start running Econo mode, or find
some more heavy duty Regs. Rich? Lee?
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
> Victor Tikhonov wrote
>
> I use to have early ($40 ones) powercheqs on 28 Optimas.
> They worked as advertised, but this did not prevent ruining
> my pack. My mistake was that I installed them all remotely
> thinking that with thick enough wiring and only 1-2A current
> voltage drop difference will not contribute to alarming imbalance.
> It wasn't. Problem is, with the software back then (I didn't
> realize and still not sure if these used micros) the modules
> stop working when voltage difference is 40mV or less.
> Well, 40 mV per battery means 1.12V from one end to another.
> My low (most negative) end was chronically undercharged and high
> end - overcharged. This killed batteries one by one on the high end.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Interesting - on a slide 11 it says biodiesel generator (essentially APU)
makes enough energy (18.21kWh) to drive 4.9mi/kWh efficient EV
89 miles per gallon used, while direct diesel powered ICEs are 36mpg
(Diesel Beetle 2006 taken as example). This must make diesel based
APU twice as efficient a diesel car to begin with, but that was
not demonstrated so far, not even equal. APUs will *always loose*
because of extra conversion of energy involved. Not much, but
will loose. Never be twice as good as diesel powered ICE car.
So am I missing anything? Can this be due to a difference
between diesel fuel and biodiesel fuel? I don't think so...
Victor
Kaido Kert wrote:
I suspect many people on this list read Tesla blog anyway ( 22
subscribers to their RSS on bloglines )
But here is an interesting presentation they just posted, comparing
the "well-to-wheels" energy efficiencies of hydrogen, ethanol, biomass
and BEVs.
( Requires flash )
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=25
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rendezvous is indeed a famous film, but the scary thing about it is not
the driving, but just how bad most peoples observation must be to not
spot the fact that the film is a FAKE! If they drive on the road with
this lack of attention then help us all, although part of the problem is
that you want to believe. The VERY first time I watched this I thought
it looked wrong.
The car is meant to be a Ferrari 275 GTB, but there's no way you'd get a
picture that steady using a 70's Ferrari as a camera platform. It even
smoothly mounts a kerb at one point. The car also shows no sign during
the film of any oversteer, so definitely NOT a 70's Ferrari! The
soundtrack is very well done, but there appear to be SIX upchanges
during one sequence. NOTICE how there is little reaction from other
vehicles or pedestrians!
MOST damning of all and absolute proof;
The sequence along the Champs Elysee takes about 1 minute (taken from
the DVD time signature) and the distance travelled is approx. 1.6Km or
ONE mile. Now even with my maths, one mile in one minute is 60mph and
this is one of the fastest sequences in the film. A friend of mine has
been in a convoy of Minis doing that speed along the Champs Elysee in
middle of the day!
As for running red lights? Well, this is Paris after all, the road
markings and lights are really only suggestions.
The car is almost certainly a Citroen, either a CX or DS, but I suppose
it could have been an SM. Even with modern electronic image
stabilisation a Citroen with oleo-pneumatic suspension is still a
popular choice as a camera platform. The camera was mounted very low and
the soundtrack is very well done, but watch it as if you were the
driver.
Paul Compton
www.evguru.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thank god, I do hope that means all this email on the subject ends!
:)
Actually, I thought it was a great EV "whodunit" story with lots of
good detective work. And I agree with what Tom Watson wrote:
"I think it is very important to fleece out EV scammers to keep bad
press away from EV's!"
One day, when EVeryone is driving EVs, there'll be no need for the EVDL
and all the EV web sites and promo and education, but until then...
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Time they did another update then. I doubt there's anyone better than
you to do that. Carry on.
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Roderick Wilde wrote:
> >...they did the update in 1993.
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Roderick Wilde wrote:
> > I just came across this article from 1993 in Mother Earth News:
> > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative_Energy/1993_June_July/
> > 1993_Update__Dave_Arthur_s_Amazing_Hybrid_Electric_Car. It was a
> > reprint of Dave Arthur's 1979 article about using a five horsepower
>
> > Briggs and Stratten to power a car driven by a surplus
> > starter/generator with 36 volts of 12 volt batteries with
> outlandish
> > BS claims of 86.3 mpg. What got to me so upset was that they had
> > 60,000 requests in one year for the plans. It just made me so
> utterly
> > sick. Even worse is that they did the update in 1993. It is making
> me
> > seriously think of another career. Fifteen years of fighting this
> kind
> > of crap takes it's toll. I do not think I could feel any lower than
> I
> > do right now. Maybe there are openings in the insurance industry or
> > government.
> > Roderick Wilde
> > EV Parts, Inc.
> > www.evparts.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hi Lawrence,
The K motor is wound for 72 volts, and is around 12 inch long or maybe 13
inch. I orginally bought the L motor for my beast but it turned out to be
15-16 inch long. The L motor gives more revs per volt. it is the highest
powered motor for ADC for the 6.7 inch diameter motors. I am running the K
in about two weeks time on 120 volts, although, i think i will prob overheat
the motor somewhat, so will advance the motor as well. Check
www.evmotors.com.au for some specs and applications.
Cheers
On 22/09/06, Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought the A89 was the little brother of the L91. Is the K91 an
inbetween motor? From the pictures the L looks longer. I thought the L91
single shaft was the next size up. If the K & L are the same size are
they
just wound differently for more or less volts. Can you run the A89
through
K91 at 120v successfully? At 120v Would the K be the same HP as the L? I
only need single shaft. I thought the L came with a single
shaft. Lawrence
Rhodes.....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
the motor i have is rated 22 kw nominal and 95 kw or so peak (from memory.. not
near my spec sheets..)
the question i have is, what do the two figures actually mean..? how long can
the peak output be sustained? what factors affect this? would adding a more
powerful water cooling system than the reccomended one make any / much
difference?
if so, i could imagine adding a powerful pump, a great big actively cooled
radiator, then, even a couple of kw of peltier cooling after that to chill the
coolant.. obviously hammer the range, but would it make a difference to the
performance of the system?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE37.A24D3F44"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Thread-Topic: siemens ac drive questions
Thread-Index: AcbeIT54XgC3q5X7Q4uZl5polorMQAAFZfVN
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Lawrie, Robin--
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:30:12 -0400
Subject: Re: New GM electric car
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 3:23, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, if what you start with is basically gasoline, how do you figure
> it
> won't cost more than gasoline when you add processing to it?
>
Because you don't start with basically gasoline. Most hydrogen is
gotten out of methane - natural gas. Gasoline is a refined product,
natural gas is not.
> The reason that 99.9% of hydrogen is made by cracking hydrocarbon, is
> because that is the cheapest way to make it. All other methods would
> cost
> even MORE.
> Personally, I think double the cost of gasoline is optimistic.
>
> The biggest runner up to hydrocarbon cracking is cracking water, which
> uses electricity. Using the electricity to propell the vehicle
> directly
> (via batteries) is far more efficient.
>
Via batteries is not directly either, though. But the point is well
taken, that you could do that, right now, more cheaply. We already know
the limitations. That's why you do technology demonstrations, and
research. To learn things.
The closed minded are not interested, though. I don't know why gm just
didn't throw some golf cart batteries in an Equinox and call it a day.
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE3B.AD4EC283"
Subject: Zilla Update
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:38:51 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion Group" <[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE3B.AD4EC283
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Otmar;
Can you give some us that are planning future conversions an update on
how the Zilla production is going.
What models are you building now ?
When will they be available ?
What are your future production plans ?
What needs to be done to place an order and to get in line for a
particular controller ?
Trying to see where I need to insert you in my schedule, and my Zilla
Model decision may have to be based on what will be available.
Thanks;
Dennis
Elsberry, MO
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE3B.AD4EC283
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE3B.AD4EC283"
Subject: Zilla Update
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:38:51 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thread-Topic: Zilla Update
Thread-Index: AcbeO610FZHz5EzxSM28BWlu3jd6qA==
From: "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion Group--
--- End Message ---
