EV Digest 6145
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Batteries
by "brougham Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Ben Apollonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Ben Apollonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Eliminate Reversing Contactors
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Suspension/Spring Supplier
by "martin emde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Why do they Bother? WAS(DaimlerChrysler stops Chinese knock offs)
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: solectria bc 3300 charger repair
by "Joseph H. Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Eliminate Reversing Contactors
by "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) GE LXT Meter
by Peter Eckhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: VW Rabbit Transmission
by "Dave Wilker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Eliminate Reversing Contactors
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Patent revocation for public good
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Batteries
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Brandon Kruger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's a chart I made comparing sever different batteries. Hope you
> can find something to your liking.
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p5Q1FF4gnxsiKy0y_uGEbIA
That looks like it will be very useful for a noob like me. The only thing I
found lacking is the battery technology used, for example- what is a Concord
12105.00? Is this an AGM?
Brougham
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The patent is about "large format" NiMH. Such "large format" is not
neccessary to power an EV. The small A123 cells in the Tesla.
The Honda Insight uses small NiMH D-cells.
Saying NiMH can't be used for EV's is going too far, and is just fueling
more conspiracy theory and excuses not to build EVs.
Jack
David Roden wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 at 12:10, Geopilot wrote:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be modified
so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error ...
I think the subject is too general for the EV list.
I think I know what you're trying to do here - it has to do with NiMH
batteries - and I think it's counterproductive. It will lead to a thread
which will be nothing but a gripe session.
Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The situation
is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we speak, and the problem
will resolve itself. Unless the restrictions are relaxed, NiMH for EVs will
simply not be a factor in the EV market, and Cobasys will miss out on the
revenue from that segment. That's exactly what they deserve.
We can't have NiMH. It's regrettable, but let's leave it at that. Let's
move on and build outstanding EVs with batteries we >can< get our hands on,
instead of wringing those hands over batteries that are denied to us by
foolhardy, short-sighted, backward-looking corporate executives and
attorneys.
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 ---
But paralleling a lot of small cells creates serious balance concerns.
This does create issues that will affect the practicality and overall
reliability and there are no magical solutions that are really practical
for a hobbyist while effectively guaranteeing that you will get them all
fully charged without a substantial overcharge, and no cell reversal.
Danny
Jack Murray wrote:
The patent is about "large format" NiMH. Such "large format" is not
neccessary to power an EV. The small A123 cells in the Tesla.
The Honda Insight uses small NiMH D-cells.
Saying NiMH can't be used for EV's is going too far, and is just
fueling more conspiracy theory and excuses not to build EVs.
Jack
David Roden wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 at 12:10, Geopilot wrote:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be
modified so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error ...
I think the subject is too general for the EV list.
I think I know what you're trying to do here - it has to do with NiMH
batteries - and I think it's counterproductive. It will lead to a
thread which will be nothing but a gripe session.
Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The
situation is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we speak,
and the problem will resolve itself. Unless the restrictions are
relaxed, NiMH for EVs will simply not be a factor in the EV market,
and Cobasys will miss out on the revenue from that segment. That's
exactly what they deserve.
We can't have NiMH. It's regrettable, but let's leave it at that.
Let's move on and build outstanding EVs with batteries we >can< get
our hands on, instead of wringing those hands over batteries that are
denied to us by foolhardy, short-sighted, backward-looking corporate
executives and attorneys.
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 ---
I say "Hell Yes!" The spirit of patent law (remember? that's the part
of a law that supposed to be important) is to encourage technology
development by granting a temporary monopoly. Otherwise, there's no
incentive to innovate, because someone else will just come along and
find a way to implement your idea for less money while you're stuck
eating the R & D costs of the technology and all the failed attempts it
took you to make something that worked. However, once a patent is used
to stifle development, it's being used against the purpose of its
existence, and thus should be revoked to promote development of the
technology.
As for NiMH, as bitter as we all are about the Chevron thing, we can't
save NiMH. The powers that be in the US are not going to crumble to
our desires (although I still propose that it can't hurt to boycott
Chevron). However, we can enjoy the show as companies like A123 step
in to fill the void, not just with a replacement, but with something
better. Chevron may have won a battle, but the war is far from over.
Perhaps our efforts would be best put to making sure that the same
tragedy does not befall other promising technologies, rather than
trying to save a lost cause. That way, we'll be the ones laughing in
the end.
Perhaps each of us could try this: pick an advanced battery company
you like. Write them a letter. Enlighten them about what Chevron did
to Ovonic and encourage them not to let themselves be bought out the
same way. The companies with the technology have a lot to gain and a
lot of money to be made; it's in their best interests to see their
technology built into products (be it their own or licensed). Showing
them that such a huge volume of profit as the automobile industry
offers could go to a competitor if they let themselves get shut down
might help them turn down the lump sum of money Chevron offers when it
strikes next.
-Ben
On Nov 17, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Geopilot wrote:
I have changed the namer of this thread because I really wanted to
stick to the idea that patents should be revocable if used for
technology suppression.
I don't want to talk about politics or political parties.
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be modified
so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error or if prior
invetion was proved but also if the patent is beingused by a
competitive player soley to ensure the technology is NOT developed or
deployed.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Jack Murray wrote:
The patent is about "large format" NiMH. Such "large format" is not
neccessary to power an EV. The small A123 cells in the Tesla.
The Honda Insight uses small NiMH D-cells.
Saying NiMH can't be used for EV's is going too far, and is just
fueling more conspiracy theory and excuses not to build EVs.
Ah, but it actually can't! NiMH is particularly convenient for such a
monopolizing kill because you can't parallel the cells. Therefore, the
only way to increase amp-hour capacity is to build a larger cell.
Chevron can still license NiMH for small cells without worrying that it
will get used for EV's.
Other technologies, such as Li-ion, don't work the same way, as has
been proven by such cars as the T-zero with its ridiculous number of
18650 laptop-sized cells.
So, no, NiMH can't be used for EV's. Period. The small A123 cells in
the Tesla roadster are massively paralleled. The Honda Insight is so
very much not an EV that it can't even move with its engine off (unless
your put it in neutral). Even the NiMH in the Prius is also sub-10Ah
capacity (equivalent to a D cell), and Panasonic had to fight a tough
battle for the right even to produce those for transportation use (and
part of the license from Cobasys puts them under gag order not to
disclose the limits of the license, which are widely assumed to
prohibit >10Ah cells, BEV's, and Plug-in HEV's). The fancy Nilar
battery is also only 10Ah. See a trend? It may be a "conspiracy
theory" but it's also real.
Besides, who ever heard of patenting scale? The core technology is the
same, all you do is change the active area. You can't patent "NiMH
with active area that produces greater than 10Ah" - there's nothing new
to it. That's like patenting sheets of steel larger than 100 square
inches. Unless there's something special about what you're doing,
there's no grounds for a patent.
-Ben
Jack
David Roden wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 at 12:10, Geopilot wrote:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be
modified so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error
...
I think the subject is too general for the EV list. I think I know
what you're trying to do here - it has to do with NiMH batteries -
and I think it's counterproductive. It will lead to a thread which
will be nothing but a gripe session.
Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The
situation is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we speak,
and the problem will resolve itself. Unless the restrictions are
relaxed, NiMH for EVs will simply not be a factor in the EV market,
and Cobasys will miss out on the revenue from that segment. That's
exactly what they deserve.
We can't have NiMH. It's regrettable, but let's leave it at that.
Let's move on and build outstanding EVs with batteries we >can< get
our hands on, instead of wringing those hands over batteries that are
denied to us by foolhardy, short-sighted, backward-looking corporate
executives and attorneys.
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 ---
Edward Ang wrote:
> I just got an idea of eliminating the reversing contactors.
> Or, more accurately reducing the number from 4 to 1. I am
> using the Sparrow as an example of an EV without a transmission.
Does the Sparrow actually use 4 SPST contactors to implement the
reversing function, or does it use the more conventional paired SPDT set
as a DPDT revresing contactor? (4 SW200B's would be more expensive than
a single SW202B reversing contactor set and much messier to wire up.)
> What if we use the large traction motor for driving forward only?
> And, we use a small permanent magnet motor (like those used on
> treadmills) for reverse. Now, what if these 2 motors are wired in
> series and a contactor wired to short out the smaller motor?
Well, the single contactor must be rated for the full traction current,
so taking typical pricing from the EVParts site and assuming the use of
conventional Albright contactors, this would replace a $513 SW202B
reversing contactor with a $128 SW200B. This frees up $385 to cover the
cost of the reverse drive motor, its mounting arrangement and the power
transmission coupling required to couple it to the drive wheel. A quick
search on treadmill drive motors suggests that $150-190 is about the
best price for a new replacement (i.e. not surplus) motor (~2.9HP DC).
If the smaller motor is geared down sufficiently to ensure you can
reverse the vehicle on reasonable inclines, etc. then you will need to
use some form of clutch to disengage it from the drivetrain to avoid
overreving when motoring forward. A magnetic clutch is probably the
most expensive option, at about $250. A simpler centrifugal clutch
weighs in around $60-80 (e.g. Comet 350 or 400 series), but could result
in unacceptably violent/abrupt engagement.
I'm not sure there would be a real problem using a blocking diode in
series with the reversing motor, but I'd be inclined to use an SW-201
SPDT contactor ($255 vs $128 for the SW-200B SPST) instead so that the
NO contacts connect the controller to the main traction motor and the NC
contacts connect it to the reversing motor.
> If this works, we might be able to come out with a clever way to use
> the permanent magnet motor to do some regen.
It seems that to do this would require the use of a competely separate
controller for the reversing motor (i.e. one capable of regen), which
would then raise the cost of implementing this reversing approach even
further.
What is the real driver for this? If it is to avoid the relatively high
cost of a reversing contactor set, it certainly seems questionable if
one could really achieve much of any reduction in cost this way, even if
valuing their own labour at nothing. The other downside to this is that
for a smallish vehicle like the Sparrow, the extra weight and space of
the reversing motor and its required mechanical bits would be signifcant
compared to a simple reversing contactor set. For larger vehicles, the
space and weight would be less an issue, but the most practical means of
connecting the reversing motor to the drivetrain would be via a
tailshaft on the main traction motor, which adds $20-30 cost to the
traction motor and may not be feasible due to space limitations in some
vehicles.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have to ask though, has anyone done real experimentation with some
NiMH D-cells? It should be easy enough to get ahold of a few D-cells
and try to make one big parallel cell and see what kind of charge
balance issues occur and maybe think about possible solutions.
Are we repeating assumptions, or do we have for-sure experience that the
real-world problems are insurmountable?
I wonder if particular charge rates, current reversal, or something else
clever might resolve the charge balance issue. I'll be the first to
admit the possibility is remote, but I've not seen anything which says
it's impossible. And this sort of hacking is sort of what this group's
about.
Guy on eBay has 8x 10AH D-cells for $40. 100 of those and there's a
120v, 80AH pack for $4,000, maybe less if you inquired about a bulk
deal. Lotta battery tab welding there. Not being a prismatic, that's a
pretty poor volumetric density but then this is a lot of space for
cooling airflow.
Danny
Ben Apollonio wrote:
Ah, but it actually can't! NiMH is particularly convenient for such a
monopolizing kill because you can't parallel the cells. Therefore,
the only way to increase amp-hour capacity is to build a larger cell.
Chevron can still license NiMH for small cells without worrying that
it will get used for EV's.
Other technologies, such as Li-ion, don't work the same way, as has
been proven by such cars as the T-zero with its ridiculous number of
18650 laptop-sized cells.
So, no, NiMH can't be used for EV's. Period.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Storm,
I should have mentioned that I live in Maui, Hawaii and it is extremely
unlikely that we have such a shop. I'll look into it. We are very limited
when it comes to local suppliers of EV parts. So if you know of any mail
order houses, that should suffice. We really pay the price when it comes to
shipping - the price of paradise.
Thanks.
Martin
On 11/17/06, Storm Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most bigger towns have a spring shop. Where are you located?
----- Original Message ----
From: martin emde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 3:00:40 PM
Subject: Suspension/Spring Supplier
Hi,
Does anyone know of a company/supplier for enhanced performance (stiffer)
springs. I remember seeing a name on the list a few months back. I'm
converting a 1988 Toyota Corola. You can email me off list.
Thanks.
Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Please point me to the technical papers to support the assertion
that NiMH cells can't be used in parallel.
There are always ways around limitations for those that look for them,
and no way in the world I will tell you how at this point, in fact I
will patent my methods and prevent the naysayers from copying them. :)
Jack
Ben Apollonio wrote:
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Jack Murray wrote:
The patent is about "large format" NiMH. Such "large format" is not
neccessary to power an EV. The small A123 cells in the Tesla.
The Honda Insight uses small NiMH D-cells.
Saying NiMH can't be used for EV's is going too far, and is just
fueling more conspiracy theory and excuses not to build EVs.
Ah, but it actually can't! NiMH is particularly convenient for such a
monopolizing kill because you can't parallel the cells. Therefore, the
only way to increase amp-hour capacity is to build a larger cell.
Chevron can still license NiMH for small cells without worrying that it
will get used for EV's.
Other technologies, such as Li-ion, don't work the same way, as has been
proven by such cars as the T-zero with its ridiculous number of 18650
laptop-sized cells.
So, no, NiMH can't be used for EV's. Period. The small A123 cells in
the Tesla roadster are massively paralleled. The Honda Insight is so
very much not an EV that it can't even move with its engine off (unless
your put it in neutral). Even the NiMH in the Prius is also sub-10Ah
capacity (equivalent to a D cell), and Panasonic had to fight a tough
battle for the right even to produce those for transportation use (and
part of the license from Cobasys puts them under gag order not to
disclose the limits of the license, which are widely assumed to prohibit
>10Ah cells, BEV's, and Plug-in HEV's). The fancy Nilar battery is
also only 10Ah. See a trend? It may be a "conspiracy theory" but it's
also real.
Besides, who ever heard of patenting scale? The core technology is the
same, all you do is change the active area. You can't patent "NiMH with
active area that produces greater than 10Ah" - there's nothing new to
it. That's like patenting sheets of steel larger than 100 square
inches. Unless there's something special about what you're doing,
there's no grounds for a patent.
-Ben
Jack
David Roden wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 at 12:10, Geopilot wrote:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be
modified so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error ...
I think the subject is too general for the EV list. I think I know
what you're trying to do here - it has to do with NiMH batteries -
and I think it's counterproductive. It will lead to a thread which
will be nothing but a gripe session.
Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The
situation is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we speak,
and the problem will resolve itself. Unless the restrictions are
relaxed, NiMH for EVs will simply not be a factor in the EV market,
and Cobasys will miss out on the revenue from that segment. That's
exactly what they deserve.
We can't have NiMH. It's regrettable, but let's leave it at that.
Let's move on and build outstanding EVs with batteries we >can< get
our hands on, instead of wringing those hands over batteries that are
denied to us by foolhardy, short-sighted, backward-looking corporate
executives and attorneys.
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 ---
I'd assume they bother because they can knock off a look-alike for about 12%
of it's US cost. <g>
Do we know for sure they have an EV1? Or could this be another legend for
that infamous auto? I know GM ships them parts to make knock-off Hummers,
but why would GM ship them such an expensive design? Or was it illegally
shipped out of country? (The Hummers, BTW, were bought, shipped and stripped
to make knock-offs.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:16 PM
Subject: Why do they Bother? WAS(DaimlerChrysler stops Chinese knock offs)
> Why are the Chinese wasting their time with this!!!!!!?????? They have
> some EV-1's! Lets have a knockoff here!I'm sure they could reverse
engineer
> one?
> Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey, guys - we do have a real live Mennonite on the EV List - ME! No, we
don't all drive buggies or cars with black bumpers; and I even drive an
electric! With chrome wheels, no less.
There are several Mennonite repair shops back there - a good friend of mine
has one in Pennsylvania, close to Lancaster (of course).
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: solectria bc 3300 charger repair
> Hi bob and all, I think Dave is talking about a menonite electrical repair
> shop not far from him and I where the guy does alot of tractor and eqpt
> generators etc. The menonites drive around in black ice vehicles and have
> all the creature comforts like us lazy people and the girls wear those
> dresses and lacy bonnets. I just showed an ev to a couple of those
menonite
> guys and they were real interested and said theyd paint it black right
away
> if they had it.I might stop down and show him the bc 3300 charger and see
> what he says. I can ev down there and skate 1/2 way back to my friends
house
> who has a hot outlet and coffee. Mike y
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: solectria bc 3300 charger repair
>
>
> > Hmmmm? Amish Electrical repair shop? I thought they didn't do
> > electricity, cars, planes, trains, TV's and (Gasp!) Electric cars? Horse
> > an'
> > Buggies, but in news shots I see ELECTRIC marker lights on Buggies? Not
> > meaning to "Diss" anybody just seems a bit incongruis. and a Sharied
fone?
> > Direct line to Shari? Sorry, couldn't resist<g>!
> >
> > Windmill shop? Do they run windmills on those farms?For electric?Like
> > the old Winpower setups?Of the 30's. Was that the charger ya got frm me?
> >
> > Seeya
> >
> > Bob
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "chestnutforge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: solectria bc 3300 charger repair
> >
> >
> >> Mike,
> >> Here is the Amish Electrical Repair Shop.
> >> Edward S Leid Repair
> >> 1861 Rt 230
> >> Dundee, NY 14837
> >> Phone 607 243 8823
> >> He has a sharied Phone, Rt 230 is on the right past the Wind mill
shop.
> >> Peace
> >> David
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "mike young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:45 AM
> >> Subject: solectria bc 3300 charger repair
> >>
> >>
> >> > I have one solectria bc 3300 charger that needs repaired. can the
list
> >> direct me to a good idea on who to repair this or should i buy a
> > replacement
> >> from electro auto. shari from electro auto you are excluded from
> >> answering
> >> this one.lol mike y
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date:
11/16/06
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date: 11/17/2006
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 11/17/06, Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Edward Ang wrote:
> I just got an idea of eliminating the reversing contactors.
> Or, more accurately reducing the number from 4 to 1. I am
> using the Sparrow as an example of an EV without a transmission.
Does the Sparrow actually use 4 SPST contactors to implement the
reversing function, or does it use the more conventional paired SPDT set
as a DPDT revresing contactor? (4 SW200B's would be more expensive than
a single SW202B reversing contactor set and much messier to wire up.)
It uses 4 Kilovac contactors at around $100 a piece. Another for the
main contactor. Another one for the heater. How can an EV be
affordable if it needs $600 of contactors.
What is the real driver for this? If it is to avoid the relatively high
cost of a reversing contactor set, it certainly seems questionable if
one could really achieve much of any reduction in cost this way, even if
valuing their own labour at nothing. The other downside to this is that
for a smallish vehicle like the Sparrow, the extra weight and space of
the reversing motor and its required mechanical bits would be signifcant
compared to a simple reversing contactor set. For larger vehicles, the
space and weight would be less an issue, but the most practical means of
connecting the reversing motor to the drivetrain would be via a
tailshaft on the main traction motor, which adds $20-30 cost to the
traction motor and may not be feasible due to space limitations in some
vehicles.
Cheers,
Roger.
I just like to think about alternatives and give my brain some
exercise. Plus, I have a few extra $9 treadmil motors sitting around.
I was thinking more of using the clutch on a regular ICE driven AC
compressor for this purpose. Also, if the RPM of the small motor is
high enough to generate a voltage higher than the pack voltage, you
can just wire it to the pack for regen. It won't be a variable regen,
but, regen nonetheless. I have done this with my scooter. It works
fine. The Ford Think City has a fixed single step regen also. It
drives just fine.
--
Edward Ang
President
AIR Lab Corp
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The parts cost to balance such small power cells shouldn't be much.
A simply circuit mesh between each cell that measured relative strength
and shunted power between cells is a common design task and done
everyday in a million other circuits.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 6:44 pm, Danny Miller wrote:
I have to ask though, has anyone done real experimentation with some
NiMH D-cells? It should be easy enough to get ahold of a few D-cells
and try to make one big parallel cell and see what kind of charge
balance issues occur and maybe think about possible solutions.
Are we repeating assumptions, or do we have for-sure experience that
the real-world problems are insurmountable?
I wonder if particular charge rates, current reversal, or something
else clever might resolve the charge balance issue. I'll be the first
to admit the possibility is remote, but I've not seen anything which
says it's impossible. And this sort of hacking is sort of what this
group's about.
Guy on eBay has 8x 10AH D-cells for $40. 100 of those and there's a
120v, 80AH pack for $4,000, maybe less if you inquired about a bulk
deal. Lotta battery tab welding there. Not being a prismatic, that's
a pretty poor volumetric density but then this is a lot of space for
cooling airflow.
Danny
Ben Apollonio wrote:
Ah, but it actually can't! NiMH is particularly convenient for such a
monopolizing kill because you can't parallel the cells. Therefore,
the only way to increase amp-hour capacity is to build a larger cell.
Chevron can still license NiMH for small cells without worrying that
it will get used for EV's.
Other technologies, such as Li-ion, don't work the same way, as has
been proven by such cars as the T-zero with its ridiculous number of
18650 laptop-sized cells.
So, no, NiMH can't be used for EV's. Period.
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 ---
Does any one have any information on the above meter?
Peter
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David wrote:
> Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The
> situation is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we speak,
> and the problem will resolve itself.
I agree David. As long as we can't access 'EV ready' ceramic heater
elements, a/c units, regen modules etc. we shouldn't wine too much about
the greener grass of the other side of the fence.
Michaela
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My 1983 Diesel Quantum(s) were 5-speeds, but they used a different transaxle
(The engine was laid out conventionally, for and aft) which in opinion,
would be better room-wise for an electric motor.
David C. Wilker Jr.
USAF (RET)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: VW Rabbit Transmission
The diesels were all 4 speed in that era as far as I know. The ratios are
better for electric too. Lawrence Rhodes......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Harvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: VW Rabbit Transmission
I might have use for it. Four speed or Five? And what do you want for it?
Regards, Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Storm Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "List EV" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: VW Rabbit Transmission
>I have an 80's era transmission from a diesel Rabbit. I'm told they fit
>regular Rabbit, just lower ratios. Anybody have use for it?
> storm
> Barkhamsted, CT
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be modified
so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in error or if prior
invention was proved but also if the patent is being used by a
competitive player solely to ensure the technology is NOT developed
or deployed.
This is already a part of patent law, although it is awkward and
difficult to do in practice.
If you have a patent, and someone violates your patent, your legal
remedy is to sue them for damages. It's not uncommon for a court to
award you treble damages if you can show that the violation was deliberate.
But... if you have been doing NOTHING with the patent except sitting on
it, you will have a difficult time convincing a judge that you have
suffered any damages. Therefore, you might win the case... but be
awarded $1 as compensation. The patent infringer has to cease using the
patented idea; but he gets to keep all his profits up to that point.
At least, that's how it worked in the past. But nowdays, you will hire
sharp lawyers to argue that you were spending a fortune on R&D to
develop the patent, or were engaged in expensive negotiations to sell or
license the patent to someone; and thanks to the infringer, all your
precious money is lost. You can invent millions of dollars of "losses"
for these efforts, even though you never produced anything.
--
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 ---
Edward Ang wrote:
I just got an idea of eliminating the reversing contactors.
Or, more accurately reducing the number from 4 to 1. I am
using the Sparrow as an example of an EV without a transmission.
There have been EVs that used a separate motor to implement reverse. It
can be done if you are talented mechanically. But overall, it feels like
a kluge (something that works, but is doing things the hard way).
Given that you have a series motor, I think a set of reversing
contactors (or switches) is the easiest way to do it.
Roger Stockton asked:
Does the Sparrow actually use 4 SPST contactors to implement the
reversing function, or does it use the more conventional paired
SPDT set as a DPDT reversing contactor?
It uses 4 Kilovac contactors at around $100 a piece. Another for
the main contactor. Another one for the heater. How can an EV be
affordable if it needs $600 of contactors.
Sounds like a bad implementation of a good solution. :-)
Reversing contactors are never switched under load; so they don't have
to break a worst-case fault. There are always two contacts in series, so
they only have to be rated for half the pack voltage. These factors
greatly reduce the size of contacts needed.
The most economical solution is a single reversing switch (not a
contactor). Just provide a "gearshift" lever that is really a big switch.
--
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 ---
Look at the voltage vs state of charge chart for NiMH, and also compare
voltage vs temp.
Note the radical difference in charging NiMH vs lead-acid. NiMH will
generally overcharge if left on a constant voltage (unless the voltage
is too low to do anything useful), even if the voltage is
temp-compensated. Parallel NiMH will share the same voltage. So simply
leaving a constant voltage on the paralleled cell waiting for the weaker
one to reach full charge will result in the full one getting an overcharge.
In fact, look at the V/SOC chart. The voltage not only plateaus near
100% SOC, but actually decreases a bit after a plateau. Another way of
looking at that is that if you were going down that downslope and kept
applying the same charge voltage, the current actually increases after
the plateau area but we need it to taper off.
There are additional problems in charge-balancing the series string. In
this case, the problem is twofold. One, exactly like in lead-acid,
unless we design some sort of shunt we always have to deliver the same
number of amp-hrs to every cell on a series string. But second, there
are difficulties in trying to determine SOC for every cell even if we
have a shunt strategy. We can't look at the cell voltage and infer SOC
off it in a really direct way due to that damn V/SOC graph. It is
impossible to use a simple zener and light bulb shunt here.
I still wonder if perhaps a form of pulsing, or brief current reversal
during charging, might allow the paralleled cells to charge evenly by
making the charged cell draw less current and the one with a lesser SOC
draw more. Or maybe the matching in the brands sold now just may
balance better than the chart suggests, I don't know. I do sort of feel
in for some cheap monkeying around with a few paralleled cells.
Danny
Jack Murray wrote:
Please point me to the technical papers to support the assertion
that NiMH cells can't be used in parallel.
There are always ways around limitations for those that look for them,
and no way in the world I will tell you how at this point, in fact I
will patent my methods and prevent the naysayers from copying them. :)
Jack
Ben Apollonio wrote:
On Nov 17, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Jack Murray wrote:
The patent is about "large format" NiMH. Such "large format" is not
neccessary to power an EV. The small A123 cells in the Tesla.
The Honda Insight uses small NiMH D-cells.
Saying NiMH can't be used for EV's is going too far, and is just
fueling more conspiracy theory and excuses not to build EVs.
Ah, but it actually can't! NiMH is particularly convenient for such
a monopolizing kill because you can't parallel the cells. Therefore,
the only way to increase amp-hour capacity is to build a larger
cell. Chevron can still license NiMH for small cells without
worrying that it will get used for EV's.
Other technologies, such as Li-ion, don't work the same way, as has
been proven by such cars as the T-zero with its ridiculous number of
18650 laptop-sized cells.
So, no, NiMH can't be used for EV's. Period. The small A123 cells
in the Tesla roadster are massively paralleled. The Honda Insight is
so very much not an EV that it can't even move with its engine off
(unless your put it in neutral). Even the NiMH in the Prius is also
sub-10Ah capacity (equivalent to a D cell), and Panasonic had to
fight a tough battle for the right even to produce those for
transportation use (and part of the license from Cobasys puts them
under gag order not to disclose the limits of the license, which are
widely assumed to prohibit >10Ah cells, BEV's, and Plug-in HEV's).
The fancy Nilar battery is also only 10Ah. See a trend? It may be a
"conspiracy theory" but it's also real.
Besides, who ever heard of patenting scale? The core technology is
the same, all you do is change the active area. You can't patent
"NiMH with active area that produces greater than 10Ah" - there's
nothing new to it. That's like patenting sheets of steel larger than
100 square inches. Unless there's something special about what
you're doing, there's no grounds for a patent.
-Ben
Jack
David Roden wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 at 12:10, Geopilot wrote:
What do people think about the idea that patent law should be
modified so that patents can not only be revoked if issued in
error ...
I think the subject is too general for the EV list. I think I know
what you're trying to do here - it has to do with NiMH batteries -
and I think it's counterproductive. It will lead to a thread which
will be nothing but a gripe session.
Folks, there's nothing we can do to fix the NiMH restrictions. The
situation is what it is. Alternatives are emerging even as we
speak, and the problem will resolve itself. Unless the
restrictions are relaxed, NiMH for EVs will simply not be a factor
in the EV market, and Cobasys will miss out on the revenue from
that segment. That's exactly what they deserve.
We can't have NiMH. It's regrettable, but let's leave it at that.
Let's move on and build outstanding EVs with batteries we >can< get
our hands on, instead of wringing those hands over batteries that
are denied to us by foolhardy, short-sighted, backward-looking
corporate executives and attorneys.
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 ---
I'd love to see the spreadsheet, but I sure won't join google... why don't you
put it up at http://www.evforge.net/news.php
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Kruger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Batteries
> Here's a chart I made comparing sever different batteries. Hope you
> can find something to your liking.
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p5Q1FF4gnxsiKy0y_uGEbIA
>
> Brandon Kruger
--- End Message ---
