EV Digest 6020
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet brothers.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet brothers.
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet brothers.
by "Tom Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Buss Bars
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Buss Bars
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet brothers.
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) gliders
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) gliders
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EV safety
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: New Battery Technology Scams through out histroy
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Buss Bars
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Electrovair Corrections
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: New Battery Technology Scams through out histroy
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: lee's emeter companion?
by Cory Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Lighter Porsche 914
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Wiring a Ceramic Heater
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Battery discharge capacity
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Plexiglas Battery Box
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EV safety
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Air Conditioning motor
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: New Battery Technology Scams through out histroy
by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jukka_J=E4rvinen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re:web site
by Sharon G Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: EV safety
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: A123 Group buy?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Electrovair Corrections
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Once again those BOZO's the Tappet Brothers (on Car Talk carried by NPR)
have stuck there feet in their mouths again. They really gave some negative
comments about the safety of the Honda Insight. I'm not on the Insight list
but there should be a large number of complaints from Insight owners & I
think John Wayland was involved in an accident in his Insight where he came
out the winner to a much larger car.that rear ended him. Please forward
this to the Insight list & I think Honda itself should go on the program and
rebutt these slanderous comments. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
what were the comments?
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
Sent: October 14, 2006 9:24 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
SFEVA
Subject: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet
brothers.
Once again those BOZO's the Tappet Brothers (on Car Talk carried by NPR)
have stuck there feet in their mouths again. They really gave some negative
comments about the safety of the Honda Insight. I'm not on the Insight list
but there should be a large number of complaints from Insight owners & I
think John Wayland was involved in an accident in his Insight where he came
out the winner to a much larger car.that rear ended him. Please forward
this to the Insight list & I think Honda itself should go on the program and
rebutt these slanderous comments. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What did the Tappet Brothers say about the Insight?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SFEVA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet
brothers.
Once again those BOZO's the Tappet Brothers (on Car Talk carried by NPR)
have stuck there feet in their mouths again. They really gave some
negative
comments about the safety of the Honda Insight. I'm not on the Insight
list
but there should be a large number of complaints from Insight owners & I
think John Wayland was involved in an accident in his Insight where he
came
out the winner to a much larger car.that rear ended him. Please forward
this to the Insight list & I think Honda itself should go on the program
and
rebutt these slanderous comments. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I use liquid tin to coat my copper buss bars. Works slick. Just put the
buss bars in the solution. Wait 10 minutes. That's it. Lawrence
Rhodes......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Buss Bars
> Lead dipping buss bars into a pot of lead, does not work, unless you
applied
> tinning solution to the copper and then you must preheat the copper first
> before you dip it.
>
> If you just dip cold copper bar into lead, the lead will cool too quickly
> and will not bind on to the copper. You can knock it right off. Its like a
> cold solder joint that has a dull appearance.
>
> I use a tinning solution that I got from a welding supplier. It looks
like
> clear water. You can applied it to all metals. It is normally used for
> applying silver solder in different temperatures rating that comes in
> different stick lengths.
>
> After you clean, tin, preheat and dip it, quickly wipe the surface with a
> damp cloth to give it a smooth surface.
>
> What I did on my copper bars, was applied the silver solder tinning
solution
> just round the drill holes at each of the buss bar. Using a torch, I
> applied a lower temperature silver solder about 1 inch diameter around and
> inside the drill holes.
>
> Get this tinning solution and silver solder from a welding supplier, not
> plumbing type from a hardware store.
>
> You can get the silver solder in different temperature ratings from 300
> degrees to 1000 degrees. It takes a ox/acl torch for the higher
> temperatures.
>
> We also use the higher temperature silver solder to weld on new contact
> buttons for contactors.
>
> Again after you applied the silver solder and while it still looks wet
> looking, you can wipe it with a damp cloth to give it a smooth finish if
you
> did not get it on smoothly.
>
> Did only one side that make contact with the battery post. I then painted
> the buss bar with Appliance Epoxy paint except for the contact point.
>
> Many companies have battery clamps that are epoxy coated to prevent
> corrosion.
>
> Roland
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Buss Bars
>
>
> > About lead-dipping them - my guess is that some sort of flux should be
> > applied to the copper parts first. I don't know of a source for "resin"
> > flux in quantity, but I can get a big tube of flux cheap at the BORG in
> > the
> > plumbing department..
> >
> > That's probably acid flux, so would it be a bad idea to use it on bus
> > bars?
> >
> > When I was a yout, I remember hearing "never use acid core solder on
> > electronics", so, I never have.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > >From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > >To: [email protected]
> > >Subject: Re: Buss Bars
> > >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:11:43 -0500
> > >
> > >Adrian DeLeon wrote:
> > >>I'm using 1" x 1/16" Cu bar with T-105 batteries in a 114V system...
> > >
> > >This sounds like a very reasonable way to do it. The only difference
I'd
> > >make is to lead-dip them to provide the corrosion resistance. I
wouldn't
> > >depend on heat shrink to keep water or acid from wicking underneath.
> > >
> > >1" x 1/16" is a bit on the thin side for 125 amps average; it won't
> > >overheat, but will cost you a bit of voltage drop.
> > >
> > >At (say) 6" per strip and 19 batteries, you have 9 feet of this strip.
> > >Its
> > >cross-sectional area is 0.0625 sq.in, which is equivalent to #7 wire.
#7
> > >has 0.000498 ohms per foot, or 0.00448 ohms for a 9-foot length. At 125
> > >amps, it produces a voltage drop of V = .00448 x 125 = 0.56 volts.
> > >--
> > >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
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > The next generation of Search-say hello!
> >
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Phillips wrote:
> It would seem prudent to have the bussbar be able to flex some to help
> take stress off of the terminal. But my old dead lead pack of 104
> Hawkers had .040" copper bars that were dead flat. They placed the
> batterys so they just touched each other. There were also one layer
> stacked upon another layer.
>
> So while shock and stres absorption would seem common sense, my pack
> is a data point in the other direction. Not one time was there any
> kind of failure.
Are you sure? ;^>
We know for a fact that the Hawker packs in these vehicles did/do not
last as long as they should, and while there are some good reasons we
can point to for this, perhaps the stress placed on the terminals by the
busbars is just another compounding factor?
The Hawker terminal style is probably ane of the most robust around, but
it may be possible that the stress of the busbars on them did/does still
compromise the sealing and allow the cells to vent below the pressure
that the vents are designed to release at. Over time even a slight leak
would result in loss of elecrolyte and premature failure of the battery,
possibly with little or no visible sign of damage.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "SFEVA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Honda Insight unsave according to Click & Clack the Tappet
brothers.
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:23:53 -0700
Once again those BOZO's the Tappet Brothers (on Car Talk carried by NPR)
have stuck there feet in their mouths again. They really gave some
negative
comments about the safety of the Honda Insight. I'm not on the Insight
list
but there should be a large number of complaints from Insight owners & I
think John Wayland was involved in an accident in his Insight where he came
out the winner to a much larger car.that rear ended him. Please forward
this to the Insight list & I think Honda itself should go on the program
and
rebutt these slanderous comments. Lawrence Rhodes....
The Insight may very well be a safe car. But, the outcome of one accident
(regardless of who "won" the encounter) can't prove or disprove that.
And, I think that - even with a LOT of data - you can't look at the
condition of the cars after an accident and determine which was safer. You
have to look at the condition of the occupants.
What were the comments?
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live
Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I think the vehicle makers do not want to become coach makers.
And now they can only dream of the day their product deserved a body by a
coachmaker.
Marv
> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:25:50 -0700
> From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RAV4-EV] gliders
> To: "E.B. Gendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have not known any major global auto company to produce what I think would
> be
> called "gliders". A glider would be a vehicle shell as you put it, without a
> drive train. I think the vehicle makers do not want to become coach makers.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry about that. Wrong list. My bad.
marv
----------
From: Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:33:03 -0700
To: EV Discussion <[email protected]>
Subject: gliders
> I think the vehicle makers do not want to become coach makers.
And now they can only dream of the day their product deserved a body by a
coachmaker.
Marv
> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:25:50 -0700
> From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RAV4-EV] gliders
> To: "E.B. Gendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I have not known any major global auto company to produce what I think would
> be
> called "gliders". A glider would be a vehicle shell as you put it, without a
> drive train. I think the vehicle makers do not want to become coach makers.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rush asked:
But a question comes up about safety... What is a side
impact or even rolling over at 60+ MPH going to do to your
EV and its occupants?
jerryd wrote:
I'm not sure about you but in mine I've designed it
to equal a compact sedan. It has good, big crush zones,
integral composite rollcage, high strength in the passenger
compartment, side beams with a 1' high door sill for better
side impacts, racing seats with 4 point seatbelts, safety
glass among many smaller details like if a car hits me from
the rear, it's designed to raise up and the other car slide
under instead of a direct hit.
The theory sounds good, but the only real way to know is to crash test
it. Either by being able to afford building some to crash test, or by
depending on the carelessness of your customers to test if for you :-)
--
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 ---
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
It has been going on since the creation of the Battery in the 1880's.
I have been reading a book "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black.
This is supposedly a Historical research in the the hows and whys
certain Technology was manipulated rather than brought forward.
Batteries have always attracted scam artists. People don't know how to
measure a battery's performance, so they tend to take the seller's word
for it. This is a perfect situation for crooks to lie and not get caught.
Con artists also tend to promote their miracle battery as "making the
electric car practical at last". They do this because a) the potential
profit is *huge* if it really worked (greed), and b) no one actually
*has* their batteries in an electric car, so their claim can't be tested.
When companies develop a new battery that is real and practical, they
DON'T put them in electric cars. They put them in laptop computers,
cellphones, and other products where customers will pay huge prices for
small batteries.
--
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 Phillips wrote:
It would seem prudent to have the bussbar be able to flex some to help
take stress off of the terminal. But my old dead lead pack of 104
Hawkers had .040" copper bars that were dead flat. They placed the
batterys so they just touched each other. There were also one layer
stacked upon another layer.
So while shock and stres absorption would seem common sense, my pack
is a data point in the other direction. Not one time was there any
kind of failure.
Hawkers have unusually strong terminals compared to most lead-acid
batteries. They also have perfectly flat sides on their cases. Thus you
have a better chance of getting away with flat buss bars on them than
just about any other type of lead-acid battery.
However, be warned that their case still swells with age. And, the
terminals will leak. I have a set of 38ah Hawkers from a US Electricar
S-10; about 1/4th of the terminals leaked.
--
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 wrote:
The Electrovair was the same size, same weight, same top speed, same
range, same oil-cooled 3-phase AC induction motor, same 100kw 3-phase
inverter, same transmissionless 13,000 rpm motor setup, and same high
voltage battery pack as the highly touted GM EV1!
John Wayland wrote:
Perhaps Lee was generalizing with his comments.
Of course I was, John. I didn't think anyone would interpret "same" to
mean "identical".
There's also the problem that there was more than one Electrovair, and
more than one EV1. Each was part of a whole range of cars, with slightly
different batteries, dimensions, performance, etc. The only point I was
trying to make was that these two vehicles were very similar to each
other, with most specs differing only slightly. That is what I found
*amazing*, given the huge time difference between the two!
For me however, saying that a 512V silver-zinc pack is the 'same'
as a 343V NiMH pack, or that 0-60 in 16 seconds vs 0-60 in
8 seconds is the 'same', is going too far.
Is it?
Various EV1's had 312v, 315v, 320v, 343v, and 396v packs. The
Electrovairs had packs from 290v to 532v. The ranges actually overlap.
Both had pack voltages higher than just about all other EVs, which is
why I said they had "the same high pack voltage".
Likewise, the reported 0-60 mph times of the cars varied. You can find
numbers of 8-10 seconds for the EV1, and 12-16 seconds for the heavier
Electrovairs. Yes, the Electrovair is slower. But according to GM's SAE
paper #670175 on the Electrovair, they deliberately adjusted the
performance to match the stock production Corvair of the time.
"Figure 20 shows that the Electrovair II has the same full power
accelleration performance as a high performance 1966 Corvair with an
automatic transmission. Top speed was governed by a 13,000 rpm motor
limit. Low speed torque was governed by motor current limit.
Electrovair II Production Corvair
-------------- ------------------
Top speed, MPH 80* 86
Accelleration, sec
0-20 MPH 6.0 3.0
20-40 MPH 4.1 4.4
40-60 MPH 6.6 8.4
0-60 MPH 16.7 15.8
They also give the torque-speed performance of the Electrovair II
inverter and motor on a dynamometer without the governors. It delivered
120 ft.lbs of torque and 115 hp. The torque curve starts at 75 ft.lbs,
ramps up to 120 ft.lbs at 4,000 rpm. It is then roughly constant hp
above that, varying from 85-115 hp from 4,000-15,000 rpm. The motor was
a 3-phase 4-pole AC induction motor, oil-cooled, that weighed 130 lbs.
The GM EV1 motor produced 110 ft.lbs torque and 137 hp. The torque was
roughly constant below 6000 rpm, then constant hp to about 9000 rpm,
both torque and hp falling off above that to a maximum (governed) limit
of 13,000 rpm. The motor was a 3-phase 4-pole AC induction motor,
oil-cooled, that weighed 132 lbs -- almost IDENTICAL specs to the
Electrovair.
The Electrovair power plant had essentially the same torque, speed, and
horsepower as the EV1 when not governed down for the sake of the
batteries and to match the stock Corvair.
(1) same size?
Not correct, unless you consider a car more than a foot longer than
the other, the same size!
Electrovairs were built using both the shorter 180" long 1964 Corvair
and the longer 183" 1966 4-door Corvair. EV1's varied from 163-169.8",
or even 188.5" for the racing version with its tail cone. Considering
that the Electrovairs were all 4-seaters, the extra length is not
surprising.
The Electrovair was also two and a half inches taller, and in
automotive size terms, that's a lot.
The numbers I have are 47.5-50.5" for the EV1, and 50.5-51.3" for the
Electrovair. John, that's a 1% or 2% difference; you feel that's "a lot"?
(2) same weight?
Way off here. The Electrovair was a porky 3400 lbs. while the EV1 even
with its much larger and heavier battery pack... at 2910 lbs.
There's a thumb on your scale, John. The EV1's ranged from 2922 to 3250
lbs depending on which batteries it had. The Electrovairs varied from
3035 to 3355 lbs. The weight difference is amazingly small, given that
the Electrovairs had completely stock steel bodies.
The first two categories above, from Lee Hart's perspective, suggested
the two cars' body types were similar, I say they were not.
I agree with you there. The styling of the two cars is totally different.
Even more dissimilar, are the suspension systems of the two cars being
compared.
Really? Both cars had fully independent front and rear suspensions,
double A-arms with coil springs over shocks.
Most notable is the more conventional front and rear track widths
of the old Corvair, where the EV1 had a wider front stance in front
and a much narrower rear stance
You may be surprised to discover that they widened the front track of
the Electrovairs by 3".
As covered above...not remotely the same. The Electrovair had a rare
silver-zinc battery pack, the first gen EV1 had a common lead acid
battery pack with the 2nd gen EV1 getting a more advanced NiMH battery
pack.
"Common"? Just try to buy any of those "common" EV1 packs! Both cars
used exotic, custom-made batteries, the best they could get at the time.
These chemistries are not close to being the same.
Of course not! I didn't say the batteries were "the same". I just meant
that both vehicles used the best batteries GM could get at the time. It
is amazing that the performance was as close to the same as it was,
given the 30-year time difference.
(4) same range?
Way, way off! The Electrovair was rated at 40-80 miles. Though the 1st
gen. lead acid powered EV1 was rated at 60-90 miles...
This is what I meant by "same". The Electrovair II had a 20kwh 1200 lbs
battery pack. That compares most closely to the 1175 lbs 16.8kwh
lead-acid Delphi EV1 pack. With that pack, the EV1 had a 70/90 mile
range, compared to 40/80 miles for the Electrovair II. I don't consider
that "way, way off".
the 2nd gen EV1 was officially rated at 100-130 miles.
Of course! It had a 40.9kwh battery pack, with more than twice the
energy of anything available in 1966! It's not the car that gave you the
range, it was the batteries.
I can only imagine the racket the SCR based AC drive in that Corvair
made! If ever there was an EV candidate for being more obnoxious
sounding than a squealing Curtis 1231C powered conversion, this
would be it :-(
Oh, come on John! Even the worst SCR controllers are quiet compared to
an ICE. GM widely advertised the Electrovairs, and they were in all the
car shows and magazines of the day. None of the reviewers complained
about noise. Here's one example from the Jan 1967 issue of Popular Science:
"You flip the ignition key to 'on'. No sound. A needle on the battery
voltage dial [the old tachometer] swings up; that's your power
indication. The blower for the oil cooler begins to whir softly..."
"You shift the lever to D (for Drive). There's no gear shifting, of
course. You press the accelerator... the only sound besides the blower
is a buzz, pitched low, then rising in pitch as you gain speed. It's
eerily quiet compared to a normal Corvair."
David Roden wrote:
> I seem to recall that GM was quite forthcoming with the media
> concerning the Electrovair. It was written up in at least one or
> two of the popular mags along the lines of Popular Science and
> Mechanix Illustrated...
Both of these, and many more besides. GM gave the Electrovairs the same
sort of wide-eyed hype and promotion that they did for the EV1. "The
future of transportation... within 10 years you'll be driving an
electric car."
And then (like the EV1), they changed their tune. They loudly disparaged
EVs as hopeless and impractical and said, "We now think fuel cells are
the answer." And the Electrovairs were all quietly eliminated and all GM
references to them disappeared.
Then they built fuel cell powered vehicles in 1967-69, loudly promoting
them as the next coming thing. Then after a few years, these too all
disappeared as if they had never existed, and all references to them
deleted.
Sound familiar? :-)
--
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 ---
Looking at those battery specs, they end up being about 12V 80 AH weighing
about
30 lbs each. Not that impressive.
Get it to 12V and 280 AH at 30lbs with a decent deep discharge cycle life
and it would
be worth looking at.
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
It has been going on since the creation of the Battery in the 1880's.
I have been reading a book "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black.
This is supposedly a Historical research in the the hows and whys
certain Technology was manipulated rather than brought forward.
Batteries have always attracted scam artists. People don't know how to
measure a battery's performance, so they tend to take the seller's word for
it. This is a perfect situation for crooks to lie and not get caught.
Con artists also tend to promote their miracle battery as "making the
electric car practical at last". They do this because a) the potential
profit is *huge* if it really worked (greed), and b) no one actually *has*
their batteries in an electric car, so their claim can't be tested.
When companies develop a new battery that is real and practical, they DON'T
put them in electric cars. They put them in laptop computers, cellphones,
and other products where customers will pay huge prices for small
batteries.
--
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
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Search—say hello!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>The RangerEV "tank" gauge is acceptable because it has
>>a pretty good range. I think it could be made better by
>>having a second needle gauge with units from 0-80miles
>>-- representing that traffic like the last time frame
>>would result in a "full tank" going that many miles.
>>
>>
>
>How exactly would this differ, or be superior to the distance remaining
>to empty indicator that we are told already complements the Ranger EV's
>fuel guage?
>
>
>
Uh, it'd be exactly that :). Only analog (less distracting to read).
Hmm, I don't know how I missed that little feature.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Since John has already forayed into Lee-bashing, I'll pick up on something else
Lee said...I hope Lee will accept this in the friendly spirit it is
offered-he's one of the true professionals on this list, and I for one really
appreciate his demeanor.
That said, I think he spoke a bit too quickly here...
"The aircraft industry, where weight really matters, has switched almost
totally to aluminum and composites. Nobody builds steel airplanes!"
The last statement got my attention. I've been in aerospace structures since
'88. While this is generally true, it only applies to large airframers. There
are several exceptions (no engineer should use the words "nobody," "never,"
"always," etc.).
During WWII, the axis had a shortage of certain materials, notably aluminum and
oil. Hence, they developed the method used today to manufacture "synthetic"
motor oil (which still comes from petroleum feedstocks, unfortunately), and
built steel airplanes.
I found this out on a business trip to Seattle back before I knew about the
EVlist (or I would have visited several people while there). I did know there
was a project underway to build exact duplicates of an ME262, the first
production jet fighter (the duplicates are so original, the Messerschmit
foundation assigned them the next work numbers in sequence from the initial
WWII production - www.stormbirds.com is the website). Being an airplane buff,
I made an appointment to go see these planes firsthand.
Imagine my surprise. All the primary structure is steel. control surfaces are
a steel skeleton with fabric covering. The 262 uses extremely thin steel sheet
skins and structural members, and fewer of them. Whole fuselage sections are
stamped with integrally formed recesses for the cockpit and equipment. The
auto industry thinks they have a monopoly on deep drawing thin steel sheet, but
the Germans beat them to it by years. And unlike in a car, it is all arranged
to maximize structural efficiency.
Not only that, but since the '30's, there have been many airplanes that are a
welded steel tube framework covered with fabric in use by private individuals.
I have two friends who are building some (a waco and a super cub). The
venerable Piper cub, as one of the few certificated production aircraft to fall
under the LSA category, is today being manufactured for that market by several
companies, all using the same construction techniques. And there are plenty of
kitplanes around that use the same welded steel framework and a fabric covering.
While aluminum is still the dominant material for non-homebuilt airplanes, and
composites are increasing in use, there is still a lot of steel used in
aircraft. Critical fittings, landing gear, and *lots* of fasteners are still
steel. Steel sheet avoids a cracking mechanism that is particular to aluminum.
Seems that short edge margin has much less of an effect in steel, as long as
it is still fairly ductile steel.
So there really are steel airplanes!
"However, when you start with an existing steel car, I think Peter is
right; you can't save much weight with fiberglass without redesigning
the whole chassis to accommodate it."
But when you replace a removable panel that is not part of the crash structure,
like the hood and trunk lid, you can save a lot. You can't count on a panel
that is hinged at two discrete points and pinned at one other to continue to
take load in a serious crash - it is designed to buckle immediately and not fly
loose. However, it is easy to make a composite replacement that attaches at
the same discrete points. Seats, too, can be lightened considerably by using a
composite structural frame.
All of this depends on the weight of the original steel components, though. It
will only be worth it if these panels are REALLY bad on the car in question.
It requires more effort to repair impact damage from a rock if it impacts a
composite, for example. With steel you can just tap it out.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't know the part number, just look under their price list at www.kta-ev.com
for the heater switching package and they list the P & B relay number, but they
also include the caps, diodes, and resitors for arc snubbing. I believe they
are rated for 20A at 150 VDC, so you need two in series to do 250.
David Brandt
----- Original Message ----
From: MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:15:18 PM
Subject: Re: Wiring a Ceramic Heater
David, I'm interested in the KTA part number you are referring to. Are they
rated to 250VDC contact voltage?
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:14 am
Subject: Re: Wiring a Ceramic Heater
To: [email protected]
> Yep, that's it. switch polarity every terminal, winding up with
> 1,3,and 5 being one and 2 and 4 being the opposite polarity.
>
> Yep, a fuse and a relay rated for pack voltage. KTA's relay
> package includes arc snubbers and a fuse for both the positive and
> negative side. Add a fuseholder and you have all the parts you need.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Brandt
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Chris Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:55:37 AM
> Subject: Wiring a Ceramic Heater
>
>
> I just got my 120v 1500 watt DC ceramic heater, and I'm not 100% sure
> how to wire it up.
>
> The other heater I have (which I took apart) has 3 "cells", and 3
> leads. The 2 outside leads are wired to positive, and the middle is
> negative.
>
> This heater core has 5 cells and 5 leads. I did a little googling
> for ceramic heaters but never found anything which said specifically
> how to wire them. I guessing that I alternative positive and negative
> across the leads.
>
> Postive to 1 3 and 5, and negative to 2 and 4. Is this correct?
>
> Do I need to do anything special other than putting a fuse inline to
> the battery pack, and probably a relay for the on-off switch?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
How much usable capacity does the Deka Dominator sealed gel battery
8G24M (group 24) have, if you are discharging it with longevity in mind?
-Tehben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
No. Only as a liner or cover. You need something structural and ductile to
support the weight of the batteries. Aluminum or steel will work great.
Composites can also be used with more effort, but plexiglass (acrylic) is too
brittle and weak.
David Brandt
----- Original Message ----
From: Curtis Muhlestein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:13:11 PM
Subject: Plexiglas Battery Box
My friend at work suggested Plexiglas for a battery box. Is Plexiglas
strong enough to be used as a battery box?
Curtis Muhlestein
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lee and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EV safety
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:00:13 -0500
>Rush asked:
>>> But a question comes up about safety... What is a side
>>> impact or even rolling over at 60+ MPH going to do to
>>> your EV and its occupants?
>
>jerryd wrote:
>> I'm not sure about you but in mine I've designed
>> it to equal a compact sedan. It has good, big crush zones
>> , integral composite rollcage, high strength in the
>> passenger compartment, side beams with a 1' high door
>> sill for better side impacts, racing seats with 4 point
>> seatbelts, safety glass among many smaller details like
>> if a car hits me from the rear, it's designed to raise up
>> and the other car slide under instead of a direct hit.
>
>The theory sounds good, but the only real way to know is to
>crash test it.
Regretfully at least the rear crash system was
tested!! And saved me from serious injury or worse when the
Ewoody was rearended. It also validated my theory that if
hit on the rear from an angle, it would be sent into a
controlled spin, letting the hitting car go by as it did,
after sliding under me, even hitting me dead center. At 45
mph, I was able to stop the spin in about 210 deg of 1 spin
by putting on the brakes.
Either by being able to afford building
>some to crash test, or by depending on the carelessness of
>your customers to test if for you :-) --
I let all my customers know that it's done as well
as I can given my economic constraints and has to be called
experimental. And I do think it will have fairly good
protection as 1/2 of the body's weight is there just for
that purpose. Otherwise I'd built the unibody under 125 lbs
instead of 250lbs, get more range. I also scarificed 3sq' of
higher frontal area drag so it would be high enough to
easily be seen, see in traffic. And made it 11' long for
more crash space.
In the front, it's all foam/honeycomb cored FG
which is close to perfect for asorbing energy of a crash.
Then the batteries/battery boxes, wheels/wheelwells come
into play, absorbing even more energy. As the batteries are
moving forward, they aren't a problem for those in the
cabin. Plus as it's rather light, it doesn't have so much
energy to disipate.
Hopefully I can get the Insurance Inst. to buy some
for testing composite cars as they buy all those they test,
are the ones you see on TV news. And a crash EV could be
built to 1/2 the price as it doesn't need working parts like
EV drive, used batts, ect. My goal is to build 5 or so test
bodies of different layups, energy absordsion technics to
see just what works best.
But as the recent Indycar race where the woman hit
the wall at 160mph and walked away because of her racecar's
monocoque, composite body, it can be very safe.
Jerry Dycus
>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 ---
KTA offers a motor to do the job. www.kta-ev.com. Click to look at the price
list, then scroll down to find it, it's hidden in the list and doesn't have
it's own link. I think it's listed under heating and AC components. Would
that work?
David Brandt
----- Original Message ----
From: Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: EVDL <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:17:14 PM
Subject: Air Conditioning motor
I know we've discussed this in the past, and I was paying attention. We
never really came to a conclusion, according to my notes, beyond "some
people use the tailshaft, some use leftover motors, and one company
actually had motors made (which are now rare)".
I don't have much space for mounting a pulley assembly on the end of my
motor, and I'm looking at plan B for air conditioning.
I want a motor that I can connect directly to my 144V pack and ignore.
I'd rather not have to purchase a new controller to regulate it. I want
to just hook it up and go.
I just finished an extensive Google, Froogle, sciplus, Harbor Freight,
and anything-else-I-could-think-of search. I understand that permanent
magnet motors will self-regulate their speed, so I gave preference to
them, but I didn't eliminate anything on that basis.
I only found two motors that *might* do the job:
http://www.e-motorsonline.com/emotors/viewproduct_dcm.php?catid=2&Pid=DCM00324
http://www.e-motorsonline.com/emotors/viewproduct_dcm.php?catid=2&Pid=DCM00117
Since I found these in a aggregator service, I'm not even sure they're
still available.
Can anybody help me find a good accessory motor?
Thanks,
Jude Anthony
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee, You are so right in here. EV's are for companies with death wish. :)
-Jukka
Lee Hart kirjoitti:
When companies develop a new battery that is real and practical, they
DON'T put them in electric cars. They put them in laptop computers,
cellphones, and other products where customers will pay huge prices for
small batteries.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart said we have a sexual web site, I better tell Mazda to change their
paint code for that color i painted my 3 trucks...Electric blue,,lets See if
they agree, also its a free web site, only thing I can say is that..oh
well,,you get what you pay for.
I came to this site to get new ideas not fool around discussing trivia. so
far we have done 21 conversions, starting 22, any one else out there doing
that????? if so let me know.. I also have some Boeing engineer's looking at a
dead Curtis controller to start making them to 1,000 amps from scratch,,close
but much different some one has to do it Im to busy to rant and rave about a
tail gate or a tail light. Wayne
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You'll probably discover that the crash cars need to have all the
regular equipment installed (batts, motor, etc) since the testers want
to find out how those parts handle the crash and how they affect the
rest of the car.
Though I guess old batts and non-working motor would have the same
inertia for testing purposes...
(re-reading your mail - is that what you actually said - oops)
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jerryd
> Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2006 6:22 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: EV safety
>
> And a crash EV could be
> built to 1/2 the price as it doesn't need working parts like
> EV drive, used batts, ect. My goal is to build 5 or so test
> bodies of different layups, energy absordsion technics to
> see just what works best.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did someone say group buy?
40 or 60 thousand little batteries. Can anyone on this list build a BMS that
would work?
How soon do you want it?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just love it when John and Lee go at it! So when are we going to dinner
again? The last time was a total hoot and it's been way too long. You know
we are getting older :-)
Roderick Wilde
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Electrovair Corrections
Lee Hart wrote:
The Electrovair was the same size, same weight, same top speed, same
range, same oil-cooled 3-phase AC induction motor, same 100kw 3-phase
inverter, same transmissionless 13,000 rpm motor setup, and same high
voltage battery pack as the highly touted GM EV1!
John Wayland wrote:
Perhaps Lee was generalizing with his comments.
Of course I was, John. I didn't think anyone would interpret "same" to
mean "identical".
There's also the problem that there was more than one Electrovair, and
more than one EV1. Each was part of a whole range of cars, with slightly
different batteries, dimensions, performance, etc. The only point I was
trying to make was that these two vehicles were very similar to each
other, with most specs differing only slightly. That is what I found
*amazing*, given the huge time difference between the two!
For me however, saying that a 512V silver-zinc pack is the 'same'
as a 343V NiMH pack, or that 0-60 in 16 seconds vs 0-60 in 8 seconds is
the 'same', is going too far.
Is it?
Various EV1's had 312v, 315v, 320v, 343v, and 396v packs. The Electrovairs
had packs from 290v to 532v. The ranges actually overlap. Both had pack
voltages higher than just about all other EVs, which is why I said they
had "the same high pack voltage".
Likewise, the reported 0-60 mph times of the cars varied. You can find
numbers of 8-10 seconds for the EV1, and 12-16 seconds for the heavier
Electrovairs. Yes, the Electrovair is slower. But according to GM's SAE
paper #670175 on the Electrovair, they deliberately adjusted the
performance to match the stock production Corvair of the time.
"Figure 20 shows that the Electrovair II has the same full power
accelleration performance as a high performance 1966 Corvair with an
automatic transmission. Top speed was governed by a 13,000 rpm motor
limit. Low speed torque was governed by motor current limit.
Electrovair II Production Corvair
-------------- ------------------
Top speed, MPH 80* 86
Accelleration, sec
0-20 MPH 6.0 3.0
20-40 MPH 4.1 4.4
40-60 MPH 6.6 8.4
0-60 MPH 16.7 15.8
They also give the torque-speed performance of the Electrovair II inverter
and motor on a dynamometer without the governors. It delivered 120 ft.lbs
of torque and 115 hp. The torque curve starts at 75 ft.lbs, ramps up to
120 ft.lbs at 4,000 rpm. It is then roughly constant hp above that,
varying from 85-115 hp from 4,000-15,000 rpm. The motor was a 3-phase
4-pole AC induction motor, oil-cooled, that weighed 130 lbs.
The GM EV1 motor produced 110 ft.lbs torque and 137 hp. The torque was
roughly constant below 6000 rpm, then constant hp to about 9000 rpm, both
torque and hp falling off above that to a maximum (governed) limit of
13,000 rpm. The motor was a 3-phase 4-pole AC induction motor, oil-cooled,
that weighed 132 lbs -- almost IDENTICAL specs to the Electrovair.
The Electrovair power plant had essentially the same torque, speed, and
horsepower as the EV1 when not governed down for the sake of the batteries
and to match the stock Corvair.
(1) same size?
Not correct, unless you consider a car more than a foot longer than the
other, the same size!
Electrovairs were built using both the shorter 180" long 1964 Corvair and
the longer 183" 1966 4-door Corvair. EV1's varied from 163-169.8", or even
188.5" for the racing version with its tail cone. Considering that the
Electrovairs were all 4-seaters, the extra length is not surprising.
The Electrovair was also two and a half inches taller, and in
automotive size terms, that's a lot.
The numbers I have are 47.5-50.5" for the EV1, and 50.5-51.3" for the
Electrovair. John, that's a 1% or 2% difference; you feel that's "a lot"?
(2) same weight?
Way off here. The Electrovair was a porky 3400 lbs. while the EV1 even
with its much larger and heavier battery pack... at 2910 lbs.
There's a thumb on your scale, John. The EV1's ranged from 2922 to 3250
lbs depending on which batteries it had. The Electrovairs varied from 3035
to 3355 lbs. The weight difference is amazingly small, given that the
Electrovairs had completely stock steel bodies.
The first two categories above, from Lee Hart's perspective, suggested
the two cars' body types were similar, I say they were not.
I agree with you there. The styling of the two cars is totally different.
Even more dissimilar, are the suspension systems of the two cars being
compared.
Really? Both cars had fully independent front and rear suspensions, double
A-arms with coil springs over shocks.
Most notable is the more conventional front and rear track widths
of the old Corvair, where the EV1 had a wider front stance in front
and a much narrower rear stance
You may be surprised to discover that they widened the front track of the
Electrovairs by 3".
As covered above...not remotely the same. The Electrovair had a rare
silver-zinc battery pack, the first gen EV1 had a common lead acid
battery pack with the 2nd gen EV1 getting a more advanced NiMH battery
pack.
"Common"? Just try to buy any of those "common" EV1 packs! Both cars used
exotic, custom-made batteries, the best they could get at the time.
These chemistries are not close to being the same.
Of course not! I didn't say the batteries were "the same". I just meant
that both vehicles used the best batteries GM could get at the time. It is
amazing that the performance was as close to the same as it was, given the
30-year time difference.
(4) same range?
Way, way off! The Electrovair was rated at 40-80 miles. Though the 1st
gen. lead acid powered EV1 was rated at 60-90 miles...
This is what I meant by "same". The Electrovair II had a 20kwh 1200 lbs
battery pack. That compares most closely to the 1175 lbs 16.8kwh lead-acid
Delphi EV1 pack. With that pack, the EV1 had a 70/90 mile range, compared
to 40/80 miles for the Electrovair II. I don't consider that "way, way
off".
the 2nd gen EV1 was officially rated at 100-130 miles.
Of course! It had a 40.9kwh battery pack, with more than twice the energy
of anything available in 1966! It's not the car that gave you the range,
it was the batteries.
I can only imagine the racket the SCR based AC drive in that Corvair
made! If ever there was an EV candidate for being more obnoxious sounding
than a squealing Curtis 1231C powered conversion, this
would be it :-(
Oh, come on John! Even the worst SCR controllers are quiet compared to an
ICE. GM widely advertised the Electrovairs, and they were in all the car
shows and magazines of the day. None of the reviewers complained about
noise. Here's one example from the Jan 1967 issue of Popular Science:
"You flip the ignition key to 'on'. No sound. A needle on the battery
voltage dial [the old tachometer] swings up; that's your power indication.
The blower for the oil cooler begins to whir softly..."
"You shift the lever to D (for Drive). There's no gear shifting, of
course. You press the accelerator... the only sound besides the blower is
a buzz, pitched low, then rising in pitch as you gain speed. It's eerily
quiet compared to a normal Corvair."
David Roden wrote:
> I seem to recall that GM was quite forthcoming with the media
> concerning the Electrovair. It was written up in at least one or
> two of the popular mags along the lines of Popular Science and
> Mechanix Illustrated...
Both of these, and many more besides. GM gave the Electrovairs the same
sort of wide-eyed hype and promotion that they did for the EV1. "The
future of transportation... within 10 years you'll be driving an electric
car."
And then (like the EV1), they changed their tune. They loudly disparaged
EVs as hopeless and impractical and said, "We now think fuel cells are the
answer." And the Electrovairs were all quietly eliminated and all GM
references to them disappeared.
Then they built fuel cell powered vehicles in 1967-69, loudly promoting
them as the next coming thing. Then after a few years, these too all
disappeared as if they had never existed, and all references to them
deleted.
Sound familiar? :-)
--
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/475 - Release Date: 10/13/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/475 - Release Date: 10/13/2006
--- End Message ---
