EV Digest 5904
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Wiring DPDT contacts in series
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) another EV
by Sharon G Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Battery Balancing
by "Mick Abraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: If you liked the 'Strange EV on eBay' thread...
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery Balancing
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: OT Re: New GM electric car
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: OT: New GM electric car
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Motors
by "Curtis Muhlestein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Battery Balancing
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: source for drive pulleys and belts
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Motors
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: OT Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: OT: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: High efficiency switched capacitor battery balancer
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Wiring DPDT contacts in series
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) New guy on the list
by "Michael Trefry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Fuse bought off ebay
by "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: EVLN(Lithium-ion battery fires concern auto enthusiasts)-Long
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Xebra test drive from the Arcane list.
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: If you liked the "Strange EV on eBay" thread...
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: If you liked the "Strange EV on eBay" thread...
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Drafting gone wild
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Fuse bought off ebay
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) RE: OT: New GM electric car
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
You have to put both lines Line 1 and Line 2 through two contacts on a
contactor. You would have to have two 2-pole contactors or a 4-pole
contactor.
Anyway, the voltage is the same at any point in the feeder circuit to the
load, so you did not change the di-electric resistance of the material that
are holding the contact path.
If the di-electric is rated for 300 volts, it is still 300 volts.
We increase the di-electric resistance by adding more non-conductive
material between the live parts.
This is normally done in overhead line work, where one insulator that is
rated for 300 volts are stack with more insulators to increase the voltage
rating.
I looking at my contactor book, and all 2 pole and above contactors are
rated at 600 volts. The 1 pole contactor is rated at 300 volts.
The CableForm contactors I have are rated at 2000 amps at 242 volt or 500
amps at 270 volt. As the ampere increases, the voltage rating goes down.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "MIKE WILLMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Wiring DPDT contacts in series
> Is there a difference in daisy chaining dual pole contacts directly in
> series on one power lead vice wiring each pole to a power lead and
> switching to separate sides of a load. Take for instance my heater
> element. If I were to switch only one power lead with dual poles on the
> contactor daisy chained in series I can increase the contact voltage
> rating. Is the same true if I use one pole on the + lead and 1 pole on
> the - lead of the ceramic heating element. If the added contact voltage
> rating is still valid then would I have to put a separate snubber on each
> contact instead of 1 snubber circuit across the series pair?
>
> Mike
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Roderick Wilde wrote:
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.
Oh the horror. I can see it now; clean shaven with a tight haircut and
business suit, the corners of his eyes and mouth hanging low - his
shoulders hanging even lower. Oh the humanity...
That's just to depressing to continue. Keep the spark of your dream
alive! The EV community is much better off with your presence.
Paul "neon" G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
We started EV #19 today, were building them, we really dont talk about it much.
its better to get them on the street... Wayne & Sharon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
(About BattEQ), John Lussmyer said: $450 to handle 4 6V batteries seems a
bit expensive to me. Mick says: the $450 unit is designed for 500 amp-hour
batteries, as I often work with. The 6 volt/4 channel unit designed for 250
amp-hour batteries may be of more interest to EV owners. That model is $249
retail plus cables, but that's still a fairly high price point. Price point
is one important consideration, but wattage transfer capability per dollar
is also important. The lowest price balancer may not be the best value.
John said: What about 12V batteries? Mick says: A small 12V BattEQ intended
for electric wheelchairs is approaching market as of 9-06. It's in the same
2 amp transfer range as the PowerCheq. Such a low transfer rate, however, is
appropriate only for batteries up to 50 amp-hours each. I had not intended
to stock that version because I don't do much with wheelchair sized
batteries. Bigger 12 volt BattEQ models are coming which may appeal to
Optima users, but no time soon. I prefer the equalizers that balance in 6
volt increments because I like to confine wild battery cells into the
smallest corrals possible.
John said: How do you deal with longer strings? Shouldn't the units be
configured to overlap? Mick says: Correct. The first 6V-4 unit would balance
the first 4 6V units in the string, then you'd start overlapping and each
subsequent device would bring in 3 more 6V monoblocs. I think SSES will
someday have 6V units with 6 channels which would make for fewer black
boxes; I also think that's a long time away.
John said: since "If connected wrong (or disconnected wrong), BattEQ will
fail", doesn't this mean that you can't have a mid-pack fuse, as
that is likely to be an incorrect disconnect? Mick says: John got his quote
from my website and he raises a good point. I would ask Smart Spark about
this before bridging a balancer across a mid-pack fuse. The balancer chain
could have an intermission right where the fuse is, but then the vehicle
would have two different balanced strings that are not in balance with each
other.
Mick says: Thanks also to Lee Hart for his cooperative response. Here are
some suggestions about testing procedures. Since model 250-6V-4 is one of
the most EV appropriate, 3rd party testing around that model would seem
best. Four golf cart batteries in series would be a good match as a test
bed.
Lee said: "Start with two batteries at an identical
state of charge. Take a known number of amphours out of one battery.
Enable the BattEQ, and record the volts, amps, and amphours that flow
between the batteries." Mick says: Real world EV conditions would be
simulated better if a rheostat were applied to one of the 4 batteries to
pull down its voltage. This would simulate a weak member of the pack whose
voltage is failing under load. Start with the rheostat @ infinity, move to a
high resistance, then dial it lower to make more heat while observing the
metering. BattEQ would pump amps into that channel as it tries to offset the
voltage drop. That should answer the question of whether this technology can
really transfer power or not. (Model LA-250-6V-4 is rated for 8 amps
discharge per channel and the power always moves between adjacent channels.
Weak batteries in the middle of the string could receive up to 16 amps in--8
amps from each side.)
Mick says: The above test could be reversed with little change to the
testing setup: apply a variable power supply as a charger on just one of the
monoblocs. This would simulate an extra-strong member of the pack--or a
battery that's in a warm location during recharge. BattEQ would then work to
pull down the high voltage segment of the pack and the amperage transfer
capability could again be measured.
Efficiency measurements will be more difficult, but I've got some ideas
percolating. Lee: I will try to send you some diagrams off List for
consideration sometime next week. Other interested parties could also
receive these diagrams if you like, or you may wish to wait until Lee and I
jointly arrive at a mutually agreeable suggested testing setup.
BTW, Mike Philips astutely remarked about "lousy 60 milliohm FETS"
referenced in an early article on this type of balancer. Since the
referenced articles are not very recent, FETS like that may have been state
of the art at the time. I do know that high performing and somewhat exotic
FETs are important to the current BattEQ production models. I believe
there's only one manufacturer of FETs with specs that are acceptable to
Smart Spark, and that high end components are part of why the BattEQ units
are somewhat expensive.
Thanks all around, Mick Abraham
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I like a car with a tight turning radius.
This car seems perfect - only 1/8" needed to turn it around.
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 Peter VanDerWal
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: If you liked the 'Strange EV on eBay' thread...
Wow, look how skillfully he has photoshopped out any indication that the
car is sitting in china.
LOL
> you'll love these:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120034842609
> and
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120034844199
>
> (or http://tinyurl.com/qzdff and http://tinyurl.com/q7fcr)
>
> Check out the "new" images. Enough said.
>
> Cheers,
> Claudio
>
>
--
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 ---
Great! Answers and discussion!
At 05:28 PM 9/22/2006, Mick Abraham wrote:
John said: What about 12V batteries? Mick says: A small 12V BattEQ intended
for electric wheelchairs is approaching market as of 9-06. It's in the same
2 amp transfer range as the PowerCheq. Such a low transfer rate, however, is
appropriate only for batteries up to 50 amp-hours each. I had not intended
to stock that version because I don't do much with wheelchair sized
batteries.
You do realize that Optima YT's are only rated at 55AH? And their
useable capacity in many EV's is more like 40AH?
Bigger 12 volt BattEQ models are coming which may appeal to
Optima users, but no time soon. I prefer the equalizers that balance in 6
volt increments because I like to confine wild battery cells into the
smallest corrals possible.
Doesn't help when you have 12V batteries though.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm going to open my big mouth here and try to speak for the whole
list. (Yes it's true, when Chuck Norris died he appointed me God.)
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:59 PM, John Norton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:11, Steve wrote:
IF the new GM car is Fuel Cell then it is OT.
How do you figure? It is an ev - batteries power the motors, they are
charged by the fuel cells. No ICE components involved.
By that measure all the other evs are OT because they are coal powered.
I have to agree with John. Fuel cell cars are at least as topical as
hybrids, which get a lot of discussion here.
This may be a technicality, but it seems to
be the source for flames, too (eek). That a Fuelcell car gets 300
miles of range on an
'obtainable' fuel is meaningless.
Only meaningless to the closed mind.
Sorry to bring up an advance, everyone already knows everything is in
full agreement.
I think the real problem isn't evs, its EV'ers.
IMHO, the EV list members (most of them, anyway) are of the opinion
that there are physical laws that prevent hydrogen from being as
efficient an energy source as electricity fed directly into batteries.
These people get disgusted when governments, oil companies, and car
companies try to push hydrogen as the logical next step in the
evolution of the automobile. Clearly it isn't, according to their
thinking, and therefore there's some other agenda at work.
This topic has been discussed many many times over the years and it's
always the same result - a majority thinks hydrogen cars are a
boondoggle foisted on a gullible public by greedy politicians/oil
companies/car companies, and a minority thinks there's a possibility
that hydrogen might become a valuable fuel someday.
That's what you ran into.
I apologize for my fellow listers. We're kinda touchy, seeing as how
we have the perfect solution to America's oil addiction and nobody's
interested.
Now, about your attitide....
That "closed mind" comment. True, some of us are quite convinced that
hydrogen cars will never make economic sense. They react to someone
preaching the H2 gospel like they react to the free energy nutjobs.
But most of us will probably happily buy a hydrogen car if it should
show up at an affordable price with a convenient fuel infrastructure.
We're buying hybrids, after all.
Now, how about you? Are you willing to admit the possibility that the
majority has a point, that the extra costs of making, storing, and
transporting hydrogen mean that it will never be able to compete on a
level playing field with straight electricity?
Is your mind open, or closed?
As an example, take me. I believe that hydrogen cars are a boondoggle,
and I can support that position. However, I also believe that I could
be wrong, and that next week someone might figure out how to make
hydrogen for free out of used disposable diapers, at which point the
whole picture changes.
What do you believe?
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://learn-something.blogsite.org/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
They would not get their share of the billions of dollars
for research and development of Hydrogen technology, which
allows them to offload a large portion of their R&D budget
on somebody elses account.
The interesting thing is that they hardly need to show
results, as they set expectations that in the coming 6 years
nothing can be expected on the Hydrogen front, but some
prototypes (yes, a series of 1000 cars in 2012 is a proto-run
much the same as the EV1 was just to get their feet wet.)
The truth is that even GM understand that there are big issues
and they need a lot of time to try and solve those, though
several of the major ones have nothing to do with GM, so they
are in a comfortable position - they only need to tinker with
fuel cells in an electric car for a decade or more and await
breakthroughs from others, if it does not happen it's not
their fault - they have built and showed their FCEVs.
That is a very elaborate way to maintain status quo with a
newly launched program of big trucks and SUVs at their hands
and scaping up a very large budget to fund their R&D.
I may sound sarcarstic and cynical, but I am only trying to
reflect what I see and read, using my experience in business
and trying to be realistic.
You have a very different idea, but I get the feeling that you
are very closed minded to any critical view of fuel cells and
the loose sand that their castles are built upon.
For the reason that Hydrogen Fool Cell EVs are OT, this has been
discussed on this list just as often as there have been flame
wars over the techology, thus the list manager has declared
that the Hydrogen part is OT.
Hope this clarifies,
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: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New GM electric car
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.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you have $4,000 to spend on a motor, what brand of motor would you buy,
and why?
Curtis Muhlestein
Riverton Utha
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would very much like to be in that loop.
Mike
(gee look I trimmed the post)
>
> Efficiency measurements will be more difficult, but I've got some ideas
> percolating. Lee: I will try to send you some diagrams off List for
> consideration sometime next week. Other interested parties could also
> receive these diagrams if you like, or you may wish to wait until
Lee and I
> jointly arrive at a mutually agreeable suggested testing setup.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Philippe,
Is your schematic available to the public?
Mike
(post trimmed yet again!)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not on this pack, my lithium BMS is 100% analog strong component no
> microcontroller or computer freezing risk ;^)
>
> The notebook is for alltrax
>
> cordialement,
> Philippe
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd spend $1500 on a motor and $2500 on a Zilla controller :)
On Sep 22, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Curtis Muhlestein wrote:
If you have $4,000 to spend on a motor, what brand of motor would you
buy,
and why?
Curtis Muhlestein
Riverton Utha
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://learn-something.blogsite.org/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/22/06 at 17:29 you wrote:
I'm going to open my big mouth here and try to speak for the whole
list. (Yes it's true, when Chuck Norris died he appointed me God.)
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:59 PM, John Norton wrote:
>
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:11, Steve wrote:
>>IF the new GM car is Fuel Cell then it is OT.
>
>How do you figure? It is an ev - batteries power the motors,
>they are charged by the fuel cells. No ICE components involved.
>
>By that measure all the other evs are OT because they are coal
powered.
I have to agree with John. Fuel cell cars are at least as topical as
hybrids, which get a lot of discussion here.
>This may be a technicality, but it seems to
>>be the source for flames, too (eek). That a Fuelcell car gets
>>300 miles of range on an
>>'obtainable' fuel is meaningless.
>
>Only meaningless to the closed mind.
>
>Sorry to bring up an advance, everyone already knows everything
>is in full agreement.
>
>I think the real problem isn't evs, its EV'ers.
IMHO, the EV list members (most of them, anyway) are of the opinion
that there are physical laws that prevent hydrogen from being as
efficient an energy source as electricity fed directly into batteries.
These people get disgusted when governments, oil companies, and car
companies try to push hydrogen as the logical next step in the
evolution of the automobile. Clearly it isn't, according to their
thinking, and therefore there's some other agenda at work.
Okay, right, the conspiracy again. Seriously, if GM is in bed with all
those guys and is in such control of us all, how come they are losing
money?
Seriously, this just boggles the mind.
This topic has been discussed many many times over the years and it's
always the same result - a majority thinks hydrogen cars are a
boondoggle foisted on a gullible public by greedy politicians/oil
companies/car companies, and a minority thinks there's a possibility
that hydrogen might become a valuable fuel someday.
That's what you ran into.
Yeah, I know, the conspiracy mindset is a hard nut (no pun intended) to
crack. Because wherever you turn, the conspiracy is there - no proof?
Just bolsters how good they are at conspiracy!
I apologize for my fellow listers. We're kinda touchy, seeing as how
we have the perfect solution to America's oil addiction and nobody's
interested.
You mihgt wonder why that is...
Now, about your attitide....
That "closed mind" comment. True, some of us are quite convinced that
hydrogen cars will never make economic sense. They react to someone
preaching the H2 gospel like they react to the free energy nutjobs.
I wasn't preaching anybody's gospel. I figured if the crowd was wowed
by a 3 wheel piece of Chinese junk, they might be interested in a new
electric vehicle. One from the GM that, you know (stage whisper) killed
the electric car!.
Now, how about you? Are you willing to admit the possibility that the
majority has a point, that the extra costs of making, storing, and
transporting hydrogen mean that it will never be able to compete on a
level playing field with straight electricity?
Is your mind open, or closed?
As an example, take me. I believe that hydrogen cars are a
boondoggle, and I can support that position. However, I also believe
that I could be wrong, and that next week someone might figure out how
to make hydrogen for free out of used disposable diapers, at which
point the whole picture changes.
What do you believe?
You could try reading what I have written. Might clue you in to what I
think. I know, its hard escaping the cocoon, opening up to what someone
who doesn't necessarily agree with you thinks, but you might try once in
a while. But Death to All Spammers captured it all. I am "off the
beat" of this list. So instead of reading what I wrote to see what I
think, please insist that I am a mere shill for the enemy. That way you
can feel superior by being dismissive.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/22/06 at 18:00 you wrote:
John,
They would not get their share of the billions of dollars
for research and development of Hydrogen technology, which
allows them to offload a large portion of their R&D budget
on somebody elses account.
The interesting thing is that they hardly need to show
results, as they set expectations that in the coming 6 years
nothing can be expected on the Hydrogen front, but some
prototypes (yes, a series of 1000 cars in 2012 is a proto-run
much the same as the EV1 was just to get their feet wet.)
To what end? If they get funded to research hydrogen tech, and they
know that there is no benefit to it, they waste their own time and
resources. At a company that is desperately attempting to cling to
market share, that's just dumb. BTW, they are putting out 100 FC
vehicles next year.
The truth is that even GM understand that there are big issues
and they need a lot of time to try and solve those, though
several of the major ones have nothing to do with GM, so they
are in a comfortable position - they only need to tinker with
fuel cells in an electric car for a decade or more and await
breakthroughs from others, if it does not happen it's not
their fault - they have built and showed their FCEVs.
You think GM has a decade that it can sit on its hands for anything? I
think absent some major shakeup in the car business, GM will be history
in 10 years (Ford in 5). GM is not in a comfortable position by any
stretch. It is a corporation fighting for its very existence. They
don't have time to play games.
That is a very elaborate way to maintain status quo with a
newly launched program of big trucks and SUVs at their hands
and scaping up a very large budget to fund their R&D.
I may sound sarcarstic and cynical, but I am only trying to
reflect what I see and read, using my experience in business
and trying to be realistic.
This isn't full-bore conspiracy theory, but darn close. So how to
explain the H2 program for BMW - not fuel cells, they burn it in an
ICE. Or Ford and Nissan and Volkswagen and Honda and Mercedes and
Hyundai and Toyota, all with active H2 fuel cell programs. Are all of
those companies - some of them actually making money - pursuing what
they know to be impossible and uneconomical? For the purpose of
handwaving and fooling us all?
You have a very different idea, but I get the feeling that you
are very closed minded to any critical view of fuel cells and
the loose sand that their castles are built upon.
Yes, I have a different idea - and that is that the answer is not yet
known. I have many times agreed that there are many obstacles, but I
have not yet lowered the "its impossible" shutters on my mind.
BTW, I think you are in the Bay Area? You can go ride a fuel cell bus
if you'd like.
Either way, the electric part of the equation stands to benefit everyone
in the EV world. Full electric components are being developed for the
electric cars - steering, A/C, braking. Not just hacking together stuff
designed for ICE, full electric.
Think that might benefit, even if H2 is only for fools?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Phillips wrote:
60 milliohm fets? Man, those are lousy. Would the efficiency be that
much better with 6 milliohm fets?
The paper shows that 60 milliohm MOSFETS led to a 1.2 ohm equivalent
resistance. So, using 10 times bigger 6 milliohm MOSFETs should reduce
the equivalent resistance to 0.12 ohms.
The problem is, a 6 milliohm MOSFET is a 100 amp device -- kind of
overkill for a device you only expect to move 1 amp. Even with them,
that 0.12 ohm equivalent resistance still means you'll have a 0.12 volt
difference between batteries at just 1 amp. A 0.12v difference in a 12v
battery represents a 10% difference in state of charge. It's not likely
to be an effective way to balance.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart said:
"Why NOT make incredible claims? Your customers are too
stupid to know the difference!"
Roderick Wilde wrote:
Actually Lee most of my customers are quite intelligent and a lot of
them are on this list :-)
Because on this list, we have a bunch of smartass know-it-alls (or
highly knowledgeable experts, depending on your point of view) that will
review anyone's carefully concocted marketing scheme for their
incredible new miracle device, and tell everyone if it smells like
fertilizer! :-)
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
MIKE WILLMON wrote:
Is there a difference in daisy chaining dual pole contacts directly
in series on one power lead vs. wiring each pole to a power lead
and switching to separate sides of a load?
They are in series, so nominally, they are the same. But there may be
extenuating circumstances to favor one approach or the other.
Physically, it is easier to wire both contacts in series, and treat them
as a single switch. There might be inadequate spacing between the poles
so you can't use them to switch opposite legs.
Wiring them in opposite legs can be safer, as it completely removes
power from the load. With both switches open, both legs are broken, so
neither side of the load is connected to the power source.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just thought I'd jump in and say hello.
I'm a new guy on the list interested in building an electric car. (Yes, I
just saw "Who killed the electric car")
So I'm looking for some advice. I'm NOT an electrical engineer, I'm a
software architect, so most of the conversation I've seen today about
batteries is over my head, but I am getting the idea that there is not a
viable Lithium solution at this point?
After reading about the Tesla, I was hoping someone else might have made
some headway in that department. While a 40 mile range may get me into town,
it might not get me back!
Ok I'm rambling. Let me get back on track.
I want to start simple, a basic learning project, but I also want it to be
usable.
I was looking at the Porsche 914 conversion kit at
http://www.evparts.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=1010&product_id=2
Is this a decent starter project? Are the projected top speed (85 mph) and
range (80 - 100 miles) at all accurate? I've looked at other's 914
conversions and most of them are in the 30-40 mile range.
Are there options I should choose to make it more efficient, more powerful,
more range etc..?
Is there a better starter project?
Sorry for so many questions. The information I've been gathering the last
few days is sooo disparate and confusing.
Thanks for any help/advice you can give.
Mike Trefry
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would assume because folks are still talking about this solution today.
Just recently we've been discussing power-trailers with just this sort of
setup, to power an EV. The difference is this unit cost under $50.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weathers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: Mother Earth News Hybrid
> 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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
180026783331
Smaller than I expected, is it safe to use in an EV?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Charging and discharging just poses stress on the case, due to heat.
Apparently (according to the govt's safety reports) exposing lithium to air
causes it to burst into flames... even w/o an external ignition source. For
extinguishing the flames, Lith-x or halon is your best bet... a source that
will remove the source of oxygen. (Thus, any flame retarding box would do.)
BTW, you did take a serious risk removing the batt. Thank goodness it worked
out well.
I can't imagine Li batts being removed to a concrete vault for charging and
storage when the car isn't in use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: EVLN(Lithium-ion battery fires concern auto enthusiasts)-Long
> My only experience is with an R/C LiPo pack. I heard that there is more
> risk of fire during charging vs discharging. Well, they were
> over-discharged on one flight because the speed controller default was
> not as specified. I got a few more cycles on them but during one
> charging cycle, I heard popping. I went over and started dragging it
> out of the shop as it continued to pop. As I got it out, it started to
> pop more and smoke. Within a minute or so, it went up in flames. I
> went thru two fire extinguishers in vain, and it kept burning and
> smoking for about 20 minutes. Since then, I noticed that there are
> metal or ceramic "charging boxes" for these batteries so that if
> charging goes bad, it is contained. This was completely preventable by
> not over-discharging, and by careful monitoring of each cell during
> charge and discharge with the cell taps available. The cell taps are
> also used to balance the cells after each use and each charge cycle to
> maintain a healthy pack. It would not be difficult to have a bunch of
> microcontrollers monitoring each cell voltage and controlling the
> charge/discharge to prevent damage or danger. This would be a nice
> feature for any battery pack.
>
> gary
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Hold on, remember that 72% charge statement?
>
> The car costs $10,000 and has a range of 40 miles. I don't really think
> that is cheap for a fun car, but would still like to have one. But I would
> carry a small generator and gas around with me so I could make it to and
> back from Arcane Events.
>
> Stephen, and thanks to Dick Tuttle for his thoughtful insights as to the
> risks involved in 3 wheeled driving.
I think you'll find, in real world driving, the Xebra is going to get around
27 miles of range, on flat ground, when the batts are in their best
condition. Hills are optional. Remember, you are powering a vehicle on 6 LA
batts. It does amazingly well for the very limited juice the car carries.
I'd assume, for your hill climb, you may have "killed" the pack. (Unless you
were saved from doing so by a smart controller... but the gauges won't tell
you when you are being silly in your load demands.) Yes, its embarrassing to
roll backwards in traffic. The alternative is for the controller to expect
that you know what you are doing, and go for a reversed battery cell.
Nearer to their source, the cars go for around $9K, in Salem OR. With a full
charge, your ride would have been award winning, I should guess. (Except for
poor performance on climbing the hill.)
BTW, this has nothing to do with 3 wheel vehicles. You are driving an EV
motorcycle, with a capacity for 4 passengers. Take a look at the rear bumper
for a better view of "MC". From what I've seen, that will take about 1/4 MPH
bump from a car to crush it right into the drive system. Of course, most MCs
aren't subjected to crash testing. It uses up too many "crash dummies".
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That is something that can be reported to EBay. They don't care so much
about fraud (very hard to prove) but they care very much about shill buying
and selling. They'll probably ban the guy... but maybe only for a few weeks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: If you liked the "Strange EV on eBay" thread...
> HAHAHAHA
> notice the seller? it's the same "buyer" that was bidding on the other one
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What... you haven't seen Back to the Future? "Roads? We don't need no
roads!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Claudio Natoli" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: If you liked the "Strange EV on eBay" thread...
> This one has a 3mm turning radius. Gotta love that!
>
> Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You guys must be drafting at less than 5 feet from the rear of the truck.
That's an interesting position, if the semi so much as taps his brakes. Judi
got a ticket, 72MPH, for drafting... on a 150cc Honda scooter. She asked why
she was pulled over, when the truck was doing the same speed. The cop
answered that she was the greater risk.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich Long" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Drafting gone wild
> It could happen! I know I'm going to try and repeat it. Maybe take a
> leason from the derby team and put magnets in the front bumper.
>
> The truck does have reasonable rolling efficiency. But this morning
> was rediculous :)
>
> Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:57 PM 22/09/06 -0500, Mark wrote:
180026783331
Smaller than I expected, is it safe to use in an EV?
Yes, for any EV whose traction pack is no more than 36V. You may be OK at
48V, but that fuse is designed for 12V systems, and may explode, create a
plasma arc or other undesireable effects if used at higher voltage.
I have a collection of suitable HRC fuses, but getting them to anyone from
Australia (and some payment to me in Australia) probably makes it too much
hassle to be worth while, except where someone can swap me something I can use.
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi John,
I know as well as you do that R&D can be budgeted very flexible.
To say it bluntly: GM can pay a lot of its people from H2
subsidies, whether they work on H2 or not - they only need to
be allocated to the 'bin' H2 R&D and they are covered.
This should mean a lot to a company that has its shares
classified as junk and is struggling to survive.
Yes, they promise 100 prototypes soon. They also set the
expectations low by planning for 1000 prototypes somewhere
between 2010 and 2012. That clearly means they are not thinking
about working towards production yet, nor in this decade.
That jives with experts saying that Fuel cell is not likely
in production vehicles in 10 to 15 years.
BTW, just to make it perfectly clear: I have not written off
Fuel Cells in general (there are many more types than the
Hydrogen ones) nor have I decided that H2 is impossible, the
only thing that is boggling my mind is that there is no
known way to realistically make H2 efficiently, yet everyone
(even the president!) is saying that this is the way to go.
THAT is having a closed mind.
If you have heard the interview with the president filling up a
H2 prototype and hearing that it has about 200 miles or so range
- he swallows and then says "this is the future."
Now if we have a proven, efficient, cheap, reliable, reproducible,
well-understood, you name it, type of energy storage that has
the same capacity and is dismissed because it has too small a
range (the same as the present H2 prototypes) then it boggles
my mind what type of reality some people are living in.
You said it correctly that the advantage of the wasted H2
dollars is that we get a lot of EVs as by-products, they only
need to get the right kind of energy storage ;-)
Indeed I am in the Bay Area, I am in high-tech and very open to
new and feasible technologies, especially if they squash a
limit that used to inhibit progress.
If you ask me at this moment, EEstor has my vote.
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: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: New GM electric car
On 09/22/06 at 18:00 you wrote:
> John,
>
> They would not get their share of the billions of dollars
> for research and development of Hydrogen technology, which
> allows them to offload a large portion of their R&D budget
> on somebody elses account.
> The interesting thing is that they hardly need to show
> results, as they set expectations that in the coming 6 years
> nothing can be expected on the Hydrogen front, but some
> prototypes (yes, a series of 1000 cars in 2012 is a proto-run
> much the same as the EV1 was just to get their feet wet.)
>
To what end? If they get funded to research hydrogen tech, and they
know that there is no benefit to it, they waste their own time and
resources. At a company that is desperately attempting to cling to
market share, that's just dumb. BTW, they are putting out 100 FC
vehicles next year.
> The truth is that even GM understand that there are big issues
> and they need a lot of time to try and solve those, though
> several of the major ones have nothing to do with GM, so they
> are in a comfortable position - they only need to tinker with
> fuel cells in an electric car for a decade or more and await
> breakthroughs from others, if it does not happen it's not
> their fault - they have built and showed their FCEVs.
>
You think GM has a decade that it can sit on its hands for anything? I
think absent some major shakeup in the car business, GM will be history
in 10 years (Ford in 5). GM is not in a comfortable position by any
stretch. It is a corporation fighting for its very existence. They
don't have time to play games.
> That is a very elaborate way to maintain status quo with a
> newly launched program of big trucks and SUVs at their hands
> and scaping up a very large budget to fund their R&D.
>
> I may sound sarcarstic and cynical, but I am only trying to
> reflect what I see and read, using my experience in business
> and trying to be realistic.
>
This isn't full-bore conspiracy theory, but darn close. So how to
explain the H2 program for BMW - not fuel cells, they burn it in an
ICE. Or Ford and Nissan and Volkswagen and Honda and Mercedes and
Hyundai and Toyota, all with active H2 fuel cell programs. Are all of
those companies - some of them actually making money - pursuing what
they know to be impossible and uneconomical? For the purpose of
handwaving and fooling us all?
> You have a very different idea, but I get the feeling that you
> are very closed minded to any critical view of fuel cells and
> the loose sand that their castles are built upon.
>
Yes, I have a different idea - and that is that the answer is not yet
known. I have many times agreed that there are many obstacles, but I
have not yet lowered the "its impossible" shutters on my mind.
BTW, I think you are in the Bay Area? You can go ride a fuel cell bus
if you'd like.
Either way, the electric part of the equation stands to benefit everyone
in the EV world. Full electric components are being developed for the
electric cars - steering, A/C, braking. Not just hacking together stuff
designed for ICE, full electric.
Think that might benefit, even if H2 is only for fools?
--- End Message ---
