EV Digest 6121
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Multiple NEDRA Records and Production Class
by Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Curtis whine question vs. Raptor condensation issues
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by "Lawrence Lile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: C02 per mile
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) precharge using lightbulb at 144v?
by mike golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Memory Effect - (was: Renewable Energy Idea, an' More!)
by "Adrian DeLeon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Curtis Sepex motor controllers up on Aussie Ebay
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Beware of this EV supplier
by Mike Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Solar EV power can work
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: precharge using lightbulb at 144v?
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: C02 per mile
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Chip: Thanks for the prompt response. Which leads to my next question: what
about Modified Production? (8 current record holders.) I know thw universe of
production EVs is small compared to conversions, but it's also one where
remaining stock can be difficult. Being the owner of a production EV (Tropica)
which would be nigh on to impossible to get running in anything but modified
condition - inquiring minds want to know!
Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Shawn, Dennis, John and Steve
Thanks for letting us know about the NEDRA Records and Production
Class issues.
I have summarized the concerns and sent them to the NEDRA Board with
my proposed revisions to correct the typos on the website. <snip>
PRODUCTION CLASS
Which brings us to Steve's concern about the Production Class, we do
in fact have a class for OEM EVs and that is the "Street Production"
class. There are 6 NEDRA records in this class. But at this time we
have not yet written a detailed description of this class like we
have done for the "Street Classes". This class is for production EVs
like the Sparrow, the EV1 and RAV-4 EV.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lawrence
I don't have a US ZIP
Try entering the Power Profiler:
"You can use the Power Profiler to generate a report about your own
electricity use, like the one shown below. All you need is your ZIP
code. The Power Profiler takes about five minutes to run. To enter the
Power Profiler, click on the link below."
seen here:
<http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/powerprofiler.htm>
Let us know what you think about this epa service
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid Pedestrian
--- Lawrence Lile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone know any sources for finding out the generation mix in other
> areas? I've already contacted my utility, with little result.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Bath wrote:
I know that the Curtis 1231-8601 whines with a 9" ADC. But will it
also do it with an 8"?
The Curtis -C controllers produce the whine (1221C and 1231C). The
controller itself is silent; it's the motor that acts as your
loudspeaker to make the whine audible. So, how loud it is depends on the
motor, and how it's mounted and insulated/muffled.
The whine is present when the controller is operated at less than a 1%
duty cycle, when it's switching at 1.5 KHz instead of 15 KHz. Here are
some ideas to reduce or get rid of the whine:
1. Buy some other controller. Use the Curtis 1221B or 1231B (the -B
controllers don't switch at 1.5 KHz unless hot). Or, there are
lots of other choices, from Auburn to Zilla that don't whine.
2. Set up your potbox resistance so it jumps immediately to a higher
duty cycle, to skip over the part where it whines. This will make
you car start moving with a slight lurch if you don't use a clutch.
3. Add an inductor in series with the motor. This lowers the ripple
and so reduces the volume of the noise.
4. Add a starting resistor in series with the motor, that is shorted
as soon as the motor gets over a few hundred RPM. This works the
same as #2, but lets you start smoothly and creep at very low speeds
without any whine.
5. Add sound deadening to the motor. My GE motor had rubber hoses to
connect the external blower motor and exhaust air. With no clear
air holes directly from the motor, it was quiet even when the
controller was whining.
I'm still figuring out what to do with (what we think)
is condensation getting inside the Raptor. I've gone
through two of them in two years.
Curtis is sealed against moisture; well, at least
until the end cap comes off eventually!
The Curtis only appears to be sealed. It actually leaks!
The only ways to keep water out of electronics in a car are hermetically
sealed packages, potting, thick conformal coatings, and packages with no
obvious holes (best to worst).
The naive solution (used by Curtis, DCP, and others) is that water won't
get into a closed box. In reality, there are always cracks and tiny
holes. As the temperature and air pressure change, the box "breathes" in
and out. In a humid climate, the box can inhale humid air as it cools.
The water vapor then condenses overnight, and you have liquid water inside.
It might be possible to weld, glue, gasket, or seal every single hole
and crack in the case well enough to make it air-tight and waterproof.
This is usually a very difficult job. As an alternative, I'd suggest
buying a waterproof case big enough to put the controller (and any
related parts) inside. Bring all the cables and cooling hoses in through
waterproof grommets or connectors. Throw a bag of dessicant inside, and
then seal up the box.
--
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 ---
Wow! This is really cool! Thanks!
Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lock Hughes
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
Hi Lawrence
I don't have a US ZIP
Try entering the Power Profiler:
"You can use the Power Profiler to generate a report about your own
electricity use, like the one shown below. All you need is your ZIP
code. The Power Profiler takes about five minutes to run. To enter the
Power Profiler, click on the link below."
seen here:
<http://www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/powerprofiler.htm>
Let us know what you think about this epa service
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid Pedestrian
--- Lawrence Lile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone know any sources for finding out the generation mix in other
> areas? I've already contacted my utility, with little result.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:31:10 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Lile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
> Hmm - this doesn't pass the smell test. What are they doing to
> eliminate 99% of carbon emissions from a coal plant? I can believe 99%
> of SO2, Mercury, and other nasties - but CO2?
>
> Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
By installing a billion dollars of equipment to clean it up, which we want
if they want to build it, but they only want to install half a billion now
which will not do it, so we told them to forget about it.
You can't "clean up" CO2. It is always produced when you burn ( or,
otherwise extract energy from) coal - or, any other hydrocarbon fuel.
Scrubbers, catalytic converters, etc, don't reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2
produced is determined solely by the quantity of fuel burned. So, you can
only reduce it to the extent that you burn less fuel by having a more
efficient power plant. This is true for ICE cars, also. The ONLY thing
that determines how much CO2 an ICE car produces is how much fuel it burns.
( Or, more precisely, how much carbon is in the fuel it burns).
What you can do is somehow isolate it before it gets into the atmosphere,
and put it somewhere else (for example, inject it into old oil wells). The
idea is that, at least for a while, it won't make its way back into the
atmosphere.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
To be fair the case for the EV would also need to take into account all
the energy spent bringing the electricity to you. That might be:
natural gas exploration
coal mining equipment
truck fuel for moving coal
If solar cells, the energy spent refining the silicon and making the devices
etc.
Danny
Carl Clifford wrote:
I seem to remember somebody mentioning a good analysis of this on the web
somewhere - anybody remember where?
The bottom line is that these numbers need to be well-to-wheels, not smokestack numbers. Does the IC Car number use the tailpipe or is it additive for the cost to drill, pump, ship, refine, and truck the fuel? Is the coal smokestack number for an old plant, a new plant, or a weighted average?
I would love to see a complete end-to-end analysis where we hash out all of the assumptions and include everything we can reasonably quantify. We could even take a swing at the following which I would guess could change the numbers significantly:
-oil exploration
-building and maintaining drilling rigs
-building, inspecting, and mainting tankers
-building and maintaining pipelines and storage
-building and maintaining refineries
-building and maintaining ports to receive tankers
-building and maintaining gas stations
-building and maintaining tanker trucks and other delivery
-building and maintaining emmissions testing centers
-securing all of the above
-and of course the big one that we could never agree on - the energy we expend
for "stability in the region"
Too political I suppose, but it would be nice to have a very complete resource to point out as many objective numbers as possible when we hear this argument.
"A electric car charging from a coal powered grid ( 2.177 lbs C02/kwh)
would generate twice the C02 per mile over a new low emissions IC car.
If you lived in a nuclear or wind / hydro generated area a grid charged
EV car would generate 10 times less C02 per mile then in a coal powered
area and 1/5 the C02 of a IC vehicle."
"These high C02 numbers for a EV were a complete surprise to me.
Carl Clifford
Denver
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello
currently I precharge my 120vdc curtis system with a
25w 120v light bulb.
If I increase the voltage to 132v or 144v, will the
light bulb still work?
Also, Is there a "panel" switch with a built-in light
bulb that operates at 120v?
Thanks
Michael Golub
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
IIRC, battery memory effect is *mostly* myth. It rarely happened except in
satellites. Their NiCads would see shallow to medium discharges on a VERY
regular cycle, charging for 1/2 an orbit and discharging the other 1/2.
These cycles were also very consistent - same AHrs used every cycle - and
DID produce a memory effect. Cyclic temperature variations may have also
played a part. But even with these older NiCads you wouldn't see this
effect with normal consumer use patterns. In an EV, varying traffic flow,
stoplights, weather changes, etc. would prevent it.
I agree with Lee that most 'memory effect' phenomena can be attributed to
something else. Probably chronic overcharge or overdischarge, resulting in
a damaged battery that underperforms.
BTW, the NiCad and NiMH packs used for R/C flying get regular abuse
(chronic overcharge @ C/10, occasional excessive discharge, and 15 minute
barely regulated 'quick' charges) and still manage to last for years. I
usually end up getting rid of mine due to terminal corrosion...
Adrian
.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
James Massey wrote:
> What sort of motors are these set up for, knowing that they
> are NEV/Golf cart/floor sweeper etc. in their original
> application. But would the motors that they are designed for
> be readily available, and if so would they be up to the job
> of (for example) a motorbike?
For a NEV, the controller is probably set up for a 3-5HP continuous
rated sep-ex motor, probably 72V. A golf cart would likely expect a 36
or 48V battery and be set up for a bit smaller motor, perhaps 3HP. The
floorsweeper would expect a 24 or 36V battery and a motor in the 3HP
ballpark.
Your best bet is to get a motor & controller together as a package,
since the controller is programmable and will have been tuned for a
specific motor. Failing this, and possibly regardless of whether you
can get the original motor with the controller, buy a programmer console
from Curtis so you can examine the present parameters in the controller
and reprogram it/tune it to match whatever sep-ex motor you want to pair
with it. Probably the most critical thing to get right is the field map
so that you don't allow the controller to run the motor with too little
or too much field current (either burning out the field or frying the
comm due to arcing).
> What kind of behaviour would be expected from these type of
> systems, do they "idle" the motor (and so require a clutch)
> or do they PWM the armature as well, and allow for pulling
> away from stop with the motor fully engaged all the time?
They are fairly sophisticated, especially in comparison to the series DC
controllers we are more familiar with. They PWM both the armature and
the field, and are fully programmable for a slew of parameters (throttle
map, field map, etc.). I believe both the 1244 and 1274 are
"multimode", which means you can load 4 different sets of parameters and
select any one by means of a switch, etc. In some NEVs this feature is
used so the controller can be configured for "turf" mode with a "gear"
switch in the appropriate position, and "street" in another (different
speed limits, etc.). In a street vehicle, one might implement valet
mode, etc. I'm not sure if these NEVs use one of the modes to
impelement reverse, or if they use a separate input to the controller
for that (the uncertainty is because low/high/reverse is usually
selected by a single switch).
The controllers also offer regen, as I recall the 1274 offers the
ability to accept input from a separate regen pot on the brake pedal as
well as offering off-throttle regen, while the 1244 offers only the
off-throttle type.
Yes, smooth throttle response from 0RPM to whatever max you program in.
Hope this helps,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, it does not reduce the emission in it self. I was talking about
emissions into the atmosphere as some old power plants do.
This is why they want to build it next to a river or about a mile away and
run large diameter pipes which is then pump in a water curtain where the
emissions are extracted.
There are large 8-foot or larger diameter prop type fans mounted in this
stack to pull the gases through this water fall. The particulates then fall
down into a tank of water which then floats on this water.
A skimmer device is used to skim these particulates of the surface of the
water and is then pump into a holding tank. The water is then recycle for
use.
When the particulate tank is full, it is further refined down to a solid and
it either taken to a dump site or some of it is compress into small 1 inch
cubes, which are bag and then you burn it in your barbeque, which may not be
a good ideal, but this is what some areas do.
How do I know about this, because I install this this type of equipment on a
smaller scale, not one billion dollars but only for 1 million.
It works good, the air emitted out into the atmosphere is mostly steam water
vapor. The higher the stacks the cleaner it is.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
>
>
>
> >From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
> >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:31:10 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Lawrence Lile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:51 AM
> >Subject: RE: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
> >
> >
> > > Hmm - this doesn't pass the smell test. What are they doing to
> > > eliminate 99% of carbon emissions from a coal plant? I can believe
> > > 99%
> > > of SO2, Mercury, and other nasties - but CO2?
> > >
> > > Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
> >
> >By installing a billion dollars of equipment to clean it up, which we
> >want
> >if they want to build it, but they only want to install half a billion
> >now
> >which will not do it, so we told them to forget about it.
>
> You can't "clean up" CO2. It is always produced when you burn ( or,
> otherwise extract energy from) coal - or, any other hydrocarbon fuel.
>
> Scrubbers, catalytic converters, etc, don't reduce CO2 emissions. The
> CO2
> produced is determined solely by the quantity of fuel burned. So, you can
> only reduce it to the extent that you burn less fuel by having a more
> efficient power plant. This is true for ICE cars, also. The ONLY thing
> that determines how much CO2 an ICE car produces is how much fuel it
> burns.
> ( Or, more precisely, how much carbon is in the fuel it burns).
>
>
> What you can do is somehow isolate it before it gets into the atmosphere,
> and put it somewhere else (for example, inject it into old oil wells).
> The
> idea is that, at least for a while, it won't make its way back into the
> atmosphere.
>
> Phil
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have never heard of any plan which could in any way lessen the amount
of CO2 produced per ton of coal. We burn carbon to make CO2. The CO2
can't be reformed into carbon without putting all the energy you took
out of it back in.
What I have heard of is "sequestering", the idea that you can capture
the vast amounts of CO2 and pump them into a huge underground cavern or
something. I have a hard time picturing a large enough empty space for
that to happen, immense volumes of gaseous CO2 are involved. There are
serious questions as to whether the CO2 will be contained there forever
or if it will just eventually leak back out creating the same problem.
Since people are demanding plants make less CO2 yet nothing can actually
be done to make any less CO2 other than make the plant a bit more
efficient, it has a lot of appeal to power companies. If it's not going
to hold the CO2 forever (or at least until we stop burning fossil fuels
because we switch to cold fusion, we run out of fossil fuels and go back
to horse-drawn plows, or we just die off) then it's not solving anything
and thus it's just a huge scam.
Danny
Roland Wiench wrote:
Hmm - this doesn't pass the smell test. What are they doing to
eliminate 99% of carbon emissions from a coal plant? I can believe 99%
of SO2, Mercury, and other nasties - but CO2?
Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
By installing a billion dollars of equipment to clean it up, which we want
if they want to build it, but they only want to install half a billion now
which will not do it, so we told them to forget about it.
So now they came up with installing acres of wind generator plants to
further reduce the yearly emission rates.
We already have about 200 of these wind generators already and the area will
look like a forest.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all,
I was hoping I could get a few suggestions for a good plan B for my EVCort
whose controller is not working at the moment. I am slowly troubleshooting it
with my limited knowledge and experience in power electronics, but nonetheless
progressing.
However, I am going through serious EV commuting withdrawal (the Prius is not
quite good enough) and I would appreciate some suggestions.
I have 108 volt battery pack with a working charger whose voltage cannot be
altered. Therefore I would like any plan to stick with the battery arrangement
I currently have.
The motor is a specially 'shunt-wound' GE motor. I am not 100% sure what that
means exactly. It does have 3 separate wires going to the field. Well, 2
actually, the other is bolted to the motor housing. Ground I guess.
What I was hoping was for some kind of contactor controller arrangement or
using a series controller with some other mechanism to power up the field. The
problem I foresee is that if I don't provide some kind of field weakening I
will be severely limited on RPM, around 2,000 I guess. Also the complicated
nature of powering up the field then the armature then the field weakening.
I suppose the 20Amp full draw for the field could stay pretty much on all the
time, I would lose a little range this way but my commute is only 25 miles RT
and this would normally be to about 50% DOD.
I know that I would also lose my Regen but as this is only a temporary solution
I guess I could live with that.
Anybody have any experience fanagling(?) together a plan B controller for a
SepEx 40Kw motor?
TIA,
Chet
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chet,
I do not know the ability of the Field to take 108V, but
assuming that it does, here is my suggestion, based on
limited experience and some theory:
Preferably you would have your pack divideable in two
equal strings of 54V but this is only possible if you
have 6V batteries and it will require two more (long)
wires into your pack to switch the two strings from
parallel to series to vary the motor voltage and to
charge it.
For now, I assume it's a temp solution, so efficiency
is not the largest concern, and the pack stays 1 string:
The "gears" of a Sepex contactor controller:
1 full battery to the field, startup resistor in series
with the motor armature. Resistor gets HOT!
2 short-circuit the resistor, so pull pack to both
field and armature
3 open a contactor across a field-weakening resistor
to allow high speeds
This can be done with 3 contactors each only 1 contact.
I am afraid I can't help you with exact resistor values
although the field weakening resistor is much smaller
than the armature (startup) resistor, which will see
hundreds of amps and must be several kilowatts to
survive.
Let me know if this is clear, others please jump in
to correct if you see problems with the field on the
pack or otherwise,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Chet Fields
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:14 AM
To: EV List
Subject: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
Hello all,
I was hoping I could get a few suggestions for a good plan B for my EVCort
whose controller is not working at the moment. I am slowly troubleshooting
it
with my limited knowledge and experience in power electronics, but
nonetheless
progressing.
However, I am going through serious EV commuting withdrawal (the Prius is
not
quite good enough) and I would appreciate some suggestions.
I have 108 volt battery pack with a working charger whose voltage cannot be
altered. Therefore I would like any plan to stick with the battery
arrangement
I currently have.
The motor is a specially 'shunt-wound' GE motor. I am not 100% sure what
that
means exactly. It does have 3 separate wires going to the field. Well, 2
actually, the other is bolted to the motor housing. Ground I guess.
What I was hoping was for some kind of contactor controller arrangement or
using a series controller with some other mechanism to power up the field.
The
problem I foresee is that if I don't provide some kind of field weakening I
will be severely limited on RPM, around 2,000 I guess. Also the complicated
nature of powering up the field then the armature then the field weakening.
I suppose the 20Amp full draw for the field could stay pretty much on all
the
time, I would lose a little range this way but my commute is only 25 miles
RT
and this would normally be to about 50% DOD.
I know that I would also lose my Regen but as this is only a temporary
solution
I guess I could live with that.
Anybody have any experience fanagling(?) together a plan B controller for a
SepEx 40Kw motor?
TIA,
Chet
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
MARK DUTKO wrote:
Thanks for the info, if he can't respond to three e-mails and four
v-mails over three weeks, and can't process or confirm an order, then he
should find another business to be in. They only have an answering
service and it's the worst customer service I have ever encountered on
the web or otherwise.
i am having the same problem with another (very well know) EV supplier
about an adapter order. it's been three weeks and i can't get any
response. i don't want to mention names, but man...we really need some
more reliable suppliers. getting this adapter ordered is the most
frustrating thing i have done in a while.
as a business owner myself (not EV related) i am with you mark, these
suppliers need to get busy or get out!
my two (inflammatory) cents.
;)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just wanted to add another datapoint on solar power charging EVs...
At the World Fair in Paris in 1878, Augustin Mouchot demonstrated his
"Sun Machine", by using it to power a half-horsepower engine running a
printing press.
His Sun Machine used a 20-square-meter parabolic concentrating
reflector that boiled water and produced steam...
So, 20 sq.meters producing about 375 watts? At about the same latitude
as Washington State? (OK, probably less wet weather in Paris <hehe>)
Subtract losses in generator? Maybe source better tech for reflective
surface and steam engine than 130 years ago? (So maybe slightly better
efficiencies?)
eg
http://www.reflectechsolar.com/products.htm
http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/mbsteam.htm
Yah, maybe only 2% efficient overall, but cheap to build, maintain and
replace vs PV. OK, yah, Noisier for sure, `less yer a train buff, in
which case the added "music" may be a bonus?
:)
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid Pedestrian
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Robert, Peter and All,
> Cool set up Robert.
> To make solar EV's work, EVer's will like you
> have to go to lighter EV's. As most here have leadmine
> conversions, they can't reasonably do it except for a soilar
> carport.
> Let's take a look at a better choice like my
> 1500lb, low drag built as an EV which really is the only way
> to judge.
> It has 40sq' of roof, hood that can be used.
> Using Peter's. others eff figures, lets say 100wt/sq'm. That
> gives about 400wt/hr in full, noon sun into the batteries.
> Most area's get between 4 and 8 hrs of full
> sun worth of light each day for a fixed angle system, not
> tracking.
> Let's take the middle of that range, 6 hrs
> x's 400wts is 2.4kw.
> My EV should get about 60wthr/mile at 40 mph
> and 120wthr/mile at 65 mph projected. Let's take 55 mph at
> 100wthrs/mile as a good number.
> With 100wthr/mile and 2.4 kw available each
> day would get mine about 24 mpd at 55 mph!!
> Using a smaller batt pack, 50 miles worth
> instead of 100 miles range, would increase solar range even
> more from less rolling drag.
> One could build a 500 lb solar car with the
> same surface area and go farther, faster if one wanted to as
> solar racers did about 400mpd?
> For many people, this could easily work so
> stop saying it won't, instead show those how it can work.
>
>
> ----- Original Message Follows -----
> From: "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Solar EV power
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:46:21 +1100
>
> >The little fiat with solar panel belongs to me.
> >
> >The top speed of the vehicle is low,and my driving
> >conditions is low seed, below 60 km/hr so drag is not such
> >a huge consideration.
> >
> >And also from a full days charging, i use my homebuilt
> >boost dc dc convertor to step up the voltage of my panels
> >to nominal 72.
> >
> >I get around 4kms.
> >
> >My car does from the batteries, 130-150wh /km (not AC). I
> >have 3 lots of 55 watt suntech modules on the vehicle. Over
> >here in downuner, there is plenty of sun.
> >
> >that 4km's is more than the distance i drive everyday from
> >my home to the shopping center where i park to catch a
> >train (3km's). ALthough it is great to be able to plug my
> >car in with the installed electric vehicle charging bay
> >that the shopping center as kind enough to install.
> >
> >Solar panels on cars depends on individual situation. I
> >personally think it is ideal to have a grid connected
> >system at home supplying power to the grid and then use the
> >grid to charge the car. But hey, solar panels on cars make
> >it look cool and futuristic!
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >
> >On 10/11/06, Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, if you only drove it 15 miles or less once a week.
> >>
> >> Of course if you only go somewhere once a week, it might
> >> be cheaper to take a cab.
> >>
> >> > If you only drove the car every few days couldn't it
> >> > completely recharge it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:42 pm, Michael wrote:
> >> >>> A little Fiat with a solar panel on top. Maybe you
> >> >>> could ask his how he
> >> >>> did it. Christie
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd ask why he bothered. <vbg> Though I suppose an
> >> >> extra mile a day could
> >> >> be worthwhile.
> >> >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
CO2 can't be turned into particulate, only the sooty components and
maybe nitrogen/mercury componets can be extracted this way. Pumping CO2
into water just makes fizzy water and it bubbles out.
I have read plans where they "extract the CO2 for industrial uses" so it
isn't an emission. That would be true if the CO2 producers would
otherwise have burned fossil fuels in-house just to make the CO2 and
you're replacing that process with your recovered CO2.
While there are many industrial uses for CO2, I can't imagine where
they'd need tons of it per day from each power plant in operation.
There is a potential for running a scam here were you get gold stars
from the greenhouse gas regulators for recovering the CO2, then pass it
off to some third party who dumps it back out into the air. If you want
to maintain an air of legitimacy, you could make up an industrial
process that makes woefully inefficient use of CO2 thus requiring
artifically high amounts for "reuse" but in fact are largely released
into the atmosphere.
One neat possibility was an algae farm which produces methane (to be
converted into hydrogen). Since algae and other plants take in CO2,
feeding them concentrated CO2 usually causes them to thrive. However,
the picture is still complicated. While the CO2 is being reused, the
carbon is converted to methane which will only be released again when
the methane is cracked into hydrogen fuel. So even this scheme is not
really making the carbon emissions go away, just an elaborate way to get
some extra hydrogen out of it before it's finally released.
Danny
Roland Wiench wrote:
Yes, it does not reduce the emission in it self. I was talking about
emissions into the atmosphere as some old power plants do.
This is why they want to build it next to a river or about a mile away and
run large diameter pipes which is then pump in a water curtain where the
emissions are extracted.
There are large 8-foot or larger diameter prop type fans mounted in this
stack to pull the gases through this water fall. The particulates then fall
down into a tank of water which then floats on this water.
A skimmer device is used to skim these particulates of the surface of the
water and is then pump into a holding tank. The water is then recycle for
use.
When the particulate tank is full, it is further refined down to a solid and
it either taken to a dump site or some of it is compress into small 1 inch
cubes, which are bag and then you burn it in your barbeque, which may not be
a good ideal, but this is what some areas do.
How do I know about this, because I install this this type of equipment on a
smaller scale, not one billion dollars but only for 1 million.
It works good, the air emitted out into the atmosphere is mostly steam water
vapor. The higher the stacks the cleaner it is.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Since the bulb only sees a very short pulse and quickly
reducing voltage, it may survive the 144V, even though
the freshly pack voltage can be over 155V.
But do carry a spare bulb or see if you can get
"European" 230V bulbs. I left mine behind when I moved.
What is your intention with the bulb in the switch?
If you want to pre-charge through it, please note that
it will take longer, as the bulb will be much lower
wattage, so higher resistance, so it will light much longer
and will probably burn through earlier as it sees the pack
voltage for a longer time.
Most switches with indicator use a neon light and series
resistor.
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of mike golub
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: precharge using lightbulb at 144v?
Hello
currently I precharge my 120vdc curtis system with a
25w 120v light bulb.
If I increase the voltage to 132v or 144v, will the
light bulb still work?
Also, Is there a "panel" switch with a built-in light
bulb that operates at 120v?
Thanks
Michael Golub
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If electric cars are going to be home charged there is no need to assume
either utlity charges or solar silcion manufacturing emmissions.
Solar cooker hot oil powering standard alternators on a roof
installation can easily power a house and charge a car at less expense
and no emissions.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:52 am, Danny Miller wrote:
To be fair the case for the EV would also need to take into account all
the energy spent bringing the electricity to you. That might be:
natural gas exploration
coal mining equipment
truck fuel for moving coal
If solar cells, the energy spent refining the silicon and making the
devices
etc.
Danny
Carl Clifford wrote:
I seem to remember somebody mentioning a good analysis of this on the
web somewhere - anybody remember where?
The bottom line is that these numbers need to be well-to-wheels,
not smokestack numbers. Does the IC Car number use the tailpipe or is
it additive for the cost to drill, pump, ship, refine, and truck the
fuel? Is the coal smokestack number for an old plant, a new plant, or
a weighted average? I would love to see a complete end-to-end
analysis where we hash out all of the assumptions and include
everything we can reasonably quantify. We could even take a swing at
the following which I would guess could change the numbers
significantly:
-oil exploration
-building and maintaining drilling rigs
-building, inspecting, and mainting tankers
-building and maintaining pipelines and storage
-building and maintaining refineries
-building and maintaining ports to receive tankers
-building and maintaining gas stations
-building and maintaining tanker trucks and other delivery
-building and maintaining emmissions testing centers
-securing all of the above
-and of course the big one that we could never agree on - the energy
we expend
for "stability in the region"
Too political I suppose, but it would be nice to have a very
complete resource to point out as many objective numbers as possible
when we hear this argument.
"A electric car charging from a coal powered grid ( 2.177 lbs C02/kwh)
would generate twice the C02 per mile over a new low emissions IC car.
If you lived in a nuclear or wind / hydro generated area a grid
charged
EV car would generate 10 times less C02 per mile then in a coal
powered
area and 1/5 the C02 of a IC vehicle."
"These high C02 numbers for a EV were a complete surprise to me.
Carl Clifford
Denver
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chet Fields wrote:
> I was hoping I could get a few suggestions for a good plan B
> for my EVCort whose controller is not working at the moment.
Let me first make the disclaimer that the following suggestions are not
founded on first-hand experience ;^>
If the motor really is shunt wound, or at least has a shunt field, then
you should be able to power the shunt winding and the armature and have
the motor *not* dissasemble itself trying to head for infinite RPM
(which is what a normal sereis wound machine will do). Were you to do
this, you could drive the vehicle by using the clutch to start moving
with the motor already spinning; as you load the motor it will draw more
current, but when stopped with the clutch disengaged, it should draw
very little (relatively speaking) current and "idle" at some safe RPM.
If it is sep-ex, then you might be able to do as you suggest and use a
combination of contactors and a series motor controller, or some such.
In theory, if you power up the field first, then you could simply apply
power to the armature direct from the pack via contactor(s). As you
load the motor, the armature will draw more current, as the motor speed
increases, you could reduce the field power to allow more speed. If you
had to compromise, you might pick some medium value of field current and
simply leave the field alone, relying on shifting gears to get the
desired higher speeds.
The danger here is that you have no means of limiting armature current
other than watching an ammeter and manually backing things off, you must
keep the field current within well-defined (but possible unknown) limits
to avoid bursh arcing or burning out the field windings, and you must
ensure that the aramture is never powered unless the field is already
powered above some minimum level.
Since the field power requirements are typically fairly small, one
option might be to find a universal input power supply with the right
output voltage and current rating so that you can power it directly from
your 108V pack and just adjust the voltage and/or current limit on the
supply to vary the field as desired. The current requirement is fairly
modest, typically about 20-40A, but the unknown is how much voltage is
required to force that current through the field; a 100V/25A DC supply
is fairly uncommon compared to a 40V/25A supply, for instance. You
could rig some sort of "interlock" such as a relay that only pulls in
when the field supply is over some minimum voltage, and use this relay
to enable power to the armature contactor coil.
You could use a series controller to drive the field, but since you want
full field at light throttle (well, low RPM/high armature current) and
weaker field at full throttle (high RPM, lower armature current), the
throttle input would be backwards to what you'd typically expect. If
the field is wound such that less than full pack voltage is able to push
full rated current (e.g. 40A)) through it, then a risk with the series
controller is that it could easily push far too much current through the
field if it were allowed to run at too high a duty cycle.
If you applied a fixed field current (something middle of the road),
then you could use a series controller to drive the armature normally,
but you'd need an external inductor in series with the armature in order
for the controller current limit to work properly. A good source for
such inductors is the output of larger welders (David Chapman on this
list is probably a good source).
Applying less than full field current means you would have less starting
torque than you might be used to, and applying more than minimum field
current means a lower max RPM.
Some food for thought, anyway ;^>
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
