EV Digest 5947
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Effeciency, Aerodynamics and a (rear) half Tonneau cover - real world
results
by "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Effeciency, Aerodynamics and a (rear) half Tonneau cover - real world
results
by "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) AC from motor
by Storm Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: BB600 drive/charge data
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) standford rally
by "Brian D. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: emeter power supply nte1212
by mike golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: PALO ALTO EV RALLY PICTURES
by Steve Lacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Effeciency, Aerodynamics and a (rear) half Tonneau cover - real world
results
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: PALO ALTO EV RALLY PICTURES
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Tesla Yahoo News Story
by "Jorg Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: new conversion
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Effeciency,
Aerodynamics and a (rear) half Tonneau cover - real world results
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Would LiIons like these work?
by "Michael Trefry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: AC from motor
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: new conversion
by MARK DUTKO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Solectria AC55 Motor
by MARK DUTKO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Would LiIons like these work?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: new conversion
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) WKTEC flyers
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: new conversion - OOPS
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Engine swap for removal labor
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Summary: A 7% increase in efficiency is seen when using the rear half
tonneau cover.
I have completed my experiment to see if installing a half tonneau on
the rear of the S10E has any significant effect on the efficiency. As
many of you know, the S10E originally had a half tonneau cover
installed. In the years before I got my truck, that nice aluminum
covered honeycomb panel was long lost.
A total of 32 runs were made, 17 with the uncovered bed (tail gate up),
15 with a 3/8 piece of plywood across the back half of the bed (Rear
Half Tonneau -RHT). It's ugly but good for the experiment.
To run this experiment I have run the truck over a standard route,
removing as many variables as possible (ie, I drive conservative and do
not use the heat/ac). There are changes in traffic and weather every
day, but those balance out over time.
The route I used was my "flat land" route in the Denver area, which
involves:
12 miles at 45-50 stop and go along Santa Fe Blvd,
14 miles along I25 and Route 36 at 55ish
16 miles along Rout 36 at 65 to 10 mph, depending on traffic patterns.
2 miles at 45 with stop and go.
A total of 44.5 miles, my one way commute to work (I do recharge at
work!).
The Net Amp hour data is summarized below (best viewed in 10pt)
Standard Bed Rear Half Tonneau
Mean 28.93823529 26.93666667
Std Error 0.442371812 0.290622758
Median 29.2 27.31
Std Dev. 1.823945707 1.125577101
Range 6.12 3.38
Minimum 26.39 25
Maximum 32.51 28.38
Count 17 15
After reviewing this with a friend who is deeply into statistics and
experimental design, we determined that sample of 15 size was sufficient
to conclude meaningful results. The use of the RHT resulted in a
decrease in current use of a little over 2 net amp hours, or 6.92% on
the trip.
Over the next few months, I will be repeating the experiment with the
entire bed covered to see what changes occur. If I have the time, I'll
run the tailgate on/off experiment as well
By the way, my S10E is now at 26,200 miles, with about 14 thousand on
the NiMH batteries. The batteries are still going strong and give me no
problem on this commute. I am putting about 500 miles a week on the
NiMH's, at this rate I'm putting around 28,000 miles per year on the
truck. So far, I've avoided burning about 450 gallons of gasoline since
March!
Lynn Adams
See my GM factory built 100% Electric S10 Pickup at:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/722
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Summary: A 7% increase in efficiency is seen when using the rear half
tonneau cover.
I have completed my experiment to see if installing a half tonneau on
the rear of the S10E has any significant effect on the efficiency. As
many of you know, the S10E originally had a half tonneau cover
installed. In the years before I got my truck, that nice aluminum
covered honeycomb panel was long lost.
A total of 32 runs were made, 17 with the uncovered bed (tail gate up),
15 with a 3/8 piece of plywood across the back half of the bed (Rear
Half Tonneau -RHT). It's ugly but good for the experiment.
To run this experiment I have run the truck over a standard route,
removing as many variables as possible (ie, I drive conservative and do
not use the heat/ac). There are changes in traffic and weather every
day, but those balance out over time.
The route I used was my "flat land" route in the Denver area, which
involves:
12 miles at 45-50 stop and go along Santa Fe Blvd,
14 miles along I25 and Route 36 at 55ish
16 miles along Rout 36 at 65 to 10 mph, depending on traffic patterns.
2 miles at 45 with stop and go.
A total of 44.5 miles, my one way commute to work (I do recharge at
work!).
The Net Amp hour data is summarized below (best viewed in 10pt)
Standard Bed Rear Half Tonneau
Mean 28.93823529 26.93666667
Std Error 0.442371812 0.290622758
Median 29.2 27.31
Std Dev. 1.823945707 1.125577101
Range 6.12 3.38
Minimum 26.39 25
Maximum 32.51 28.38
Count 17 15
After reviewing this with a friend who is deeply into statistics and
experimental design, we determined that sample of 15 size was sufficient
to conclude meaningful results. The use of the RHT resulted in a
decrease in current use of a little over 2 net amp hours, or 6.92% on
the trip.
Over the next few months, I will be repeating the experiment with the
entire bed covered to see what changes occur. If I have the time, I'll
run the tailgate on/off experiment as well
By the way, my S10E is now at 26,200 miles, with about 14 thousand on
the NiMH batteries. The batteries are still going strong and give me no
problem on this commute. I am putting about 500 miles a week on the
NiMH's, at this rate I'm putting around 28,000 miles per year on the
truck. So far, I've avoided burning about 450 gallons of gasoline since
March!
Lynn Adams
See my GM factory built 100% Electric S10 Pickup at:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/722
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I didn't realise I had so much to learn to do an EV.
Thanks to all of you who are contributing to the
education of yet another newbie.
AC/DC conversion is easy. DC/DC conversion is
expensive. DC motors are really AC created by the
commutator/brush system. Field weakening does
something I don't quite understand yet.
If I tapped the shunt between the field and commutator
wouldn't I get pulsating DC? I would think this could
then go into a transformer to allow voltage reduction
for charging the 12v battery.
This is too obvious, so I must be ignorant of
something somewhere.
storm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pretty close to 100v. Is that why it looks like 200% is going back in?
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kwh shows not only the extra AH going in, but the difference between the
> charge and discharge voltage. With your pack this could be, what
over 100
> volts?
>
> > So here's data from my notebook. Readings are from the Emeter.
> >
> > Watt hours are zeroed at the beginning of each trip.
> >
> > 9/27 -3730 wh, 13.3mi from work to home. 280 wh/mile.
> > 9/27 +3130 wh, charged at home on 240vac. 6860 wh charge to 366v.
> >
> > 9/30 Charged to 386v.
> > 9/30 -5520 wh, 23.3 miles to Palo Alto EAA Rally. 300v pack at 1.5a
> > load, end of drive. 238 wh/mile, 55-60mph. 37.5 centigrade pack.
> > 9/30 +2630 wh to 386v, charged at PA Rally on 208vac.
> > 9/30 -6480 wh, 22.1 miles from P.A. Rally. 291v pack at 1.5a load, end
> > of drive. Headlights, heater. 293 wh/mile.
> > 10/1 +2500 wh to 386v, charged at home on 240vac.
> >
> > 386v is the same overcharge as an initialization charge to 150%. I did
> > this to
> > cram all I could into the pack before a long drive. Since I'm flying
> > blind without a monitoring system I wanted the depth of discharge to
> > be impacted as little as possible by over filling the pack.
> >
> > So in round numbers I'm putting back 150% each time I charged
> > yesterday. The energy put back would be a little less when I charge to
> > my normal level of 366v instead of 386v. The BB600a.pdf manual, page
> > 12, recommends overcharging by 20-40%. But my goal is to do daily
> > charging at a rate that won't cause a lot of watering.
> >
> > Odd how the work commute numbers show I'm putting back 200%. When the
> > Emeter was setup in ah's, this would not have looked like a 200%
> > charge. But for some reason in kwhr's it looks to be way over
> > charging. Hmmm.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 just want to thank everyone who helped put this on. It was Great!!!!
Good folks, Fun home builds and Tesla Motors is out of this world.
Brian Hall
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
what if the nte1212 takes the power from the iota when
used as a 120vdc to 12dc converter?
I guess those laptop powers supplies is the way to go?
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can I get a 2nd opinion that this will provide
> > isolation, so I don't blow up my emeter?
> >
> Jake Oshins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sparrow... Corbin used a tiny 12VDC-to-12VDC
> converter to provide
> > isolation between the 12V system and the
> Link-10...
> > The part was an NTE1212. It can only handle 1W,
> but that's plenty.
> > These are very cheap.
>
> Cheap, but not good.
>
> The Link 10 (aka E-meter) draws about 150ma at 12v
> in full sunlight (it
> brightens its display based on the ambient light
> level). 12v x 0.15a =
> 1.8 watts, which is a significant overload for a 1
> watt DC/DC converter.
>
> The input voltage range for the NTE1212 is
> 10.8-13.2v. This is
> inadequate; the accessory battery and its DC/DC
> converter can easily
> range from 10.5v to 15v.
>
> Most importantly, the input/output isolation for
> this part is wholly
> inadequate for an EV. The advertising claims
> 1000vdc; but read the data
> sheet (at
>
http://www.cd4power.com/data/power/ncl/kdc_ntec.pdf)!
> It says:
>
> A question commonly asked is, "What is the
> continuous voltage
> rating that can be applied across the part in
> normal operation?"
> ...less than 42.4 vac peak, or 60vdc... The
> part should never be
> used as an element of a safety isolation
> system... The NTE series
> has toroidal transformers, with no additional
> insulation between
> primary and secondary windings of enameled
> wire.
>
> The DC/DC converter that you use to power a Link-10
> / E-meter needs
> *guaranteed* isolation sufficient to withstand your
> full pack voltage
> continuously. You aren't going to find this on a
> cheap DC/DC. The one
> Cruising Equipment used was a Datel part that cost
> over $30; but it was
> rated at 1500vac, UL listed, 9-19vdc input, and
> 12vdc at 0-250ma output.
>
> Or, you can use an AC/DC universal input, DC-output
> power supply to
> power the Link-10 / E-meter directly from your pack.
> Such supplies
> almost always have isolation voltage ratings of
> 1500v or more, and are
> UL listed (which means they have to GUARANTEE that
> it is isolated). For
> example, I am using an Astrodyne MSCC-5003 which has
> 3000vac isolation,
> 85-265vac (90-370vdc) input, 15v, 0-0.33a. This is a
> potted module with
> screw terminals that sells for $80, they have
> cheaper versions if you
> want to package it yourself.
> --
> 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
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have some as well:
http://slacy.com/gallery/v/2006/ev_rally
Steve
MARK DUTKO wrote:
I posted a few pics from the rally today. The last are my Yaris to be
converted.
Mark
http://electricyaris.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for real life data points! What is the difference between your
"standard error" and "standard deviation"?
Even more accurate would be to do coast down tests. If the bed cover
is easy to remove, videotape the speedo (or better yet, a GPS) with
the cover on away and back, cover off away and back, etc. several
times. Then you have controlled for same tire pressure, route,
temperature, etc.
--- "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Summary: A 7% increase in efficiency is seen when using the rear
> half
> tonneau cover.
>
>
>
> I have completed my experiment to see if installing a half tonneau
> on
> the rear of the S10E has any significant effect on the efficiency.
> As
> many of you know, the S10E originally had a half tonneau cover
> installed. In the years before I got my truck, that nice aluminum
> covered honeycomb panel was long lost.
>
> A total of 32 runs were made, 17 with the uncovered bed (tail gate
> up),
> 15 with a 3/8 piece of plywood across the back half of the bed
> (Rear
> Half Tonneau -RHT). It's ugly but good for the experiment.
>
>
> To run this experiment I have run the truck over a standard route,
> removing as many variables as possible (ie, I drive conservative
> and do
> not use the heat/ac). There are changes in traffic and weather
> every
> day, but those balance out over time.
>
>
>
> The route I used was my "flat land" route in the Denver area, which
> involves:
>
> 12 miles at 45-50 stop and go along Santa Fe Blvd,
>
> 14 miles along I25 and Route 36 at 55ish
>
> 16 miles along Rout 36 at 65 to 10 mph, depending on traffic
> patterns.
>
> 2 miles at 45 with stop and go.
>
>
>
> A total of 44.5 miles, my one way commute to work (I do recharge at
> work!).
>
>
>
>
>
> The Net Amp hour data is summarized below (best viewed in 10pt)
>
>
>
> Standard Bed Rear Half Tonneau
>
> Mean 28.93823529 26.93666667
>
> Std Error 0.442371812 0.290622758
>
> Median 29.2 27.31
> Std Dev. 1.823945707 1.125577101
> Range 6.12 3.38
> Minimum 26.39 25
> Maximum 32.51 28.38
> Count 17 15
>
>
>
>
> After reviewing this with a friend who is deeply into statistics
> and
> experimental design, we determined that sample of 15 size was
> sufficient
> to conclude meaningful results. The use of the RHT resulted in a
> decrease in current use of a little over 2 net amp hours, or 6.92%
> on
> the trip.
>
>
>
> Over the next few months, I will be repeating the experiment with
> the
> entire bed covered to see what changes occur. If I have the time,
> I'll
> run the tailgate on/off experiment as well
>
>
>
> By the way, my S10E is now at 26,200 miles, with about 14 thousand
> on
> the NiMH batteries. The batteries are still going strong and give
> me no
> problem on this commute. I am putting about 500 miles a week on
> the
> NiMH's, at this rate I'm putting around 28,000 miles per year on
> the
> truck. So far, I've avoided burning about 450 gallons of gasoline
> since
> March!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lynn Adams
>
> See my GM factory built 100% Electric S10 Pickup at:
>
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/722
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for posting. It's great to see that Bob Schneeveis is still out there
strutting his stuff!
Roderick Wilde
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Lacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: PALO ALTO EV RALLY PICTURES
I have some as well:
http://slacy.com/gallery/v/2006/ev_rally
Steve
MARK DUTKO wrote:
I posted a few pics from the rally today. The last are my Yaris to be
converted.
Mark
http://electricyaris.com/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 9/27/06, Mike Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Someone on hugg.com pointed out the Tango was a better deal than the
Tesla, because of the greater range on the Tango.
I replied that they were aimed at slightly different people, but:
Two seat, high performance, electric sportscar: $100,000.
50 miles extra range vs. a convertable top: $0
Jealous stares vs. Pointing and laughing: Priceless
Huh?
The Tango has a range of 50 miles (lead acid) 100 miles (NiMH) and 200
miles (LiIon).
The Tesla has a range of 250 miles (LiIon)
So, if your only benchmark were range, the Tesla is a better deal.
As for pointing and laughing, I'm using a Tango for a few days (it's
in town for the Google Zeitgeist conference), and I'm seeing plenty of
pointing, lots of head-turning, and no laughing.
You know the biggest difference between the two?
Yesterday at the EV Rally in Palo Alto, the Wrightspeed X-1 and the
Tango were both giving out rides. During one lap, they both turned
onto El Camino Real at the same time. There was, of course, a burst
of acceleration during which, despite being behind the Tango, the
Wrightspeed quickly pulled past. But of course, after a few seconds
they both had to slow down again, as there was a red light up ahead.
And that's when the Tango pulled past the Wrightspeed again.
Lane-splitting: gotta love it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you like the Scion Xa, try a used Echo. The cars are very similar- same
engine and chassis. The Echo is even roomier than the Xb.
There are minor suspension differences ( Echo has no rear sway bar), but you
could easily upgrade the Echo. I just put rear XB springs and shocks in my
Echo conversion ( about 40 % stiffer than the Echo springs, drop-in
replacements) that I got on Ebay for $9.95. A lot of people upgrade their
Xb's, so you can used stock springs and shocks easily and cheaply.
The Echo is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, and has even more room
inside, and it has a VERY low Cd ( aerodynamic drag) coeffiecient of 0.26.
You could probably find a 2001 or 2002 in very good shape for about $8k.
Phil
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: new conversion
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:40:59 -0500
Does anyone have any thoughts on converting a Scion xA? No - not "the
box". It's a more aerodynamic 5-dr with the same chassis as "the box"
(otherwise called the xB). I was thinking of the Mazda3 but since
weight and price are major considerations, the Scion is 2340 lbs curb
(3305 gross) vs. the Mazda3 at 2930 lbs curb (for comparison, the new
Beetle at 2884 and Honda Civic at 2600, both much more expensive). I
can find used Mazda3's for $12-15K, or new at $18K. No used Scion xA's
around, but new at only $13.5K. I drove one yesterday and it feels
surprisingly nice and solid. Not much room under the hood but hopefully
enough, and decent space in back. Pretty roomy car inside for it's
size.
gary
_________________________________________________________________
SearchYour way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You might get more accurate resultes if you just measure the power at a
given speed and a given point. I.e. drive at constant 50mph past a
landmark near the road (sign, etc.) and measure the power, then reverse
the course and drive at 50 mph in the opposite direction past the same
landmark. Average the power level for both directions (this pretty much
cancles out slope and wind). Try to do this on as level a stretch of road
as possible and on a day with as little wind as possible. Do this several
times, with and without the cover, and average the results (helps reduce
measurement errors)
Considering the fact that this is stop and go driving, doubtlesly with
many variations on the numbers of stops per trip, I believe you'd need
more than 15 samples to get statistically meaningful data, at least with a
high degree of confidence.
> Summary: A 7% increase in efficiency is seen when using the rear half
> tonneau cover.
>
>
>
> I have completed my experiment to see if installing a half tonneau on
> the rear of the S10E has any significant effect on the efficiency. As
> many of you know, the S10E originally had a half tonneau cover
> installed. In the years before I got my truck, that nice aluminum
> covered honeycomb panel was long lost.
>
> A total of 32 runs were made, 17 with the uncovered bed (tail gate up),
> 15 with a 3/8 piece of plywood across the back half of the bed (Rear
> Half Tonneau -RHT). It's ugly but good for the experiment.
>
>
> To run this experiment I have run the truck over a standard route,
> removing as many variables as possible (ie, I drive conservative and do
> not use the heat/ac). There are changes in traffic and weather every
> day, but those balance out over time.
>
>
>
> The route I used was my "flat land" route in the Denver area, which
> involves:
>
> 12 miles at 45-50 stop and go along Santa Fe Blvd,
>
> 14 miles along I25 and Route 36 at 55ish
>
> 16 miles along Rout 36 at 65 to 10 mph, depending on traffic patterns.
>
> 2 miles at 45 with stop and go.
>
>
>
> A total of 44.5 miles, my one way commute to work (I do recharge at
> work!).
>
>
>
>
>
> The Net Amp hour data is summarized below (best viewed in 10pt)
>
>
>
> Standard Bed Rear Half Tonneau
>
> Mean 28.93823529 26.93666667
>
> Std Error 0.442371812 0.290622758
>
> Median 29.2 27.31
> Std Dev. 1.823945707 1.125577101
> Range 6.12 3.38
> Minimum 26.39 25
> Maximum 32.51 28.38
> Count 17 15
>
>
>
>
> After reviewing this with a friend who is deeply into statistics and
> experimental design, we determined that sample of 15 size was sufficient
> to conclude meaningful results. The use of the RHT resulted in a
> decrease in current use of a little over 2 net amp hours, or 6.92% on
> the trip.
>
>
>
> Over the next few months, I will be repeating the experiment with the
> entire bed covered to see what changes occur. If I have the time, I'll
> run the tailgate on/off experiment as well
>
>
>
> By the way, my S10E is now at 26,200 miles, with about 14 thousand on
> the NiMH batteries. The batteries are still going strong and give me no
> problem on this commute. I am putting about 500 miles a week on the
> NiMH's, at this rate I'm putting around 28,000 miles per year on the
> truck. So far, I've avoided burning about 450 gallons of gasoline since
> March!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lynn Adams
>
> See my GM factory built 100% Electric S10 Pickup at:
>
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/722
>
>
--
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 ---
Thanks,
I haven't yet figured out what the math is to calculate these things, or
what even to look for to get an idea.
I thought 3000 watt hours sounded really great, but I guess that's if you're
dealing with low current.
I guess there's just no alternative to carrying 1/2 ton or more of batteries
around.
Thanks again,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Would LiIons like these work?
Depends on the EV. These aren't very powerful, max current is less than
1C, in fact it looks like it's less than .85C. That's max current.
Continuous current is probably somewhere around .25C (I can't be bothered
to dig through their website to find out where the've hidden the battery
specs, if it's even available.)
Anyway, that means that you'll need a bunch of these for any decent power.
Each module is good for 80 watts maximum. If you are doing a full size EV
and are willing to live with really poor performance (0-60 mph in over a
minute) you could get away with only 400 modules. If you want medium
performance (similar to an economy car) you'll need 800-100 modules.
Seems like an awful low of hassle and probably really expensive.
If you are going with an e-bike, then you'd only need perhaps 8-10 of
these. While that would give you great range, I'm guessing that it would
be prohibitively expensive.
> I have no idea how expensive these are, but before I would call the
> company,
> I'd want to know if something like this would work for an EV, and how many
> it might take?
>
>
>
> http://www.ocean-server.com/largebattery.html
>
>
>
> Obviously I'm looking for the smallest, and lightest power source I can
> find.
>
>
>
> I'm sure if this were feasible, someone would have done this already
> though.
>
>
>
>
--
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 ---
> AC/DC conversion is easy. DC/DC conversion is
> expensive.
AI'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I'm guessing you're still
missing something.
> If I tapped the shunt between the field and commutator
> wouldn't I get pulsating DC?
What shunt?
Whether you see constant DC or pulsing depends on the type of speed
control you are using. The brushes on a typical commutator touch the next
segment before they break with the current segment. This makes the
voltage going through the comutator pretty much constant, assuming you are
applying a constant DC voltage to them. If you are applying a pulsating
DC, you'll see pulses.
If you are using a typical PWM DC controller, I believe you'll see a
sawtooth waveform. The sawtooth increases in voltage when the PWM
transistors are conducting and decreases when they are off (and the
voltage is then running through the freewheeling diodes).
Of course this assumes a series wound DC motor, a shunt wound motor might
be different depenind on how you control it.
> I would think this could
> then go into a transformer to allow voltage reduction
> for charging the 12v battery.
It's an interesting idea, unfortunately you'd have no control over the
charging voltage going into the 12V battery without adding some extra
circuitry. By the time you've added enough to properly control the
charging, you've basically built a DC-DC converter....except that it only
runs when the main motor runs and causes varying amounts of interferance
(though probably negligible) with your drive motor.
>
> This is too obvious, so I must be ignorant of
> something somewhere.
> storm
>
>
--
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 ---
Phil-
What did you use to weigh your engine/parts?
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Phil Marino wrote:
If you like the Scion Xa, try a used Echo. The cars are very
similar- same engine and chassis. The Echo is even roomier than
the Xb.
There are minor suspension differences ( Echo has no rear sway
bar), but you could easily upgrade the Echo. I just put rear XB
springs and shocks in my Echo conversion ( about 40 % stiffer than
the Echo springs, drop-in replacements) that I got on Ebay for
$9.95. A lot of people upgrade their Xb's, so you can used stock
springs and shocks easily and cheaply.
The Echo is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, and has even more
room inside, and it has a VERY low Cd ( aerodynamic drag)
coeffiecient of 0.26.
You could probably find a 2001 or 2002 in very good shape for about
$8k.
Phil
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: new conversion
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:40:59 -0500
Does anyone have any thoughts on converting a Scion xA? No - not
"the
box". It's a more aerodynamic 5-dr with the same chassis as "the
box"
(otherwise called the xB). I was thinking of the Mazda3 but since
weight and price are major considerations, the Scion is 2340 lbs curb
(3305 gross) vs. the Mazda3 at 2930 lbs curb (for comparison, the new
Beetle at 2884 and Honda Civic at 2600, both much more expensive). I
can find used Mazda3's for $12-15K, or new at $18K. No used Scion
xA's
around, but new at only $13.5K. I drove one yesterday and it feels
surprisingly nice and solid. Not much room under the hood but
hopefully
enough, and decent space in back. Pretty roomy car inside for it's
size.
gary
_________________________________________________________________
Search—Your way, your world, right now! http://imagine-
windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone have experience with this motor? Know anyone who has used
one?
Mark
http://www.azuredynamics.com/pdf/AC55%20-%20June%202005.pdf
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Thanks,
>
> I haven't yet figured out what the math is to calculate these things, or
> what even to look for to get an idea.
>
> I thought 3000 watt hours sounded really great, but I guess that's if
> you're
> dealing with low current.
Yes it is, go back and look at the webpage. 3000 watt hrs requires 32
battery packs (says it right on the photo). 3000 watt hrs is enough
energy for about 12 miles range on a decent EV.
HOWEVER, decent acceleration for an average EV requires about 60,000 watts
of power (talking power now, not energy). Each pack is only good for 80
watts of power MAXIMUM (extrapolated from the top picture).
To get 60,000 watts of power would require at least 750 packs.
>
> I guess there's just no alternative to carrying 1/2 ton or more of
> batteries
> around.
Sure there is, just no /cheap/ alternative.
Using high power LiIons, you can do it with perhaps 200-300 lbs of
batteries. Of course this will cost probably $30,000 or more.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Would LiIons like these work?
>
> Depends on the EV. These aren't very powerful, max current is less than
> 1C, in fact it looks like it's less than .85C. That's max current.
> Continuous current is probably somewhere around .25C (I can't be bothered
> to dig through their website to find out where the've hidden the battery
> specs, if it's even available.)
> Anyway, that means that you'll need a bunch of these for any decent power.
>
> Each module is good for 80 watts maximum. If you are doing a full size EV
> and are willing to live with really poor performance (0-60 mph in over a
> minute) you could get away with only 400 modules. If you want medium
> performance (similar to an economy car) you'll need 800-100 modules.
>
> Seems like an awful low of hassle and probably really expensive.
>
> If you are going with an e-bike, then you'd only need perhaps 8-10 of
> these. While that would give you great range, I'm guessing that it would
> be prohibitively expensive.
>
>> I have no idea how expensive these are, but before I would call the
>> company,
>> I'd want to know if something like this would work for an EV, and how
>> many
>> it might take?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ocean-server.com/largebattery.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously I'm looking for the smallest, and lightest power source I can
>> find.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure if this were feasible, someone would have done this already
>> though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
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 used a 50# spring scale ( made for fishing) for everything except the
engine. I put that on a regular bathroom scale. I also have a small
postage-type scale for the small stuff. The heaviest part I took out of the
car ( except for the engine and battery) was the fuel tank, at 17#.
If you record where everything came from ( fore and aft and left-to-right)
and, also include the stuff you're adding, you can make up a spread sheet
that will calculate the final weight distribution.
Here's my list, just including the part and weight ( poor formatting - I
copied it out of the spread sheet)
Wheel covers ( 4) 5
Under-engind covers (2) 1.5
Battery,tray, hold-down 35
Heat shields - 3 muffler, 1 tank 5
Rear muffler 12
Exh. pipe, incl c conv, ft mflr, clmps 15.8
Starter 6.5
Alternator 11
Hoses - 2 rad, 2 htr 2
Air clnr ass'y 5.5
A/C Compressor 10
A/C 2 tubes, belt 2
A/C condensor 4.5
Radiator, fan, filler, o'flow 10
Fuel charcoal cannister 4
Filler Neck Ass'y 3
Fuel lines, hoses 4
Fuel pump, sensor ass'y 2
Fuel tank 17
Fuel ( 12 gal, 0.74 SG) 71
Coolant 9.5
Exhaust manifold shield 1
Plastic engine top cover 1
Power steering pump 7
Steering box heat shield and belt 1
Rt. drive axle heat shield 0.5
Rt rear tow hook 1.5
Left rear tow hook 1.5
Exhayst manifold and support 6.5
Top eng mountt forging ( mnt to engine) 3.5
Water pump 2
Intake manifold ass'y 6
Heater core 1.5
A/C core ( evaporator) 3
engine ( incl 2 qt oil) 146
2 qt oil 4
ECU computer 1.5
Plastic spare tire cover 2.7
Misc eng. wiring, st cable,htr comp's 6
Vert support - hood latch to lwr beam 0.5
Front grill (black plastic) 0.75
2 vibe dampers ( susp support) 2.3
Pwr strg tubing 2
Lower radiator cross bar 2.2
Flywheel ring gear+ ring ( r=5 inches) 2.5
Spare tire 15
Jack and crank ( not incl lug wrnch) 4.5
Cast iron ring from fwd tranny mt 0.6
Trunk floor ( 0.028" x 6 ft sq) -actual 9
Phil
From: MARK DUTKO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: new conversion
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:33:31 -0700
Phil-
What did you use to weigh your engine/parts?
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Phil Marino wrote:
If you like the Scion Xa, try a used Echo. The cars are very similar-
same engine and chassis. The Echo is even roomier than the Xb.
There are minor suspension differences ( Echo has no rear sway bar), but
you could easily upgrade the Echo. I just put rear XB springs and shocks
in my Echo conversion ( about 40 % stiffer than the Echo springs, drop-in
replacements) that I got on Ebay for $9.95. A lot of people upgrade their
Xb's, so you can used stock springs and shocks easily and cheaply.
The Echo is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, and has even more room
inside, and it has a VERY low Cd ( aerodynamic drag) coeffiecient of
0.26.
You could probably find a 2001 or 2002 in very good shape for about $8k.
Phil
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: new conversion
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:40:59 -0500
Does anyone have any thoughts on converting a Scion xA? No - not "the
box". It's a more aerodynamic 5-dr with the same chassis as "the box"
(otherwise called the xB). I was thinking of the Mazda3 but since
weight and price are major considerations, the Scion is 2340 lbs curb
(3305 gross) vs. the Mazda3 at 2930 lbs curb (for comparison, the new
Beetle at 2884 and Honda Civic at 2600, both much more expensive). I
can find used Mazda3's for $12-15K, or new at $18K. No used Scion xA's
around, but new at only $13.5K. I drove one yesterday and it feels
surprisingly nice and solid. Not much room under the hood but hopefully
enough, and decent space in back. Pretty roomy car inside for it's
size.
gary
_________________________________________________________________
SearchYour way, your world, right now! http://imagine-
windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, does anyone have sample flyers that could be handed out at a
showing of WKTEC?
It's coming to my local theater soon, and I hope to be able to park
my Sparrow there during the showings.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: new conversion
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:16:47 -0400
If you like the Scion Xa, try a used Echo. The cars are very similar- same
engine and chassis. The Echo is even roomier than the Xb.
Escuse my typo there. The Echo is roomier than the xA, NOT the xB, You
could play raquetball in an Xb ( maybe even doubles)
There are minor suspension differences ( Echo has no rear sway bar), but
you could easily upgrade the Echo. I just put rear XB springs and shocks
in my Echo conversion ( about 40 % stiffer than the Echo springs, drop-in
replacements) that I got on Ebay for $9.95. A lot of people upgrade their
Xb's, so you can used stock springs and shocks easily and cheaply.
The Echo is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, and has even more room
inside, and it has a VERY low Cd ( aerodynamic drag) coeffiecient of 0.26.
You could probably find a 2001 or 2002 in very good shape for about $8k.
Phil
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: new conversion
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:40:59 -0500
Does anyone have any thoughts on converting a Scion xA? No - not "the
box". It's a more aerodynamic 5-dr with the same chassis as "the box"
(otherwise called the xB). I was thinking of the Mazda3 but since
weight and price are major considerations, the Scion is 2340 lbs curb
(3305 gross) vs. the Mazda3 at 2930 lbs curb (for comparison, the new
Beetle at 2884 and Honda Civic at 2600, both much more expensive). I
can find used Mazda3's for $12-15K, or new at $18K. No used Scion xA's
around, but new at only $13.5K. I drove one yesterday and it feels
surprisingly nice and solid. Not much room under the hood but hopefully
enough, and decent space in back. Pretty roomy car inside for it's
size.
gary
_________________________________________________________________
SearchYour way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
_________________________________________________________________
Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Your motor was already out of the car, so nobody
could verify that it ran, that's why they did not
want to spend money on it.
Having someone with a blown engine come over, test-
drive your car, verify it works as supposed and
being able to take it out himself pretty much
guarantees him that he is not buying a lemon.
You're correct that it depends on how the demand is,
which in turn is dependent on the age and reliability
of the original car.
If your model does not have a predecessor with the
same engine, and its less than 3 years old then most
cars will not have blown their engine and if they
did, it is warranty work, so there will be nobody
looking for a donor engine.
If your car model (or a predecessor) is running for
15 years or more and it ran in high numbers, then
there are many tree-shade mechanics buying a neat
looking car for little when it blew its engine and
they have the time to shop for a replacement and
to remove it.
YMMV.
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 Mike Willmon
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Engine swap for removal labor
It really depends on the engine that you want to get rid of. If its in
demand it will go, if its a boat anchor you probably can't
give it away. I ran mine on Craigslist for a month for sale, not one call. I
listed it for Free, lots of calls and gone right
away. So it turns out mine was somewhere between "I wouldn't pay $100 for
that engine" to "hey for free I'll take it". And I
really wanted it off my garage floor. I did my whole conversion with it
there and it took up a lot of room. It was turning out to
be worth it for someone to just come get it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:23 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Engine swap for removal labor
>
>
> Yes, I drove the truck there. Apparently they had more of these than
> they needed. And this is a place that specializes in Nissan's so I
> figured they would be my best bet. I was also I bit surprised that my
> ad on craigs list offering it for FREE did not attract more attention.
>
> This is why I commented that getting rid of a used engine is not as
> easy as I would have thought.
>
>
> On Friday, September 29, 2006, at 09:47 PM, Mark McCurdy wrote:
> > you DROVE the truck to them and they said it was a boat anchor?
> > bet you talked to the idiot that worked there
> > every place has an idiot working there, just hope nobody on this list
> > is self employed :op
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 6:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Engine swap for removal labor
> >
> >
> >> Yes, Before I began this process I drove my truck to Nissan Only
> >> Wreckers outside of Sacramento CA. That is when I was told it was a
> >> boat anchor.
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
