EV Digest 6243
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Maximum amps for Anderson 350?
by Jeff Major <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: [EV] Re: How big is this motor?
by Eduardo Kaftanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV digest 6240
by "Matthew Drobnak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Holiday Wishes
by "Peri Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Topping off lead acid batteries
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: How big is this motor?
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Motor spec, suspected to be a GE
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: regen: SepEx motors availability /parallel string charging?
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Balancing, was: Changing Batteries 2.2 of 3
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
by Paul Wujek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: How do I finish off charging flooded PbA cells ?
by "Glenn Crosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Low Rolling Resistance Tires
by "Brian M. Sutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Motor Measurements
by "Brian M. Sutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: ASCII Woes
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Used Batteries WAS Re: [BULK] RE: If I only need a 5 mile range ...
re...
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Steve,
I have used the SB-350 connectors for exchangeable batteries on competition
vehicles with excellent results. Would see 700 amps very often. Only problems
were due to mechanical separation and brake fluid. Keep them clean and tight.
Probably be fine.
Jeff Major
Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve, you can download the PDF data sheets for the SB350s here:
http://www.andersonpower.com/products/multipole-sb.html We use them in
racing with Zilla Z2Ks. Depending on the size of the cable you are using
they can handle a thousand amps for a few seconds. You did not state what
controller you are using so it may not even be worth thinking about if you
are using a Curtis. I assume you will be using these solely in the battery
side which means they will be subject to higher amps less frequently and for
shorter durations.
Roderick Wilde
EV Parts, Inc.
www.evparts.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Condie"
To: "EV List"
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Maximum amps for Anderson 350?
> In the design I'm working up for my Tropica I'm hoping to be able to have
> the ability to have more than one battery pack and swap them quickly. The
> Trop has a battery tunnel down the middle. The original design had 12, 6V
> flooded batteries which could be removed for maintenance or replacement by
> sliding them out the front of the car after a fairly elaborate
> disassembly - including removing the steering mechnism. At the cost of
> about 20% of the battery weight I'm planning to use 12, 12V AGM's which
> can slide out the back instead, which should require no disassembly at
> all. Being able to disconnect the packs with a simple Anderson connector
> would help that process. My concern is this: The largest Anderson
> connectors I've seen are rated for 350 amps. Current may spike above that
> briefly in ordinary driving. If I try to push things (and why not?) the
> current may stay above that for a little while. Will that be a problem?
> How much current can the connectors reasonably
> handle?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/601 - Release Date:
> 12/24/2006
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/601 - Release Date: 12/24/2006
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 01:05:14PM -0800, Jeff Major wrote:
> Hello Eduardo,
>
> The motor P/N is MSS-4002, which was a Prestolite number for a 6.6 inch
> diameter traction motor for daul drive fork lift. Brushes would have been
> set to neutral, so higher voltage may require advance. Also, it is series
> wound, over speed at low loads is concern. Also, spline shaft hard to adapt
> and I think this design has a drive end bearing lubed from mating gearbox, so
> you might have to replce it with a sealed bearing. Small car?????? How
> small? How fast? This motor would similar to a golfcart motor, a little
> beefier and ventilated.
>
Thanks Jeff,
I am planning on converting a 1979 Citroen GS. Empty weight would be
around 1000 kilograms. Stock motor is 1.1 liter 65hp. I dont need highway
speeds. 50mph would be plenty.
Current plan is to do a low speed/low cost conversion to learn
how its done, then convert a much larger car (a 1994 Citroen Xantia
y currently drive that will need a new engine in a couple of years).
Assuming that motor can be fixed to work in a converted car, could
I drive it with a 72volt Altrax controller and drive it around town?
--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, my main motivation for looking into the AC55 is the deal that Steve
Powers posted about...If that falls through, I'm probably back to DC....
-Matt
On 12/24/06, MARK DUTKO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Check with electro auto- You may also want to ask them about the AC
90 single motor and controller- good for very heavy vehicles and you
could use one motor.
M
On Dec 24, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Matthew Drobnak wrote:
> Seth,
>
> It's going in a 2000 Lincoln LS. About 3800 lbs weight in gas form,
> with a
> near empty gas tank. (Someone had theirs weighed on 4 wheel scales)
>
> There was an offer posted a little while ago for an "RFE
> drivetrain", which
> in it's original form was 2 AC55s and controllers in a bus. The
> seller wants
> to sell them individually, but I want to get a price on an original
> setup...1 motor comes no where near the original performance of the
> gas
> engine, but 2 is workable, with adjusting to the transmission shift
> points.
> (I have a tuning package which allows me complete control over the
> car's ECU
> / TCU)
>
> I plan on coupling the two motors to an automatic transmission, and
> keeping
> the torque convertor locked as much as possible. (Basically almost
> all of
> the time except 1st gear, the logic doesn't allow locking in 1st,
> except for
> a 'overheating' strategy which locks it shortly after 10 MPH in
> first.)
>
> There was also some information posted about NiMH battery packs,
> which I was
> also planning on using. They're 120V 9Ah blocks, and I was going to
> get 12
> of them. Originally I had read 10C was the max discharge, but
> apparently it
> was 10C is max continuous, with 20C burst. I was originally
> planning on 240V
> * 54 Ah, but I may do 360V * 36 Ah, as it allows up to 360A
> continuous, and
> 720A burst, which is more then enough for 2 controllers.
> Unfortunately, I
> can't do 336V because of the way the packs are configured. Will
> 360V be a
> problem?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> -Matt
>
> On 12/24/06, Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/23/06, Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > EV Digest 6240
>> >
>> > Topics covered in this issue include:
>> >
>> > 1) Dual AC55 setup, coupler...
>> > by "Matthew Drobnak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > 2) Re: A couple of EV's on trading post
>> > by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > <snip>
>> > Message-ID:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:02:42 -0500
>> > From: "Matthew Drobnak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [email protected]
>> > Subject: Dual AC55 setup, coupler...
>> > MIME-Version: 1.0
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> > Content-Disposition: inline
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >
>> > Hi all. I'm looking into the Solectria AC55 based system (RFE
>> drivetrain)
>> > that was posted on the EVDL about a week or so ago. Two questions:
>> >
>> > How much do you think the dual motor setup is worth?
>> >
>> > Who can create a coupler to couple it to the input shaft of a
>> > transmission?
>> >
>> > I figure between that system, and the NiMH battery info that was
>> posted
>> a
>> > few weeks ago...It'd make a nice conversion for me. :-)
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > -Matt
>> >
>>
>>
>> Matt- I don't follow the EVDL much, only occasionally by digest. I
>> used to
>> work at Solectria, and the AC55 was my favorite motor. I wanted to
>> put one
>> in my VW golf. It would have been a tight fit, but worthwhile, I
>> think.
>> Probably any *decent* machine shop can make a coupler, if you know
>> what
>> you
>> need.
>>
>> As for the setup. You need a motor and the Solectria controller. I
>> am not
>> sure what was offered. And a battery pack from 288-336V. What sort of
>> vehicle are you going to install this in? I had the battery pack
>> for it
>> (but
>> sold it) made of BB600 cells.
>>
>> Let me know more about what you might want to do and I can lend a
>> little
>> more advice if you want. My private e-mail might be best as I
>> don't watch
>> the EVDL much.
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
And, may the energy last 8 times longer than expected.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Lough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SEVA Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Electric Vehicle Discussion List RCVR" <[email protected]>
Sent: 24 December, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Holiday Wishes
From our Home to Yours...
May your Christmas be full of Peace and Happiness... And the New Year
be more ELECTRAFIED than the Last.
Full of Wind and Solar Power, Bio-Fuels, Hybrids, PLUG-in Hybrids
and BEV,s of all kinds, from 5 ton Trucks to 500 watt E-Bikes... and back
again....
And don't forget the rechargable tooth brushes...!
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The reason you want a square tire patch has nothing to do with the
patch.
It has to do with the fact that much tire roll resistance comes from the
sidewalls of the tire being compressed with each turn.
The wider the tire the more the squash.
Now if you have an oval patch from a motorcycle type tire then you have
the same sidewale squash or more for a smaller contact area touching the
road.
Also square contact patches usually mean the sidewalls are more straight
up and down so you actually have less flexing of the sidewall and less
rolling resistance.
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:47 am, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Sorry, I can't point you to an authoritive answer. I just recall
reading
that at some point.
Personally, I think trying to buy a LRR by guessing is a poor way to
go.
I see lots of folks say things like "buy high pressure tires for LRR"
or
"Buy truck tires because they have a higher load rating" or "select a
tire
with a square contact patch", etc.
You might get lucky and get a LRR tire that way, but I doubt it.
Personally I think your best bet is to search for someone who has
tested
tires for LRR, or check with the manufacturer (this can be difficult),
or
test them yourself.
There used to be a fellow working at Goodyear that you could email with
the details about your vehicle (weight on each tire, wheel size, etc.)
and
he would tell you which tire Goodyear makes that would be your best
choice
for LRR. Wouldn't neccesarily be the lowest RR tire from any
manufacturer, but at least it would be the best from Goodyear.
Perhaps someone on the list will have his email address, I've lost it
at
some point.
Peter ( and GW)
That theory ( most efficient tire patch is about square) would
explain the
two viewpoints.
But, can you tell me why you think that (square) patch shape is
optimum?
It's not obvious to me.
It looks like you're quoting someone else's post about that point
"From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch that
is
about the same length and width"
but, for some reason, I haven't seen that particular post. Is it from
an
earlier discussion of tire RR?
Phil
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:48:08 -0700 (MST)
Actually, I believe you are both appoaching the problem from different
directions.
>From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch
that is
about the same length and width.
Bicycle tires tend to have long narrow contact patches, so wider tires
have lower RR.
On the other hand, the low profile and wide car tires, that are popular
now, tend to have a short and wide contact patch, so using narrower
tires
is better.
>>The width of the tire (not the contact patch) and air pressure
determines
>>most of the rolling resistance.
>>
>>So the more narrow the wheel generally the less resistance but the
>> profile
>>should be square to the road.
>
> Hi, GW
>
> Can you tell me why you think this is so ( that narrower tires have
lower
> RR)? Other people here have said that also, but I'm looking for
some
> technical justification or reliable reference.
>
> For bicycle tires ( I ride a recumbent, and recumbent riders, in
general,
> are quite concerned with tire RR) most everyone believes that, for a
given
> tire pressure, wider tires have lower rolling resistance. I
wonder if
> (and
> why) it might be different for car tires.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio
powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
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 ---
Hmm, what exactly would be the point?
During finish charge you are concerned about maximum voltage not current.
It doesn't sound like the charger you are considering would be any faster
or provide a better charge. It also sounds like it would be much more
complicated to implement than a max voltage finish charge.
So, what is the goal here?
> Thanks Lee excellent information and delivery !,But you new I was going
> to
> ask you to elaborate on the pulse charging technique didn't you / !!!!
>
> I have enough skill and hardware to pulse at 20mS and what I would like
> to
> know is how long to leave between the pulses.....I take it averaging the
> current over time would be acceptable ....what I mean is pulse for 20mS
> and off
> for 60mS to get a 25% current average ? Or is there a likely benefit ot
> having
> longer periods between pulses, perhaps in order to let the chemistry 'do
> it's
> thing'...so to speak
>
> Chris
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev/post?postID=CXLZsYZAo_aIO-Uf3IdcgdE-zexjg7sghgjrx-usO5dVLbCmYV6_skSSW1k3eeAdozwOYLjogQCzJw)
> wrote:
>> I understand the idea... bulk charging to 80% whatever condition
>> the battery is in... then a slower charge rate to finish with.
>> Does this finish charge absolutely need to be a constant current
>> or a constant voltage cycle? Or could I pulse switch my charger?
>
> Lead-acids are fairly tolerant of how you charge them, as long as you
> avoid too high a peak voltage. Think of it like filling a bucket with a
> garden hose. When the bucket is mostly empty, you can squirt in the
> water almost as fast as you like, and it won't splash out. But as it
> approaches "full", you have slow down and be more careful, or you'll
> make a mess. The best plan is to slow down as you approach full, and
> "sneak up" to 100% with a very slow trickle.
>
>> For example, is it permissible to charge at 40A for 1 second and
>> then have no charge for the next three seconds?
>
> What would happen if hit that bucket with a fire hose for 1 second, and
> then allowed several seconds for the water to calm down before hitting
> it again? You'd splash water all over the place!
>
> Same with a battery. The high peak current will drive the voltage well
> past the gassing point even if applied for 1 second. Some chargers get
> away with "pulse charging" by using extremely brief pulses, like a
> single half-cycle of the AC line (16-20 msec).
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 11:44 AM 24/12/06 -0300, Eduardo K. wrote:
Can I bug a bit more? (I am still a newbie)
Is this motor:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=130060394713
Big enough for a small car? Usable on 72 or 96 volts?
G'day Eduardo, and All
Based on the weight given for it, 59lbs, it would be a smilar motor to this
one:
http://www.evmotors.com.au/products/a90.html
A90-4002 Motor
Suitable for small vehicle (e.g. golf cart)
Operating range 24 to 36V
Weight: 25kg
Diameter: 17cm (6.7") Length: 24.4cm (9.6")
At 24 volts:
Continuous rating: 1.5 kw (2.0 hp)
One-hour rating: 1.65 kw (2.2 hp)
At 36 volts:
Continuous rating: 2.25 kw (3.0 hp)
One-hour rating: 2.5 kw (3.3 hp)
It isn't the same motor, since the Ebay one is 59lbs (26.8kg) where this
one is 25kg (55lbs), but it will not be much different, capability-wise.
Hope this helps
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
G'day All, especially Jim Husted
I've been hacking about on the GE web site for a couple of hours, and given
up on it.
I have a motor that has a part number stamped on it: 5BC48JB704 6-5/8"
diameter by 9-1/4" long, that if suitable may make for a go-cart. (One of
my techs at work wants to build a go-cart).
The nomber sort-of matches GE numbers, but all the 5BC48JB motors seem to
be 9" or so.
Has anyone got any information on this model?
Thanks
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Very good info.
I did the cutting up of tires to determine what was going on when I was
racing. Not for low rolling resistance but for the cornering issue you
describe.
There were two major philosophies at that time.
1)Stiff inner side wall, flexible outer side wall.
This caused a loaded tire to compress the tread and let it bunch up
and slowly compromise the contact patch and begin the slipping process
that squealed the tires. Also gave rise to the chirp,chirp chirp sound
effect in a long sweeper as the tread relaxed after it lifted off the
ground. and got re-scrunched after 1 rotation. This was the BFG R1 and
it gave a wide window of failure, plenty of feedback.
2)Stiff outer wall and more flexible inner wall.
This caused the tread to be in tension under load and the contact
patch to "lift" off the ground all at once for a surprisingly sharp loss
of traction, But ultimately a little higher than the other design. This
was the Yokahama (crap, i can't remember the number now)
It took me a while to learn to drive the Yokes and certain tracks were
better with BFG's(bumpy) than the yokes(smooth)
In the bicycle tire department they actually sell tires on their rolling
resistance coefficient. Continental states straight out how they get
lower rolling resistance on they're literature(but it could be
marketing). Higher thread count of a smaller diameter but stronger cord
material makes a more pliable carcass that can be inflated higher
without distortion. They use silica rubber to reduce rolling resistance
while improving traction. This seems like mularky at first but it was
explained to me this way: Kind of the opposite of the way paste wax
works where as you deform it. it gets easier to deform, the silica
rubber's grip increases as you begin to slip rubber off. Traction is
more than just the stickiness, it is how good the rubber holds together
under the stresses.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Seth and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Seth Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: regen: SepEx motors availability /parallel string
charging?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:17:58 -0500
>in a possibly unwise and futile hunt for DC regen,
Whether it's wise depends on how steep, long, the
hills are in your area. In Fla where it's fairly flat, regen
isn't worth much, in mountains it's worth a lot.
I found
>a DC / SepEx controller with regen, 96 volt max, but can
>only find ADC SepEx motors that go to 72 volts. Anyone
>know some other source of SepEx motors?
Sep-Ex controllers need to be set up for the motor
you use so constrains your choices. But a 72vdc ADC sep-ex
motor should easily work on 96vdc if the controller works
correctly with the fields.
What are you putting it in?
Use it for?,
Range, speed needed?
There seems to be at least 1 AC drive from Italy that
regens well for $4k for the motor/controller though I forget
it's name and recent devaluation of the dollar probably
raised the price.
I guess 96 volt is
>all I would need, given that's as high as the controller
>goes
Yes, the controller limits the pack voltage. The 8"
motors should go to about 160vdc safely most likely.
Generally most motor builders will put in any field you want
so you could have them made to your controller specs at
little or no more costs. You just need to find out what
field specs you need from the controller maker.
> So, given the highly theoretical possibility of a SepEx
>regen system, with maybe 96 volts of (AGM) batteries in 2
>parallel strings, however imprudent and foolish such a
>design may be,
I'd go with 1 string of larger 6 or 12vdc, 60-72lb,
flooded traction batts for much lower costs and longer range
if you can.
I presume practical pointers for use of such
>a system would be - some sort of regulators, if only just a
>very basic Lee Hart light bulb/diode system
>- don't discharge such a pack too low (beyond 70% or 80%)
>for fear of some batteries going too low, reversing,
>getting destroyed, etc.
That's really a longer life issue, cell reversal
shouldn't happen in a well balanced pack until 95%+
discharged. Regs with AGM's can be a pain as you have to
disconnect them to equalize the batts about 1/week to keep
them in balance. Floodeds don't need that and can use much
less expensive chargers.
- maybe (??) charge the strings
>separately, once in a while (just making it up here ...),
>esp. if I find one or more batteries out of kilter with the
>rest, etc. - (or maybe just "friends don't let friends do
>parallel strings" or something ?)
Use larger batts so you don't need 2 strings is the
solution at a much lower cost.
>
>Thanks for any advice, however scattered my questions may
>be
That's what we are here for,
Jerry Dycus
... Seth Myers
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I did find that if I charge at 1.5 A the power cheqs could keep up throughout
the charge cycle and would bring all the batteries
up together. However if I bump it up to 2A its a little much and the batteries
that hit their acceptance phase first would shoot
up to 15.5v, or over, and the voltage on the low ones would actually go down.
Without clamping on the PowerCheqs I would have to
charge at 1.5A all the time and 12+ hour charges are not acceptable to me.
From pics I posted under the Zener Regs Revisited
subject you can see I put Z-regs on top of the PowerCheqs and that increased
the balancing by 1AH per charge. So then I could
actually charge at 2A, but still it took too long to be practical. I reported
when I first started the project that the AGM's
were staying pretty closely balanced. But after ~3000 miles and some pretty
harsh hot-rodding, the pack decided to split off into
their separate personalities. I imagined then it would be about as much
trouble as having 16 kids. :-O
Mike,
Anchoage, Ak.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Cor van de Water
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:26 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Balancing, was: Changing Batteries 2.2 of 3
>
>
> On the subject of balancing and regulators:
>
> I decided to design 1/2 Amp regulators when I measured
> that they will raise the temp of the battery terminal
> to which they are bolted quite a good amount when
> sinking 7 Watts into it, I did not want to push my luck
> with trying to shunt 15 or 30 Watts away.
>
> I do not think that it is necessary though, as I have
> observed that AGM batteries will stay in balance within 1%
> as I have done 5000 miles before I started having a problem
> with with my unregulated batteries. When aging, the
> balancing may become more necessary, but the only thing
> you need to do to make regulators create a larger amount of
> balancing is charge for a longer time.
>
> THe key is that as soon as the first battery hits its
> regulation voltage, the charger should back off to avoid
> gassing the AGM batteries.
> Say it goes from 10A to 2A charging current - with the 1/2A
> regulator the battery still gets 1.5A, so it will be mildly
> overcharged, though this level of current should not be a
> problem to recombine unless you have very small batteries
> (I think in the 100Ah range, so they should be able to take
> the 1.5A overcharge without much venting).
> The charging should continue until the last battery hits
> the reg voltage, no matter if this takes 1 hour or 30 hours.
> Only the first time should it take very long, every next
> charge you would expect that all batteries come to the
> reg voltage within say an hour of each other.
> If the batteries are not too unbalanced (same age, temp
> and types) then you expect that the regs bring them to
> the same level at max state of charge, so they will
> finish charging at more or less the same time, or so is
> the theory.
> If batteries for whatevery reason are 1% out of balance
> during every recharge, then the regs will need 1 hour to
> shunt 0.5Ah away whan putting 50 Ah back into the pack
> (so, instead of 5h plus finish charging, another hour
> is necessary to make the last battery catch up).
>
> Only Lee's battery balancer which constantly recharges the
> weakest battery brings batteries to the same level at any
> state of charge.
>
> 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 Mike Willmon
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:31 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Changing Batteries 2.2 of 3
>
>
> 2.2 of 3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Willmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:21 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re-Conversion of the Electrabishi
>
> Another note I will make about the power cheq balancers, as Lee Hart ha(s)
> explained several times on this list, they are not
> really up to the task of continuosly balancing 100AH batteries. They barely
> seemed to add 2AH per charge to the low batteries.
> And the biggest problem is that they only share between adjacent batteries.
> Several times it got to where there was a gradient
> with the lowest batteries either in the center of the pack or out at the
> edges. Voltages of the batteries at the Bulk /
> Acceptance threshold could vary by almost 1V as their voltage started
> rapidly to rise. This is bad for the batteries that cross
> that line first because their voltage rises faster and would typically
> approach 15V while the voltage on the low ones would
> actually start to drop, or at least cease to rise once the charger hit the
> regulation voltage. I would manually chase this
> gradient around by strategically placing my two 12V automotive chargers on
> the selected lowest batteries. But like I said, this
> is a tedious and slow process that would only get worse as the pack ages.
> Now with the floodies I can at least perform string
> equalization without fear of cooking the hot ones. Now I just have to
> water and keep the box clean.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab wrote:
2)Stiff outer wall and more flexible inner wall.
This caused the tread to be in tension under load and the contact
patch to "lift" off the ground all at once for a surprisingly sharp loss
of traction, But ultimately a little higher than the other design. This
was the Yokahama (crap, i can't remember the number now)
I'd guess that would be a Yokohama A008 (that was the model I used to
use for autocrossing circa 1986).
--
Paul Wujek ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the idea... bulk charging to 80% whatever condition
the battery is in... then a slower charge rate to finish with.
Does this finish charge absolutely need to be a constant current
or a constant voltage cycle? Or could I pulse switch my charger?
Lead-acids are fairly tolerant of how you charge them, as long as you
avoid too high a peak voltage. Think of it like filling a bucket with a
garden hose. When the bucket is mostly empty, you can squirt in the water
almost as fast as you like, and it won't splash out. But as it approaches
"full", you have slow down and be more careful, or you'll make a mess. The
best plan is to slow down as you approach full, and "sneak up" to 100%
with a very slow trickle.
For example, is it permissible to charge at 40A for 1 second and
then have no charge for the next three seconds?
What would happen if hit that bucket with a fire hose for 1 second, and
then allowed several seconds for the water to calm down before hitting it
again? You'd splash water all over the place!
Same with a battery. The high peak current will drive the voltage well
past the gassing point even if applied for 1 second. Some chargers get
away with "pulse charging" by using extremely brief pulses, like a single
half-cycle of the AC line (16-20 msec).
I totally concurr with Lee's reply. I was working at HDM Systems in the
late 90's when we did a lot of experimenting with this approach. After
over-charging too many many flooded and VRLA batteries, we abandoned that
approach for more conventional current control, even with pulsed charging.
Glenn Crosby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:26:32 -0500
The reason you want a square tire patch has nothing to do with the patch.
It has to do with the fact that much tire roll resistance comes from the
sidewalls of the tire being compressed with each turn.
The wider the tire the more the squash.
I don't understand why this would be true. If a tire is wider, then it will
deform less. ( By "deform less" I mean that the center of the wheel will not
travel as far toward the ground when you load the tire)
The reason for this is that a loaded tire will deform until the patch area
times the tire pressure equals the load on the tire. If a tire is wider, it
will create the same patch area (wider and shorter) for less deformation.
Now if you have an oval patch from a motorcycle type tire then you have the
same sidewale squash or more for a smaller contact area touching the road.
This might be true, but I'm really more concerned with car tires here.
Also square contact patches usually mean the sidewalls are more straight up
and down so you actually have less flexing of the sidewall and less rolling
resistance.
More straight up and down then what? Long narrow patches, or short, wide
patches?
Wouldn't very short, very wide tire patches result in even less sidewall
deformation - and, (according to your claim that sidewall deformation causes
rolling resistance) result in even less rolling resistance than square tire
patches?
Phil
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:47 am, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Sorry, I can't point you to an authoritive answer. I just recall reading
that at some point.
Personally, I think trying to buy a LRR by guessing is a poor way to go.
I see lots of folks say things like "buy high pressure tires for LRR" or
"Buy truck tires because they have a higher load rating" or "select a tire
with a square contact patch", etc.
You might get lucky and get a LRR tire that way, but I doubt it.
Personally I think your best bet is to search for someone who has tested
tires for LRR, or check with the manufacturer (this can be difficult), or
test them yourself.
There used to be a fellow working at Goodyear that you could email with
the details about your vehicle (weight on each tire, wheel size, etc.) and
he would tell you which tire Goodyear makes that would be your best choice
for LRR. Wouldn't neccesarily be the lowest RR tire from any
manufacturer, but at least it would be the best from Goodyear.
Perhaps someone on the list will have his email address, I've lost it at
some point.
Peter ( and GW)
That theory ( most efficient tire patch is about square) would explain
the
two viewpoints.
But, can you tell me why you think that (square) patch shape is
optimum?
It's not obvious to me.
It looks like you're quoting someone else's post about that point
"From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch that
is
about the same length and width"
but, for some reason, I haven't seen that particular post. Is it from
an
earlier discussion of tire RR?
Phil
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:48:08 -0700 (MST)
Actually, I believe you are both appoaching the problem from different
directions.
>From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch that
is
about the same length and width.
Bicycle tires tend to have long narrow contact patches, so wider tires
have lower RR.
On the other hand, the low profile and wide car tires, that are popular
now, tend to have a short and wide contact patch, so using narrower
tires
is better.
>>The width of the tire (not the contact patch) and air pressure
determines
>>most of the rolling resistance.
>>
>>So the more narrow the wheel generally the less resistance but the
>> profile
>>should be square to the road.
>
> Hi, GW
>
> Can you tell me why you think this is so ( that narrower tires have
lower
> RR)? Other people here have said that also, but I'm looking for
some
> technical justification or reliable reference.
>
> For bicycle tires ( I ride a recumbent, and recumbent riders, in
general,
> are quite concerned with tire RR) most everyone believes that, for a
given
> tire pressure, wider tires have lower rolling resistance. I wonder
if
> (and
> why) it might be different for car tires.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio
powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and
the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have to second Jay Lashlee's comments on low rolling resistance
tires. The contact patch area, treads, and so on are not the
primary drivers of rolling resistance. What is important is the
flexibility of the sidewall. Why? Energy balance -- that's where
the lost energy goes.
The only independent study I know of for low rolling resistance
tires is Green Seal's "Choose Green" report from March 2003. Do a
google search for it. The results are interesting. The tire I
ultimately chose for my EV was a narrower version of the best tire
from that study.
Brian
Alfa Romeo Conversion
http://www.skewray.com/alfa
--
Brian M. Sutin, Ph.D. Space System Engineering and Optical Design
Skewray Research/316 W Green St/Claremont CA 91711 USA/(909) 621-3122
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On most electric motor measurement plots, something like "0.03I"
appears. What does that refer to?
Brian
Alfa Romeo Conversion
http://www.skewray.com/alfa
--
Brian M. Sutin, Ph.D. Space System Engineering and Optical Design
Skewray Research/316 W Green St/Claremont CA 91711 USA/(909) 621-3122
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 24 Dec 2006 at 14:28, David wrote:
> Even easier, change your mail viewer to display a fixed width font. In
> Outlook Express, go to View, Text Size, Fixed.
> I'm betting other programs have a similar function..
In Pegasus Mail (all versions I know of), you can view Lee's (and others')
ASCII drawings on the list by just hitting F12. That switches to a fixed
width font. Hit F12 again to return to your default font.
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 ---
On 21 Dec 2006 at 1:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They say it is a 120 Ah battery but
> they show the 20 hour rate at 5 Ah. This would be a 100 Ah battery at the C-20
> rate.
I assume you mean "at 5 AMPS," not 5 AH. The latter wouldn't make any
sense.
I've seen some batteries which try to use the C50 or even C100 rate. This
seems to be particularly true of those marketed for PV systems. I suppose
this could be what they're doing.
C20, C50, C100, it hardly matters. None of these is of much use to you as
an EVer. What you should be interested in is the C1 rating. That is - how
many amps can you draw for one hour? Reserve capacity at 75 amps is also
fairly useful for comparison.
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 should have stated that for a given tire width a square patch is
better than an oval patch (oval which would only occure in a rounded
sidewall tire like a motorcycle tire)
All my statements assumed a given tire width.
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 12:04 am, Phil Marino wrote:
From: GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:26:32 -0500
The reason you want a square tire patch has nothing to do with the
patch.
It has to do with the fact that much tire roll resistance comes from
the sidewalls of the tire being compressed with each turn.
The wider the tire the more the squash.
I don't understand why this would be true. If a tire is wider, then it
will deform less. ( By "deform less" I mean that the center of the
wheel will not travel as far toward the ground when you load the tire)
The reason for this is that a loaded tire will deform until the patch
area times the tire pressure equals the load on the tire. If a tire is
wider, it will create the same patch area (wider and shorter) for
less deformation.
Now if you have an oval patch from a motorcycle type tire then you
have the same sidewale squash or more for a smaller contact area
touching the road.
This might be true, but I'm really more concerned with car tires here.
Also square contact patches usually mean the sidewalls are more
straight up and down so you actually have less flexing of the sidewall
and less rolling resistance.
More straight up and down then what? Long narrow patches, or short,
wide patches?
Wouldn't very short, very wide tire patches result in even less
sidewall deformation - and, (according to your claim that sidewall
deformation causes rolling resistance) result in even less rolling
resistance than square tire patches?
Phil
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:47 am, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Sorry, I can't point you to an authoritive answer. I just recall
reading
that at some point.
Personally, I think trying to buy a LRR by guessing is a poor way to
go.
I see lots of folks say things like "buy high pressure tires for LRR"
or
"Buy truck tires because they have a higher load rating" or "select a
tire
with a square contact patch", etc.
You might get lucky and get a LRR tire that way, but I doubt it.
Personally I think your best bet is to search for someone who has
tested
tires for LRR, or check with the manufacturer (this can be
difficult), or
test them yourself.
There used to be a fellow working at Goodyear that you could email with
the details about your vehicle (weight on each tire, wheel size,
etc.) and
he would tell you which tire Goodyear makes that would be your best
choice
for LRR. Wouldn't neccesarily be the lowest RR tire from any
manufacturer, but at least it would be the best from Goodyear.
Perhaps someone on the list will have his email address, I've lost it
at
some point.
Peter ( and GW)
That theory ( most efficient tire patch is about square) would
explain the
two viewpoints.
But, can you tell me why you think that (square) patch shape is
optimum?
It's not obvious to me.
It looks like you're quoting someone else's post about that point
"From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch
that is
about the same length and width"
but, for some reason, I haven't seen that particular post. Is it
from an
earlier discussion of tire RR?
Phil
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Maximum grip lowest rolling resistance?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:48:08 -0700 (MST)
Actually, I believe you are both appoaching the problem from different
directions.
>From what I understand, to optimize RR you want a contact patch
that is
about the same length and width.
Bicycle tires tend to have long narrow contact patches, so wider tires
have lower RR.
On the other hand, the low profile and wide car tires, that are popular
now, tend to have a short and wide contact patch, so using narrower
tires
is better.
>>The width of the tire (not the contact patch) and air pressure
determines
>>most of the rolling resistance.
>>
>>So the more narrow the wheel generally the less resistance but the
>> profile
>>should be square to the road.
>
> Hi, GW
>
> Can you tell me why you think this is so ( that narrower tires have
lower
> RR)? Other people here have said that also, but I'm looking for
some
> technical justification or reliable reference.
>
> For bicycle tires ( I ride a recumbent, and recumbent riders, in
general,
> are quite concerned with tire RR) most everyone believes that, for a
given
> tire pressure, wider tires have lower rolling resistance. I
wonder if
> (and
> why) it might be different for car tires.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio
powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio
powered by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
