EV Digest 6203
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) EVLN(New TH!NK EV unlikely to make it to N. America)
by bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) EVLN($15M USABC LiFePO4 battery R&D contract)
by bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: AGM's on end?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Help with Suzuki Samurai
by Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Help with Suzuki Samurai
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Which Logo do you like?
by "George J. Jones, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Fuel Cells
by Darryl McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Which Logo do you like?
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Which Logo do you like?
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Fuel Cells
by Martin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Battery test
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Wrong motor direction for Joe Sixpack Geo Metro EV
by "Darin - MetroMPG.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Fuel Cells
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Fuel Cells
by "gail donaldson lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Wrong motor direction for Joe Sixpack Geo Metro EV
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Wrong motor direction for Joe Sixpack Geo Metro EV
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Battery test
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: EV wiring
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Some newbie questions
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Battery test
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Load testing methods
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: [SPAM] Re: Help with Suzuki Samurai
by "Jim Sylvester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(New TH!NK EV unlikely to make it to N. America)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://car-reviews.automobile.com/news/th-nk-thinks-about-launching-new-electric-car/2227/
TH!NK Thinks About Launching New Electric Car December 7, 2006
by Justin Couture [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Small Electric Cars a Success in Europe
Quite some time ago, there was an electric vehicle called the
TH!NK City. If you live in California or New York, you might
actually be familiar with the daft little machine, which was
taken on as a subsidiary by Ford back in the late 90s. Convinced
of the future of emissions-friendly automobiles, Ford had
grandiose plans to launch the TH!NK as a completely
zero-emissions vehicle and a competitor to the smart fortwo,
until the American giant abandoned its plans to cut costs and
spend its precious development funds elsewhere.
The original TH!NK City, marketed by Ford, was a unique
zero-emissions vehicle. Designed by PIVCO Industries (later
renamed TH!NK Nordic SA), it had an aluminum space frame for
rigidity and light weight, clothed in corrosion-free,
dent-resistant matte-finish plastics. Despite being just 9.8 feet
in length, the TH!NK Citys intelligent design, and drivers side
airbags were enough to make it street legal, passing all European
safety tests. Overall, the TH!NK City wasnt groundbreaking in any
way in terms of its electrical performance; it had a top speed of
55 mph and could drive 50 mph or so between charges. Hooked up to
a main 220 volt electrical plug, it took about 4-6 hours to
charge 80-percent.
Since the Ford days, TH!NK Nordic SA has really begun to take off
in its home country, as well as in Sweden. TH!NK created a
drop-top version of the little city car, giving commuters the
chance to catch a breath of fresh air, not to mention a
completely new vehicle called the Public, which attempted to
bring to market the functionality and look of a typical urban
bus, but downsized into a tiny four-passenger vehicle. Because of
Northern Europes zero-emissions vehicles benefits, which include
incentives such as tax exemptions, free parking, free road tolls
and access to bus/carpool lanes, the demand for TH!NKs electric
cars have skyrocketed. Theyre so popular that TH!NKs originally
exported for use in the U.S. have found their way back onto
Nordic European roads.
For the new year, TH!NK has given its most popular car, the City,
a complete remake from the ground up. Its certainly a different
looking vehicle, bearing gigantic ovoid headlamps, and a rather
sporty shape delivered through its funky roof-mounted spoiler and
blistered wheel arches. Scientists and engineers have managed to
stretch its range by 60-percent, which should make the City even
more suitable for those who run it on a day-to-day basis.
Standard equipment on the little electric car includes ABS
brakes, an airbag, power steering, power windows and central
locking. And incidentally, some traces of Ford still remain in
the interior; much of the switchgear can be found on the Focus,
as can the steering wheel.
Though its unlikely that the TH!NK will make it to North America
- even for testing - the new generation car will go on sale in
Norway soon. Could this really be the future of cheap,
environmentally friendly motoring? Time will indeed tell.
Copyright © 2006 Automobile Inc.
-
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN($15M USABC LiFePO4 battery R&D contract)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://www.uscar.org/guest/article_view.php?articles_id=39
NEWS IMMEDIATE RELEASE Dec. 8, 06
Contacts: Susan Bairley 248.223.9023 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stacey M. Keast 248.223.9002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
USABC AWARDS $15 MILLION BATTERY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
TO A123SYSTEMS
SOUTHFIELD, Mich., Dec. 8, 2006 The United States Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC), an organization composed of
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General
Motors Corporation, today announced the award of a $15 million
lithium iron phosphate battery technology development contract to
A123Systems of Watertown, Mass.
USABC awarded the contract in collaboration with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to develop lithium iron phosphate
battery technology for hybrid-electric vehicle applications. The
contract is for 36 months with a focus on systems that are
high-power, abuse-tolerant and cost effective.
USABC is a consortium of the United States Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR). Supported by a cooperative agreement with the
DOE that provides up to 50 percent of the USABC budget, USABCs
mission is to develop electrochemical energy storage technologies
that support commercialization of fuel cell, hybrid and electric
vehicles.
A123Systems contract involves developing the next-generation
lithium iron phosphate battery. The goals for this program are
significant increases in power, reduction in cost, high
abuse-tolerance and long battery life.
We are pleased to announce USABCs award of this contract to
A123Systems as part of USABCs broad battery technology research
and development program, said Don Walkowicz, executive director
of USCAR. The program is essential to advance both near- and
long-term goals for hybrid-electric vehicle transportation.
The new contract is A123Systems first with USABC.
The U.S. DOE's overarching mission is to advance the national,
economic and energy security of the United States. DOEs Office
of FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies works with industry to
develop advanced transportation technologies that reduce the
nation's use of imported oil and increase our energy security.
Electrochemical energy storage has been identified as a critical
enabling technology for advanced, fuel-efficient, light and heavy
duty vehicles.
Founded in 1992, the United States Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR) is the umbrella organization for collaborative
research among DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company
and General Motors Corporation. The goal of USCAR is to further
strengthen the technology base of the domestic auto industry
through cooperative research and development.
For more information, visit USCARs Web site at www.uscar.org
###
-
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
5 years with on end configuration in an EMB Lectra motorcycle. Delphi 8v
VLRA OEM batteries for the Ford Ranger EV. Lawrence Rhodes.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Major" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: AGM's on end?
> Steve,
>
> I had no problems using Optima Red Top AGM's on end. Did so for over 10
years with 100's of them.
>
> Jeff Major
>
> Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After measuring my Tropica, and mulling over how to put my 12 UB121100's
(removed from my Courier before sale) into the car, it occured to me that
the only way that they would all fit in the battery tunnel which runs down
the center of the vehicle is if I placed them on end. This is a battery
orientation I've never seen before, and even though the usual notice say
that AGM's can be used in any orientation (sometimes with the caveat that
inverted is "not recommended") I'm curious if anyone has ever used AGMs
standing on end in an EV before, and has any advice (or anecdotes) to share
with me?
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and
get things done faster.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are a couple of Samurais in the EValbum which have conventional
conversions. Your first stop should be to ask those owners. But to me a 4WD
with driveshaft-driven live axles front and rear cries out for a dual motor,
series-parallel, no transmission setup. It's one situation where I'd recommend
considering removing a perfectly good transmission. You would drop a lot of
weight, and making an adapter could be as simple as mating U-joints to the
motor shafts. A couple of 6.7's would probably be sufficient, and not too
pricey, either. The aerodynamics will be terrible no matter what you do, so
don't plan on making it a highway cruiser. And if I were you I 'd plan on
using AGM's mounted underneath the chassis, because the center of gravity will
kill you otherwise. Could be an interesting and exciting project.
JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My son wants to convert his Samurai 4WD 5 speed
to EV.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
John 1981 Jet Electrica in Sylmar
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
First make sure he's read the book, "Convert It," by
Mike Brown.
If he needs help solely with parts selection and
wiring, that's a good place to start.
Next, I'd have him look on the EVAlbum website, and
look for other Samurais. Why re-invent the wheel, if
he's going to use the same batteries as one who has
already been there?
My specialty is Civics, and I converted mine from the
video shot by another Civic EV owner.
Hope that helps,
--- JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My son wants to convert his Samurai 4WD 5 speed to
> EV.
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
>
> John 1981 Jet Electrica in Sylmar
>
>
Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too!
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Which Logo do you like?
http://tinyurl.com/yyvzzj
Gman
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Lawrence Lile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone looked into a fuel cell as either a range extender, emergency
charger, etc. in an EV?
I imagine they would be too expensive in onesie quanitities to power the
vehicle, but a small one might be able to charge the vehicle over time,
if you weren't close to a plug. Might also provide an opportunity for
alternative fuels - hydrogen and so forth.
--Lawrence Lile
=========================================
Sorry to be late to the party, but I was out of town.
So many issues to be addressed here. I get so tired of the arguments.
So, I wrote a book - The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy - to address
most of them. (It's been a long time since I have posted here.
Researching, writing and publishing the book has been a demanding exercise.)
Basically, all the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being produced today use
the fuel cell as a range extender. They use a battery pack to provide
the power needed for acceleration and hill climbing, because sizing a
fuel cell to peak demand is prohibitive in terms of cost and space. If
you are truly concerned with range extension, emergency charging, stick
with conventional hybrid technologies. So, you can ask Honda and Nissan
what they think of fuel cells as range extenders. So far, the
prototypes are still running $1,000,000 and change a piece.
Next issue - hydrogen is not an energy source - just an energy carrier.
And a poor one at that. If for some reason you are adamant about using
a fuel cell instead of hybrids (preferably with biofuels), how about
looking into cells that use ethanol, methanol or metal fuels directly?
Energy cycle efficiency - sucks. Refuelling infrastructure - doesn't
exist. Primary real energy source - natural gas (fossil fuel).
Underlying technology still is not robust enough to provide acceptable
life. Cold weather performance issues. On-board hydrogen storage
presents some serious issues in its own right, including the materials
used and tightness of the plumbing connections. If you really want
more, please get the book - I don't plan to use the bandwidth to
reproduce it here.
Better would be for us to focus on advanced batteries as the way of the
future (post hybrids and plug-in hybrids).
--
Darryl McMahon (still on digest)
It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will?
1973 Porsche 914 conversion (not yet hybridized)
1973 Elec-Trak E12
1986 Pontiac Fiero conversion
1999 SpinCraft EB1 electric boat (solar charged)
Electric bike (legal in Ontario since October 2006)
The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook)
http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Dec 9, 2006, at 1:25 PM, George J. Jones, Jr. wrote:
Which Logo do you like?
http://tinyurl.com/yyvzzj
Number 2 is the best looking version, IMHO. The subtle natural
background sets it above the rest.
Paul
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 03:25 PM 9/12/06 -0600, you wrote:
Which Logo do you like?
http://tinyurl.com/yyvzzj
Gman
G'day Gman, and all
a) It is polite to explain what a link is about
and
b) now I've clicked the link and know what it is about I couldn't "give a rats"
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's well known that almost everyone on the EV list hates fuel cells,
but the truth is that they are still an emerging technology. Batteries
have been around for thousands of years. You would look at a potato cell
that was used for electroplating and say "man that's useless, that will
never replace a horse" Well, fuel cells have surpassed hydrogen-only
technology. Solid-oxide fuel cells are coming out that support more
conventional higher energy density fuels such as alcohol and CNG. The
car's still an EV, it's just powered by a "battery" that can be
"recharged" in 2 minutes. It's not going to replace all other
technologies, but it's just not responsible to say that BEVs are the
only answer.
I'm no expert but I think it's time for some people to educate
themselves rather than disrespect and disregard new technology. Sounds
familiar with respect to "Gassers" dissing EVs?
--
Martin K
David Roden wrote:
The fact that one might be able to make it work doesn't make it a truly
viable energy source for an EV. There's an argument that fuel cells of all
types are little more than expensive curiosities - nifty engineering
challenges, but not of much practical use.
The problem is the "fuel." Hydrogen is not a naturally occuring fuel. Nor
is agricultural ammonia. Just like hydrogen, ammonia is made from natural
gas (methane). It's called the Haber process. I don't know the details, but
I'm pretty sure that a very substantial additional energy input is required.
Thus, it's tough for me to see how Haber ammonia is going to be any more
efficient as a "fuel" than hydrogen from steam methane reforming, especially
after you figure in refining and transport. And that is the real reason for
the impracticality of the PEM fuel cell.
FCVs, PEM or alkaline, are probably always going to be less efficient than
BEVs by quite a considerable margin. I have a certain respect for Bob
Aronson and his long history with EVs, but I think he's swinging at cold,
empty air on this one.
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 ---
In suspision of a bad battery I performed the following test after 5
monthes of daily use @ about 14 miles a day.
In actuality about 3000 miles.
Average temperature 40's, 24 Excide Orbitals. not insulated, sept 2005
and apr 2005 Datecodes.
baseline:
Charged and let rest over 12 hours
Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
test:
went for a drive removing 3Kwh
rest for 1 hour
Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
Full Charge 3Kwh Down
battery location OCV @150 Amps trend OCV @150Amps trend
1 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.48 11.6 steady
2 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.46 11.4 steady
3 underhood 12.90 11.8 steady 12.52 11.6 steady
4 underhood 12.77 11.7 steady 12.37 11.4 steady
5 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.55 11.6 steady
6 underhood 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.5 steady
7 underhood 12.92 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6 steady
8 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
dropping fast
9 behindseat 12.84 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
dropping fast
10 behindseat 12.64 11.6 steady 12.27 11.4 steady
11 behindseat 12.68 11.6 steady 12.30 10.6
dropping fast
12 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6 steady
13 behindseat 12.89 11.9 steady 12.54 11.7 steady
14 behindseat 12.86 11.85 steady 12.53 11.8 steady
15 behindseat 12.75 11.9 steady 12.43 11.75 steady
16 behindseat 12.91 11.9 steady 12.57 11.8 steady
17 behindseat 12.865 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
18 behindseat 12.89 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
19 behindseat 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.6 steady
20 behindseat 12.87 11.7 steady 12.46 11.75 steady
21 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.57 11.8 steady
22 underhood 12.91 11.8 steady 12.55 11.8 steady
23 underhood 12.87 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
24 underhood 12.89 11.9 steady 12.52 11.6 steady
Conclusions #'s 8,9,11 are low capacity.
Should I take another reading at say 4kwh down? What happened to the
7kwh capacity? :(34ah 1hr rate * 288V =9792 * .8 = 7.8kwh)
My tester is only good for 15 seconds at a shot.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all -
Delurking to ask a question (and reveal just how far down the learning
curve I remain)...
First, an update on our beer-budget, low-speed, short-range, Metro EV
project (this is the one using parts we got from an old 48v forklift,
and a car that would otherwise have been made into tin cans by now):
Things are proceeding slowly but surely since beginning this spring. We
eventually got the $175 Metro through inspection with its ICE in (after
I learned how to braze some patches in the floor). The ICE-ectomy has
since taken place, and we've custom made our adapter plate, shaft
coupler, and motor mount.
Unfortunately, we just discovered (...drum roll please...) that our
8-inch forklift pump motor turns the wrong way! :) (Shoulda checked
that first, huh?)
No problem, we thought, we'll just reverse the connections! No go.
This series motor only has 2 terminals, and reversing the polarity
doesn't reverse its rotation. (Geez, the things you learn hands-on.)
No problem, we thought, we'll just take apart the motor and reverse the
field connections inside. This we did, and the motor now goes the
"right" way.
BUT... it spins *much* more slowly going the "right" way. We clocked it
at just 1480 RPM @ 12 volts in the "right" direction, vs. 2275 RPM @ 12
volts in the "stock" direction.
So, the question is: Is this just a brush timing issue? I understand
from the archive that it's bad to run a motor the "wrong way" if the
brushes are advanced for the other direction:
http://www.repp.org/discussion/ev/200201/msg00183.html
Is there something else we're (I'm) missing? Or, do we just have to
figure out how to re-set the brushes?
Thanks for any and all info/suggestions.
Darin Cosgrove
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Fuel cell research was (actually still is) being used as a black hole
to suck funding away from much more practical alternative energy technologies.
It is spending the limited funding very foolishly, (and purposely
foolishly.) That is why folks in the know call them "Fool" cells.
By the way, you can charge A123 Systems Li-Ion cells in 10 minutes.
Why would you want to spend $1,000,000 dollars on a Fool cell car
(that takes more than 10 minutes to fill up) when you can have a
Li-Ion EV for a tiny fraction of the cost?
Bill Dube'
At 03:59 PM 12/9/2006, you wrote:
It's well known that almost everyone on the EV list hates fuel
cells, but the truth is that they are still an emerging technology.
Batteries have been around for thousands of years. You would look at
a potato cell that was used for electroplating and say "man that's
useless, that will never replace a horse" Well, fuel cells have
surpassed hydrogen-only technology. Solid-oxide fuel cells are
coming out that support more conventional higher energy density
fuels such as alcohol and CNG. The car's still an EV, it's just
powered by a "battery" that can be "recharged" in 2 minutes. It's
not going to replace all other technologies, but it's just not
responsible to say that BEVs are the only answer.
I'm no expert but I think it's time for some people to educate
themselves rather than disrespect and disregard new technology.
Sounds familiar with respect to "Gassers" dissing EVs?
--
Martin K
David Roden wrote:
The fact that one might be able to make it work doesn't make it a
truly viable energy source for an EV. There's an argument that
fuel cells of all types are little more than expensive curiosities
- nifty engineering challenges, but not of much practical use.
The problem is the "fuel." Hydrogen is not a naturally occuring
fuel. Nor is agricultural ammonia. Just like hydrogen, ammonia is
made from natural gas (methane). It's called the Haber process. I
don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure that a very substantial
additional energy input is required.
Thus, it's tough for me to see how Haber ammonia is going to be any
more efficient as a "fuel" than hydrogen from steam methane
reforming, especially after you figure in refining and
transport. And that is the real reason for the impracticality of
the PEM fuel cell.
FCVs, PEM or alkaline, are probably always going to be less
efficient than BEVs by quite a considerable margin. I have a
certain respect for Bob Aronson and his long history with EVs, but
I think he's swinging at cold, empty air on this one.
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 ---
http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/news02.txt
There is quite a lot of fuel cell activity here in Las Vegas, including
development of refueling stations.
Gail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Darin
Why don't you email me a pic or two before we start
talking on how to adjust the timing. Just be nice to
see which motor you got.
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
--- "Darin - MetroMPG.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> Delurking to ask a question (and reveal just how far
> down the learning
> curve I remain)...
>
> First, an update on our beer-budget, low-speed,
> short-range, Metro EV
> project (this is the one using parts we got from an
> old 48v forklift,
> and a car that would otherwise have been made into
> tin cans by now):
>
> Things are proceeding slowly but surely since
> beginning this spring. We
> eventually got the $175 Metro through inspection
> with its ICE in (after
> I learned how to braze some patches in the floor).
> The ICE-ectomy has
> since taken place, and we've custom made our adapter
> plate, shaft
> coupler, and motor mount.
>
> Unfortunately, we just discovered (...drum roll
> please...) that our
> 8-inch forklift pump motor turns the wrong way! :)
> (Shoulda checked
> that first, huh?)
>
> No problem, we thought, we'll just reverse the
> connections! No go.
> This series motor only has 2 terminals, and
> reversing the polarity
> doesn't reverse its rotation. (Geez, the things you
> learn hands-on.)
>
> No problem, we thought, we'll just take apart the
> motor and reverse the
> field connections inside. This we did, and the
> motor now goes the
> "right" way.
>
> BUT... it spins *much* more slowly going the "right"
> way. We clocked it
> at just 1480 RPM @ 12 volts in the "right"
> direction, vs. 2275 RPM @ 12
> volts in the "stock" direction.
>
> So, the question is: Is this just a brush timing
> issue? I understand
> from the archive that it's bad to run a motor the
> "wrong way" if the
> brushes are advanced for the other direction:
>
>
http://www.repp.org/discussion/ev/200201/msg00183.html
>
> Is there something else we're (I'm) missing? Or, do
> we just have to
> figure out how to re-set the brushes?
>
> Thanks for any and all info/suggestions.
>
> Darin Cosgrove
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It sounds as though the brushes were a bit advanced. Jim H. has posted in the
past that a simple way to tell if brushes are advanced is that it will turn a
bit faster in the direction they are advanced in.
To get them to the right place for the new direction, the easy method is to
mark the current location, then turn it slowly in the opposite direction until
the RPM is equal no matter which direction the motor turns (temporary fasteners
are helpful). Mark that location too, it's neutral. Then, advance it a bit
further. The same amount it was advanced in the old direction is probably
good, though it shouldn't be more than 10 degrees max. Most of our motors are
advanced between 5 and 10 degrees for street use.
David Brandt
----- Original Message ----
From: Darin - MetroMPG.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2006 5:49:43 PM
Subject: Wrong motor direction for Joe Sixpack Geo Metro EV
Hi all -
Delurking to ask a question (and reveal just how far down the learning
curve I remain)...
First, an update on our beer-budget, low-speed, short-range, Metro EV
project (this is the one using parts we got from an old 48v forklift,
and a car that would otherwise have been made into tin cans by now):
Things are proceeding slowly but surely since beginning this spring. We
eventually got the $175 Metro through inspection with its ICE in (after
I learned how to braze some patches in the floor). The ICE-ectomy has
since taken place, and we've custom made our adapter plate, shaft
coupler, and motor mount.
Unfortunately, we just discovered (...drum roll please...) that our
8-inch forklift pump motor turns the wrong way! :) (Shoulda checked
that first, huh?)
No problem, we thought, we'll just reverse the connections! No go.
This series motor only has 2 terminals, and reversing the polarity
doesn't reverse its rotation. (Geez, the things you learn hands-on.)
No problem, we thought, we'll just take apart the motor and reverse the
field connections inside. This we did, and the motor now goes the
"right" way.
BUT... it spins *much* more slowly going the "right" way. We clocked it
at just 1480 RPM @ 12 volts in the "right" direction, vs. 2275 RPM @ 12
volts in the "stock" direction.
So, the question is: Is this just a brush timing issue? I understand
from the archive that it's bad to run a motor the "wrong way" if the
brushes are advanced for the other direction:
http://www.repp.org/discussion/ev/200201/msg00183.html
Is there something else we're (I'm) missing? Or, do we just have to
figure out how to re-set the brushes?
Thanks for any and all info/suggestions.
Darin Cosgrove
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think you've already got your answer (at least they are easier to get to).
Either replace those three or try remedial measures on them like individual
charging for those three for a few cycles, though it sounds like they got
consistently overcharged, and if that is the case, they need to be replaced.
David Brandt
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2006 7:12:13 PM
Subject: Battery test
In suspision of a bad battery I performed the following test after 5
monthes of daily use @ about 14 miles a day.
In actuality about 3000 miles.
Average temperature 40's, 24 Excide Orbitals. not insulated, sept 2005
and apr 2005 Datecodes.
baseline:
Charged and let rest over 12 hours
Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
test:
went for a drive removing 3Kwh
rest for 1 hour
Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
Full Charge 3Kwh Down
battery location OCV @150 Amps trend OCV @150Amps trend
1 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.48 11.6 steady
2 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.46 11.4 steady
3 underhood 12.90 11.8 steady 12.52 11.6 steady
4 underhood 12.77 11.7 steady 12.37 11.4 steady
5 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.55 11.6 steady
6 underhood 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.5 steady
7 underhood 12.92 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6 steady
8 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
dropping fast
9 behindseat 12.84 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
dropping fast
10 behindseat 12.64 11.6 steady 12.27 11.4 steady
11 behindseat 12.68 11.6 steady 12.30 10.6
dropping fast
12 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6 steady
13 behindseat 12.89 11.9 steady 12.54 11.7 steady
14 behindseat 12.86 11.85 steady 12.53 11.8 steady
15 behindseat 12.75 11.9 steady 12.43 11.75 steady
16 behindseat 12.91 11.9 steady 12.57 11.8 steady
17 behindseat 12.865 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
18 behindseat 12.89 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
19 behindseat 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.6 steady
20 behindseat 12.87 11.7 steady 12.46 11.75 steady
21 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.57 11.8 steady
22 underhood 12.91 11.8 steady 12.55 11.8 steady
23 underhood 12.87 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8 steady
24 underhood 12.89 11.9 steady 12.52 11.6 steady
Conclusions #'s 8,9,11 are low capacity.
Should I take another reading at say 4kwh down? What happened to the
7kwh capacity? :(34ah 1hr rate * 288V =9792 * .8 = 7.8kwh)
My tester is only good for 15 seconds at a shot.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tim wrote -
> Does anyone have a very descriptive and easy to follow EV wiring diagram? It
> would be great if it included all the major components including saftey
> devices.
>
John just put up a page that has a good schematic of what is going into his EV -
>For those still following, I created an updated version of my diagram
>based on input and suggestions from the list and posted it on my
>webpage.
>Since there were requests, I also posted links to download the
>omnigraffle file and a stencil with some EV useful shapes I used.
>The revised pdf is at
> http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/EVDiagram2.pdf
Check it out, it is pretty complete.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Eduardo,
Citroens! Great, my favorite car, the traction avants during the WWII period,
and boy did they move...
Which are you using ID, DS? Keep us informed.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Kaftanski"
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: Some newbie questions
>
> Hi,
>
> After reading this list on and off for almost a year, I
> am ready to start planning my first conversion.
>
> I do need lot of help deciding on which car to convert. I have two
> options: one weights 2250lbs and has a max gross of 3100lbs and the other
> has a 2900lbs empty weight and 1000lbs of payload. Is this 9inch/FB1 motor
> territory? or can I get by with a 8 incher?
>
> Second question is accesorys. Both cars are Citroens. They need
> a hidraulic pump running for suspension, brakes and steering. An electric
> 12volt motor spinning at something like an ICE idle is doable? How much
> power would something like that eat? I can live without power steering
> in the smaller car, but not on the larger one.
>
> Third is airconditioning. Where I live it gets hot in the summer
> and A/C is a much welcomed addition. Whats the usual route for that?
>
> Many thanks...
>
>
> --
> Eduardo K. |
> http://www.carfun.cl | "World domination, now"
> http://e.nn.cl | Linus Torvalds
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Jeff,
You should do the load test at 60 to 70 % SOC. The 10.8 volts on the three
batteries is 1.8 volts per cell. According to my battery hand book, the
battery should discharge at a steady rate until its gets to 1.8 volt cell
and then drops slowly from that point on.
When I load test my 60 to 70% SOC battery, I want to see how long it takes
to get to 1.77 volts per cell. It should hold steady at that voltage. If
one battery continues to drop from that voltage reference, then its time to
do maintenance on that cell.
Of course you can't do a cell maintenance on a seal battery, so you may have
to replace that one bad cell with the other 5 good cells.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Battery test
>
>
> In suspision of a bad battery I performed the following test after 5
> monthes of daily use @ about 14 miles a day.
> In actuality about 3000 miles.
>
> Average temperature 40's, 24 Excide Orbitals. not insulated, sept 2005
> and apr 2005 Datecodes.
> baseline:
> Charged and let rest over 12 hours
> Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
> test:
> went for a drive removing 3Kwh
> rest for 1 hour
>
> Measured Open Circuit Voltage then voltage after 15 seconds at at 150Amps
> Full Charge 3Kwh Down
> battery location OCV @150 Amps trend OCV @150Amps
> trend
> 1 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.48 11.6
> steady
> 2 underhood 12.88 11.8 steady 12.46 11.4
> steady
> 3 underhood 12.90 11.8 steady 12.52 11.6
> steady
> 4 underhood 12.77 11.7 steady 12.37 11.4
> steady
> 5 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.55 11.6
> steady
> 6 underhood 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.5
> steady
> 7 underhood 12.92 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6
> steady
>
> 8 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
> dropping fast
> 9 behindseat 12.84 11.9 steady 12.50 10.8
> dropping fast
> 10 behindseat 12.64 11.6 steady 12.27 11.4
> steady
> 11 behindseat 12.68 11.6 steady 12.30 10.6
> dropping fast
> 12 behindseat 12.88 11.9 steady 12.53 11.6
> steady
> 13 behindseat 12.89 11.9 steady 12.54 11.7
> steady
> 14 behindseat 12.86 11.85 steady 12.53 11.8
> steady
> 15 behindseat 12.75 11.9 steady 12.43 11.75
> steady
> 16 behindseat 12.91 11.9 steady 12.57 11.8
> steady
> 17 behindseat 12.865 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8
> steady
> 18 behindseat 12.89 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8
> steady
> 19 behindseat 12.83 11.8 steady 12.44 11.6
> steady
> 20 behindseat 12.87 11.7 steady 12.46 11.75
> steady
>
> 21 underhood 12.93 11.8 steady 12.57 11.8
> steady
> 22 underhood 12.91 11.8 steady 12.55 11.8
> steady
> 23 underhood 12.87 11.8 steady 12.52 11.8
> steady
> 24 underhood 12.89 11.9 steady 12.52 11.6
> steady
>
> Conclusions #'s 8,9,11 are low capacity.
> Should I take another reading at say 4kwh down? What happened to the
> 7kwh capacity? :(34ah 1hr rate * 288V =9792 * .8 = 7.8kwh)
> My tester is only good for 15 seconds at a shot.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- How to make a battery tester, this is from Joe Smalley
1) Take a coat hanger with .093 wire, it will draw about 150 amps from a 12
volt battery, 100 amps from an 8 volt battery or 75 amps from a 6 volt battery.
2) Parallel two or more to get more current.
3) Connect the coat hanger to some 6 gage or larger jumper cables and submerge
the wire in water. Don't use a plastic bucket. The hot wire can make it leak.
4) Connect your voltmeter to the battery terminals of the battery under test.
5) Connect the jumper cables to the battery terminals.
6) Wait for a fixed amount of time (your choice on how far you want to
discharge the batteries) and read the final voltage.
Disconnect the jumper cables from the battery and record the voltage. The bad
ones show up pretty quickly using this test.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Interesting idea would you power both motors from 1 controller and then drop
power to the fwd motor for cruising? What voltage?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Condie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Help with Suzuki Samurai
There are a couple of Samurais in the EValbum which have conventional
conversions. Your first stop should be to ask those owners. But to me a
4WD with driveshaft-driven live axles front and rear cries out for a dual
motor, series-parallel, no transmission setup. It's one situation where
I'd recommend considering removing a perfectly good transmission. You
would drop a lot of weight, and making an adapter could be as simple as
mating U-joints to the motor shafts. A couple of 6.7's would probably be
sufficient, and not too pricey, either. The aerodynamics will be terrible
no matter what you do, so don't plan on making it a highway cruiser. And
if I were you I 'd plan on using AGM's mounted underneath the chassis,
because the center of gravity will kill you otherwise. Could be an
interesting and exciting project.
JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My son wants to convert his Samurai 4WD 5 speed
to EV.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
John 1981 Jet Electrica in Sylmar
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
--- End Message ---
