EV Digest 6338
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) EBEAA Meeting - this Saturday Jan 27, 2007 10-12 in Alameda
by Ed Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: OT Copper, was: EEstor
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Testing the pack
by "Matt Kenigson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Curtis 1221R regen controller wiring diagram
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) LRR Tires and Vehicle Weight
by "Brian M. Sutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Using Vortex Tubes for air conditioning/heating
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Battery Monitor Design
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Mark your Calindars MAY 7th !!
by Steven Lough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: OT Copper, was: EEstor
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Battery Monitor Design
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Curtis 1221R regen controller wiring diagram
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Using Vortex Tubes for air conditioning/heating let's keep this safe!
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Good news: Auto giant GM proposes oil-free car
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Alternate configurations for Heavy Vehicle
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Ford Shows a Hybrid Car with 2 Modes: Electric or Electric
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Testing the pack
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Battery Monitor Design
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Electric "Jeep", Is this project feasable?
by xx xx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Alternate configurations for Heavy Vehicle
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
*********START OF MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT***********
Topic: "Who Killed The Electric Car"
movie review & extras
Date: Saturday, Sept, 23, 2006
Time: 10 am to 12 noon.
Site: Alameda First Baptist Church
1515 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda
Visitors welcome, open to the public.
This is our first meeting of 2007. Last year the movie
"Who Killed the Electric Car" made a splash at the
theaters as an independent documentary, promoted by
Sony Pictures. This month we will review the movie and
the special feature of "Jump-Starting the Future".
There should be some lively discussion about what
barriers we still have to overcome in promoting the
viability of electric transportation. Popcorn
provided.
EVs will be on-hand and informal Q&A can take place in
the parking lot after the meeting. We will also be
planning our various EV rallies and other outreach
opportunities.
See you there.
http://www.ebeaa.org
*********END OF MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT***********
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 24 Jan 2007 at 10:10, Evan Tuer wrote:
> It seems a lot simpler than the various US standards: centre tapped
> 240V here, 208V there, 120 only in some places, a wide variety of
> earthing and protection arrangements and no end of scary-looking
> connectors.
We're getting off topic here, but I might mention that the US differences
are not that wide any more, if they ever were. It's rare today to encounter
120v only residential service. When you do it's an ancient installation in
a home purchased 20 or more years ago, before mortgage lenders and insurance
carriers started insisting on updates to "systems." I doubt that any home
sale would go through today without an upgrade of such a system.
I don't think you'll often find 3-phase (208v) power in residential areas.
It's to be found in light commercial zones, AFAIK. (My knowledge in this
area is pretty limited so correct me if I err.)
Earthing or grounding here is quite highly regulated. Grounds are made to
the residence's waterpipe if municipal and if metallic, with secondary
grounding to driven rods. Rods or other "made electrodes" are used if the
water system is separate and/or nonmetallic. Ground and neutral (center
tap) are bonded at only one location, the main disconnect.
True, with some local exceptions, older homes (built before the 1970s) may
have only a few receptacles and other outlets - bath, kitchen, outdoor -
wired with a ground. But you're likely to install a dedicated receptacle
for your EV anyway, and a good ground is normally available at the main
panel. More recent residential construction has grounds universally
available at all outlets. All new work has to be done to current code.
You're definitely right about the connectors. Ours aren't as safe as
European ones. It's far too easy for a user to touch live contacts when
inserting or removing a plug. Older receptacles wear out and plug retention
becomes poor, allowing plugs to "sag." This exposes live contacts and
causes heating from poor connections.
Also, here in the states code requires GFIs for outside 120v recepts.
Charging EVs is done under GFI protection - but only if they have 120v
chargers! I could be mistaken but I don't think the NFPA code requires GFIs
for 240v outdoor recepts. Perhaps they think such recepts are not widely
used, but we certainly use them for charging EVs. Of course one can add GFI
protection easily enough, but there is (AFAIK) no code requiring it and I'd
be surprised if very many US EV hobbyists fit it.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List 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 ---
This is a *little* bit off of the subject, but here's another newb
question: How are you doing supplemental charging? Should I get an
external charger for just such a need? When I do supplemental charging
should the battery be isolated from the pack or can I just hook up the
charger to the batt with all the other wiring still in place.
Sorry for questions I might be able to find by searching the archives. I've
found it difficult to answer the simplest questions that way, although for
complex questions, the archives rock! Anyway, I feel like I'm slowly
catching on as I am well into ruining my first pack (although it was in
pretty bad shape when I got it, anyway, so I don't feel too bad about
learning the hard way).
Matt K.
Hi all,
>
> You will have to forgive me for asking a basic question. I have
searched
> around, but have not really got a clear understanding.
>
> Every couple of months I check my pack to see if any batteries are low.
> Here is what I do:
>
> I charge my pack
> Wait 24 hours
> Measure each battery voltage
> Supplemental charge the low ones.
>
> I get the feeling, after readying a few posts about dead packs, that
this
> procedure is wrong. Can anyone please correct me?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Robert,
I have 3 1221R controllers (2 84V in use at 88 to 96V and 1 120V with lots of
blown FETs & diodes to deal with some time) and the paper copy of the manual,
so I could help you with that tonight when I am home after work.
Do you have the 10-position Mini-fit Jr. connector shell and contacts that
mates with the socket on this controller?
Best Regards,
Doug
>
> From: "Ev Performance (Robert Chew)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/24 Wed AM 06:14:14 EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Curtis 1221R regen controller wiring diagram
>
> >
> > Hi All,
>
>
>
> I just acquired a curtis 1221R regen controller (120 volt 400amps)
>
> I do not know how to wire it up. I believe i need a reversing contactor in
> there some where. THere is a multi connector type socket. I am not sure how
> this is wired up also.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John wrote -
> From the calc, it would seem that weight and truck-aero improvements
> aren't likely to make much difference.
Ryan wrote -
> One thing that isn't a completely trivial comparison is the weight. 300 lbs
> can make a difference.
Hummmm, are we guessing and following calculations blindly or is there any real
world evidence about weight.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> So, I tried knocking 1000 lbs off the truck (somehow)
> Only makes a slight difference (adds 3 miles to the GC, LRR 55 mile range)
Isn't rolling resistance supposed to be proportional to vehicle weight?
Reducing weight should go in the same proportion as the tire rolling
coefficient for low speeds.
--
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 ---
>> Hmm, an interesting though. Given that they aren't efficient, can they
>> at
>> least be light weight?
>> For example, if we had an onboard tank of compressed air (refilled while
>> charging) and a vortex tube, how large would the tank need to be to
>> store
>> enough air for cooling the vehicle for say 20 minutes?
>
> I had to register with Exair to get the specs on their tubes -
>
> A large Vortex tube, model 3250, uses between 50 and 150 SCFM at 80 to 100
> PSI. A normal alum scuba tank contains 80 cu ft (at 3000 PSI), so the air
> in the tank would be consumed by the 3250 Vortex (using an average of 100
> SCFM) in 30 min.
Hmm, I just went to: http://www.exair.com/vortextube/vt_page.htm and
selected "Selecting a Vortex Tube" on the left side. No registration
needed.
According to the info there, a 3250 consuming 50 SCFM would produce 3400
btu/hr of cooling.
The only thing I can't figure out is how much cooling does an EV need? Is
3400 btu/hr enough?
At any rate, that's a lot of air. I was kinda hoping a 5lb CO2 tank might
be enough ('cause CO2 is cheap and readily available).
Perhaps it would work in a really small vehicle (Sparrow or smaller)
It might be fun to test. CO2 has the advantage of coming out of the tank
really cold, so you have the phase change cooling as well as the vortex
cooling. From what I'm reading, using cold input gas reduces the output
temp. Someone was actually able to produce liquid air by cascading vortex
tubes.
--
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 ---
I often use ADUM2400 for CAN isolation, they're rated for 5000Vrms for
1 minute and a maximum working voltage of 560V. So far we haven't had
any problems with them.
-Peter
I've used the really fast (10 Mbps) optos for CAN up to 500 kbps and
the phase shifts are ok. But you need to use optos that are really
fast compared to the bit rate - I use a factor of 20 so the time
delay is less than one CAN bit clock. Another option os the ADUM140x
family of isolators, if the differential voltage is going to be under
500V (which it should be). I just did a design using this part on a CAN
bus, again, the 10 Mbps isolator. It seems to work very well. My
first attempt was with a lower speed opto (rated for 1 Mbps) - it
didn't work.
-Dale
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From an article on Bill Moor's EVWORLD, from the Seattle Times 1/24/07
Steve Marshall is chairman of the Municipal League of King County. Bruce
Agnew is director of the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, which is
working on regional transportation solutions. Experts and policy-makers
will discuss the role of government and other questions related to
replacing foreign oil with domestic fuel and electric power in
transportation at a May 7 Cascadia conference at the Microsoft
Conference Center in Redmond.
The whole Seattle Times article can be seen at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003536373&zsection_id=268883724&slug=hybrid23&date=20070123
--
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 ---
Lee Hart wrote:
> Also correct. But John is talking about using 2 to 4 of these
> motors vs. the one L91 I'm using.
> I agree. But look at it this way; the thermal rating of a motor (how
> long it can withstand a given amount of heat dissipation) is roughly
> proportional to its weight. A single ADC 9" motor weighs 148 lbs. Two
> L91's weight 2 x 85 = 170 lbs. So if anything, the two 6.7"
> L91's should be able to dissipate *more* heat, and deliver a given
> amount of power *longer* than the 9".
Right, I agree on all counts: a pair of the 6.7's ought to perform a bit
better than a single 9". A pair weighs 15% more, so if the thermal
rating is proportional to the weight, they ought to be able to deliver
the same power as a 9" for 15% longer or 15% more power for the same
time before overheating.
My concern is that people have reported that in the real world a single
8" or 9" motor is marginal in a Ranger/S10-type conversion, which is
about 1/2 the weight of the 7000lb full-size pickup John envisions.
This suggests to me that while a pair of 6.7's might be a good option
for a Ranger/S10, John really needs something nearer to the capability
of a pair of 8's or 9's to have adequate and reliable performance in the
sort of vehicle he wants. Quad 6.7's would certainly fit the bill, but
at a cost greater than that of a pair of 8's or 9's, and much greater
practical complexity (coupling & fitting 4 motors vs coupling a pair of
8's or 9's end-to-end).
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> We're getting off topic here, but I might mention that the US differences
> are not that wide any more, if they ever were. It's rare today to
> encounter
> 120v only residential service. When you do it's an ancient installation
> in
> a home purchased 20 or more years ago, before mortgage lenders and
> insurance
> carriers started insisting on updates to "systems." I doubt that any home
> sale would go through today without an upgrade of such a system.
I just bought a house 6 months ago with 120V only service. Nobody blinked
an eye and the inspector didn't care about the service size. Nor did the
bank/insurance company.
In fact, I bought a house a little over a year ago that had most of the
outlets ungrounded (they were 3 prong, but only two conductor wiring).
The inspector noted this, but the bank didn't care, nor did the insurance
company.
I fixed most of them myself before I rented it, but just for my own peace
of mind.
Personally I don't see why an insurance company, or bank, would care that
a home doesn't have 220V service. Seems to me they would think it was
safer.
> Also, here in the states code requires GFIs for outside 120v recepts.
Only on new construction. All but my newest house came with outside
outlets without GFCI protection. In fact two of them didn't even have it
in the kitchens and bathrooms.
Again, nobody cared and the inspector only notes if the GFCI works...when
it's installed. If it's not installed, that part of the check list just
says NA.
FWIW the newest house (12 years old) has a 220V outside outlet (sauna?)
but it's not GCFI, at least not that I can tell.
Some states might be more picky about this, but obviously not all of them.
The moral is, check before you plug in your EV, or buy that older home.
If you care about GFCI or service panel size, make it a condition of the
sale.
--
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 ---
Dale Ulan wrote:
I've used the really fast (10 Mbps) optos for CAN up to 500 kbps and
the phase shifts are ok. But you need to use optos that are really
fast compared to the bit rate - I use a factor of 20 so the time
delay is less than one CAN bit clock. Another option os the ADUM140x
family of isolators, if the differential voltage is going to be under
500V (which it should be).
If you use a non-isolated charger, then you are effectively connecting
your propulsion pack to the AC power line during charging. The AC power
line can be exceedingly noisy; depending on your location, 1000v spikes
are a daily occurrence, and 6000v spikes can occur during thunderstorms.
If you use an isolated charger, then power line surges no longer get to
the battery pack. Your worst-case transients will be those produced
within the vehicle itself. But if you are careless with your wiring
practices, these can still be quite large. They will be produced every
time you start or stop a high current.
For example, if the main contactor closes without precharging the
controller, a huge current surge flows from the batteries to "instantly"
charge the capacitors in the controller. Or, if the main contactor has
to open under fault conditions when the motor is running at high
current, you get a huge inductive voltage spike.
Most propulsion packs are not ground referenced (i.e. not grounded;
floating). This means a voltmeter connected between ground and any
propulsion battery shows essentially no voltage, because there is no
path for current to flow between them. Since it's an open circuit, even
electrostatic charges can produce a very large voltage difference
between them and ground. But large voltage difference can't supply any
current, so there's no shock hazard from touching a battery terminal and
ground.
The system you have built assumes that the pack is ground referenced,
i.e. that something somewhere is connected between pack and ground. It
might be an actual wire from pack negative to ground, or a resistance
somewhere between pack and ground. This might be a physical resistor, or
just random leakage resistance in some component. You need this
resistance to be low enough to keep the voltage between the pack and
ground to less than the differential amplifier's voltage rating (500v).
Personally, I would rather isolate the pack from ground, and let the
differential amplifiers, multiplexers, and A/D converters "float". Use
optical isolators to transfer the digital output from the A/Ds to your
controller and display, which can be powered off the grounded 12v
system. This would make it far less likely to be damaged if there are
voltage transients that exceed 500v between the pack and ground.
I don't understand the reason for using 1-10 Mbit networking for a
system that measures battery voltages every half second or so. It seems
like a fast network just makes it more expensive and susceptible to noise.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
I have 3 1221R controllers (2 84V in use at 88 to 96V and 1 120V with lots of blown
FETs & diodes to deal with some time) and the paper copy of the manual, so I
could help you with that tonight when I am home after work.
Do you have the 10-position Mini-fit Jr. connector shell and contacts that
mates with the socket on this controller?
If you can't find anyone else to fix them, I can have a go at it. I just
fixed a 1231C, and am fixing a 1221 for Bob Rice, so have some of the
oddball parts.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John's original post was regarding using quad 6.7"s vs dual 11"s.
Also, FWIW, I'm pretty sure that this idea would end up weighing over
8,000 lbs. I don't see any practical way to knock an additional 1,000 lbs
off.
> My concern is that people have reported that in the real world a single
> 8" or 9" motor is marginal in a Ranger/S10-type conversion, which is
> about 1/2 the weight of the 7000lb full-size pickup John envisions.
> This suggests to me that while a pair of 6.7's might be a good option
> for a Ranger/S10, John really needs something nearer to the capability
> of a pair of 8's or 9's to have adequate and reliable performance in the
> sort of vehicle he wants. Quad 6.7's would certainly fit the bill, but
> at a cost greater than that of a pair of 8's or 9's, and much greater
> practical complexity (coupling & fitting 4 motors vs coupling a pair of
> 8's or 9's end-to-end).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
>
--
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 11:05 AM 1/24/2007, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
John's original post was regarding using quad 6.7"s vs dual 11"s.
Also, FWIW, I'm pretty sure that this idea would end up weighing over
8,000 lbs. I don't see any practical way to knock an additional 1,000 lbs
off.
Just take the bed off! :-)
As I implied in my original statement ("somehow"), it was just an
experiment to see if reducing the weight by 1000 lbs would make much
difference.
It didn't. (at least, not in UVE's calculator)
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't use CO2. Period. Don't use Liquid Nitrogen
Period.
If you insist on using these Vortex tubes which are
specified by the Manufacturer for spot cooling use air
only. Period.
And if you insist on using these without using air
please write a Last Will and Testament specifying me
as your beneficiary as you will suffocate and die
using this in an enclosed space.
Also please be aware CO2 while cheap is also an
environmentally control substance that for some reason
contributes to global warming or so I've heard on this
list.
Also 3.4K btu is far cry from my cars present AC unit
which doesn't work to well. Also it has been stated
many times this will not work as an AC unit as it is
meant as a spot cooler. Also 3.4 btu of how much sq
area. I've seen these in use as industrial chiller to
offset heat on a glass mask to prevent it from
changing size. The mask was 8 by 8 inches being heated
by uv light. It barely worked a lot of times so we had
to constantly monitor the sized being produce on to
the silicon wafers. We were make e-proms.
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm, an interesting though. Given that they
> aren't efficient, can they
> >> at
> >> least be light weight?
> >> For example, if we had an onboard tank of
> compressed air (refilled while
> >> charging) and a vortex tube, how large would the
> tank need to be to
> >> store
> >> enough air for cooling the vehicle for say 20
> minutes?
> >
> > I had to register with Exair to get the specs on
> their tubes -
> >
> > A large Vortex tube, model 3250, uses between 50
> and 150 SCFM at 80 to 100
> > PSI. A normal alum scuba tank contains 80 cu ft
> (at 3000 PSI), so the air
> > in the tank would be consumed by the 3250 Vortex
> (using an average of 100
> > SCFM) in 30 min.
>
> Hmm, I just went to:
> http://www.exair.com/vortextube/vt_page.htm and
> selected "Selecting a Vortex Tube" on the left side.
> No registration
> needed.
>
> According to the info there, a 3250 consuming 50
> SCFM would produce 3400
> btu/hr of cooling.
> The only thing I can't figure out is how much
> cooling does an EV need? Is
> 3400 btu/hr enough?
>
> At any rate, that's a lot of air. I was kinda
> hoping a 5lb CO2 tank might
> be enough ('cause CO2 is cheap and readily
> available).
> Perhaps it would work in a really small vehicle
> (Sparrow or smaller)
>
> It might be fun to test. CO2 has the advantage of
> coming out of the tank
> really cold, so you have the phase change cooling as
> well as the vortex
> cooling. From what I'm reading, using cold input
> gas reduces the output
> temp. Someone was actually able to produce liquid
> air by cascading vortex
> tubes.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From the electric_vehicles for sale list:
Posted by: "doug korthof" [EMAIL PROTECTED] live_oil_free
Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:28 am ((PST))
SEAL BEACH, CA--(EARTHSOURCEMEDIA)--Jan 24, 2007 -- Bypassing
proposed technology using ethanol, fuel-cell, Hydrogen or even cars
running only on water, General Motors (GM, NYSE) today released
the "direct drive" manure-powered Humous-mobile. "It sort of cuts
out the middleman, going direct to the source, which is cow manure,"
said Bob Klutz, general manager of future systems at the auto
giant. "We are letting out RFP's right now for research into
lowering cost and weight of the fungus-powered concept car," said
Klutz, noting that GM hoped to be able to demonstrate the technology
as early as the seminal 2009 Garden Grove Auto Show. "Hydrogen has
proven little more than powerful than Hot Air," said Simon Highman,
Ford Vice President for Future Technology.
Environmentalists were unaccountably positive on the proposal. "It
seems the only hope, now that the Electric car has proven too
vulnerable to being crushed by auto giants," said Claude Litmus of
the Sierra Mulch Club. "Even water-based cars, which emit only
Hydrogen gas, have an impact on our water table," said a
spokesperson for Environmental Fundraisers. "But using this
renewable resource for powering cars must not affect the endangered
Sinuous Dung Beetle."
------------------30------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Okay, for a Heavy Truck
For UVE's calc, Non-aero small truck, 36 sq ft frontal area.
Using a 2007 (not likely!) F250 SuperCab LongBed, 5.4L V8. 5856 lb
base weight.
(I've been having trouble finding this kind of info on older models.)
Starting out with a Z2K and Dual 11" motors would be nice, but is
awfully expensive, and there is a hefty lead time. ($4500 + 2 *
$2950) = $10,400.
I was thinking of a 240V pack using 6V golf cart batteries.
We've been discussing alternate configurations using some Curtis
1221C controllers.
Curtis 1221C + ADC L91-4003, $975 + $840. Thats 400A (max, I know,
derate for continuous) at 120V.
One suggestion was to use ADC X91-4001 motors for $855 instead.
Hmm, but the KTA page shows those as lower HP both peak and
continuous? It also shows the L91's as having dual shafts?
So, sticking with the L91's for now.
I was thinking of a configuration of 2 Curtis 1221C's, each with it's
own motor. That's not enough power for accelerating such a heavy
vehicle though.
So, add a pair of L91's using a simple contactor controller.
Say, configure the battery pack as a 120V pack of buddy pairs. (same
amount of battery as the 240V pack)
Then when you need "turbo boost" acceleration, you use contactors to
put the 2 boost motors in series or parallel on the pack. Gives you
2 boost speeds, and keeps the pack balanced.
Cost here is (2 * 975) + (4 * 840) = $5310 about 1/2 the cost of the
(MUCH NICER) Z2K setup.
Advantages: All parts available quickly, even if something fails, you
can continue driving with less power.
Disadvantages: Complexity, Jerky boost acceleration, still may not be
good acceleration.
Now, as an added refinement/complexity, if you want to prevent motor
over-heating while cruising at speed, you could use Yet More
contactors to switch the boost motors to be paralleled with the
curtis motors. (and no, they would NOT also be directly connected to
the pack at that time, sheesh.) This would result in each Curtis
controller driving 2 paralleled motors. Hopefully the same overall
power, but distributed over 2 motors to improve cooling.
Another variation would be to replace the pair of Curtis controllers
with a Z1K-HV.
Advantage: Higher current capability, better controller, automatic
S/P switching.
Disadvantage: $600 more, and you are back to the very long lead time
(if available at all).
Of course, once you switch to a single controller, using a FB1-4001A
at $1485 is cheaper than a pair of L91's.
But a Z1K with S/P switching of a pair of FB1-4001A's may not have
enough accel?
Cost = $2550 + (2 * 1485) = $5520.
So is similar to the original dual Curtis setup with 4 motors, but
you loose the "turbo boost" option.
I'm just trying to see all the options. Moving this heavy a truck is
a non-trivial exercise.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Re Ford Edge with 2 modes:
Again Ford takes a Good idea, a plug in electric and ties it to just about
the worst practical way of getting energy for moving a vehicle.
The Fuel cell.
We don't want a million dollar waste of tax payers money sitting in the back
seat of our Rig. JUST batteries.. Forget the Cell, it's over priced
technology that has
Decades of proof that they can't get much cheaper, just smaller.
And Any good EVer knows that some fool used 4 times the engery that the
Stored H2 has in it, Just to have it in the tank.
EVer's get the best range Per Kwhr and Fuel cells get the worst! Kwhr of
Grid power that is.
A $1000 a kw, that's in the Lithium battery range. Actually Valence comes
in at about $2000 for a 1.280 Kwhr battery.
Lead Acid is about $200, and weighs 100 lbs....Dang it!
And Wait.. NO fuel cell at all.
Two modes:
Yea one really Good,
And one Very bad.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jorg Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: FW: Ford Shows a Hybrid Car with 2 Modes: Electric or Electric
From
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23hybrid.html?_r=1&8dt&emc=dt&oref=slogin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Testing the pack.
OK
Drive EV into power shop.
Hook up the Pack Cycler to the Battery pack.
Dial in:
Discharge, to LOW batt from Reg trip. Then regulate
Lowest voltage ..that would be 150
Starting open circuit that would be ... Lets see E-meter says 165.
Discharge current set to 50 amps.
Hit enter.
Wait for the screen to redraw and watch the voltage and amp curves.
Note the Kwhr that the first Reg hits at.
record the Amp hours and kwhr that were on the Status line.
End:
Then dial in the taper charge to 191 volts.
Set for Reg controlled taper charge.
Set min amps that charge cycle will terminate at.
Hit Enter to start the charge cycle.
That how I would do it....
OK I think you had some other methods in mind, But that's how we test packs
and Hybrid packs at Manzanita Micro now days.
The shop gets pretty warm when we do the 15.360 Kwhr Valance pack for Kent
Bakke's LioN PiPrius install.
The pack cycler has a PFC50 hacked to Windloader mode, A PFC30 for the grid
charger, a old 486 machine to drive the ADAM modules in RS-485 mode, and a
Few thousand lines of Q-basic code written by Joe Smalley.
Oh it takes about 1.7Kwhr to bring to boil the 5 gallons of water in the HOT
Toolbox load bank.
Oh RTV Silicon won't cure in a high humidity room. I had 5 Charger lids
curing, I lit off the Cycler, and the next day the NOMEX paper had fallen
off the lids.
What?? OH yea.. don't do that when you are boiling water!!
I hate it when that happens!!
What you wanted me to say is"
Run the pack down to a given voltage, Record the Kwhr or the Amphours it
took, or the miles driven. Check to see what you could do last year.
If the same test conditions prevail.. you have a very good check on what
state you batteries are at.
Cold, with 3 months of storgae latency, and a heavier Right foot.. don't do
for a good comparision on Goldie.
I got all the low batt leds off for the frist time since Christmas... that's
a nice start.
I think Goldie needs a set of MK3. That would help in tracking the weak
batteries.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Testing the pack
> I just seem to remember when Jerry or John had a battery go, someone
> suggested "a more accurate" method was to test the batteries after a
certain
> load was applied?!?!?
>
> On another note, what is a decent way to test the capacity of the pack? I
> think I might need to re-program my emeter...
>
>
>
>
> Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> See the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
>
> Check the EVDL Archives:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive
>
> Check out the EV FAQ: www.evparts.com/faq
>
> Check out the EV Photo Album: www.evalbum.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lee Hart
> Sent: January 23, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Testing the pack
>
> Don Cameron wrote:
> > Every couple of months I check my pack to see if any batteries are low.
> > Here is what I do:
> >
> > I charge my pack
> > Wait 24 hours
> > Measure each battery voltage
> > Supplemental charge the low ones.
> >
> > I get the feeling, after readying a few posts about dead packs, that
> > this procedure is wrong. Can anyone please correct me?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Why do you think there is something wrong with
it?
>
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have never lost BMS equipment or Regs to a line spike.
I make and use NON isolated chargers.. many a day.
Nope never had a spike kill anything.
I suppose if you want lightning proof equipment, Then you might want to use
3000 or 5000 volt parts...
But that's quite a bit of over kill.
Out on your battery pack there better NOT be any real spikes, since you have
a few farads of water filled Caps called Batteries to soak up anything that
gets through the chargers.
Keep in mind that NO protection of any kind will last for years.
Properley designed Spike tolerant equipment will last for decades.
And you pay for that.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:26 AM
Subject: RE: Battery Monitor Design
> As Lee has pointed out numerous times: if you have a non-isolated
> charger, then your car's frame is grounded though the ground prong
> while the battery pack can see surges of several kV, 3000 or 5000,
> I forget how high.
>
> If you don't mind your battery monitor zapping out of existence
> every time there is a nearby power surge or lightning hit, then
> you can use 500V devices.
> If you care about longevity, you should look for hi-pot tested
> devices as used in every switching power supply.
>
> 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 Dale Ulan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:04 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Battery Monitor Design
>
>
> Yea, I forgot about how they are matched. You'd need to re-trim
> to get the CMRR back.
>
> >There are a few PICs which have CAN onboard, but it won't be isolated
> >and it's frankly a bad idea to try to optoisolate the CANBus itself due
> >to speed issues. Instead, use an external CAN node controller with a
> >SPI interface and optically isolate the SPI bus between the CAN
> >controller and the PIC. The CAN controller is actually fairly cheap.
>
> I've used the really fast (10 Mbps) optos for CAN up to 500 kbps and
> the phase shifts are ok. But you need to use optos that are really
> fast compared to the bit rate - I use a factor of 20 so the time
> delay is less than one CAN bit clock. Another option os the ADUM140x
> family of isolators, if the differential voltage is going to be under
> 500V (which it should be). I just did a design using this part on a CAN
> bus, again, the 10 Mbps isolator. It seems to work very well. My
> first attempt was with a lower speed opto (rated for 1 Mbps) - it
> didn't work.
>
> -Dale
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Greetings all,
I've been researching my conversion for a while and
would like some experienced input as to how rational
of a conversion this would be.
The basic parts I have are as follows:
A frame from an 86 full size chevy blazer, stripped,
sandblasted and painted.
14 bolt rear axle and Dana 44 front axle both running
4:10 gears. Rear axle has a locker.
35 inch tires on aluminum rims.
Dana 20 2 speed transfer case.
Fiberglass Jeep Wrangler body, or home made fiberglass
body.
I'd like to eliminate using a transmission and connect
directly to the transfer case and use the 2:1
reduction as my low gear when needed.
I'm not sure what the final weight would be with
batteries, I'm hoping less than 4,000lbs.
This would not be a daily driver, but would be road
legal. I'd need at least 50 mile range, maybe 15-20
of it would be around 40-50mph getting to and from
trails, the rest low speed 4 wheeling.
I'm thinking of a warp11 with a Z1k for now, maybe
upgrading to a Z2k at some point, (when I have more
money), could I get by with a warp9? Do I need to go
for the Z2K right away?
Basically how much battery/motor/controller would I
need for decent hill climbing/mud crawling performance
and how much do you think this thing would weigh given
the above information? I'd be using AGM or better
batteries.
Thanks,
John
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello John,
I am running a Warp 9 with a Z1K with a 180V Trojan T-145 with no problems
at all. The Warp 9 is a temporary replacement while my GE 11 is in
maintenance.
My EV weighs 7150 lbs that has a overall 1st gear ratio of 19.5:1 that I can
accelerated as fast it can go, about 0-30 mph in about 10 seconds. The
maximum motor ampere I pull is about 500 amps which peaks for about a
second, than falls to about 200 amps at 25 mph which is about 6000 rpm.
At 25 mph, I shift to 2nd which is now 13.5:1 ratio and the motor ampere
peaks to about 300 amp and then again falls to about 200 amps at about 35
mph.
At 35 mph, I then shift to 3rd which is 5.57:1 and again the motor amps
peaks out at 400 amps and lowers to 250 amps at 50 mph.
During this acceleration, my battery amperes ranges from 50 to 175 amp with
the Warp 9.
The GE-11 pulls double the torque at lower speed with less ampere. This
according to Net-Gain, the Warp-11 will have the same torque at 1500 rpm
then a Warp-9 at 3000 rpm.
The GE-11 at 60 mph has a battery 180 amps while the Warp-9 is about 260
battery amps.
Otmar was scare that I would burn out the Z1K. I said, do not worry, I got
the great granny gears. I now have been driving about 5 years with the same
battery pack and should be able to go to Jan 5, 2012 before I need to
replace the batteries.
The Net-Gain tech was also worry that I would burn out the motor, because
there spread sheets show that I would be pulling 500-600 amps at 50 mph.
It would be preferred to use two Warp 9 in series, or one Warp 11 which will
be my next mod. The Warp 9 continuous ampere rating is 199 amps.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: Alternate configurations for Heavy Vehicle
> Okay, for a Heavy Truck
> For UVE's calc, Non-aero small truck, 36 sq ft frontal area.
> Using a 2007 (not likely!) F250 SuperCab LongBed, 5.4L V8. 5856 lb
> base weight.
> (I've been having trouble finding this kind of info on older models.)
>
> Starting out with a Z2K and Dual 11" motors would be nice, but is
> awfully expensive, and there is a hefty lead time. ($4500 + 2 *
> $2950) = $10,400.
> I was thinking of a 240V pack using 6V golf cart batteries.
>
> We've been discussing alternate configurations using some Curtis
> 1221C controllers.
> Curtis 1221C + ADC L91-4003, $975 + $840. Thats 400A (max, I know,
> derate for continuous) at 120V.
>
> One suggestion was to use ADC X91-4001 motors for $855 instead.
> Hmm, but the KTA page shows those as lower HP both peak and
> continuous? It also shows the L91's as having dual shafts?
>
> So, sticking with the L91's for now.
> I was thinking of a configuration of 2 Curtis 1221C's, each with it's
> own motor. That's not enough power for accelerating such a heavy
> vehicle though.
> So, add a pair of L91's using a simple contactor controller.
> Say, configure the battery pack as a 120V pack of buddy pairs. (same
> amount of battery as the 240V pack)
> Then when you need "turbo boost" acceleration, you use contactors to
> put the 2 boost motors in series or parallel on the pack. Gives you
> 2 boost speeds, and keeps the pack balanced.
>
> Cost here is (2 * 975) + (4 * 840) = $5310 about 1/2 the cost of the
> (MUCH NICER) Z2K setup.
> Advantages: All parts available quickly, even if something fails, you
> can continue driving with less power.
> Disadvantages: Complexity, Jerky boost acceleration, still may not be
> good acceleration.
>
> Now, as an added refinement/complexity, if you want to prevent motor
> over-heating while cruising at speed, you could use Yet More
> contactors to switch the boost motors to be paralleled with the
> curtis motors. (and no, they would NOT also be directly connected to
> the pack at that time, sheesh.) This would result in each Curtis
> controller driving 2 paralleled motors. Hopefully the same overall
> power, but distributed over 2 motors to improve cooling.
>
> Another variation would be to replace the pair of Curtis controllers
> with a Z1K-HV.
> Advantage: Higher current capability, better controller, automatic
> S/P switching.
> Disadvantage: $600 more, and you are back to the very long lead time
> (if available at all).
>
> Of course, once you switch to a single controller, using a FB1-4001A
> at $1485 is cheaper than a pair of L91's.
>
> But a Z1K with S/P switching of a pair of FB1-4001A's may not have
> enough accel?
> Cost = $2550 + (2 * 1485) = $5520.
> So is similar to the original dual Curtis setup with 4 motors, but
> you loose the "turbo boost" option.
>
> I'm just trying to see all the options. Moving this heavy a truck is
> a non-trivial exercise.
>
>
> --
> John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
