EV Digest 6333
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance ( was
where to start )
by "Alan Gideon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by Bill Dube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: EEstor
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: NOISY SLOW Volt Video
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: DC-DC for Link-10
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
by "Mark Dodrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: EVs in Edmonton
by Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Timing BLDC Motor
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) OT nitrogen was Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the
69 psi
by Cory Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance ( was where
to
by Tom Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Age Old AC vs DC
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EEstor
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Using Vortex Tubes for air conditioning/heating
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I have been using my Garmin GPMap76 to plot my commutes to quantify the
collective power demands for a PHEV design. I have also noticed that the
lat-long is very repeatable and the altitude plot has the only sizeable
variation.
Based on my experience in navigating at sea without GPS, I think your
explanation of the acute angles involved in GPS altitude determination, when
compared to the lat-long calcs, is likely to be the right one. When a
ship's position is determined with visual bearings, you always want the
lines of sight to cross at nicely broad angles. A small angular error in a
small included angle can easily be shown to produce quite large errors. If
you could selectively choose to use a satellite directly overhead and three
on the horizon (separated by 120 degrees), you could minimize the errors in
lat, long, and altitude. I'm willing to bet that my GPSMap76 isn't smart
enough to select which satellites it uses for which calculations. The old
Omega satellite system used some sort of mushy averaging function.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Randy Burleson
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Peter VanDerWal; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance (
was where to start )
> The problem is, the altitude reading isn't stable. It cycles
> through readings that vary by up to ~70 feet. The swing takes
> maybe a minute to go from high to low and then starts up again.
>
> Does anyone else notice the same kind of behavior from their GPS,
> or is there something wrong with mine? The Lat/Long is spot on,
> well within a few feet, and it doesn't vary nearly as much.
This is just part of the technology -- pretty much all GPD devices
suffer from it.
Visualize the highly acute angle of inclination to satellites on the
horizon, and the distance that the information has to travel, as
compared to the relatively steep angle and shorter distance to receive
information from an overhead satellite... the degree of error is much
more significant applied against the longer distances, working the
smaller angles to calculate Z, as opposed to the shorter distances and
larger angles to calculate X and Y.
More expensive Differential GPS technologies reference a land-based
signal that helps dial in even closer, but they, too, are more accurate
in X and Y than Z.
Randii
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Very observant!
There is a second, smaller, pack with 80 more cells in it
not shown in the picture.
Bill D.
At 04:32 PM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
> On the KillaCycle, we have 880 cells. We run 8 in parallel and 110 in
> series. We parallel at the cell level.
>
> Here is a picture of the pack:
> http://www.killacycle.com/photos/a123/packinside.JPG
> (Click on the picture for an even BIGGER picture.)
>
> Bill Dube'
Bill-
Your pic seems to show 20 rows of 5 series banks of 8P cells.
I.E. 8P100S instead of 8P110S.
Are there 80 more cells located somewhere else?
-Myles
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:13 AM, EVSource wrote:
The other is that motor I sold you! An ImPulse 9 is not a WarP 9. A
fair comparison is an ADC 8 to an ImPulse 9. This could explain the
need for more current to get similar performance.
Why is this the second time I've heard that? Power is power!
The little 9 makes less torque per amp than the big 9, but the little 9
gets more rpm per volt. In other words, if you want 50 ft/lb. of torque
from both motors at 2000 rpm you will find that the large 9 needs less
motor amps and more motor voltage. The small 9 needs more motor amps
and less motor voltage. The power is about the same either way (the
larger 9 is likely *slightly* more efficient at 50 ft/lb.) Power is
what comes from the batteries - it is volts times amps. The controller
is converting that into a reduced voltage at increased current for the
motor.
Now I have an issue a Curtis 1221 only putting out 150 amps. That is
its continuous rating, its peak rating is 400 amps (for the 72-120v
version.) The Curtis will only hit peak battery amps at one rpm. The
Zilla can hold peak battery amps if its been set to do so. Its much
easier to see the peak battery amps on a gauge if it can hang there.
I should also point out that 150 amps at 108 volts is only about 19.5
horsepower. I'm not sure a 3000 lb. car could climb a hill and
accelerate to 40 mph with so little power.
Paul "neon" G.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
George Orwell, "1984"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:54 PM 1/21/2007, Lee Hart wrote:
I suspect that 5 motors/controllers would be too much. The batteries
can't deliver over 500 amps if you expect them to last. So, a pair
of Curtis 1231C controllers and ADC 9" motors might be all the
batteries could easily handle.
I was doing my calcs using L91-4003's, which are 6.7" motors.
What is the advantage of an 8" (or 9") with a Curtis controller?
What would 2 of the Curtis setups do in a vehicle like this?
I suspect you'd have a "lead sled" type of EV that accellerates slow
and takes a while to reach 60 mph -- but this may be fine for what
you want to do with it. As above, I think your range would be in the
30-60 miles, depending on speed.
Remember, the point of this excercise is to see if this vehicle could
be done with something less expensive than a Z2K with dual 9" (or
11", or 13") motors.
As a way around the Lead Sled acceleration.
Say you used the Dual Curtis w/6.7" motors.
You then had 2 more 6.7" motors that have a simple Contactor
control. Quite possibly just a single speed (FAST!). These would
only be engaged when the accel pedal was pressed nearly down to the floor.
Probably be kind of like hitting a Turbo Boost button....
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This statement is made after telling that Zenn has the
exclusive worldwide rights in certain (low power, low weight)
vehicle application.
This suggests that they invested in EEstor to help kickstart
the develeopment, in exchange for the exclusive rights to
their part of the market. Smart Idea.
I have no doubt that they will be paying customers, otherwise
EEstor has a problem.
Funny to read Jim Miller's fear mongering, while he clearly has
not read the information already present or that he chooses to
ignore, because he rather has rumours damaging EEstor than the
truth out there.
Now why would he do that?
I can only think of one thing: Fear. He is afraid.
It says almost more to me that EEstor's competition is fearful
enough to spread lies (because the issues mentioned are either
ridiculous or already answered&refuted) than that EEstor is
diligently working towards prototypes and worrying about mass
production issues and purity of their material, rather than
spend a lot of time in the limelight.
Oh, and I have yet to see data that shows that an EEstor
device cannot be made, but I am no insider, so I just follow
the trail of info that others leave behind and ignore FUD.
Let's look at what people DO instead of what they say.
EEstor published all the details of their production process,
so that gives an idea if they are for real.
No, I am not holding my breath, because I know that it will
take time to get the kinks out of the technology, the
production process, the application and the quality control.
By the time I am halfway my next battery pack the mass
production of EEstor devices may pick up and do we know if
there is a chance we can get our hands on it or not.
BTW - if EEstor fails, there will likely be another company
to carry this idea forward, so by that time it may not be
an EEstor device after all - the physics is not changing
though, so we will patiently await and see and continue to
drive our EVs on batteries in the mean time...
Regards,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jack Murray
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EEstor
"CEO of ZENN, which is also an early investor in EEStor"
Which tells you they are partners in the hype, not paying customers.
When an independent third party confirms their claims, I'll pay
attention, until then, EEstor is on ignore.
Greg Watson wrote:
> More technical data from EEstor:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
>
> Nice bagging by Jim Miller, vice president of advanced transportation
> technologies at Maxwell Technologies (who make SuperCaps). Just maybe
> they are worried.
>
> Time will tell,
> Greg
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 05:22:10AM -0000, Death to All Spammers wrote:
>
> Did she unplug from a 110V cord? How long does *that* take for a recharge?
>
> I guess GM gave up on inductive paddles...
Remember that with PHEVs, charge time is much less important then access to
an outlet. If this thing can fill up in 8 hours, then you'll have covered
most of your driving needs.
If I was putting one of these things together, I would likely include both
a low power and high power charging port. Of course, that's assuming I was not
worried about consumer confusion regarding the charging requirements.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > This is a potted block with screw terminals, easy chassis mount,
> > 85-265vac input, 15v 3w output, and 3000vac isolation. It actually works
<..snip..>
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 03:47:48PM -0800, Brian M. Sutin wrote:
>
> What happens if the pack sags below 85V?
Typical result:
http://www.smartaustin.com/~nick/flames01.JPG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill,
Thanks for the information. The picture is awesome.
A lot of mis-information in this thread. Let's get on the right track:
Lead-acid batteries of the same model and brand parallel very nicely. (No
need for contactor between them.)
You want to "buddy up" the batteries instead of running two separate
series strings. It is best to parallel batteries at the lowest possible
voltage level. This is standard practice.
There are a few reasons for this. First, the pack will last much
longer. Each series string is limited in its capacity by its weakest
battery. Thus, your capacity will be fixed by the single weakest battery in
each string. If you buddy up the batteries, the weakest battery is very
unlikely to be the buddy of the other weakest battery. The stronger buddy
helps the weaker buddy. It takes a lot of weak batteries to seriously
reduce your capacity.
Think of the effect of two (or three) 1/2 capacity batteries. If they
are buddied up with full capacity batteries, your pack capacity will be
reduced by 25%. If they are in each series string, your pack capacity will
be reduced by 50%.
In separate series strings, the weak batteries are "tortured" by the
full capacity batteries that surround them. They are cycled to near (or
beyond) their capacity each time. If they have a healthier buddy, the weak
battery uses it as a crutch and it ages much more slowly because its cycle
depth is greatly reduced.
The reliability of the pack goes up. A couple of corroded connections
are not likely to disable the car.
On the KillaCycle, we have 880 cells. We run 8 in parallel and 110 in
series. We parallel at the cell level.
Here is a picture of the pack:
http://www.killacycle.com/photos/a123/packinside.JPG
(Click on the picture for an even BIGGER picture.)
Bill Dube'
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Did I miss something here? It says that there are 35KWh of storage
available, and that it could be recharged in 10 minutes. Hmm, to recharge
it from zero to 35kwhrs, would mean a 35,000 watt charger (at 100%
efficiency). To do the same in 10 minutes (six times faster), would require
a 210,000 watt charger (assuming 100% efficiency)? Something seems
strange...
On 1/22/07, bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070117/law006.html?.v=72
UQM Technologies Receives $9.25 Million Production Order From
Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. Wednesday January 17, 8:30 am ET
FREDERICK, Colo., Jan. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- UQM
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a developer of alternative energy
technologies, announced today that it has received a $9.25
million production order from Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. for UQM(r)
electric propulsion systems to power Phoenix's newly introduced
all electric powered Sport Utility Truck (SUT). The order also
includes an onboard UQM(r) DC-to-DC converter to power the vehicle
instrumentation.
Deliveries under the order are tentatively scheduled over the
next year. This order raises the Company's current product
production backlog to approximately $14 million.
The Phoenix all electric SUT is powered by a 100 kW UQM(r) electric
propulsion system which produces over 400 ft-lbs of torque,
accelerates the vehicle from 0 to 60 miles per hour in less than
10 seconds, has a top speed of 100 miles per hour and operates at
peak system efficiencies of over 94%. The vehicle's 35kWh
NanoSafe(TM) battery pack supplied by Altair Nanotechnologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTI - News) can be recharged in less than 10
minutes using Altair's proprietary technology and provides safe
power and energy for the vehicle. In a typical fleet duty cycle
the vehicle will travel up to 135 miles between charges. The
vehicle is expected to qualify as a Type III ZEV in California.
Phoenix Motorcars' market strategy targets operators of fleet
vehicles, such as public utilities, public transportation
providers, and delivery services. This market presents a
significant opportunity as there are more than 200,000 fleet
vehicles in the State of California alone, with an increasing
number of fleet operators now seeking freeway-capable, zero
emission, all electric vehicles.
"The performance characteristics of the UQM(r) propulsion system,
including its industry leading torque delivery and energy
efficiency, adds substantially to the value proposition of our
SUT," said Daniel J. Elliott, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. "The performance capability of
the propulsion system is a significant factor in the driving
experience and vehicle utility for our customers and we are
pleased to be partnered with a leader in electric propulsion
technology and related vehicle electronic products."
"We are pleased that Phoenix has selected our company as their
strategic partner to supply propulsion systems for their electric
SUT production program," said William G. Rankin, UQM
Technologies, Inc. President and Chief Executive Officer. "This
order represents a major milestone in the commercialization of
our technology in the on-highway electric vehicle market and we
are looking forward to supporting and participating in Phoenix's
growth and success."
Phoenix Motorcars, headquartered in Ontario, California, has been
an industry leader in the development of battery electric freeway
speed vehicles since 2001. The mission of Phoenix Motorcars is to
manufacture zero emission vehicles to reduce the toxic emissions
of the largest contributor to air pollution, personal
automobiles. For additional information on the Company, please
visit its worldwide website at www.phoenixmotorcars.com.
UQM Technologies, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of power
dense, high efficiency electric motors, generators and power
electronic controllers for the automotive, aerospace, medical,
military and industrial markets. A major emphasis of the Company
is developing products for the alternative energy technologies
sector including propulsion systems for electric, hybrid electric
and fuel cell electric vehicles, under-the-hood power accessories
and other vehicle auxiliaries and distributed power generation
applications. The Company's headquarters, engineering and product
development center, and motor manufacturing operation are located
in Frederick, Colorado. For more information on the Company,
please visit its worldwide website at www.uqm.com.
This press release contains statements that constitute
"forward-looking statements"
[...]
Source: UQM Technologies, Inc.
Copyright (c) 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
-
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here are three EV's in Alberta:
http://www.docdockdocuments.com/conversion/ConversionRegistry.htm
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That is the reason mfgrs are going to Nitrogen, from what I'm reading. They
are putting sensors in the tires, which are affected by moisture. Of course,
they could simply dry the air. (Paint shops do this, but it's hard to charge
$20 for dry air. <g>.) I do wonder how they extract nitrogen from the air,
though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dymaxion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
> The reason racers use nitrogen is because it is very dry. Moisture in a
tire evaporates as a tire heats, raising the pressure even higher, which can
affect handling and traction. I've heard you get the same benefit from using
very dry air.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The brochure says that the nitrogen molecule is 5x larger, so is less likely
to leak than oxygen. (Of course, air is already mostly nitrogen.) That makes
sense, I guess. Their figures on leakage are a bit high I think, but I have
seen about a pound a month lost on some cars. After 15 months, I found even
my aluminum rimmed wheels had lost 12 pounds, which shocked me. It added
enough drag to cut my mileage significantly.
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
> Does pure nitrogen has a smaller expansion with heat thus keeping
> pressure constant?
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:58 pm, Michael wrote:
> > Speaking on rolling resistance...
> >
> > The newest fad is for tire stores to install a "nitrogen generator"...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Distillation maybe?
>I do wonder how they extract nitrogen from the air,
--
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 ---
Tune for min current at a given RPM.
Or static if you wan to reverse or Regen.
That's how I did the Mini bike from Hell's BLDC.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Ulan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:14 PM
Subject: Timing BLDC Motor
> I just got my second Solectria BRLS-16 BLDC motor and controller working
> (the MOSFETs and MOSFET drivers in the controller were all blown up so I
> rebuilt the controller using three dual-pack 600V 300A IGBT's), and I'm
> wondering how people time BLDC's with hall effect feedback. Do you time it
> to match the commutation with the back-EMF (symmetrical?), or do you
advance
> it slightly, or put it on a dyno and tune for highest torque? Any of those
> methods except the first are direction-specific, so I'd assume that you
need
> to pick the primary direction and tune that way. This controller does not
> phase-advance with RPM, unfortunately. I think I'd prefer slightly more
> mid-range torque and sacrifice a small amount of zero-RPM torque, if that
> makes a difference. Also, is anyone out there running these motors? They
> seem pretty rare (pun not intended). Thanks!
>
> -Dale
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nothing strange at all, you just get one of these guys
http://www.avinc.com/av_products_detail.php?id=48
On 1/22/07, Mark Dodrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did I miss something here? It says that there are 35KWh of storage
available, and that it could be recharged in 10 minutes. Hmm, to recharge
it from zero to 35kwhrs, would mean a 35,000 watt charger (at 100%
efficiency). To do the same in 10 minutes (six times faster), would require
a 210,000 watt charger (assuming 100% efficiency)? Something seems
strange...
On 1/22/07, bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
> [The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
> informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
> --- {EVangel}
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070117/law006.html?.v=72
> UQM Technologies Receives $9.25 Million Production Order From
> Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. Wednesday January 17, 8:30 am ET
>
> FREDERICK, Colo., Jan. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- UQM
> TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a developer of alternative energy
> technologies, announced today that it has received a $9.25
> million production order from Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. for UQM(r)
> electric propulsion systems to power Phoenix's newly introduced
> all electric powered Sport Utility Truck (SUT). The order also
> includes an onboard UQM(r) DC-to-DC converter to power the vehicle
> instrumentation.
>
> Deliveries under the order are tentatively scheduled over the
> next year. This order raises the Company's current product
> production backlog to approximately $14 million.
>
> The Phoenix all electric SUT is powered by a 100 kW UQM(r) electric
> propulsion system which produces over 400 ft-lbs of torque,
> accelerates the vehicle from 0 to 60 miles per hour in less than
> 10 seconds, has a top speed of 100 miles per hour and operates at
> peak system efficiencies of over 94%. The vehicle's 35kWh
> NanoSafe(TM) battery pack supplied by Altair Nanotechnologies,
> Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTI - News) can be recharged in less than 10
> minutes using Altair's proprietary technology and provides safe
> power and energy for the vehicle. In a typical fleet duty cycle
> the vehicle will travel up to 135 miles between charges. The
> vehicle is expected to qualify as a Type III ZEV in California.
>
> Phoenix Motorcars' market strategy targets operators of fleet
> vehicles, such as public utilities, public transportation
> providers, and delivery services. This market presents a
> significant opportunity as there are more than 200,000 fleet
> vehicles in the State of California alone, with an increasing
> number of fleet operators now seeking freeway-capable, zero
> emission, all electric vehicles.
>
> "The performance characteristics of the UQM(r) propulsion system,
> including its industry leading torque delivery and energy
> efficiency, adds substantially to the value proposition of our
> SUT," said Daniel J. Elliott, President and Chief Executive
> Officer of Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. "The performance capability of
> the propulsion system is a significant factor in the driving
> experience and vehicle utility for our customers and we are
> pleased to be partnered with a leader in electric propulsion
> technology and related vehicle electronic products."
>
> "We are pleased that Phoenix has selected our company as their
> strategic partner to supply propulsion systems for their electric
> SUT production program," said William G. Rankin, UQM
> Technologies, Inc. President and Chief Executive Officer. "This
> order represents a major milestone in the commercialization of
> our technology in the on-highway electric vehicle market and we
> are looking forward to supporting and participating in Phoenix's
> growth and success."
>
> Phoenix Motorcars, headquartered in Ontario, California, has been
> an industry leader in the development of battery electric freeway
> speed vehicles since 2001. The mission of Phoenix Motorcars is to
> manufacture zero emission vehicles to reduce the toxic emissions
> of the largest contributor to air pollution, personal
> automobiles. For additional information on the Company, please
> visit its worldwide website at www.phoenixmotorcars.com.
>
> UQM Technologies, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of power
> dense, high efficiency electric motors, generators and power
> electronic controllers for the automotive, aerospace, medical,
> military and industrial markets. A major emphasis of the Company
> is developing products for the alternative energy technologies
> sector including propulsion systems for electric, hybrid electric
> and fuel cell electric vehicles, under-the-hood power accessories
> and other vehicle auxiliaries and distributed power generation
> applications. The Company's headquarters, engineering and product
> development center, and motor manufacturing operation are located
> in Frederick, Colorado. For more information on the Company,
> please visit its worldwide website at www.uqm.com.
>
> This press release contains statements that constitute
> "forward-looking statements"
> [...]
> Source: UQM Technologies, Inc.
> Copyright (c) 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> -
>
>
>
>
> Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
>
> ' ____
> ~/__|o\__
> '@----- @'---(=
> . http://geocities.com/brucedp/
> . EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
> . (originator of the above ASCII art)
> ===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
>
>
--
Mark
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Probably the same process as an oxygen concentrator.
http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u01/u01_009.htm
Michael Perry wrote:
That is the reason mfgrs are going to Nitrogen, from what I'm reading. They
are putting sensors in the tires, which are affected by moisture. Of course,
they could simply dry the air. (Paint shops do this, but it's hard to charge
$20 for dry air. <g>.) I do wonder how they extract nitrogen from the air,
though.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi
I ran across this problem while researching sailboat gps's. There is
a built in error in satalite fed gps to keep it from being used
against us... I can't remember what it's called and I've changed
computers since, but you can get somekind of fix with a subscription
of some kind... It was kind of expencive and requires yearly updates?
I think they use a bit of software to adjust it and I believe you get
the adjustment from a radio signal?...anyway look for it ... it is on
the internet somewhere... I was quite surprised to find out about it.
Apparently it dosn't throw you off much if your looking for a city,
but try finding a rock with gps and you will notice it!
Tom
I've mainly only used the older Motorola Oncore, but the altitude was
always as accurate as the lat/long,and they both had similar
accuracies when they weren't within 1m or so.
I've found from speaking to other people that the more commercial
modular type of GPS tend to be more stable, perhaps because they're
destined to be used in third party application hardware. I was going
to suggest you had an antenna problem but you beat me to that by
saying your lat/long were stable.
Perhaps there's a firmware update fix for it if it is a known
problem with your particular model.
Chris
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
When I read these, I take it much as you did... it *can* be recharged that
quickly... not that it will be. (It's about the same as the claims for
service-station rechargeable EVs. They'd require cables going into the rig
that would make Bonneville envious. <g>)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Dodrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: EVLN(UQM Receives $9.25M Order From Phoenix Motorcars)
> Did I miss something here? It says that there are 35KWh of storage
> available, and that it could be recharged in 10 minutes. Hmm, to recharge
> it from zero to 35kwhrs, would mean a 35,000 watt charger (at 100%
> efficiency). To do the same in 10 minutes (six times faster), would
require
> a 210,000 watt charger (assuming 100% efficiency)? Something seems
> strange...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think you'll find that at 1800 amps, the motor's efficiency is
considerably less than 70%, even less than 50%. I'd guess it's down
around 30%.
Remember I2R losses go up at the square of the current.
> I took that number and multiplied by 4 for the torque at around 1800
> amps. RPM is a more rough estimate based on an estimate of battery sag,
> motor efficiency of 70% (at around 1800 amps - its a big motor) and the
> fact that power is conserved. I came up with an adjusted input watts
> (reduced by efficiency and battery sag), converted that to HP (746
> watts = 1 HP), and used HP and torque to calculate RPM (RPM = 5252 * HP
> / 550).
>
> Paul "neon" G.
>
>
--
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 ---
When I read these, I take it much as you did... it *can* be recharged that
quickly... not that it will be. (It's about the same as the claims for
service-station rechargeable EVs. They'd require cables going into the rig
that would make Bonneville envious. <g>)
Hardly, you'd use the same cables you use on a Zilla. Big? yes, but
not impractical.
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just remembered another possible issue.
Instrumentation error! How sure are you that your readings are accurate?
Is it possible to swap amp meters and redo the test?
I once wasted almost a full day testing a satellite terminal because of
not one, but TWO faulty test instruments.
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:13 AM, EVSource wrote:
>
>> The other is that motor I sold you! An ImPulse 9 is not a WarP 9. A
>> fair comparison is an ADC 8 to an ImPulse 9. This could explain the
>> need for more current to get similar performance.
>
> Why is this the second time I've heard that? Power is power!
>
> The little 9 makes less torque per amp than the big 9, but the little 9
> gets more rpm per volt. In other words, if you want 50 ft/lb. of torque
> from both motors at 2000 rpm you will find that the large 9 needs less
> motor amps and more motor voltage. The small 9 needs more motor amps
> and less motor voltage. The power is about the same either way (the
> larger 9 is likely *slightly* more efficient at 50 ft/lb.) Power is
> what comes from the batteries - it is volts times amps. The controller
> is converting that into a reduced voltage at increased current for the
> motor.
>
> Now I have an issue a Curtis 1221 only putting out 150 amps. That is
> its continuous rating, its peak rating is 400 amps (for the 72-120v
> version.) The Curtis will only hit peak battery amps at one rpm. The
> Zilla can hold peak battery amps if its been set to do so. Its much
> easier to see the peak battery amps on a gauge if it can hang there.
>
> I should also point out that 150 amps at 108 volts is only about 19.5
> horsepower. I'm not sure a 3000 lb. car could climb a hill and
> accelerate to 40 mph with so little power.
>
> Paul "neon" G.
>
> WAR IS PEACE
> FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
> IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
> George Orwell, "1984"
>
>
--
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 ---
Rod..
Yer from the Copper state!
What gives??
Put some Arizona Red neck miners back to work!!
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: EEstor
> The really funny thing to me is that their target market and their
exclusive
> marketing agreement is for a 72 volt NEV by Feel Good Cars. Something in
> this picture does not jive in my head. Please go read all the articles you
> can find. The one I posted is one of many as I did say in my post. You may
> want to also research the availability of 3500 volt EV motors or for a
start
> try finding 1000 volt ones. Concerning high voltage, you are correct that
> higher voltage uses smaller gauge wire to achieve the same watts. That is
> why Europe uses half the copper in their homes as the US does which most
> likely amounts to a waste of resources in the amount of millions if not
> billions of tons of copper. I wonder who thought up that brilliant idea.
> Most likely a copper lobby.
>
> Roderick Wilde
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: EEstor
>
>
> >I have been curious about the safety of 52KW HV cap. Man, the explosive
> >potential could be impressive. Or it may just burn, it's hard to say.
> >
> > The guy is whining about the high voltage. It's a big concern, that's
for
> > sure, but not insurmountable. What people aren't realizing is EVs
really
> > do become more practical at higher voltages and lower current levels.
The
> > cable needs extra-special insulation but doesn't need to be thick or
have
> > ultra-low resistance terminals. At 3500V vs 120V the wire only needs to
> > carry 1/29th the current. 8ga is more than enough. Other things would
of
> > course need to change, the motor would be wound differently and brush
> > motors may be impossible due to the arcing potential of high voltage.
> >
> > So they're actually putting out a cap, but 15KW instead of 52KW? Well
> > that's the sort of degradation from the initial bold proposal I would
> > expect and they might release a bigger version later (or you just put
> > several together). It says "under 100lbs" which is less than half the
> > weight of the proposed 52KW so the energy density isn't all that far
off-
> > they apparently just want to start small.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> > Roderick Wilde wrote:
> >
> >> Greg, when I first hear of an exciting new product that sounds too good
> >> to be true I first go to Google and read up on the product which many
> >> times is just various articles based on press releases from the
company.
> >> The second thing I do is then go to Google and type in the name of the
> >> product again and add the word scam behind it. Not that I think it is a
> >> scam, just so I can read opposing viewpoints. If there are an
incredible
> >> amount of opposing viewpoints I start to wonder. I read many of these
> >> posts to help me form an opinion. I suggest that others use this same
> >> process when trying to discern the truth on new products. Here is just
> >> one post of many you may find of interest. It was posted on The Green
Car
> >> Congress web site on 1/17/07 by Roger Pham.
> >>
> >> Roderick Wilde
> >>
> >> By Roger Pham
> >>
> >> "Ceramic capacitors are not known for their high energy storage
capacity.
> >> Barium titanate has been used to make ceramic capacitors for quite
> >> sometimes, and has nowhere near the energy capacity as claimed by
EEStor
> >> company.
> >> The claimed 52kwh capacity of the EEstor device having 31 farads is due
> >> to the 3,500 V maximum voltage rating. However, automotive power
> >> inverters and power transformers are typically designed to handle
battery
> >> voltages from 250-500 volts. Since Energy Stored = 1/2 Capacitance x
> >> Voltage Squared, reducing the 3,500V down to a more reasonable 500V
will
> >> reduce the storage capacity of the EEstor from 52kwh down to 1kwh.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, working with 3,500V in a personal vehicle is very lethal,
> >> especially in the event of an accident. High-voltage capacitors can
> >> explode violently upon aging of the dielectric material or other
stresses
> >> that can lower the dielectric property of the material. In a chain
> >> reaction, the entire energy of this supercapacitor can be released as
> >> fast as a bomb explosion. If you wanna build a thick, thick bomb-proof
> >> casing to contain this 52kwh worth (~140lbs of TNT-equivalent) of
energy
> >> that can be released in a flash, you will need a lot of carbon fiber
> >> layers that will be very heavy and costly. You might have better luck
> >> making a Compressed Hydrogen tank out of carbon-fiber reinforcement. H2
> >> by itself without O2 cannot combust. Structural weakness in the carbon
> >> fiber tank may allow the H2 to leak out at a fast rate, but it will not
> >> explode."
> >>
> >> Good luck, EEStor. Y'all will need every bit of it!
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Watson"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:20 AM
> >> Subject: EEstor
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=204515
> >>>
> >>> The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in
> >>> electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors
Company.
> >>> EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15
> >>> kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor
> >>> Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles. The production
EESU
> >>> for ZENN Motor Company will function to specification in operating
> >>> environments as sever as negative 20 to plus 65 degrees Celsius, will
> >>> weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a
> >>> matter of minutes.
> >>>
> >>> Zap, Kapow Batman our offline energy storage problems are over,
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date:
> >>> 1/16/2007
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/637 - Release Date:
1/18/2007
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/637 - Release Date: 1/18/2007
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello:
My apologies if this is stupid or if it has been discussed before.
While surfing around, I stumbled over some cooling technologies, that
basically uses compressed air. See
http://www.exair.com/vortextube/vt_page.htm
Now .. I don't have any data, but shouldn't a moving vehicle produce
quite some amount of air flow/air pressure that could be used for cooling
or heating through a vortex tube?
Just an idea here ..
Michaela
--- End Message ---
