EV Digest 6025
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) parallel connections Question
by Storm Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: parallel connections Question
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Right price for Lithium...
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) "Who Killed the Electric Car" IN FULL on the WEB ! ! !
by Steven Lough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Our business
by "Ted C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: E-volks now offering a series motor
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Charging idea, probably already thought of...
by "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: "Who Killed the Electric Car" IN FULL on the WEB ! ! !
by "Dmitri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Honda CX 500 Possible Conversion
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) GoWheel.com & EV-Battery.com
by "Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Wrightspeed X1 0-60 mph hardware and times
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Charging idea, probably already thought of...
by "Dmitri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Is there any limit to an EV's speed with going direct drive?
by "Adan Vielma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: what are your top 3 motor controllers?
by "Adan Vielma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Wrightspeed X1 0-60 mph hardware and times
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Fuel gauge Peukert correction, was: lee's emeter companion?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: A123 Group buy?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: About charging infrastructure.
by "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Electrovair Corrections
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Electrovair Corrections
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) Re: About charging infrastructure.
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29) Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
The simple solution I've called EVlocomotives which can be implemented
without any change in existing infrastructure. Just have push/pull
locomotives that move/recharge EV's on the freeways, thus they only need
battery capacity to move around the neighborhood.
The key is to get a good join/unjoin mechanism, which I propose uses
electromagnets on the bumpers of the cars. This requires some research.
I've looked into some government grants for it, I've gotten them for
other research projects, but they take a long time to get.
Jack
Bob Bath wrote:
We've been kicking around the battery dilemma for
years. But as I was mulling the dismay at having to
drive my ICE Odyssey to a methodist youth event (Yep,
centered on the _environment_), I was thinking about
how they do it in San Francisco and other big cities:
they have suspended cables. Ugly? You bet. But not
as ugly as what is being done to our air and poles.
Would we really give a rip about battery
technology, if the only charge we needed to carry was
from a freeway off-ramp to a city side-street?
Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too!
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have 24 12v batteries to put into a 144v pack. Is it better to make 2 strings
of 12 batteries and put them in parallel or to patallel pairs of batteries and
put the pairs in series?
Thanx,
storm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've done a few packs in parallel. My suggestion is two separate
strings so they can be occasionally charged separately.
Mike
--- Storm Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have 24 12v batteries to put into a 144v pack. Is it better to make
> 2 strings of 12 batteries and put them in parallel or to patallel
> pairs of batteries and put the pairs in series?
> Thanx,
> storm
>
>
Here's to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently
The ones that change the world!!
www.RotorDesign.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The simple solution I've called EVlocomotives which can be implemented
> without any change in existing infrastructure. Just have push/pull
> locomotives that move/recharge EV's on the freeways, thus they only
need
> battery capacity to move around the neighborhood.
> The key is to get a good join/unjoin mechanism, which I propose uses
> electromagnets on the bumpers of the cars. This requires some research.
> I've looked into some government grants for it, I've gotten them for
> other research projects, but they take a long time to get.
> Jack
>
Simple...? Well, at least you're only trying to totally rebuild an
infrastructure!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Looking at the 18650's most of them (I won't say all as I haven't looked at
them all) have
a maximum discharge current of about 4.8 A and are rated for continuous
output of .48 A.
So looking at how many amps you will draw max will help you size a pack. If
you draw 400 A
and don't want to kill the batteries you need at least 84 parallel strings
(400/.48). That's
a lot of batteries to manange. If you are running 144 V you need at least
45 in a string.
That's 3780 batteries total. At $2.90 that's just under $11k for the
batteries for a 29 kWh
pack then add the BMS and charger.
If you can afford $20k for a power source, then it's worthwhile at $2.90 a
battery. My personal
take is the price needs to be under $1.50 for the 18650's to be worth it for
me.
The A123's have better specs at 70 A continuous and 120 A pulse for 10 sec.
But if you
pull 400 A and only have 4 strings, you aren't going very far. I'd be
willing to pay a bit more
for these, although I haven't set a price yet.
My two cents.
Just out of curiosity:
What would be the optimum price of Lithium ?
Say it lasts as long as 3000 cycles with 80% DOD and offers 100 Wh/kg (50
wh/lb). Nominal voltage 3.2 V. Operating voltage area 2-3.7 V
about 1/3th of SLA volume.
This question has as many answers as there is opinions on the list but it
seems to me that if there would be some kind of financing system for buying
Lihium cells and paying it away monthly there would many takers.
There have been talks about the lease option for ready build packs too.
-Jukka
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
No, there is nothing to "rebuild". The roads stay just the same.
It can start small and increase incrementally, a single EVLocomotive can
propel a handful of EVs in the carpool lane into San Francisco from the
park-n-ride in Sacramento. Add more as demand increases. Once there are
enough running the freeways, the attach/detach is done, you can just get
on the freeway and get a ride/recharge. It can be started TODAY, no big
billion-dollar highway project budget. California Dept of Trans can
fund it.
Jack
Death to All Spammers wrote:
The simple solution I've called EVlocomotives which can be implemented
without any change in existing infrastructure. Just have push/pull
locomotives that move/recharge EV's on the freeways, thus they only
need
battery capacity to move around the neighborhood.
The key is to get a good join/unjoin mechanism, which I propose uses
electromagnets on the bumpers of the cars. This requires some research.
I've looked into some government grants for it, I've gotten them for
other research projects, but they take a long time to get.
Jack
Simple...? Well, at least you're only trying to totally rebuild an
infrastructure!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> No, there is nothing to "rebuild". The roads stay just the same.
> It can start small and increase incrementally, a single EVLocomotive
can
> propel a handful of EVs in the carpool lane into San Francisco from the
> park-n-ride in Sacramento. Add more as demand increases. Once there
are
> enough running the freeways, the attach/detach is done, you can just
get
> on the freeway and get a ride/recharge. It can be started TODAY, no
big
> billion-dollar highway project budget. California Dept of Trans can
> fund it.
> Jack
Well, good luck on that, but stay out of my way when I do my EV
commute down I-80.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks to .... Truth911.com (and Google Video) The whole movie can now
be seen in good quality) It seems to have been uploaded.
http://wagons.autoblog.com/2006/10/15/now-showing-on-autoblog-who-killed-the-electric-car/
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
well the construction of the overhead wires on I80 might be a little
more inconvenient for you, but then you didn't say that was a good idea,
in fact, the last positive thing you've said about anything
was.........can't think of any.
Death to All Spammers wrote:
No, there is nothing to "rebuild". The roads stay just the same.
It can start small and increase incrementally, a single EVLocomotive
can
propel a handful of EVs in the carpool lane into San Francisco from the
park-n-ride in Sacramento. Add more as demand increases. Once there
are
enough running the freeways, the attach/detach is done, you can just
get
on the freeway and get a ride/recharge. It can be started TODAY, no
big
billion-dollar highway project budget. California Dept of Trans can
fund it.
Jack
Well, good luck on that, but stay out of my way when I do my EV
commute down I-80.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> well the construction of the overhead wires on I80 might be a little
> more inconvenient for you, but then you didn't say that was a good
idea,
> in fact, the last positive thing you've said about anything
> was.........can't think of any.
>
You're right, other non-BS ideas I *have* been positive about, but
ones that waste money and distract people from a real solution I am
quite negative about. I prefer being realistic and putting ideas to
immediate use, not: converting 30-year-old sportscars with 100mi range
on a currently-available pack that is less than $20K and won't need
replacement in more than 5 years; high-current NiMH pack from D-cells
that shouldn't be paralleled anyway; making an EV-sized motor that
doesn't create any back EMF; and half a dozen other disillusioned
ideas that have come and gone by listees in recent years.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Wayne, I noticed in your conversions you use a "GM 1 wire alternator,
belt-driven from motor tailshaft" for your 12volt DC power. I was under the
impression that alternators were not the most efficient at making 12volt dc
power. That a DC/DC converter would be more efficient. I do have to say for
off the shelf simplicity it makes sense. If the alternator dies you can go
down to local auto store and get a new one.
Does the car just run on the aux battery when the drive motor is not
running?
Do the head light brown a little when at a stop, then brighten back up when
driving?
Thank You for your show and tell,
Ted
Olympia, WA
N47 02.743 W122 53.772
"THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long
before the world runs out of oil."
Quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his
country's oil minister three decades ago.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: Our business
I just posted three new entries to the EV Album showing 3 of Wayne's
conversions, #17,20, and 21. They can be found at:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/905
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/904
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/903
Thanks,
Mike Chancey
Webmaster
EV Photo Album
http://evalbum.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Do they leave in the fuel tank?
I hope so. I cut off the top and use it as a tray. Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Say you have a vehicle with 20 6volt, 20AH batteries.
How much room/money would it take to put in supercaps in the car to charge
those batteries (alla trickle-charge)
Charging stations and your house(which have larger supercaps for big gulp
charging onboard supercaps) could charge those caps in a few minutes, you can
drive off using the regular batteries while the onboard caps recharged them.
You'd end up getting rid of one of the biggest hurdles selling the cars to
people. Their question of "How long does it take to recharge?" could be
answered "10 minutes."
Feasible?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
AWESOME, thank you for link.
Tip: You can get better quality if you click "Download for Windows/Mac" and
use Google video player to view it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Lough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Electric Vehicle
Discussion List RCVR" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: "Who Killed the Electric Car" IN FULL on the WEB ! ! !
Thanks to .... Truth911.com (and Google Video) The whole movie can now
be seen in good quality) It seems to have been uploaded.
http://wagons.autoblog.com/2006/10/15/now-showing-on-autoblog-who-killed-the-electric-car/
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you do a shaft drive bike you have to have a lot of voltage. 96v and up.
I'm doing a VT700 with a 24inch diameter tire & a 3.4 to one final
ratio..120vdc 400 amp. It may be pokey off the line and hill climbing might
also be a problem. I'm going to use a K91 size motor. Lawrence
Rhodes........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Eyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Honda CX 500 Possible Conversion
> I have a chance to pickup a Honda CX500 that could be put back on the
> road as is or I have thought for some time about converting one to
> electric in either it's original form or as a three wheeler like a
> Vortex or Trimagnum. For those who have done these motorcycle
> conversions, what are your thoughts about this bike in either form?
> Also, could the transmission be used with the electric motor? It is an
> early crosswise mounted motor with shaft drive. The price is right to
> either put back on the road as is or consider for a conversion as a
> friend said he would give it to me. He just recently upgraded to a
> KZ1000 and is willing to give up the Honda. Thanks for your thoughts
> and comments.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
We have lowered our production costs and just now lowered our battery
prices to EV List members. We have also activated EV-Battery.com as
our primary battery website (and activated some other feeder webnames).
We realize that the battery initial pricing is still very high and
that our battery packs will not be a consideration for (almost all) EV
List members. As we can get better pricing, we will pass it on.
We have not yet reviewed test results, but will post specs and test
results as they come in. Our standing list of orders has exceeded our
forecast, but we have not taken any deposits and have no plans to ship
any batteries until satisfaction of testing.
We have taken a booth at the Santa Monica Alternative Transport show
Dec 9/10 where we will be making our first showing of batteries and at
least one high performance electric motorcycle.
We have been paying attention recently to the fixed post discussions
and since there is no swelling in our packs (and air gaps inside and
around our internal cells prevent that, we believe the extremely heavy
fixed posts we have (the buss bars ARE the posts) are the most
durable. Please comment on the fixed posts.
We value all the help we have been getting from the EV List experts,
racers, EV owners, and pioneers, and hope to meet you there.
Hope to see you at the show.
Lou, Ryan, Jay, Robert, Don, John, Randy, Dennis, Rose, Alex, Vic,
Kray, and Luiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: Jay 949-497-3600
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
When I asked Ian Wright about the 0-60 times and how they were measured
them he told me he is using the G-Tech SS Pro http://www.gtechpro.com/
from Tesla Electronics (no relation).
0-60 for the Wrightspeed X1 on the street near the Rally was 3.069
seconds and 117 ft on old street tires.
I hope he gets some slicks for Christmas.
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Na, I don't think it will work.
There are already batteries that can be charged in 1 minute(Toshiba new
Li-ion), 3-5 minutes(A123 li-ion), 10 minutes Lead?
It's infrastructure and the amount of power needed that's the problem. Some
THICK cables...and a big whopping charger.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McCurdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:33 PM
Subject: Charging idea, probably already thought of...
Say you have a vehicle with 20 6volt, 20AH batteries.
How much room/money would it take to put in supercaps in the car to charge
those batteries (alla trickle-charge)
Charging stations and your house(which have larger supercaps for big gulp
charging onboard supercaps) could charge those caps in a few minutes, you
can drive off using the regular batteries while the onboard caps recharged
them.
You'd end up getting rid of one of the biggest hurdles selling the cars to
people. Their question of "How long does it take to recharge?" could be
answered "10 minutes."
Feasible?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bill,
By going direct drive, this would mean the motor driving the wheel directly
without any reduction gears.
I believe it looks to be efficient to use gears and the transmission though
as not doing so seems to reduce your efficiency (and therefore the range
too).
-Adan
Lewis & Clark College
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Is there any limit to an EV's speed with going direct drive?
Adan, when you say "direct drive," do you mean the motor directly turning
the wheel, or do you mean the motor turning the wheel through a reduction
gear?
If you don't have the reduction gear, your motor will not be able to turn
very fast. For example, my car does 984 revolutions per mile. So at
60mph, the motor would be turning only at 984 RPM. With a 4.2:1 reduction
gear, however, the motor would be turning at 4132 RPM, which is where a
lot of EV motors are most efficient.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Seems to be that even the Curtis doesn't even get "slightly" close to the
Zilla?
-Adan
Lewis & Clark College
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: what are your top 3 motor controllers?
Adan wrote:
what top 3 controllers would you all recommend that would deliver similar
"Zilla-like" performance?
Well... that could only currently be Zilla, Zilla, and Zilla. :)
There are 3 potential "wild card" options though. Yet too be built AC
Inverters where I imagine "money talks" in order to get these
built(soon). Talk to Otmar, Roderick, and Arthur Matteson in regards
to getting something supreme built.. (Bring some $$$)
Possibly even a fourth inverter....
http://www.killacycle.com/pages/specs_page2.html (what's the word on
this?)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> When I asked Ian Wright about the 0-60 times and how they were measured
> them he told me he is using the G-Tech SS Pro http://www.gtechpro.com/
> from Tesla Electronics (no relation).
>
> 0-60 for the Wrightspeed X1 on the street near the Rally was 3.069
> seconds and 117 ft on old street tires.
>
> I hope he gets some slicks for Christmas.
>
> Mike
>
He'll want to go with "street slicks" so he stays legal. One thing
about "old street tires": they're grip is actually better than new ones!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hmm, you did not mention a single thing you were positive about even
after being challenged to do so. I'm done with this conversation.
Death to All Spammers wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well the construction of the overhead wires on I80 might be a little
more inconvenient for you, but then you didn't say that was a good
idea,
in fact, the last positive thing you've said about anything
was.........can't think of any.
You're right, other non-BS ideas I *have* been positive about, but
ones that waste money and distract people from a real solution I am
quite negative about. I prefer being realistic and putting ideas to
immediate use, not: converting 30-year-old sportscars with 100mi range
on a currently-available pack that is less than $20K and won't need
replacement in more than 5 years; high-current NiMH pack from D-cells
that shouldn't be paralleled anyway; making an EV-sized motor that
doesn't create any back EMF; and half a dozen other disillusioned
ideas that have come and gone by listees in recent years.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
Taking the T105 as an example, and using the 75A reserve capacity and
C/5 capacity specs, Uve's EV Calculator yields:
Discharge Peukert Corrected
Rate (A) Capacity (Ah)
========= =================
1 671.6 (this is referred to as the "Peukert Capacity")
50 166.1
100 129.7
200 101.3
300 87.6
So, we would program our fuel guage such that when it indicates 'Full'
the software considers the battery capacity to be the entire 671.6Ah of
the Peukert capacity. As we drive and discharge the battery, the
capacity remaining is decremented at regular intervals by the amount of
Ah consumed during that interval, multiplied by an appropriate rate
dependant correction factor. For the example currents above, the
corrections would be:
Discharge Correction
Rate (A) Factor
========= ===================
1 671.6/671.6 = 1.00
50 671.6/166.1 = 4.04
100 671.6/129.7 = 5.18
200 671.6/101.3 = 6.63
300 671.6/87.6 = 7.67
Here is the guage behaviour for a hypothetical trip fragment:
Ah Discharge Guage Ah Guage
Removed Rate (A) Remaining Indication
======= ========= ========= ==========
0 0 671.6 F (1.00)
25 100 542.1 7/8-3/4 (0.81)
10 300 465.4 3/4-5/8 (0.69)
30 50 344.2 1/2 (0.51)
40 100 137.0 1/4-1/8 (0.20)
So, a total of 105Ah removed, resulting in a Peukert compensated fuel
guage indication that only about 20% of the original energy remains in
our battery.
Thanks Roger for this example, I'll save this and talk to my software guy so
we can make sure idea gets implemented as expected.
For fun, let's see what an uncompensated Ah counter-based guage would
do. We have to give it some idea of the 'full' capacity, so we use the
75A reserve capacity of 143.8Ah:
Ah Discharge Guage Ah Guage
Removed Rate (A) Remaining Indication
======= ========= ========= ==========
0 0 143.8 F (1.00)
25 100 118.8 7/8-3/4 (0.83)
10 300 108.8 3/4 (0.76)
30 50 78.8 5/8-1/2 (0.55)
40 100 38.8 3/8-1/4 (0.27)
So, this doesn't look too bad really for the uncompensated case at first
glance, does it? However, if we do the math, we see that my trip
fragment was poorly chosen as it resulted in 105Ah being removed over a
1.28hr trip, which works out to an average discharge rate of 81.8A for
this trip, or very nearly equal to the rate we assumed when setting the
'full' capacity of our Ah counter!
So, what we really see is that even under almost ideal conditions, the
uncompensated Ah fuel guage tends to read more and more optimistically
the nearer one gets to 'E'; exactly the opposite of what one would
desire.
No, Roger, that's not how these meters work, They work similarly
to the meter on your house - if those would be re-settable to zero,
you'd know *very* exactly how many Wh you've spent since reset.
In case of EV, amount of Ah as well. Up to 0.1Ah accuracy.
This is in the spec of device, and I witness it every day -
I have this meter in ACRX. I'm not sure how meter can read more
or less optimistically toward the end if there is no end - it just
counts Ah spent. Not remaining. Just like the house meter - imagine
you run the house off if the batteries via inverter (like solar
houses do) and install normal Wh meter. This meter can't see "end"
it has no idea what the capacity of the power source is (may be it's
infinite, like solar panel!), it just counts Wh (or Ah for that matter)
as it is being being consumed. BRUSA meter works the same way.
The rate of Wh being consumed natural;y doe not depend
on the SOC, it just depends on the CD, speed, etc. The rate of
incrementing Ah number increases as the battery being depleted because
voltage keep dropping and Ah=Wh/V. Still, again, it is consumed amount
and to know anything about "remaining" amount you should know total
ahead of time and keep subtracting from it rather than counting
up from zero.
So I'm not disagreeing with you or stating that attempts to predict
amount of energy (or miles) are useless.. All I'm telling is that
definition of "total" is too fuzzy to get estimated even approximately
(if driving pattern is unknown and that was the condition for this
discussion).
Software can do anything as long as the task is formalized enough.
No one has done it satisfactorily simply because it's not doable.
But e-meter got closer than other gadgets. Still too far IMHO,
but closest you can get with simple digital readout. EV1's 2-D gauge
is more clever, but still not resolving fundamental human driving
unpredictability problem. I agree though, good enough for practical
purposes.
Interesting and informative discussion but I'm afraid may become
boring for the list. Should we rest the case?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That's what PCB assembly houses are for. One off proto is OK
for them too.
Victor
Mike Phillips wrote:
Exactly.
Although soldering skills are not as prevalent as you might think.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Phillips wrote:
Building a BMS is a piece of cake.
If you mean stuffing pre-fabricated for you PCBs and load
pre-written software, then sure. If you're patient enough
you can train monkey to stuff your PCBs...
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
To Jack Murray: About charging infrastructure.
I am still not clear on what exactly your idea was, here.
If you feel shot down, I hope you won't take too much offense.
An idea of mine was also shot down. Before hybrids were sold by Toyota
and Honda, it was considered as off-topic, or as an almost heretical idea.
I mostly listen on this EV Discussion List.
It pays to read-up on both Electricity, and Electronics.
After a while you'll see ideas come back.
Steve Love -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
> hmm, you did not mention a single thing you were positive about even
> after being challenged to do so. I'm done with this conversation.
>
> Death to All Spammers wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>well the construction of the overhead wires on I80 might be a little
> >>more inconvenient for you, but then you didn't say that was a good
> > idea,
> >>in fact, the last positive thing you've said about anything
> >>was.........can't think of any.
> > You're right. Other non-BS ideas I *have* been positive about, but
> > ones that waste money and distract people from a real solution I am
> > quite negative about. I prefer being realistic and putting ideas to
> > immediate use, not: converting 30-year-old sportscars with 100mi range
> > on a currently-available pack that is less than $20K and won't need
> > replacement in more than 5 years; high-current NiMH pack from D-cells
> > that shouldn't be paralleled anyway; making an EV-sized motor that
> > doesn't create any back EMF; and half a dozen other disillusioned
> > ideas that have come and gone by listees in recent years.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John Wayland wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but....
...whack, whack, whack... :-)
John, thanks for such an entertaining rebuttal. It reminds me of the old
Saturday Night Live skit with the news commentator completely
misinterpreting some item in the news. When someone finally broke into
her rant to point out the error, she'd end it abruptly with, "...never
mind."
I have to think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I never
said the EV1 wasn't a brilliant technological achievement -- it was! I
never said there haven't been any advances in 30 years -- there have!
You should have been more specific... For example, I used the last
version of the Electrovair that was based on a '66 Corvair Monza,
and compared it to a stock '66 Monza.... apples to apples.
I was pretty specific, John. I quoted the actual GM SAE paper, which
said their goal was to match the *automatic* transmission version.
Lee, you can't choose and pick to prove your point.
Sorry; I thought I laid out the data pretty thoroughly, so readers can
make their own opinions: Size and weight of the two cars, the published
specs for their batteries, controllers, and motors, and the available
published test data.
you can't compare the range of the last, best performing exotic battery
powered version of the Electrovair... to the earliest, lowest performing
lead acid battery powered version of the EV1
Yes I can! :-) I compared these two versions because their battery packs
were the closest to having the same weight and KWH capacity. Thus,
differences between them mostly reflected the improvements in the car
itself.
I didn't say there was *no* improvement. It's clear that the EV1 was
more efficient. Look at the watthours per mile:
EV1: 16.8 kwh / 90 miles = 187 wh/mile
Electrovair: 20 kwh / 80 miles = 250 wh/mile
Now, 187 wh/mile is very good. It's a consequence of the EV1's careful
streamlining, aggressive weight reduction, special low rolling
resistance tires, and many other details. But the Electrovair's
efficiency is also impressive; 250 wh/mile is almost exactly what a good
EV conversion gets today!
the range wasn't even close to being the same, nor was the 0-60
performance, nor was the handling, nor the braking, nor the...
I agree with you on the handling (and I never said the Electrovair
handled like an EV1). From the data available, and from me seeing the
actual Electrovair II myself, it looks to me like they left the Corvair
itself totally stock; no changes to the brakes, suspension, or steering;
and no changes to make it lighter, more efficient, or to optimize it for
EV use. They were only interested in putting an electric power plant
into an existing stock car, to see what it would do. The only changes I
saw were that they had replaced the front rims to move the tires outward
about 3", and cut out the inside front wheel wells to allow room for the
width of the battery pack.
Test reviewers said the Electrovair felt and handled heavy; which makes
perfect sense, since it was much heavier than stock.
Hearing a respected engineer say (in regards to EV range) that 130 miles
per charge and 80 miles per charge are specs that only differ 'slightly'
is what I found *amazing*!
Ah, but I never said that, John. I carefully described the specific cars
I was comparing. I apologize if I confused you.
Again, coming from a respected engineer, to pronounce that 115 hp and
137 hp are 'essentially the same' is what I found *amazing*!
They differ by 19%. "Essentially the same" to me meant "not much
difference given the 30 year time span" (less than 1% per year).
Lee, you used the Electrovair's inverter/motor tested in a no holds
barred environment for the max power it could make, then compared it to
the EV1's inverter/motor specs right off the production version's spec
sheet.
No, I didn't. I gave you the torque and horsepower that the motor
actually made in the car. Read the GM SAE papers, John! The graphs show
what the motor/inverter are capable of, *and* what they actually
produced in the car with the limits in place. I gave you the *limited*
values of peak torque and peak horsepower (120 ft.lbs and 115hp). This
is the same way the EV1 specs are written (110 ft.lbs and 137hp).
Anyway, it's been a fun debate. I hope it has made some people think!
--
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 ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
For the benefit of those who don't know, SCR controllers tend to switch
at such low frequencies that they result in an audible 'growl' from the
motor, and subject the batteries to such large ripple current that the
range of an EV using one is about 1/2 that of the same vehicle fitted
with a higher frequency MOSFET controller, such as used by the EV1. We
don't know if the Electrovair's SCR controller was designed to avoid
this, but John is certainly assuming that it wasn't...
The SAE paper provided quite a lot of detail about the old SCR inverter.
It was very advanced for its time. It *did* have a huge capacitor bank,
to filter the battery current to be approximately DC; just as is done in
today's controllers. That was remarkable for the time, as most SCR
controllers were built without the big capacitor bank to save money.
They give the inverter's peak efficiency as 97%, which is almost as good
as the EV1 inverter at 98%.
One weakness of the SCR inverter was that it had trouble starting the
motor smoothly from a dead stop. It took about 50 usec minimum to turn
the SCR on and back off. In this time, the motor current would ramp up
to a fairly high level, which meant fairly high torque. They had to
pulse the motor many times per second to get a low average current and
torque. This meant torque pulsations if you were trying to creep
forward. You'll find this same effect in SCR controllers for series DC
motors.
Now I've said my bit, so I'll leave you and Lee to go at it ;^>
Actually, I'm not going to argue with him. I'll provide facts or further
data if requested, but I'm not trying to convince him or "win" any debate.
--
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 ---
Steve, no worries here. I've talked about the EVLocomotive on the list
before, so didn't want to rehash the details again. Basically its the
idea of a pusher trailer taken a few steps farther. You have an engine
car, the EVLocomotive, which is an unmanned vehicle that has the power
source to push and pull other EV cars which can be linked up as a train.
One EVL can pull multiple EVs, which can recharge their batteries via
regeneration from their spinning wheels while being towed on the
freeway. The simple easy case is to make it like a bus with bus stops,
in that it pulls off the freeway to detach a car, new cars attach,
reassemble and resume back on the freeway to the next stop. The more
interesting advance is to allow cars to attach and detach to the train
at speed on the freeway.
You enter the freeway, find a train, and attach to it, and go along for
the ride until your exit, then detach back under your own power and
exit. Obviously there are issues and potential problems, but there
isn't some unknown technology breakthrough needed to make it happen, and
it uses existing roads, and even existing cars with perhaps relatively
small modifications.
The idea of car trains is not new, it was part of the "smart highway"
where cars linked up to be safer and have better aerodynamics, had
nothing to do with EVs. In that formulation, the cars used their own
power, but were computer controlled to stay together.
My idea is using the battery power of the EV to power a magnet to keep
the cars together. The magnetic coupling is the thing of interest.
Jack
Steve wrote:
To Jack Murray: About charging infrastructure.
I am still not clear on what exactly your idea was, here.
If you feel shot down, I hope you won't take too much offense.
An idea of mine was also shot down. Before hybrids were sold by Toyota
and Honda, it was considered as off-topic, or as an almost heretical idea.
I mostly listen on this EV Discussion List.
It pays to read-up on both Electricity, and Electronics.
After a while you'll see ideas come back.
Steve Love -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: Are we missing the boat on charging infr.?
hmm, you did not mention a single thing you were positive about even
after being challenged to do so. I'm done with this conversation.
Death to All Spammers wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well the construction of the overhead wires on I80 might be a little
more inconvenient for you, but then you didn't say that was a good
idea,
in fact, the last positive thing you've said about anything
was.........can't think of any.
You're right. Other non-BS ideas I *have* been positive about, but
ones that waste money and distract people from a real solution I am
quite negative about. I prefer being realistic and putting ideas to
immediate use, not: converting 30-year-old sportscars with 100mi range
on a currently-available pack that is less than $20K and won't need
replacement in more than 5 years; high-current NiMH pack from D-cells
that shouldn't be paralleled anyway; making an EV-sized motor that
doesn't create any back EMF; and half a dozen other disillusioned
ideas that have come and gone by listees in recent years.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hmm, you did not mention a single thing you were positive about even
> after being challenged to do so. I'm done with this conversation.
>
hmm, so you want me to go through the archives and come up with
positive posts? I encourage most anyone advancing technology, such as
AirLab or Kokam, or many other hands-on companies, but not those who
want massive dollars for questionable products or ideas. Glad to see
you're done conversing, now do something realistic.
--- End Message ---
