EV Digest 6107
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Ultra Capacitors, Aluminum Batteries
by "George F. Hamstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: speedometer replacement
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Ultra Capacitors, Aluminum Batteries
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Solar EV power
by Storm Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: EV pusher Trailer
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Solar EV power
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: speedometer replacement
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Forklift motors with only 2 polarity bolts
by john bart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Vicor DC-DC Converter
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Vicor DC-DC Converter
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Power Trailer, was EV pusher Trailer
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Forklift motors with only 2 polarity bolts
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Ultra Capacitors, Aluminum Batteries
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) re: Raptor issues?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18) Re: A hundred tiny toy car motors vs one big one.
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Power Trailer, was EV pusher Trailer
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: speedometer replacement
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Pusher Trailer
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Pusher Trailer
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Just a quick point of clarification:
Tavrima make SUPERcapacitors - I have some that are 400 Volt 2 Farads
(165,000 Joules each) These differ from
ULTRAcapacitors which are typically MUCH lower voltage per cell. The
main difference between super and ultra caps is this: SUPERcaps are
aqueous based, while ULTRAcaps are organic based... I hope this helps
clarify a bit...
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Is any of this stuff going to be a reality, or is it just the same old
story?
http://electricperformance.com/forum/index.php?topic=11
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here's my logic:
The only time the car is only going to be in the lower half of its rpm range is
when taking off from a stop, in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd if you take off in a higher
gear). This is great for series.
You lose a moment switching from series to parallel -- might as well make this
lost time during the time lost shifting.
After you shift, you are in the upper 1/2 of the RPM band, so you'll want to be
in parallel anyway -- why go back down to series just to have to switch right
back to parallel?
----- Original Message ----
From: Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2006 4:26:13 PM
Subject: Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
>From: David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:27:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>Random thought here: What about doing series in 1st and 2nd gear, and
>parallel in 3rd and 4th gear? Then do the switching while shifting.
The shift to parallel has a similar effect to a shift to a higher gear. So,
doing both at once might not be the best thing to do. That would be like
shifting up two (or more) gears at the same time.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The feature which reduced the accuracy of the GPS signal when GPS first
came out was called Selective Availability. It was disabled back in
2000 and there are no plans to return to it again. Aircraft now often
depend on fully accuracy GPS for navigation.
It made no sense to have it on during peacetime anyways. The intent was
to deny the enemy accurate GPS information during wartime. The bizzare
part is that during Gulf War I the troops did not have enough military
units which could remove the error signal and troops began using normal
GPS, and thus the military actually disabled SA for the area so any GPS
unit in the area had full accuracy.
SA was not cracked in its lifetime. Nowadays, I'd give it like 6 months
before hackers figured out the algorithm and figured out how to get the
keys to remove the SA error.
Danny
Lee Hart wrote:
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
Not this one. It seems as useful as my speedometer. It's a great way
to find out the error of your speedometer and it's an amazing trip
odometer.
Isn't this because the Defense Dept. has enabled high accuracy due to
the war in Iraq? They need to use civilian GPS units because there
aren't enough of the military ones? This accuracy is likely to go away
when they get enough equipment, as they've found that the enemy is
also using the civilian GPS units.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What do you use yours for?
-Tehben
On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:37 PM, George F. Hamstra wrote:
Just a quick point of clarification:
Tavrima make SUPERcapacitors - I have some that are 400 Volt 2
Farads (165,000 Joules each) These differ from
ULTRAcapacitors which are typically MUCH lower voltage per cell.
The main difference between super and ultra caps is this:
SUPERcaps are aqueous based, while ULTRAcaps are organic based...
I hope this helps clarify a bit...
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Is any of this stuff going to be a reality, or is it just the same
old story?
http://electricperformance.com/forum/index.php?topic=11
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a 190 watt solar panel I'm thinking of mounting on my car. It could
easily charge my house battery but would produce more power than needed. I was
thinking of using an inverter and dumping the excess in the traction pack. I
realise it wouldn't be a real significant contribution, but at least it
wouldn't be wasted.
But from this list I learned about Lee Hart's battery balancer that charges
each battery individually, and Steve Clunn who charges his lawnmowers from his
truck pack. Would it be reasonable to have a large house battery and use it to
charge up each pack battery in turn? Charge up house, when full charge up first
traction battery. Charge up house and use it to charge next traction battery.
etc.
It should be impossible to overcharge the traction batteries this way. I assume
the transfer of charge would be rapid. Eventually the pack would be balanced. I
suppose that if the traction batteries were discharged it would require a
pretty healthy connector.
Is there anything here worth pursuing?
storm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Here's my logic:
The only time the car is only going to be in the lower half of its rpm
range is when taking off from a stop, in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd if you take
off in a higher gear). This is great for series.
You lose a moment switching from series to parallel -- might as well make
this lost time during the time lost shifting.
After you shift, you are in the upper 1/2 of the RPM band,
No. After you shift, the motor RPM decreases. This is, because you are in
a higher gear, and the car has not changed speed during the shift. That is
not the time you want to switch to parallel. You want to switch to parallel
as the motor speed increases, not decreases.
That will happen - not when you switch gears, but, when you have been in the
same gear long enough to allow the motor speed to rise again from its
reduced speed after the shift. And, even then, there may only be a real
benefit to switching to parallel if you have run out of gears. Otherwise,
you should probably just shift up to the next gear.
Series/parallel swittching is a solution to a problem, that, in a car with a
multi-speed transmission, does not exist. Series-parallel switching
capability is most useful when you don't have multiple gears. In that case,
this switching provides you with two effective gear ratios ( with a ratio of
2:1) instead of one. If you do have multiple gears, there is little or no
benefit, especially considering the time delay during the switch.
If you have a 5-speed gearbox AND series-parallel switching, you would
effectively have 10 gears instead of five - with most of those gears
effectively overlapping.
For instance 2nd gear in parallel would be effectively the same as 4th gear
in series - if your second and forth gears differ in ratio by a factor of
2. By this I mean that if the car were at the same speed in these two
cases, and the current out of the controller was the same, the torque at the
wheels AND the voltage at the controller would be the same in both cases.
There are some minor differences, such as the motor will be better cooled in
the higher RPM case.
In any case, switching from series to parallel when the RPMs drop ( such as
just after an upshift) is not the right time to do it.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are you all STILL talking about electric pushers? Sorry to burst your
bubble, but this is just a plain bad idea.
It takes about 600lbs of lead-acid batteries to get the same range as one
gallon of gasoline. Because EVs only carry the equivelent of one to
three gallons of gasoline, they HAVE to be efficient. An electric pusher
simply isn't efficient.
Let's assume we try a small electric pusher with only 600lbs of batteries,
100+ lbs of motor, 75-100lbs of tranmission, 25-50 lbs of controller,
circuit breakers, cables, etc. plus the weight of the trailer and we are
talking about 1,2000 lbs, maybe more.
Now let's assume we have a car with average fuel economy, approx 27 mpg.
What does it's fuel economy drop to when pulling a 1,200 lb trailer?
19-20mpg, maybe worse?
So you spend thousands to get a vehicle that can only get you 10 miles
before you have to return, or you put up with poor fuel economy when you
go further. Plus you have to put up with hualing a trailer around town.
You can make the trailer heavier, but you are looking at diminishing
returns, then next 600 lbs gets you maybe 15 miles and so forth. Plus
it's too heavy for a small car to hual (most passenger vehicles only have
a 1,000 towing capacity or less.)
Spend the money on a used hybrid, you're far better off. Buy an old Prius
and you can convert it to a plug in hybrid and get the same electric
\range as above and WAY BETTER fuel economy when you run out of juice.
Or get a SECOND car and convert it to electric. You'll have lower costs
and a lot less work than making a pusher trailer and much better range and
efficiency.
ICE pushers make a certain sense for some situations. ELectric pushers
don't really make any sense.
> I can see how pushing a car on the highway would work, but if you had
> an electric pusher pushing an ICE car around town, it seems like it
> might be a little awkward say.. doing a right angle turn from a
> stoplight? especially if you have a light vehicle. ...maybe if you
> accelerate very slowly?
> Anyone have experience in this situation?
>
> Just throwing that out there.
>
> -Tehben
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Michael wrote:
>
>>> The forward pressure on the tongue when operating in pusher mode is
>>> relatively small compared to the forward pressure in braking mode.
>>> That
>>> should pretty well negate concern about the switch and the concern
>>> about
>>> the hitch operating backwards from its design. The amount of force
>>> generated on the hitch by your pusher is insignificant compared to
>>> stopping a 5000 pound trailer. Compare your 0-60 time with your
>>> 60-0 time.
>>> F=MA
>>
>> That is very true. My concern was that all the weight was negative...
>> lifting the hitch off the ball. (Braking power shoves the hitch
>> *down* on
>> the ball & only a small amount of that force is taken by the locking
>> tongue.)
>>
>> Driving w/ a hitch would be lifting, so perhaps it'd be wise to
>> balance
>> the trailer with a bit more weight on the tonge than you'd normall
>> use.
>>
>> For one of our utility trailers, we also used a couple short
>> chains. Thus,
>> even if the tongue unlatched itself, the chains would keep the
>> hitch from
>> lifting completely off the ball. (My boss started doing that when a
>> new
>> hitch tongue broke and a trailer/bulldozer tried to drive over the
>> top of
>> his PU. <g>)
>>
>
>
--
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 ---
You'll probably end up with less range. Mounting the solar panel on the
vehicle will probably screw up your areodynamics and creat more drag than
the tiny amount of energy it will contribute.
> I have a 190 watt solar panel I'm thinking of mounting on my car. It could
> easily charge my house battery but would produce more power than needed. I
> was thinking of using an inverter and dumping the excess in the traction
> pack. I realise it wouldn't be a real significant contribution, but at
> least it wouldn't be wasted.
>
> But from this list I learned about Lee Hart's battery balancer that
> charges each battery individually, and Steve Clunn who charges his
> lawnmowers from his truck pack. Would it be reasonable to have a large
> house battery and use it to charge up each pack battery in turn? Charge up
> house, when full charge up first traction battery. Charge up house and use
> it to charge next traction battery. etc.
>
> It should be impossible to overcharge the traction batteries this way. I
> assume the transfer of charge would be rapid. Eventually the pack would be
> balanced. I suppose that if the traction batteries were discharged it
> would require a pretty healthy connector.
>
> Is there anything here worth pursuing?
>
> 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 ---
At 02:18 PM 6/11/06 -0600, Lee Hart wrote:
Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
Not this one. It seems as useful as my speedometer. It's a great way
to find out the error of your speedometer and it's an amazing trip
odometer.
Isn't this because the Defense Dept. has enabled high accuracy due to the
war in Iraq? They need to use civilian GPS units because there aren't
enough of the military ones? This accuracy is likely to go away when they
get enough equipment, as they've found that the enemy is also using the
civilian GPS units.
G'day Lee, and All
High accuracy was enabled (or more accurately the induced 'dither' was
turned off) initially during the first gulf war due to inadequate
availability of military units. My father was still receiving the UK
Fishing News (industry newspaper) and there was a fair bit of discussion at
the time about it, as it enabled accurate wreck fishing. A few months (or
years, I don't recall) after the first gulf war finished they turned the
'dither' on again. Then in 2000 or 2001 (if I remember correctly) it was
turned off again.
During the time that the 'dither' was active, surveying organisations spent
a lot of money on differential GPS system development, where a spot is
surveyed and a reference GPS unit plonked on it, then the difference
between actual and local GPS value was transmitted to the surveying GPS.
This technology is now used to survey with precision in the order of 100mm
reliably.
Using a GPS as an odometer should be reasonably accurate, as long as you
are not on very winding roads, as it knows where it has been (on winding
roads they have a tendency to cut the corners). Using it as a speedo is
fine when you are at steady speed in a straight line, but they have
rate-of-change issues. For an on-road car they would probably be OK, but
stop-and-go or racing you can probably forget it. A customer was
tow-testing models of ship hulls (up to 10m+ in size) and they were using
their GPS to track speed - but there was a considerable lag between the tow
winch reaching speed and the GPS tracking it - and IIRC it would overshoot
the speed indication as it regained position tracking. Initially they
thought the spectra rope was stretching and rebounding, but eventually
worked it back to the GPS results.
But probably the bigest thing about using a GPS instead of a speedo is that
in many (if not most) places you need an odometer in the vehicle, that
indicates cumulative vehicle miles. No odometer means the vehicle is not
legally roadworthy.
Regards
[Technik} James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I came across a forklift motor, and it has everything i want for my pocketbike.
A keyed shaft, 10kw continous power, and about 65 lbs. Anyway it only has two
studs coming out of the motor, plus and minus, and no studs on the housing
itself like a regular adc motor or similar would have. Do these types of
motors perform just as well as a 4 studed motor, or will the 2 studed motor
give me lousy performance?
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new
Yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, I just did a quick test. I hooked a VI-261 (12 volt output) to my pack
(169 volts) and I
measured 11.03 volts at the output of the Vicor. No load. Hmmmm.
--- MIKE WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats a tough one. The spec sheet for my 300V unit (the V300A15T) lists an
> under voltage cut
> out of ~147.4V. The Spec sheet for the VI-2xx units list a range "200-400V"
> and "*** Brownout
> 75% of rated load" but doesn't list an actual cut off. It might be worth a
> call to Vicor to
> talk to an Applications Engineer.
>
> Mike,
> Anchorage, Ak.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, November 6, 2006 10:11 am
> Subject: Re: Vicor DC-DC Converter
> To: [email protected]
>
> > I hate to beat this dead horse to death, but I have a Vicor unit
> > I'd like to use and I'm just
> > double checking to see if it will work. My situation is a little
> > different, so I don't know if the
> > same rules apply. I have a Vicor unit (VI-262) that is rated for
> > 300 volt input (200-400) and 15
> > volts, 75w output. I'd like to use it to power my eMeter, but I
> > want to make sure it won't cut out
> > due to undervoltage. My pack may go as low as 150 volts when
> > discharged. But since the eMeter
> > doesn't draw much, will the Vicor handle this Ok?
> >
> > I realize that a 12v-12v dc-dc hooked up to my house battery would
> > be better, but I don't have one
> > of those, and they are not cheap compared to the Vicor I already
> > have (unless it fries my eMeter.)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dave Cover
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> How much power does the E-meter need? You can get single-chip isolated
> DC/DC converters in the 1 to 2 watt range for about $10. You could power
> one from your 12V aux battery.
>
> Phil
>
The manual says it draws 50-150ma. Where would I get such a chip and how easy
is it to wire
between the cars house battery and the eMeter? I'd prefer not to power the
eMeter from the pack.
Thanks
Dave Cover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think an example will make things clearer.
Suppose the series/parallel switch occurs at 3100 rpm.
You start out in 2nd. At 3100 rpm the controller switches from series to
parallel. You continue to accelerate from 3100 rpm to 6000 rpm and then shift
to 4th. Suppose during the shift the rpm drops to 3000 rpm. The controller
switches to series, just to have to switch back to to parallel again at 3100
rpm -- it would have been faster to just stay in parallel.
In this case, it seems it would be better to switch to and/or stay in parallel
during the shift. If you rev the motor to near redline every shift, I would
think the only time you'd be in series mode would be taking off from a dead
stop.
So maybe a better algorithm is series only gets set for a dead stop, and once
you've gone to parallel mode you stay there until nearly stopped again.
Good point that with a multigear tranny why even bother with series/parallel?
If the controller can do the series/parallel shift faster than the human can
shift gears, then it makes sense.
The other question might be why not do series in 4th gear and never shift? If
your car is light enough and has enough power, this will be even faster. If it
can't spin the wheels in 4th, you'll take off faster in a lower gear.
----- Original Message ----
From: Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2006 7:00:43 PM
Subject: Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
>From: David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: New Zilla startup questions, (HELP!)
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:06:17 -0800 (PST)
>
>Here's my logic:
>
>The only time the car is only going to be in the lower half of its rpm
>range is when taking off from a stop, in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd if you take
>off in a higher gear). This is great for series.
>
>You lose a moment switching from series to parallel -- might as well make
>this lost time during the time lost shifting.
>
>After you shift, you are in the upper 1/2 of the RPM band,
No. After you shift, the motor RPM decreases. This is, because you are in
a higher gear, and the car has not changed speed during the shift. That is
not the time you want to switch to parallel. You want to switch to parallel
as the motor speed increases, not decreases.
That will happen - not when you switch gears, but, when you have been in the
same gear long enough to allow the motor speed to rise again from its
reduced speed after the shift. And, even then, there may only be a real
benefit to switching to parallel if you have run out of gears. Otherwise,
you should probably just shift up to the next gear.
Series/parallel swittching is a solution to a problem, that, in a car with a
multi-speed transmission, does not exist. Series-parallel switching
capability is most useful when you don't have multiple gears. In that case,
this switching provides you with two effective gear ratios ( with a ratio of
2:1) instead of one. If you do have multiple gears, there is little or no
benefit, especially considering the time delay during the switch.
If you have a 5-speed gearbox AND series-parallel switching, you would
effectively have 10 gears instead of five - with most of those gears
effectively overlapping.
For instance 2nd gear in parallel would be effectively the same as 4th gear
in series - if your second and forth gears differ in ratio by a factor of
2. By this I mean that if the car were at the same speed in these two
cases, and the current out of the controller was the same, the torque at the
wheels AND the voltage at the controller would be the same in both cases.
There are some minor differences, such as the motor will be better cooled in
the higher RPM case.
In any case, switching from series to parallel when the RPMs drop ( such as
just after an upshift) is not the right time to do it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is another way to use a EV Trailer, is to have a engine generator with
enough power to drive the EV motor by itself. No batteries. It was normally
use to transport a EV across country or distances over 500 miles.
This whole rig together weigh 9000 lbs and we had the EV up to 90 mph on a
test track. The car was a full size GM B body that had 3000 lbs of 300 AH
batteries, the car weigh 4000 lbs and generator weigh 2000 lbs.
The generator was a 37.5 kw 250V 3 phase alternator that was held at a
constant engine speed of 3600 rpm at load that provided 200 volts at 180
amps with a peak of 400 amps through a 3 phase bridge rated at 900 amps to a
GE-11 32 hp motor at 65 mph.
It did 22.5 mpg which would have a range of over 500 miles using a
combination of engine assist going up grades and electric under 30 mph on
level grades.
When the power was not needed while moving, the engine could idle down or
turn off by using a on board control system.
A engine generator was plug into the same large 6 pin 200 amp charging plug
which also had four control pins, which was made by Power Anderson. Is the
same type of plug use for ground power equipment for aircraft.
There was two 600 amp contactors that connected the power to the controller
circuit to the generator circuit. These contactors tap into the lines
between the 600 amp battery contactors and controller circuit.
It could charge the batteries (disconnected from the controller circuit
through a on board regulator circuit) and run the EV motor at the same time,
but most of the time would just provided power to the controller only.
This motor generator trailer was very streamline and compact. When not
being use as a EV auxiliary power unit, it can be used as a emergency
generator for your home or on site construction sites as need.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey John
Having just the two terminal posts is an issue only if
it runs opposite of the direction you want. Although
to advance the brush timing you might have to extend /
lengthen the jumper lead that runs from the fields to
the brush ring (that is if it's a series wound motor,
not a PM). What voltage was the motor rated at in the
lift and then what voltage are you planning on running
it? If it's a big difference then you'll probably
need to advance it.
Having just the two terminals means it was designed to
run just one direction. If ya want, send me a pic or
two and I'd be happy to put an eyeball on them if
you'd like. Anyway hope this helps.
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
--- john bart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came across a forklift motor, and it has
> everything i want for my pocketbike. A keyed shaft,
> 10kw continous power, and about 65 lbs. Anyway it
> only has two studs coming out of the motor, plus and
> minus, and no studs on the housing itself like a
> regular adc motor or similar would have. Do these
> types of motors perform just as well as a 4 studed
> motor, or will the 2 studed motor give me lousy
> performance?
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your email and see which of your friends are
> online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
George F. Hamstra is correct, they are Super capacitors, not ultra
capacitors. They are a different chemistry.
I brought the subject of super capacitors up about four years ago, and most
everyone said that was impossible to drive a EV with a capacitor, because it
charge would only last seconds.
People back in the 50's said it was impossible for electric cars to go over
50 miles or to charge a battery in one hour.
If you want to order super capacitors design for EV's (not the type for
Hybreds) here is the address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You tell them what voltage and ampere you need plus the weight of EV, speed,
acceleration and etc.
For my EV, they said 15 modules of 17 volts each
would be equal to about 50ah battery at a cost of $40,000.00 which would
give me a range of 15 miles.
They normally used these for electric buses that have a drive loop of 10
miles and then they can quick charge them at the end of each loop.
No, I will not used these, I will go back to a battery that is design for
EV's that I had before. Not these 6 or 12 volts batteries. Something like
the Exide Tuder EV cells I had before.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tehben Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Ultra Capacitors, Aluminum Batteries
> What do you use yours for?
>
> -Tehben
>
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:37 PM, George F. Hamstra wrote:
>
> > Just a quick point of clarification:
> >
> > Tavrima make SUPERcapacitors - I have some that are 400 Volt 2
> > Farads (165,000 Joules each) These differ from
> > ULTRAcapacitors which are typically MUCH lower voltage per cell.
> > The main difference between super and ultra caps is this:
> > SUPERcaps are aqueous based, while ULTRAcaps are organic based...
> > I hope this helps clarify a bit...
> >
> > Ryan Stotts wrote:
> >> Is any of this stuff going to be a reality, or is it just the same
> >> old story?
> >>
> >> http://electricperformance.com/forum/index.php?topic=11
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Andrew,
I have Raptor 600, for 5 months in S10 its fine.
The previous owner had to sent it to Peter who still supports it when he
blew it. not sure if it was driver or the Raptor's time. I'm running good
amount of current on my S10 out of Trojan T125 at 156 V.
have pulled regular 150-200. and up to 300 for a few minutes and 400
briefly.
if your sole transportation, then maybe pay now instead of later or find
out if its been upgraded.
Ben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Dave, all
I've been wanting to reply to this thread and found a
free minute here 8^ )
First off a bunch of smaller motors are going to have
a lot of bearings which equals extra friction compared
to a larger single or dual motor setup. One of the
benifits of the Siamese8 motor I feel is that it has
just 3 bearings compared to the 4 it had as two
seperate motors. Run an 8" motor freespin for even a
little while and you'll see how hot those puppies get.
Although I'm a big fan of multible comm's sharing the
current, the smaller you go with a motor the harder it
is to cram leads, brushes, and comm's that can handle
any real current without frying.
Another issue I feel that's important is maintenace.
Waylans got his setup so he and Tim can remove that
motor in five minutes, I doubt Dave could get just one
of his out in that time (no offence to Dave, I loved
his car and it bummed me out to see it burn) just
something to think about.
All I can base my oppinions on are my experiences and
what I see with these crazy ass racers. Let's take
the Silver bullet that Father Time put together (at
least helped). It runs three 7" belted together. I
believe that a dual in-line setup would see better
results than what it's getting with it's current
setup. I meantioned this to FT who stated that he'd
run it with just 1 motor once and agreed that I was
probably right as it wasn't as slow as he thought it
was going to be. Anyway I believe that at some point
(I'm sure it's different for different motor types)
that it becomes a loss due to incresed friction.
As to WZ costing much, much more than Dave Clouds I
would disagree at least as far as motors go. Add up 8
Etek's and 2 ADC 6.7's and you have a Siamese8 with
some change to spare going to either the Zilla or
batteries. I'd love to see just how a pair of 7" 36
volt lift motors would do with the same setup. Maybe
even a pair of 7" MGR 24 volt amp pigs for an X5 over
lift rated voltage 8^ ) I'd bet it do every bit as
well. Anyway just wanted to share my thoughts on this
subject, being I think, live, and breath these
thoughts every day. I'd also be very happy to be
found wrong here also, as I am very much still a
student 8^ )
Just my two motors worth
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
--- David O'Neel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, he's got 8 ETek motors and two 6" ADC/GE motors
> all feeding a solid
> rear axle via chains and sprockets. I believe it is
> set up with two
> switching contactors to switch series/parallel on
> motors, and
> series/parallel on battery strings. I believe the
> original intent was to
> prove that the voltage divisions in NEDRA racing are
> arbitrary and
> pointless. I think he has done that, since that car
> is only marginally
> slower than others that cost much more and run at
> MUCH MUCH higher voltages
> (WZ for example). Also, on its last run this year,
> it suffered catastrophic
> failure, but was still able to earn a very
> respectable time and speed
> considering it was crippled halfway down the track.
> The potential is there.
>
> One note is that this vehicle is not intended to be
> 'efficient' as such. It
> is a 1/4 mile dragster. All modifications are
> intended to gain in speed and
> acceleration, which is the whole point of racing.
>
> ~Dave O.
>
> On 11/5/06, Lawrence Rhodes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The Cloud ETEK Metro comes to mind. Lawrence
> Rhodes...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jack Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: A hundred tiny toy car motors vs one
> big one.
> >
> >
> > > Have you ever seen a big motor made up of a
> bunch of small ones?
> > > No? Then it must be more efficient to build one
> bigger one.
> > > That said, a ring of 100 small motors would be
> cool, and I'd like to
> > > encourage you to build one so I can see it.
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > GWMobile wrote:
> > > > Does the efficiency of a motor go up or down
> with size?
> > > >
> > > > Just out of curiousity would a thouasand toy
> electric car motors
> > linked
> > > > to a drive wheel by a rim gear on the wheel be
> more or less efficient
> > > > and or costly than a single large motor of
> similiar output running
> > > > through a tranny? (Wonder what the torque is
> of those tiny motorific
> > > > type toy car motors.)
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind you could turn off the portion of
> tiny motors you aren't
> > > > using at any speed or acceleration mode.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about
> hurricanes, globalwarming
> > > > and the melting poles.
> > > >
> > > > www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and
> earthquake images.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
Free Uniden 5.8GHz Phone System with Packet8 Internet Phone Service
http://www.getpacket8.net/yahoo2
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 6 Nov 2006 at 20:31, Roland Wiench wrote:
> There is another way to use a EV Trailer, is to have a engine generator with
> enough power to drive the EV motor by itself ... It did 22.5 mpg ...
This scheme and its variants has been discussed quite frequently on this
list. It's very similar to what many EV neophytes hope to do with an APU.
But while such a machine may indeed be suited to driving an EV cross
country, it has some downsides for routine use.
First is emissions. It's likely to emit a much larger amount of air
pollution compared to a well-controlled and maintained ICE car. While it's
certainly possible to clean up the emissions to some extent, how many EV
hobbyists will have the engineering background - or even try?
The best approach for relative cleanliness would be to use an engine from an
ICE car, rather than the industrial engine usually found in large gensets.
Even at that, with a recent car engine, you have the challenge of trying to
fool the ECU into controlling the fuel system properly without some of its
normal inputs. WIth an older, less tightly controlled car engine, you have
emissions somewhat higher than a current model ICE car will produce.
Of course, there are some EV hobbyists who don't drive EVs for environmental
reasons and aren't concerned with low emissions, so this argument may not be
convincing to them.
As for MPG efficiency, 22.5mpg was very good for a large car 30 years ago,
when most of them had fairly crude open-loop fuel systems. In those days, a
series hybrid system could significantly improve efficiency just by running
the engine at its most efficient load and speed.
Today that's not generally the case. A\ well designed modern large car
(though probably not a large SUV or truck) should be able to exceed 22.5mpg
on the highway. A 2006 Crown Vic is EPA rated at 25 mpg; Ford 500 rates
29mpg; a Chevrolet Impala or Toyota Avalon, 31mpg.
Bottom line is that unless you really need to drive long distances and take
your EV along (and some people do), you're better off having an ICE car for
long trips and an EV for local use, if at all possible.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Isn't this because the Defense Dept. has enabled high accuracy due to
> the war in Iraq? They need to use civilian GPS units because there
> aren't enough of the military ones? This accuracy is likely to go away
> when they get enough equipment, as they've found that the enemy is also
> using the civilian GPS units.
I can't believe they are using civilian units. What ever happened to those
500 dollar hammers. Even with the dumbed down civilian unit they will get
you within 15 meters instead of one meter. Good enough for me. LR......
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> This kind of legislative red tape might make it preferable to use a
> generator trailer, even though they're more expensive and less
> efficient and dirtier. At least they fit neatly into the law.
> Doug Weathers
A good point, Doug. I'm just wondering what sort of generator would work,
however. Most folks are looking at installing a 120 or 240V generator and
running their charger from this. Considering the Ah rating of those
chargers, it makes no sense, as far as I can see, even if the generator can
keep up with the max demands of the charger.
I don't know about your charger, but mine took 8 hours or so to get 40
minutes of driving from the vehicle. I'm sure it would be more efficient
than that running direct, but there's no guarantee your charger could
properly handle the surges driving loads would put on things. (Besides, I'd
want to travel a distance at a speed faster that 5 to 7 MPH. <g>) I suppose
if the gen-set put out the voltage (DC) that your rig required, and was of a
size, it could extend your range... perhaps doubling the range? If, say, it
put out enough DC Ah rating to carry your rig on a normal cruise (a fair
sized gen-set) then you'd only lose on batt power when V sagged below this,
during heavy loads. Of course, you'd have to have some sort of controller to
keep your batts from dying, if you should be caught in traffic.
Somehow, I don't understand the concept. If the generator takes 8 hours to
charge, it could well charge your batts while you were at work, then shut
down. For the MPG rating, I might as well drive a SUV. <g> Similarly, I
don't understand having a pusher that gets 29MPG, when the car (unmodified)
gets 20% better mileage... unless it's only used occasionally. Somehow,
spending $8K on an e-vehicle changeover, then another $3K for a pusher, to
get worse mileage... hmm... doesn't "pay" to me. As said, if it's used to
get a car to a rally, that could be different. $3K is cheaper than renting a
U-haul setup monthly.
I am wondering about a semi-permanent hook-up though. We discussed dual
point ties for trailers a while back. Mostly, these can't handle weight very
well. However, if the wheels were set back a ways, an automotive steering
system could be used. If the frame were narrowed (ala the Subaru turning
radius) this could handle normal driving. It's only when the wheel on the
towing car was cranked full over that there'd be any tire drag (sideways)...
and in 99% of driving that wouldn't happen. I'd think a light warning could
be adequate... when the trailer reaches its near max, a light could appear
on the dashboard. This sort of hookup ("permanent") might well be considered
as part of the car.
...just a thought...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wonder what trailers have a motive power. To me, it sounds like this is in
RE: whether a trailer has motive power (as in a towing vehicle) or not.
Again, one would have to check the law closely as to what their definition
is. I'm guessing, they meant a tractor/trailer sort of arrangement in this
ruling, not that the trailer has its own propulsion.
This might well mean, in a tractor/trailer arrangement, the pulling of a
trailer on a 5th wheel axle. You sometimes see these on the road in our
area. There's a "stinger" behind the main tractor, or a trailer. (A stinger
is a typical ball hitch or similar.) The weight of the trailer now rests on
the 5th wheel's axle, so no weight rests on the towing vehicle.
If this is the case, then "with or without motive power" could mean whether
it's hooked to its tractor or not.
You'd have to check closely with the AZ ruling body to find if this isn't
so. Once again, poor wording in a law doesn't mean a vehicle is legal to
operate. <g> It's all in how the rules are interpreted.
53. "Trailer" means a vehicle that is with or without motive power, other
than a pole trailer, that is designed for carrying persons or property and
for being drawn by a motor vehicle and that is constructed so that no part
of its weight rests on the towing vehicle. A semitrailer equipped with an
auxiliary front axle commonly known as a dolly is deemed to be a trailer.
For the purposes of this paragraph, "pole trailer" has the same meaning
prescribed in section 28-601.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pusher Trailer
> Hmm, well it appears that it wouldn't legally be a trailer in Oregon.
> Here in Arizona the statutes say "with or without motive power", other
> states don't mention anything about power.
>
> I'd say that if the DMV registers it as a trailer then you wouldn't have
> any problems. It's not like anyone can tell by watching it drive by, and
> most cops don't know all the statutes anyway.
>
> However, if it is a big concern for you, Oregon has a really loose
> definition for a motorcycle. Slap a saddle on it and register it as a
> motorcycle.
>
> Actually, you can register it as a "Fixed Load Vehicle". It appears that
> fixed load vehicles can be a trailer (with certain specified exceptions)
> and definitely can have motive power.
>
> You could add a generator head driven by the engine (a good idea anyway),
> the generator could be considered "equipment constructed as part of the
> vehicle", or you might be able to skip the generator head and consider the
> engine as the equipment, one of the specified types of equipment is a
> "power unit".
--- End Message ---
