EV Digest 6265
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Joe Sixpack Geo: best controller SCR, Curtis or contactors? (Or some
combination)
by "Darin - MetroMPG.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: efficiency comparison - 2 speed gearbox or series/parallel
by dale henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) DC to DC converter - why isn't it just a big transformer?
by Jake Oshins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: DC to DC converter - why isn't it just a big transformer?
by "Jonathan Jekir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: CG, Re: Gens in EV's
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: CG, Re: Gens in EV's,
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Circuit Breaker and Contactor
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Newbie questions (batteries)
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Newbie questions (batteries)
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: efficiency comparison - 2 speed gearbox or series/parallel
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Current Eliminator news
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) Re: Newbie questions (batteries)
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Caps
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: DC to DC converter - why isn't it just a big transformer?
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Joe Sixpack Geo: best controller SCR, Curtis or
contactors? (Or some combination)
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
With info & tips from Steve Powers and Roger Stockton, I got the old
EV-1 controller properly hooked up on the bench and working (with a
lightbulb to test output). A Rube Goldberg dimmer switch! Thanks, guys.
Now the question is: *should* I use it in the car? :-)
I've been spending time in the archive reading people's views about the
relative advantages & disadvantages of MOSFET vs. SCR controllers vs.
contactor controllers. If the goal is to do what's best for battery
longevity & most range per charge (town driving), what should I do?
Given these requiremente & constraints:
- The car's intended use is as a low speed (35-40 mph max would be
adequate), short-range (20 km would be fine) runabout in a small town.
- Snappy performance isn't required by the driver or demanded by other
(relatively sparse) traffic. Tooling along quietly will be satisfying
"performance" in itself.
- As mentioned, I've already got an OEM 24-48v SCR GE EV-1 controller
(with OEM bypass circuit).
- I have half a dozen beefy contactors (and a big field-weakening
resistor) that could be used to make a contactor controller (CC).
- I could spend 100 bucks (shoe-string budget) to pick up a low end
24-48v Curtis controller around 275 A.
- Haven't bought batteries yet, but it'll likely be six or eight 6v
floodies.
Since I already have the SCR and it works, I'm tempted to just start
with that. But I understand its lack of capacitors on the input side
makes it relatively hard on the batteries (shortening life & range)
compared to a Curtis or a CC.
A hundred buck Curtis may be better for the batteries, but a cheap one
will have much lower performance (acceleration & max speed, relative to
the EV-1 or CC).
The CC approach is appealing for its simplicity & efficiency, but I have
read some people question its effect on range (since it draws lots of
current each time the controller switches "up" until the motor gains
speed after each switch). Of course on long stretches at constant
speed, the CC is more efficient, but I'll probably be doing *mostly*
sub/urban driving (not many long stretches at a time).
What about a "hybrid" approach: the Curtis for starting and very low
speed, with some contactors for cruising speed?
Also: I'm perfectly willing to adapt my driving to make the best use of
whichever setup, and to try not to wreck things (eg. avoiding full accel
from stop with a CC setup). Learning how to drive the system for good
range is a whole other thread...
Darin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
does anyone have an email for mark? looking to find other EVers in albuquerque
area
Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill wrote -
>
> The ER3 made the top of Pikes Peak without a problem.
> http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/pikes_peak_ER3.html
>
> They didn't have all-wheel drive, so they threw away more
> than half of the available braking energy!
Mark made it to the top of Sandia Crest, NM, 10, 750 ft in his 144 v S-10
http://www.qsl.net/k5lxp/ev/evmain.html
And somebody posted a link to an EV that made it over the Alps, it had regen in
it.
So EV's can overcome mountains...
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
check out my blog:
http://geocities.com/hendersonmotorcycles/blog.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm looking for a little basic education here. Why isn't a DC to DC
converter as simple as a big transformer?
Is it because building a transformer for 200VDC+ is prohibitive, either
for cost or weight?
Is it because we want a well-regulated output voltage?
I ask because I'm looking at making the existing power steering pump
work in my conversion project and I'm looking at using various surplus
motors that run on voltages significantly smaller than my pack voltage.
Using my fancy DC/DC converter to drive a 12V motor would use a lot of
its capacity for this task and I don't really care if the voltage this
aux motor runs on is well-regulated.
Thanks for any replies,
Jake Oshins
P.S. My main traction motor has only one output shaft, so running the
power steering pump from it would be difficult, though not impossible.
That's why I'm looking for other alternatives.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Transformers are AC devices. As the voltage rises and falls, the
change in voltage creates a changing magnetic flux on the iron core
which creates a changing voltage on the opposite set of wires. Since
DC voltage does not change, it cannot drive a transformer directly. A
DC-DC converter uses an oscillator to make a high frequency AC pulse
which is fed through a transformer.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
On 1/2/07, Jake Oshins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm looking for a little basic education here. Why isn't a DC to DC
converter as simple as a big transformer?
Is it because building a transformer for 200VDC+ is prohibitive, either
for cost or weight?
Is it because we want a well-regulated output voltage?
I ask because I'm looking at making the existing power steering pump
work in my conversion project and I'm looking at using various surplus
motors that run on voltages significantly smaller than my pack voltage.
Using my fancy DC/DC converter to drive a 12V motor would use a lot of
its capacity for this task and I don't really care if the voltage this
aux motor runs on is well-regulated.
Thanks for any replies,
Jake Oshins
P.S. My main traction motor has only one output shaft, so running the
power steering pump from it would be difficult, though not impossible.
That's why I'm looking for other alternatives.
--
-Jonathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CG, Re: Gens in EV's, Re: Current Eliminator
news
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:17:22 -0700 (MST)
>>>>>Jerry doesn't bother with calculations, or
>>>>measurements.
>>>> That would be a good line if it were true which
>>>> by now you know is not as my calc's were already posted
>>>> first, at least in my e mail. ;^D Maybe next time you
>>>> could give me a little time to respond than an hr or 2?
>>>
>>>Sorry Jerry, I was just trying to help you out. WHat I
>>>said has been your standard response to me when ever I
>>>questioned your postings.
Notice it's to you, not others as I just can't take
the time to play with you. And it's not like I haven't
answered the same questions for you many, many times. Is
that why you are mad at me? I won't play?
I don't see anyone else but you complaining about
incomplete posts from me.
>>
>>
>> That's just not true Peter and you should know
>> it. It's also amazing you answered this post. I'd have at
>> least apologized offline had I blown it like you did!
>
>Jerry, this is an open forum and EVERYTHING you write here
>ends up archived. A simple search of the archives comes up
>with dozens of instances when you reply that your
>experience building (boats, EVs, etc.) allows you to come
>up with figures without needing to resort to measurements.
I have no problem with that. It just shows how you are
too. I'm quite happy with it. You on the other hand?
>
>For example on 28 Jun 2004 you wrote in response to me:
>
>>> Without measuring the drag it's just pure speculation
>>> and aerodynamic design by speculation is notoriously
>>ineffective.
>
No it's not pure spec. While I have to make an
educated guess as you know until it's built when I can
measure it as I said then. What's your problem with that?
Give me the money and I'll have a windtunnel test it?
And I think designing, building effective, very eff,
quiet windgenerators, cruising sailboats that go 25 mph both
under sail or power, hydro generators, ect, requires one to
be very good in aero, hydro or I couldn't have been able to
do such things. Doing it for 30 yrs does give one a good
perspective, No?? I'm sorry you can't handle that. Maybe
after you do it for 30 yrs you might too.
I suspect you are still mad at me because I disagreed
with you on some aero points long ago.
>>>
>>>Like for example, how it is you use the weight of the
>>>batteries in your Freedom EV to lower the center of
>>>gravity of the whole vehicle below the center of gravity
>>>of the batteries. That doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Not to me either as I don't say that!! Where did
>> you get that idea? I want to see your reference? I said,
>> say my CG is about 13-14" high and stand by that.
>> I've never said my CG was lower than the battery's
>> CG. Yes, it is very low as designed which makes 3wheeler
>
>You dont say that directly, but your previous figures
did.
Prove it? Even at 12" CG, the batts CG is still
below that as I proved!! Again you are wrong. No?
>Youve always claimed that location of the batteries
allows
>the Freedom EV to have a super low CoG. This makes sense,
>its just your specific claims on the exact CoG point
that
>didnt add up. You used to claim that the Freedom EV had
a
>ground clearance of 6-7 (Actually variable between 4 and
>10 but normally at 6-7) and a CoG of 12. If
youre
>memory is getting fuzzy on this, check the archives for 1
>Aug 2005, specifically your response to Don Cameron.
No need as there is no problem.
>
>When I asked you how you came up with 12 CoG since the
>batteries CoG would be at or above this point, you
>responded On 2 Aug 2005::
>
>>Hi Peter and All,
>> I just don't have enough time to argue with
>> you over small details that may change. You refuse to
>> except my facts so no use arguing with you.
>
>And further that:
>> My experience tells me I'm right or a least close to it.
>
>(hmm, there is that, My experience thing again)
That just means I've done weight studies many times as
from boats to EV's, including this one, you need to know CG,
righting moments, ect to design them right. If I didn't
have experience, how could I do things? Even you have to
admit I do things.
And almost every person that comes down to see the
Freedom EV body/chassis has put money down, some for
factories to build them, including some of the most
experienced EV'ers on this list, much more experienced than
you. So I must be doing something smart people like, think
is good. No?
>
>FWIW I measured the CoG of an old Trojan CG battery, it
>was slightly above 5". Of course this is an old battery,
>so Im sure quite a bit of active material (i.,e. Lead)
has
>sunk to the bottom and shifted the CoG lower than normal,
>so its quite possible that a new battery has an even
>higher CoG.
I just measured a newer T105, the kind I use and it
has a CG of 4.25" just as I said and even measured it twice
to be sure. I did it by laying it on it's side on a rod
until it balanced and measured each end's distance, then
averaged. And if the electrolyte didn't move, the CG would
be even lower.
>
>> So please tell me where is all the higher weight
>> you think makes CG on the Freedom EV that raises it's CG?
>> Everything but some fairly light but strong body,
>> 20-.50lbs/sq', ect,
>
>What about the windows? Your windshield starts at what?
>26-27" above the ground? Higher? Glass is pretty heavy.
20 lbs included in the 100lbs I said before. And I
can, may go thinner.
>Then there is the wiper motor (you do have wipers?)
>steering wheel, dashboard?, seats, etc.
Getting desperate here now Peter. Most seats have most
of their weight below your butt for your future reference,
lowering my CG. The other stuff is just a few lbs and
included in my calc's. Again you make up your own facts out
of thin air. No?
>
>> is down around 6" above the floor,
>> batteries, motor
>, wheels, suspension, ect, all have CG's
>> below that. No?
>Well, let's see, what's the diameter of the wheel you are
>using? 24"? 26"? That means their CoG is 12-13"
You just proved my point!! Thanks Peter ;^D
The suspension/wheel CG is centered on the axle thus
has about the same CG which in my case is 1/2 of 22.5" or
11.25" CG thus helps lower the CG, No? And you know from
the post you included that the wheels were 22.5" dia so why
hike it higher??
It's this kind of continued incorrect nitpicking is why
I stopped answering you completely as I just don't have the
time and you refuse to admit facts like the above.
>> How high is a GC battery's CG? It's about 4.25"
>> high!! Now add 6" of road clearance, 3/4" chassis
>> thickness and the batteries CG is about 11"! No? Now
>> batts are more than 55% of it's weight with most other
>> weights about the same except the body which only weighs
>> about 100lbs above the CG.
>
>Lets say you're right and the batteries CoG is at 11,
>this means your previous claims of 12 are wrong, or do
you
>deny that still?
It depends on the road clearance height which is
adjustable as you know and mentioned before. I can lower 2
more inches than that with my adjustable air springs and
probably will for racing so even lower CG then.
No, you can't be denying that because
>you've moved the CoG up 2 inches. Your current claims are
>doubtful also. What would you estimate the CoG of the
>body, not counting the electronics (batts, motor, etc) is?
> 28 perhaps? Remember the window glass, etc.
>Ok, lets call it 26
You are still dreaming and quite wrong.. The
body/chassis Cg is more like 12" high above the floor as
most of the weight is in the floor which is also the load
bearing chassis. How much lower can I go?
For reference most sportscars have CG's between 16-22"s
so you can see just how EV's using battery weight, can help
handling when designed right, especially in 3wheelers.
>Thats 12 above the upper end of your new CoG claims.
Now who's talking speculation Peter? Do you have any
actual facts about my EV and how it's built?? Have you
weighed anything on it? Have you seen it? You are just
making stuff up again.
>Lets see batts are at 11, motor, controller, etc. at
>12.75 inches (your figures from above),
I've given no numbers for my motor, who's CG, shaft, is
10" above the road, lowering the CG, No! Controller weighs
6lbs?
You are sure hitting 100% Peter! Again you pull data
from thin air. And you say I do? At least I tell you when
I'm guessing. Maybe you might just ask instead of assuming
as you seem very bad at it.
shall we say 12
>for the heavy stuff? So for every pound centered around
22
>(14 above claimed CoG) you need 6 lbs of batteries,
motor,
>etc. located 2 below the CoG.
>
>FWIW 14 is probably getting close. 12 is unbelievable
even
>though you previously insisted that your years of
>experience told you that you were right.
Redo the numbers with the above corrections and you'll
see I'm correct unless you want to invent, assume more info
that's wrong.
>
>> While I've never described it in this detail, I'd
>> thought anyone would know that, especially you as you
>> build 3wheelers. I guess some just don't.
>> Maybe you should do some math before attacking
>> someone with such bull.
>
>Well, Jerry
when I asked you about your math before,
>because it didnt add up, you fell back on your standard
>My experience line.
No, it's that I was tired of answering you
repeatedly, once, twice at most, should be enough. And in
this post shows exactly why.
>
>>>
>>>FWIW I don't doubt your skills as a fabricator, the
>>>Freedom EV looks great.
>>
>> Thank you, it's one of my best works.
>
>Your welcome. Just so you know, Im not debating your
>skills or experience, just your claims. Especially the
>ones that dont add up and your instance that the only
>thing you need to back up your claims is your experience.
It's your specious claims that are not true as
shown above. I back up mine.
>Ill save you some time, here is my questions and your
>response from the Archives:
>
>On 02 Aug 2005 Jerry Dycus wrote:
>
>Hi Peter and All,
> I just don't have enough time to argue with
>you over small details that may change. You refuse to
>except my facts so no use arguing with you.
> Lets just build it, test it to see just what
>it does. The track will prove what is and isn't. My
>experience tells me I'm right or a least close to it.
>If I can get even close it will be a breakthrough.
> Am I optimistic, sure!! But I usually make
>my goals when I try things like this doing things the
>Experts say can't be done.
> Please feel free to bring whatever you want
>to autocross race against it when you return.
> I have an EV to build now.
> Thanks,
> Jerry Dycus
An excellent, accurate response that still is so true
as your post proves.
I'll let you have the last post Peter as I have other
things to do like putting an EV into production, helping
others build more EV's. You still owe me an apology.
Jerry Dycus
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CG, Re: Gens in EV's, Re: Current Eliminator
news
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:17:22 -0700 (MST)
>>>>>Jerry doesn't bother with calculations, or
>>>>measurements.
>>>> That would be a good line if it were true which
>>>> by now you know is not as my calc's were already posted
>>>> first, at least in my e mail. ;^D Maybe next time you
>>>> could give me a little time to respond than an hr or 2?
>>>
>>>Sorry Jerry, I was just trying to help you out. WHat I
>>>said has been your standard response to me when ever I
>>>questioned your postings.
Notice it's to you, not others as I just can't take
the time to play with you. And it's not like I haven't
answered the same questions for you many, many times. Is
that why you are mad at me? I won't play?
I don't see anyone else but you complaining about
incomplete posts from me.
>>
>>
>> That's just not true Peter and you should know
>> it. It's also amazing you answered this post. I'd have at
>> least apologized offline had I blown it like you did!
>
>Jerry, this is an open forum and EVERYTHING you write here
>ends up archived. A simple search of the archives comes up
>with dozens of instances when you reply that your
>experience building (boats, EVs, etc.) allows you to come
>up with figures without needing to resort to measurements.
I have no problem with that. It just shows how you are
too. I'm quite happy with it. You on the other hand?
>
>For example on 28 Jun 2004 you wrote in response to me:
>
>>> Without measuring the drag it's just pure speculation
>>> and aerodynamic design by speculation is notoriously
>>ineffective.
>
No it's not pure spec. While I have to make an
educated guess as you know until it's built when I can
measure it as I said then. What's your problem with that?
Give me the money and I'll have a windtunnel test it?
And I think designing, building effective, very eff,
quiet windgenerators, cruising sailboats that go 25 mph both
under sail or power, hydro generators, ect, requires one to
be very good in aero, hydro or I couldn't have been able to
do such things. Doing it for 30 yrs does give one a good
perspective, No?? I'm sorry you can't handle that. Maybe
after you do it for 30 yrs you might too.
I suspect you are still mad at me because I disagreed
with you on some aero points long ago.
>>>
>>>Like for example, how it is you use the weight of the
>>>batteries in your Freedom EV to lower the center of
>>>gravity of the whole vehicle below the center of gravity
>>>of the batteries. That doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Not to me either as I don't say that!! Where did
>> you get that idea? I want to see your reference? I said,
>> say my CG is about 13-14" high and stand by that.
>> I've never said my CG was lower than the battery's
>> CG. Yes, it is very low as designed which makes 3wheeler
>
>You dont say that directly, but your previous figures
did.
Prove it? Even at 12" CG, the batts CG is still
below that as I proved!! Again you are wrong. No?
>Youve always claimed that location of the batteries
allows
>the Freedom EV to have a super low CoG. This makes sense,
>its just your specific claims on the exact CoG point
that
>didnt add up. You used to claim that the Freedom EV had
a
>ground clearance of 6-7 (Actually variable between 4 and
>10 but normally at 6-7) and a CoG of 12. If
youre
>memory is getting fuzzy on this, check the archives for 1
>Aug 2005, specifically your response to Don Cameron.
No need as there is no problem.
>
>When I asked you how you came up with 12 CoG since the
>batteries CoG would be at or above this point, you
>responded On 2 Aug 2005::
>
>>Hi Peter and All,
>> I just don't have enough time to argue with
>> you over small details that may change. You refuse to
>> except my facts so no use arguing with you.
>
>And further that:
>> My experience tells me I'm right or a least close to it.
>
>(hmm, there is that, My experience thing again)
That just means I've done weight studies many times as
from boats to EV's, including this one, you need to know CG,
righting moments, ect to design them right. If I didn't
have experience, how could I do things? Even you have to
admit I do things.
And almost every person that comes down to see the
Freedom EV body/chassis has put money down, some for
factories to build them, including some of the most
experienced EV'ers on this list, much more experienced than
you. So I must be doing something smart people like, think
is good. No?
>
>FWIW I measured the CoG of an old Trojan CG battery, it
>was slightly above 5". Of course this is an old battery,
>so Im sure quite a bit of active material (i.,e. Lead)
has
>sunk to the bottom and shifted the CoG lower than normal,
>so its quite possible that a new battery has an even
>higher CoG.
I just measured a newer T105, the kind I use and it
has a CG of 4.25" just as I said and even measured it twice
to be sure. I did it by laying it on it's side on a rod
until it balanced and measured each end's distance, then
averaged. And if the electrolyte didn't move, the CG would
be even lower.
>
>> So please tell me where is all the higher weight
>> you think makes CG on the Freedom EV that raises it's CG?
>> Everything but some fairly light but strong body,
>> 20-.50lbs/sq', ect,
>
>What about the windows? Your windshield starts at what?
>26-27" above the ground? Higher? Glass is pretty heavy.
20 lbs included in the 100lbs I said before. And I
can, may go thinner.
>Then there is the wiper motor (you do have wipers?)
>steering wheel, dashboard?, seats, etc.
Getting desperate here now Peter. Most seats have most
of their weight below your butt for your future reference,
lowering my CG. The other stuff is just a few lbs and
included in my calc's. Again you make up your own facts out
of thin air. No?
>
>> is down around 6" above the floor,
>> batteries, motor
>, wheels, suspension, ect, all have CG's
>> below that. No?
>Well, let's see, what's the diameter of the wheel you are
>using? 24"? 26"? That means their CoG is 12-13"
You just proved my point!! Thanks Peter ;^D
The suspension/wheel CG is centered on the axle thus
has about the same CG which in my case is 1/2 of 22.5" or
11.25" CG thus helps lower the CG, No? And you know from
the post you included that the wheels were 22.5" dia so why
hike it higher??
It's this kind of continued incorrect nitpicking is why
I stopped answering you completely as I just don't have the
time and you refuse to admit facts like the above.
>> How high is a GC battery's CG? It's about 4.25"
>> high!! Now add 6" of road clearance, 3/4" chassis
>> thickness and the batteries CG is about 11"! No? Now
>> batts are more than 55% of it's weight with most other
>> weights about the same except the body which only weighs
>> about 100lbs above the CG.
>
>Lets say you're right and the batteries CoG is at 11,
>this means your previous claims of 12 are wrong, or do
you
>deny that still?
It depends on the road clearance height which is
adjustable as you know and mentioned before. I can lower 2
more inches than that with my adjustable air springs and
probably will for racing so even lower CG then.
No, you can't be denying that because
>you've moved the CoG up 2 inches. Your current claims are
>doubtful also. What would you estimate the CoG of the
>body, not counting the electronics (batts, motor, etc) is?
> 28 perhaps? Remember the window glass, etc.
>Ok, lets call it 26
You are still dreaming and quite wrong.. The
body/chassis Cg is more like 12" high above the floor as
most of the weight is in the floor which is also the load
bearing chassis. How much lower can I go?
For reference most sportscars have CG's between 16-22"s
so you can see just how EV's using battery weight, can help
handling when designed right, especially in 3wheelers.
>Thats 12 above the upper end of your new CoG claims.
Now who's talking speculation Peter? Do you have any
actual facts about my EV and how it's built?? Have you
weighed anything on it? Have you seen it? You are just
making stuff up again.
>Lets see batts are at 11, motor, controller, etc. at
>12.75 inches (your figures from above),
I've given no numbers for my motor, who's CG, shaft, is
10" above the road, lowering the CG, No! Controller weighs
6lbs?
You are sure hitting 100% Peter! Again you pull data
from thin air. And you say I do? At least I tell you when
I'm guessing. Maybe you might just ask instead of assuming
as you seem very bad at it.
shall we say 12
>for the heavy stuff? So for every pound centered around
22
>(14 above claimed CoG) you need 6 lbs of batteries,
motor,
>etc. located 2 below the CoG.
>
>FWIW 14 is probably getting close. 12 is unbelievable
even
>though you previously insisted that your years of
>experience told you that you were right.
Redo the numbers with the above corrections and you'll
see I'm correct unless you want to invent, assume more info
that's wrong.
>
>> While I've never described it in this detail, I'd
>> thought anyone would know that, especially you as you
>> build 3wheelers. I guess some just don't.
>> Maybe you should do some math before attacking
>> someone with such bull.
>
>Well, Jerry
when I asked you about your math before,
>because it didnt add up, you fell back on your standard
>My experience line.
No, it's that I was tired of answering you
repeatedly, once, twice at most, should be enough. And in
this post shows exactly why.
>
>>>
>>>FWIW I don't doubt your skills as a fabricator, the
>>>Freedom EV looks great.
>>
>> Thank you, it's one of my best works.
>
>Your welcome. Just so you know, Im not debating your
>skills or experience, just your claims. Especially the
>ones that dont add up and your instance that the only
>thing you need to back up your claims is your experience.
It's your specious claims that are not true as
shown above. I back up mine.
>Ill save you some time, here is my questions and your
>response from the Archives:
>
>On 02 Aug 2005 Jerry Dycus wrote:
>
>Hi Peter and All,
> I just don't have enough time to argue with
>you over small details that may change. You refuse to
>except my facts so no use arguing with you.
> Lets just build it, test it to see just what
>it does. The track will prove what is and isn't. My
>experience tells me I'm right or a least close to it.
>If I can get even close it will be a breakthrough.
> Am I optimistic, sure!! But I usually make
>my goals when I try things like this doing things the
>Experts say can't be done.
> Please feel free to bring whatever you want
>to autocross race against it when you return.
> I have an EV to build now.
> Thanks,
> Jerry Dycus
An excellent, accurate response that still is so true
as your post proves.
I'll let you have the last post Peter as I have other
things to do like putting an EV into production, helping
others build more EV's. You still owe me an apology.
Jerry Dycus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jack,
You are trying to re-design a contactor with built-in breaker?
Note that the functions of breaker and contactor are quite
different, the contactor being an electrically controllable
HV switch and the breaker being an automatic safety disconnect
in case of overload, to protect wiring and other circuitry
from destruction.
I know several EV'ers who strung a wire through the breaker's
handle eyelet, so from the dashboard you could open the breaker
manually as an added security feature.
The issue not yet addressed is the safety that is provided
by using a combination of contactors and pre-charge, which can
be used by your controller to avoid runaway conditions:
1. Before even closing any contactors, the controller can sense
is there is HV on its input, which would indicate a welded
contact, so the controller can refuse to start the motor, as
it has no backup to break the current.
(This can be mildly annoying if your controller is prone to
faulting out or shutting the motor control off before the
contactors drop, so the capacitors will stay charged for
a while - I must wait 30 sec before I can re-start my EV)
2. After pre-charge contactor closing, the controller senses
the voltage to see if it rises high enough to indicate the
HV bus is not unexpectedly loaded, which can indicate one
of the power components has failed. This will avoid a high
current when the main contactor is closed, so it should
never weld shut, allowing it to break in emergencies.
3. Controller *could* include a crow-bar feature, which will
deliberately short-circuit the HV bus and rely on blowing
the breaker or fuse open, if it detects a serious failure,
such as a continuing current draw even after the contactor
was dropped (indicating a weld-shut and runaway).
Note that all these require the use of sensing and deciding
to take a next step, which is best automated. It is possible
to do this manually (as with a breaker) but it would be very
prone to operator faults, you would need a kind of
"pre-flight inspection list" to do the same as most modern
controllers provide built-in.
THe risk is that the driver will learn that simply throwing
the breaker makes the car go, without going through the
safety list, so better automate it, even if it occasionally
can be annoying to see a fault detected - better avoid
driving than encountering a runaway...
Just my 2 contactor's worth,
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
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jack Murray
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Circuit Breaker and Contactor
I've been looking at contactors, fuses, and circuit breakers, and had
the idea of using a circuit breaker as a contactor by creating a setup
that can switch the breaker on and off. This would eliminate the
contactor as well as reduce the continuous power draw of the coil to it.
I'm surprised this hasn't been done before or is offered as a product,
so there must be some downside to it.
It would turn on-off much slower than a contactor, so my guess is that
might be an issue in general, but for a car, I don't see that as a problem.
In fact, I see a combination of a power-turn-on device that does a
pre-charge to the controller and once complete will turn on the breaker.
The breaker will still break if over-current, but then can be turned off
electrically.
Is there some issue I'm missing?
Thanks,
Jack
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Go to your local battery store and ask them to show you the Trojan individual
caps.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Havranek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Newbie questions (batteries)
> Hi Roland,
>
> I have one piece push-ons, don't like them, but they seem to work.
> Cable routing was a real bugger, though.
> They seem to contain the acid O.K.
> Tell me a little more about the individual caps.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dana
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 2, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Roger Johnsonbaugh wrote:
I have been reading about batteries for about 8 months now
and I
know about as much as I did when I started.
I am in the planning stages of a 94 S-10 conversion. I will be using a
siemens A/C drive from MetricMind, and I am hoping
I will be able to fit 29 group 31 lead acid batteries in it. (Other
chemistries would be nice, but the control/protection circuits
29? You may want to talk to Victor about this. I may be mistaken, but I
think that will limit regen. That would be only 13.1 volts per battery
(pretty low for a charging voltage) to bring the system voltage up to
380 volts (I *think* that is the limit.) If 380v is the limit you might
want to hold the pack voltage (for lead acid batteries) to 300-324
volts to improve regen. You are proposing a pretty heavy vehicle and AC
systems tend to be quite good at regen (a plus for your idea.)
are over my head at the moment.) So the question is: Flooded, Gel, AGM?
Brand names: Deka(same as MK?), Trojan, Lifeline
If you want to use group 31 batteries I would recommend using AGMs. The
flooded group 31 batteries seem to be a compromise between deep cycle
and lighter SLI (Starting Lighting Ignition) construction. They tend to
not have the life span of true deep cycle batteries. Of course, AGMs
can be destroyed even faster if you don't include a good (and more
expensive) charging system. Perhaps some flooded Group 31 batteries
would be a good set of learner batteries for you. I would recommend
making your battery boxes so they can fit any of the available group 31
batteries (if you choose this route.) This is looking toward the future
- any one choice may become unavailable or something better may come
along packaged in that group size.
This looks like it could be a good application for around 40 8v Golf
Cart batteries. These are true deep cycle batteries but each cell
doesn't have as many plates as the 6v GC batteries (plates split into 4
cells instead of 3) so they don't take high amp discharges very well.
If your AC drive is limited to less than 300 amps it could be a good
choice. Much of the bad rap that 8v GC lead has gotten with EVers seems
to be situations where the idea was to go from 120v of 6v batteries to
120v of 8v batteries (or similar, lower voltage, application) to reduce
weight and improve performance. The 8v battery complaints (excess
voltage sag) with higher amps killed off most of the performance gains
and demanding 400 amps or more reduced their life.
The list goes on. The manufacturer's claims seem to be fairly
similar, and
I am wondering if these batteries actually perform
as advertised. I am hoping for some real world experience to help me
with a
choice. I could go on for a while with a bunch of
disjointed questions, but I would rather let you guys and/or gals tell
me
what you want to tell me.
I bet a bunch of us would love to build your pickup on your dime :-)
You have to build what you want. There are a lot of list members here
with plenty of experience. I'm sure you have already spotted a number
of names that stand out (I won't name any names to avoid embarrassment
from naming, or failing to name, individuals.) The key is to listen to
the opinions here and try to glean the pro's and con's they present.
Then make up your mind and 'go for it.' My first EV was a VW based
beach buggy (Manx style.) If I only listened to the negative I wouldn't
have attempted to convert it. I have been enjoying it since 1999.
Paul "neon" G.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
George Orwell, "1984"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
His email is on his website home page in gif form
K4LXP at arrl dot net
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "dale henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: efficiency comparison - 2 speed gearbox or series/parallel
> does anyone have an email for mark? looking to find other EVers in
> albuquerque area
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 1/2/2007 3:19:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj: Re: Current Eliminator news
> Date:1/2/2007 3:19:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-to:[email protected]
> To:[email protected]
> Received from Internet:
>
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> Where did you find a 13" ge motor???
> I have a couple laying around that I bought at auction.......
> >Some of the features,a 2khv zilla,a 13 inch ge motor direct drive into a
> >9 inch ford rear with air lockup and 40 spline axel..
>
> Also, are you considering the negative consequences
> of having the extra weight onboard when you are using
> this truck for racing??? See Below:
>
> The truck will also carry the pfc20 charger,a dc to dc step
> >up to 13.8 volt sli.,and 2 12volt chargers 1 for the reverse and 1 for the
> >sli.These are also multi input chargers.There is a honda 2000 watt
> emergency
> >genset mounted in the underhood compartment.
It is primarly a street truck that will be on the track only to HEADS UP race
now and again.It will be used to go to market,movies,home depot,the livestock
store,close service calls ect.and will also be driven by my girlfriend so I
want to make it user friendly.If she goes to far by accident I want her to be
able to make it home.I will HEADS UP race in the nedra pro street class(without
the honda 2000eui) where it should compete well.Yes John W.has the weight
advantage,Horse power advantage,Aero advantage,semise motor
advantage,series/par
adv.ect.ect.but I am building the motor in the S10. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Dana,
You can request separate caps from any battery shop. I like the individual
caps design battery tops, because the filler neck protrudes higher then the
top of the battery. This provides a additional barrior of voltage tracking
from one cell to the next.
The single cap has a locking twist lock with a o ring. I had these push on
caps blew off at one time. You can also lock on a optional automatic water
system or Hydrocells.
Just take a volt meter and touch the probes next to each filler neck and see
if you are getting any voltage.
It is easier to clean the top of the batteries with single caps.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Havranek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Newbie questions (batteries)
> Hi Roland,
>
> I have one piece push-ons, don't like them, but they seem to work.
> Cable routing was a real bugger, though.
> They seem to contain the acid O.K.
> Tell me a little more about the individual caps.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> <snip>
>
> > If open cell pb flooded battery, then use individual locking caps with a
> > O-ring seal. No gang type push on caps.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roger Johnsonbaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:41 AM
> > Subject: Newbie questions (batteries)
> >
> >
> > > I have been reading about batteries for about 8 months now and
> > > I
> > > know about as much as I did when I started.
> > >
> <snip>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Danny wrote:
EEStor
like $1 per cap
I thought the patent alluded to it being made from slabs of ceramic,
hence the weight of it?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Transformers can only work with an alternating current (AC). Therefore some
special circuitry is required to change the voltage of a DC current.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
---------------------------------------------------
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by
dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short
again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming,
but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself
for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high
achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid
souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jake Oshins
Sent: January 2, 2007 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: DC to DC converter - why isn't it just a big transformer?
I'm looking for a little basic education here. Why isn't a DC to DC
converter as simple as a big transformer?
Is it because building a transformer for 200VDC+ is prohibitive, either for
cost or weight?
Is it because we want a well-regulated output voltage?
I ask because I'm looking at making the existing power steering pump work in
my conversion project and I'm looking at using various surplus motors that
run on voltages significantly smaller than my pack voltage.
Using my fancy DC/DC converter to drive a 12V motor would use a lot of its
capacity for this task and I don't really care if the voltage this aux motor
runs on is well-regulated.
Thanks for any replies,
Jake Oshins
P.S. My main traction motor has only one output shaft, so running the power
steering pump from it would be difficult, though not impossible.
That's why I'm looking for other alternatives.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 05:50 PM 2/01/07 -0500, Darin wrote:
With info & tips from Steve Powers and Roger Stockton, I got the old EV-1
controller properly hooked up on the bench and working (with a lightbulb
to test output). A Rube Goldberg dimmer switch! Thanks, guys.
Now the question is: *should* I use it in the car? :-)
Put it in and upgrade it later. All the contactors, fuses and stuff that
are needed for a Curtis or whatever will be needed for the EV-1, the EV-1
just has the extra bypass contactor.
From what I read, the SCR controller will roughly halve the range
potential of the batteries, if the controller spends most of its' time in
mid-range PWM.
However, if it spends most of its' time in bypass it will make almost no
difference at all. Being as you are likely to be under powered, your
driving behaviour may be: Full throttle, PWM increases until EV-1 comes out
of current limit and pulls in the bypass contactor, bypass contactor stays
in until you are at cruising speed, lift the throttle and drop to 30% maybe
PWM, then lift completely and coast down. Under these conditions it will be
not a great deal worse than a similarly undersized Curtis. It will depend
on if you can keep the pedal to the floor, and may mean something like once
at cruising speed dropping to 3rd or 2nd gear to up the revs and drop the
current, you may find that to hold your cruising speed (as long as this is
not risking the motor on RPMs) you can drive 'pedal to the metal' with the
bypass contactor in giving best efficiency.
I have a 72V EV-1 that I'm planning on putting into my trike project,
unless I find a Curtis or similar first. I'm planning on using a
programmable device to drive the shunt field (of the compound motor) hard
enough to get the bypass contactor pulled in as soon as possible, then fade
the field as RPMs go up, keeping the series current just below the current
limit in order to maximise torque right up the range. I'm expecting
stop-and-go use, so don't expect the range penalty to be too bad from the
EV-1, and it should make that 'cool' SCR growl at low speed. But if I can
find a Curtis it'd be 'cool' to have no traction noise other than brushes,
fan and drive belt.
My vote is to put it in.
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
