EV Digest 6122
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Solar EV power
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: C02 per mile
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Beware of this EV supplier
by Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Batteries on bicycles
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Solar EV power
by "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) DEVC (Denver Electric Vehicle Council) display tomorrow!
by "David (Battery Boy) Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Batteries on bicycles
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Memory Effect - (was: Renewable Energy Idea, an' More!)
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) City El manual?
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Solar EV power
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Batteries on bicycles
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Solar radiation varies enormously from location to location and the angle that
the sun hits the panels makes a great difference. Check out the DOE
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/decision_tools.html, it has lots of good
tools.
I whole heartedly support anybody that uses Sun power,, Wind energy or Hydro
power. We need to start getting rid of our dependence on oil.
Here in AZ, the few panels that I have, 5, sometimes are able to produce 110%
of their rated power.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Any links please GW? I'm interested in "complete solutions" aka
packaged products? Not too large scale? Home-sized, as you say?
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid Pedestrian
--- GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That's why we do not want the coal burning power plant unit with the coal
liquid process. So they are going to use wind power generators to provide
the energy to this process with the coal conversion unit.
In this coal liquid process, they don't burn the coal that would have
emissions like a coal burning plant.
As I understand it, they turn the coal into a powder and mix it with water,
air and other components using the same type of equipment that is use to
clean some of the emission in a coal firing plant as a mixing unit, but is
modified.
This infuses the coal into a liquid and there is some carbon and other types
of by products.
This liquid, a oil product will be use in any the products that requires
oil.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
> 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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Do you guys design your own equipment?
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:52 am, 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
----- 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
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 ---
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.
Hi Mike,
Yes, I brought up this very subject last year and the list, for the
most part, jumped up and down saying I was being unfair. 'They' said
it was hard and expensive to run a web based business, and that no
one really buys anything on the web anyway. Well, I think 'they' are
in for a rude awakening as the 20 and 30 somethings out there get
into our young industry. Some day soon a supplier will marry old
school customer service with new school technologies and, some day
soon, our current suppliers, who prefer to 'do business the old
fashioned way', will go out of business the old fashioned way.
I know this from first had experience because I work for a company
that's doing it in another industry.
Another Mike
--
The Electric Motorcycle Portal
http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
Electric Motorcycle Listserv
http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/listserv
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: Carbon Dioxide and EVs - a loser?
> Do you guys design your own equipment?
Mechanical engineers do the design on the mechanical units. In some cases,
we design the electrical installation.
We also have install smaller units that are design as a factory un assemble
units which pipe fitters and iron works assemble.
One company that makes these units is the Binks Company that make a similar
to the water curtain unit that we install for painting aircraft.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:
As far as I know the field gets the full pack voltage but through a field
chopper circuit. The max is 20A of current. I do not know if the power
transistors are full on or at some high duty cycle during full current.
BTW, the power transistors for the field circuit are 6 paralleled 2N3773s.
I actually suspect that here is where my controller is bad. The driver for
these 6 is actually a push-pull pair of another 2N3773 and what I suspect is
it's PNP complement. I still need to trace the signal to see if it is actually
getting through. However, with limited schematics and limited knowledge of what
I'm really looking for and a good way to test it (I only have a cheap digital
multimeter) it's slow going.
> 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
Would just 3 "gears" be enough? Probably a bit rough, eh?
Regards,
Chet
> Chet wrote:
> 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 ---
> Mounting a motor and batteries on a bike tends to make it top heavy.
> Not that big of a deal while you're riding it, but a nuisance
> when you try to park it.
> Of course, if you ride a lot, then the electric motor become
> superfluous.
> Even people in moderate good shape can out perform most e-bikes and
> folks in good shape can out perform ALL of the legal e-bicycles.
Good thing "legal" was added here. What is "legal" changes over time
and jurisdictions of course, often as folks become more enlightened...
or more desperate?
My next "legal" e-bike will have a tiny pair of pedals mounted on it
somewhere. I'll probably be able to strip a pair off one of those
desk-top miniature bikes made for display in a office or something.
They'll be like the human appendix or coccyx...
That's because our (new) law requires that an e-bike has pedals. And
the Law requires that the e-bike is capable of being propelled solely
by human muscle.
What the law *doesn't* stipulate is that the human muscle must use the
pedals to propel the thing, or that the pedals are in fact functional.
That's because my "bike" ("bi-cycle" aka "two-wheeler") can be kicked,
easily and comfortably... for exercise and for warmth and to conserve
the power stored in the batteries.
Indeed, to conserve the batteries themselves...
The new law also doesn't stipulate that my e-bike needs a seat. So my
e-bicycle will be a stand-up kick scooter... with power assist.
If you think of yourself as an "EV'er", and you hear folks say:
> Even people in moderate good shape can out perform most e-bikes and
> folks in good shape can out perform ALL of the legal e-bicycles.
Please point out that adding batteries to two-wheels makes for a far
superior vehicle than the Victorian pedal bicycle (usually what folks
are referring to when they say "bicycle" these days...)
And that "performance" is defined by your objectives.
For example, 98% of North Americans might agree that jamming your
vehicle in your crotch then wiggling around a lot is not how they wish
to commute?
Some performance criteria for your bicycle might include: does it fold
up, stow in a shoulder bag, fly as luggage and park in your closet?
Does it need a seat (that needs to be kept dry, or that might be stolen
if you don't detach it and lock it up too, or carry it with you)?
Does most of it stow under your seat on the subway?
Is it easy to turn around in an elevator, and does it hide well behind
your desk or a potted plant?
Do you need special shoes, or clothing, or can you ride it dressed for
the office?
As a "bicycle" with power-assist, but no seat, so a stand-up, the
weight of the (hub) motor and battery pack are kept very low down. EVen
the weight of the rider, resting on their feet instead of up higher on
their rear end. This makes for a more stable vehicle, which doesn't
wobble around, especially at very slow speeds (as eg mixed in with
pedestrians.)
With the hub motor, and kicking, the bicycle needs no pedals or chain
or gears or sprockets. Quieter, and less maintenance, and less
opportunity to tear or soil clothing and skin etc.
Does your "bicycle" have the *option* of arriving for work without you
having broken a sweat, and needing a change of clothes and a shower?
Does your "bicycle" have the *option* of avoiding exertion and so
higher respiration rates, while traveling through smoggy urban canyons
along lines of smoking tail pipes?
One fun thing about strapping batteries to two wheels is that the motor
provides superior acceleration. This makes it easier to *slow down*.
In a stop-and-go urban world, slowing down on a Victorian pedal bicycle
is "hard to do", because a lot of the energy expended goes into
accelerating back up to speed again. Electrics make this easy. It's so
much safer to have the "luxury" of slowing down when approaching an
intersection, etc, so you can have a good look around to determine that
it really is safe to proceed.
Standing up on your "bicycle", it's easier to twist around on your
ankles, rather than from your waist while seated, to get a look around
at the other vehicles etc around you.
Standing up on your "bicycle" means it is easier to see and be seen.
(And yeah, OK, standing up on your vehicle is the worst aero
imaginable, but hey, nothing's perfect, eh? :-)
Standing up on your "bicycle" means you can get on and *off* much
faster than when you are straddling it as jammed in your crotch. This
makes it easy to move from motoring to kicking to walking, as eg,
around pedestrians.
When you take a tumble off your two wheels and your vehicle is jammed
in your crotch, your hips and arms and shoulders and *head* will head
for the pavement.
When you take a tumble off a stand-up kick scooter, your hands and
knees and hips end up on the pavement... not so much your head. Most of
the time you will just land on your feet, or knees and hands.
Anyway, these are just my observations and perspective, based on
readings plus my commuting experiences over 10,000km as an urban north
american.
In 2001 the CPSC (US Consumer Product Safety Commission) studied
(non-powered) kick scoots because of rabid reports of a rapid rise in
injuries (true), however in their conclusions they basically found that
the kick scoots suffered *half* the injuries of the kids on bicycles,
and many, many fewer injuries than the kids on skateboards and in-line
skate blades...
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA02/os/Scooters.pdf
In 2005 the CPSC released their study on powered scooters (gas and
electric.)
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/os/scooter.pdf
These CPSC studies didnt actually test any scooters. They only
analyzed reports of injuries and incidents reported via emergency room
admissions.
Read the section Incident Reports (IPII)- scooter directly contributed
to the injury/incident
Although the study doesnt state the obvious, the incidents they cite
are a sad litany of problems with cheaply designed and built electric
vehicles, with the real problems being false economies and ignorance:
ELECTRIC SCOOTER HAS ONGOING PROBLEMS: IT DID NOT STOP DURING USE EVEN
THOUGH IT'S THROTTLE WAS NOT STUCK & EVEN WHEN IT'S KEY WAS TURNED OFF.
NO INJURY. ALSO THE UNIT'S KICKSTAND, REAR FENDER & IGNITION KEY HAVE
BROKEN PREVIOUSLY.
THE CHARGER FOR AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER MELTED DURING USE. NO INJURY.
CONSUMER'S SON USED MOTORIZED SCOOTER FOR 15-20 MINUTES WHEN BOLTS THAT
HOLD HANDLE BARS, BOLTS IN THE DECK, BOLTS HOLDING SEAT, AND BOLTS THAT
HOLD THE ENGINE ALL DETACHED - NO INJURY.
A GIRL, AGE 11, WAS RIDING A NEW POWERED SCOOTER WHEN ITS ALUMINUM
FRONT WHEEL TOTALLY FRAGMENTED AND DISINTEGRATED, CAUSING HER TO CRASH
TO THE SIDEWALK. SHE RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES.
Many of the reports are culled from 3rd parties who didnt actually
witness the incidents, and most of the riders were young children,
usually on unfamiliar vehicles, often borrowed, and generally only a
few months in service.
Around the same time, Transport Canada et al investigated the Segway
AND "electric scooters"...
In their Phase I effort, they tried the Segway (the Cadillac+ of
e-scoots), plus some generic ChiCom "Dolphin"-style e-scoots, etc.
Basically the "trailer-trash" of e-scoots, plus the Segway.
Their study recommended a move to a "Phase II" study - a trial on
actual roads and sidewalks, for both the Segway AND the e-scoots.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14200/14285f.htm
(Yes, in "Phase I" they were testing standard, Yong Kang commercial
product plus the vastly more expensive Segway) on an enclosed, indoor
track.)
Although the Study recommended advancing "things" to Phase II (the
roads and sidewalks and real life), *someone* at Transport Canada/The
Quebec Insurance Bureau determined that the electric scooters (other
than the Segway) were "NOT SAFE" - despite their Phase I study
results...
So the Phase II effort went Segway Only.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14500/14567e.htm
They concluded, after 10,000km approx. of roads and sidewalks covered
by inexperienced riders on unfamiliar vehicles, that no toes were
jeopardized in the course of the study...
Surprise!
Anyway folks, sorry if this has been a bit of a rant
I see the little battery electric/human hybrids as affordable EV-tech,
but cheap product and ignorance are hurting the cause.
I know that most folks on the EVDL are interested more in larger and
faster EVs, but I kinda hope they will be supportive of the smallest
of EVs also.
I didnt credit the quotes here to anyone, because basically they are
true, and commonly held beliefs. Im only trying to point out what
listers do say regularly, that the best EVs are the ones that are
designed and built from the ground up as EVs, rather than any
conversion.
In the same way, bicycles (properly) designed as EVs and with modern
urban environments in mind can be far superior to the Victorian pedal
bicycle, in many respects.
Any chance anyone has an opportunity to plug EV's please put in a good
word for the smallest of EVs too? That they can be fun and safe and
practical transportation too. Just don't buy the cheapest - inform
yourself a bit first!
tks
Lock
Toronto
Human/Electric Hybrid Pedestrian
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> If the motor really is shunt wound, or at least has a shunt field,
Is there some way using a multimeter that I could verify this?
> 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.
Very interesting. So, you are saying that I could apply some fraction or
perhaps all of the pack voltage to the motor and it basically would spin up to
its 'base' speed. At this point it is drawing very little current because of
the back EMF? As the load increases, (i.e. letting out the clutch) it will then
draw more current?
> 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.
How would I 'back off' the armature current? This would only be under load
correct?
> 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.
I did a search and couldn't find the high voltage/low amperage controllers but
there are several low voltage/high amperage ones. Does anyone know of any off
the shelf ones?
> 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).
This vehicle already has 2 large inductors in series with the armature winding,
one for each 200Amp power circuit. They are external to the controller and are
connected in between it and the motor. So hopefully I'll be fine there.
However, this controller's chopper runs at 800 Hz so if I were to use a
different series controller at a higher frequency would that be too big a
problem?
> 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.
Thanks Roger, It is looking a bit more complicated than I first thought.
Perhaps I should just concentrate on fixing the bad one. Or even building a
replacement done the right way from scratch.
Chet
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
All cool ideas. The silicon theoretical max efficiency solar cell is
approaching its limit of around 27%. Thats for mono crystalline. But
interestingly enough, if one could build a concentrator that could provide
1.5-2 suns onto a solar cell and have some form of active cooling on the
back of the cell nd make it economical then, it would be very commercially
viable. Hmmm...might do some research.
For example, have a tedlar sheet of solar cells on say some arbitrary
surface and a laminating layer, instead of 3mm glass which is the norm. this
lamiting layer could have some tricky optics sort of manufactured in and
provide a slight magnification to the solar cell beneath.
If this can all be packaged the same or even slightly thicker than the
standard module then that would make solar cells on cars somewhat more
realistic.
Cheers
On 11/11/06, Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both Peter and Robert are correct, I was being generous and keeping it
simple.
17% is the highest I have heard avail and 21% highest I heard in research.
The 5 hours of sun number considers that the there is really an average
of 5 hours of full sun so that people can multiply it times the panel
rateing to size installations. We get way more than that in summer.
Yes a MPPT is assumed.
Peter mentions the thermal aspect, and the dust, and I have seen both
these effects. I live across from a field with a very active church
where 100's of people park in the field 3 ties a week. The panels (and
my car :-( ) are perpetually dirty. They are essentially an open face
photo transistor .
So Here is a thought. If you can keep the panels cool, you can
concentrate the solar up to about 50x (on mono-crystalline cells).
I always wanted to get a single row of cells, put them in a "solarhart"
type collector, water cool them and track the sun. The heated water
would be for domestic use. The problem is of course that useful domestic
water temp far exceeds useful panel temperature so the only choice I can
see would be the heating of a swimming pool.( and I don't have one of
those yet)
Realistically I got about 6000 kwh last year and 21*150W panels * 5
hours * 365 days is 5748 kwh. Which shouldn't surprise, the number comes
from interpolated measurements.
Lots of info, I love wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_energy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EV Display at Front Range Community College (FRCC) this Saturday November 11th
There will be a showing of EV's at the FRCC parking lot in Longmont from 9:00 to 1:00 on Saturday the 11th of November. All EV's of any kind from scooters to cars are invited to participate. There will be a showing of the Smart car as well as the Zebra, Zenn and others. DEVRA racers and home builts are particularly invited!
Location at Front Range Community College- Boulder County Campus
2190 Miller Drive, Longmont, CO 80501
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lock Hughes wrote:
> That's because my "bike" ("bi-cycle" aka "two-wheeler") can be kicked,
> easily and comfortably...
You might want to research Ontario's motor vehicle
ligislation/definitions quite carefully. Here in BC, the motor-assisted
cycle laws quite clearly exclude exactly what you are contemplating on
two grounds; first, they specifically state that the vehicle must be
capable of being propelled by muscle power, using the pedals; secondly,
power-assisted scooters (electric or otherwise) sit-down or stand-up
scooters are specifically *not* considered cycles and are illegal to
operate on any sidewalk or public roadway.
<http://www.icbc.com/licensing/macPU.asp>
<http://www.icbc.com/licensing/motorized_scootersPU.asp>
I would expect that if you dig deeply enough, you may find that
Ontario's definitions and regualtiosn don't stray very far from what BC
has already implemented...
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Since I suggested to put the field ont he full pack, let me
make a suggestion to avoid burning up your field.
>From the 2N3773 datasheet specifying this as a 16A device,
it is likely that they carry less than 8A and the total
field current is well under 50A at all times, more likely
the 25 to 40A quoted in another post.
Now we are getting somewhere:
- Measure the DC resistance of the field coil.
If it's below 2 Ohms then you should NOT connect it directly
to the pack; you will always need a series resistor to keep
the current low enough to not burn up the field windings.
BTW, on working with your controller - what did the motor
do when connected and you gave the controller command to run?
Did you measure field and armature voltages?
It sounds like you really need a cheap oscilloscope,
but I started the same way. Fixed my first color TV with
nothing more than a screwdriver and a green LED. Later I
invested some of my highschool lunch money in an analog
multimeter from Italy that was on sale for $49.99
Regards,
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 1:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Plan B for SepEx Motor Controller
--- Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:
As far as I know the field gets the full pack voltage but through a field
chopper circuit. The max is 20A of current. I do not know if the power
transistors are full on or at some high duty cycle during full current.
BTW, the power transistors for the field circuit are 6 paralleled 2N3773s.
I actually suspect that here is where my controller is bad. The driver for
these 6 is actually a push-pull pair of another 2N3773 and what I suspect is
it's PNP complement. I still need to trace the signal to see if it is
actually
getting through. However, with limited schematics and limited knowledge of
what
I'm really looking for and a good way to test it (I only have a cheap
digital
multimeter) it's slow going.
> 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
Would just 3 "gears" be enough? Probably a bit rough, eh?
Regards,
Chet
> Chet wrote:
> 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 ---
At 09:44 AM 10/11/06 -0800, Adrian wrote:
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.
G'day Adrian, and all
In my first job I was repairing radios for the local railway. Their
hand-held radios (IIRC) from their workshops suffered memory effect, due to
being put back on charge at the end of each shift, absolutely regularly.
Most other NiCad problems that I have seen are (I believe) due to dendrite
growth - growth of 'spears' across the cell principally due to cronic
overcharging.
Just another datapoint
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi everyone,
I'm picking up our new City El tomorrow (and looking forward to it!).
I'm planning to use the CityEl as a NEV for my business. Luckily we
only live 6 miles out of town so it's all 30mph zone traffic. Using
an NEV isn't a problem.
I'm looking though for a manual for the City El. I don't suppose
anyone knows if they were ever made in English?
Regards
Nikki.
_______________________________
Old car? New tricks?
Visit aminorjourney.com to see the transformation from Hebe to EV.
E-minor isn't just a key any more...
_______________________________
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
And I can give you a problem to research.
Increasing the light on the cell does not increase the voltage, only the
current possible. The current is already so high in relation to the
voltage that IR drops are only bordering on significant but it becomes
worse with higher current. Of course one could thicken the collecting
grid on the front side to reduce its resistance, but this will shade the
silicon area and actually lower the output. Perhaps a silver grid could
be warranted.
The other prob is a solar concentrator and cell MUST have a motorized
sun-tracking mount, and since we're trying to get a very large
concentrator, the frame must be large. Without a tracker, the not only
will the lens NOT be perpendicular to the sun but the resulting focused
light will miss the solar cell entirely.
Of course the temp is the other issue. Solar cell efficiency drops
substantially when junction temp increases. Heatsinking solar cells is
actually somewhat of a trick, though it certainly is possible.
Danny
Ev Performance (Robert Chew) wrote:
Hi,
All cool ideas. The silicon theoretical max efficiency solar cell is
approaching its limit of around 27%. Thats for mono crystalline. But
interestingly enough, if one could build a concentrator that could
provide
1.5-2 suns onto a solar cell and have some form of active cooling on the
back of the cell nd make it economical then, it would be very
commercially
viable. Hmmm...might do some research.
For example, have a tedlar sheet of solar cells on say some arbitrary
surface and a laminating layer, instead of 3mm glass which is the
norm. this
lamiting layer could have some tricky optics sort of manufactured in and
provide a slight magnification to the solar cell beneath.
If this can all be packaged the same or even slightly thicker than the
standard module then that would make solar cells on cars somewhat more
realistic.
Cheers
On 11/11/06, Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both Peter and Robert are correct, I was being generous and keeping it
simple.
17% is the highest I have heard avail and 21% highest I heard in
research.
The 5 hours of sun number considers that the there is really an average
of 5 hours of full sun so that people can multiply it times the panel
rateing to size installations. We get way more than that in summer.
Yes a MPPT is assumed.
Peter mentions the thermal aspect, and the dust, and I have seen both
these effects. I live across from a field with a very active church
where 100's of people park in the field 3 ties a week. The panels (and
my car :-( ) are perpetually dirty. They are essentially an open face
photo transistor .
So Here is a thought. If you can keep the panels cool, you can
concentrate the solar up to about 50x (on mono-crystalline cells).
I always wanted to get a single row of cells, put them in a "solarhart"
type collector, water cool them and track the sun. The heated water
would be for domestic use. The problem is of course that useful domestic
water temp far exceeds useful panel temperature so the only choice I can
see would be the heating of a swimming pool.( and I don't have one of
those yet)
Realistically I got about 6000 kwh last year and 21*150W panels * 5
hours * 365 days is 5748 kwh. Which shouldn't surprise, the number comes
from interpolated measurements.
Lots of info, I love wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_energy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lock Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:42 PM
Subject: Batteries on bicycles
> My next "legal" e-bike will have a tiny pair of pedals mounted on it
> somewhere. I'll probably be able to strip a pair off one of those
> desk-top miniature bikes made for display in a office or something.
>
> They'll be like the human appendix or coccyx...
>
> That's because our (new) law requires that an e-bike has pedals. And
> the Law requires that the e-bike is capable of being propelled solely
> by human muscle.
>
> What the law *doesn't* stipulate is that the human muscle must use the
> pedals to propel the thing, or that the pedals are in fact functional.
Good luck on your project. A friend here tried to skirt the law in a similar
way. E-scoots were illegal at the time, so he built a small set of pedals
that would turn a tire, which would rotate the front tire. To qualify for
the "saddle" part of the law, he put a pad on the back of the deck... so he
could sit down and pedal and make some progress. (Usually he stood and
rode.)
The police confiscated his "powered skateboard."
Why not simply install working pedals? No one says you have to use them, but
they are a great savior if you extend your range a bit too far... or
something fries.
--- End Message ---
