EV Digest 6436
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would the drag of
the vehicle be less than the electricity generating rate of pv's on the
roof?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: EV digest 6432
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would the drag
of the vehicle be less than the electricity generating rate of pv's
on the roof?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Vexing issue w/ battery/controller. Nobody responded last time
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EV digest 6435
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Vexing issue w/ battery/controller. Nobody responded last time
by JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: EV digest 6435
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Battery charger recommendation
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Vexing issue w/ battery/controller. Nobody responded last time
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Parts for High School Project
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Looking for crimp dies for very small ring terminals
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: FreedomEV Competition - or just more hype?
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
ANd what exactly do you think congress can do about it? THe whole point
of Patent law is to protect the patent holder, they are allowed to do just
about anything they want with the patent, including NOT building it.
This has been done numerous times in the past. SOmeone will patent
something that threatens a big company, so they buy the patent and sit on
it.
It's called capitalism and its how our country works.
> I'd love to see the lawsuit and the licensing agreement.
>
> If it specifically restricts electric vehicles I'd like to send it to
> some congress members and activists.
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:24 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>>
>>> Right but has the EAA ever tried to enter into
>>> discussions with Chevron over releasing the patent
>>> rights?
>>
>>
>> They won't (they're an Oil company remember) In fact they sued (and
>> won)
>> Panasonic when Panasonic tried making EV size NiMH because it violated
>> their license with Cobasys which SPECIFICALLY states that they can NOT
>> make EV size batteries. In fact I believe the words Electric Vehicle
>> are
>> in the licensing agreement.
>>
>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Robert Lemke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for
>>>> NiMH batteries of the size of 10 a/hr and larger.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in
>>>> the
>>>> cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production
>>>> facility,
>>>> and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
>>>> can it be?
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- Lee Hart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Ian Hooper wrote:
>>>> > > Interesting about the Cobasys/Chevron
>>>> > relationship, why am I not
>>>> > > surprised!?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > There are a few Chinese manufacturers of large
>>>> > capacity NiMHs, e.g
>>>> > > http://nthaiyang.en.alibaba.com/. They are
>>>> pretty
>>>> > expensive though, I
>>>> > > got quoted US$153ea for 1.2V, 80Ah (600A peak
>>>> > discharge) cells, so it's
>>>> > > heading towards $20K for a ~10kWh pack! Ouch.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The option I'm currently looking at are Sub-Cs,
>>>> > due to their high
>>>> > > discharge rate (>10C). Manufacturer direct,
>>>> > they're about US$1.50 each
>>>> > > for 1.2v 3.5Ah, I'll need about 2500 of them for
>>>> > 10kWh. So twice the
>>>> > > price of the best lead acid, but half the weight
>>>> > and hopefully longer
>>>> > > cycle life. Using that many individual cells
>>>> seems
>>>> > silly, but it has
>>>> > > been done before, e.g the Tesla Roadster, or
>>>> White
>>>> > Lightning
>>>> >
>>>> > Lots of people are trying to use hundreds to
>>>> > thousands of small cells
>>>> > to make an EV sized battery pack. There are lots
>>>> of
>>>> > problems! Frankly,
>>>> > I'm pessimistic -- NO ONE has any long-term
>>>> > experience yet. I think it
>>>> > works in the short term, but will prove
>>>> impractical
>>>> > in the long run (too
>>>> > expensive, too unreliable). But, time will tell!
>>>> > --
>>>> > 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
>>>> beta.
>>>> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
>>> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
>> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
>> whatever I
>> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
>> legalistic signature is void.
>
> www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
> and the melting poles.
>
> www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
>
>
--
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 ---
the 10 watt per sq foot relies on what assumptions in conversion
efficiency and sunlight?
And is that a night day average or a constant sunlight number?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 3:24 pm, Steve Condie wrote:
As a WAG I'd say your estimate of 30 HP to cruise at freeway speed in a
vehicle of this type is probably not far off. Conventional assumptions
regarding losses means that takes about 30 KW. Using the traditional
10 watt per square foot rule of thumb for PV, that means 3,000 square
feet of PV panels would be needed. Several hundred feet in length
looks about right...
GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually I am thinking more
along the lines of a low acceleration
constant speed 65 70 mph type performance which was why I specifically
set that speed requirement there.
And the goal is too see if we can have a long enough vehicle to get
that
much sunlight to make it happen from the roof shine alone with no
batteries so it stays very light.
Or at least at what speed it is practical.
Now we all know the sunracers are small in length but that is because
the race has length of vehicle restrictions.
And the metrobus is trying to move a big old bus a few miles a day.
So this project idea is something different.
A lightweight long van type idea to see if there is some reasonable
highway speed that can be maintained for a low cd van type vehicle
without batteries (so weight is low) in near full sunshine.
Would it have to be 20 ft long and hinged in the middle?
My guess would be a 30 hp engine running a peak (so 30 hp) would move
an
aerodynamic van on level ground at 65 with bad acceleration which is
fine. Frankly maybe even less power is required (and it is power not
energy because the time is instantaneous)
Using your conversion 746watts =1 hp then say
22,000 watts at the wheel motors (no tranny to save mechanical losses.
Or maybe it could be a limo with a long body and lower height for even
less aerodynamic resistance.
Anyway at some point you reach a length that will will because roof
area
increases much faster than drag when you lengthen a vehicle. Hinging it
in the middle if necessary would be a drag because there would be more
wheel rolling resistance and joint aerodrag but still each section
should add to power more than take away with drag.
I just want to get to that magic length for a van or a limo so the
thing
could rol on level ground endlessly during sunny days..
Call it the solar wanderer or camper. The perfect long range low
operating cost cross country touring vehicle with sleeping space.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 1:59 pm, Steve Condie wrote:
Well, there are a lot of erroneous assumptions in this analysis, as
I'm
sure regulars here will have spotted.
Doug Weathers wrote: OK, let's see if I've got
these calculations down correctly.
On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:04 PM, GWMobile wrote:
How much energy does it take to make the ultra vane or the other one
everyone is talking about to go 65 or 70 mph?
You're asking about power, not energy, but never mind :) Power is
energy divided by time.
Watts and horsepower are both measurements of power. Since they're
measuring the same thing, they can be converted into each other, like
Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees of temperature.
In this case, 746 watts = 1 hp.
So to get an idea of how many watts are required to move a given
vehicle, look at the hp requirement to move the vehicle and multiply
by
746.
Uh - no. This is true in theory, but not in practice.
The standard engine 2005 Dodge Sprinter has a 154 hp engine, .
Therefore, an EV version of the Sprinter that has the same performance
as the gas version would need a powerplant that can produce 115
kilowatts.
Not really. ICE's are "peaky". An electric motor can achieve
"the same performance" in practice with a lower rating, because
of greater torque and a flatter power curve.
A Zilla 1K can produce 320 kilowatts, so this is doable.
The next thing you need to worry about, of course, is energy. For how
long can you produce this power from the battery pack? This
translates
into range.
Energy is power multiplied by time, so we talk about kilowatt-hours
(abbreviated Kwh). To travel for one hour at the Sprinter's top speed
will require 115 Kwh. That's pretty outrageous - let's try
restricting
top speed travel to half an hour, or 57.5 Kwh.
Well, I don't know where "the Sprinter's top speed" came from,
but maintaining speed at 65 or 70 mph will take less than 115Kw -
probably less than half that much.
A single US-145 battery can produce 6v at 75 amps for 154 minutes.
That's 6*75*154/60 or 1.2 Kwh.
However, that's running the battery all the way dead. It's
recommended
that you don't exceed 50% discharge or you'll kill your batteries in
short order. So let's assume the battery contains .6 Kwh.
This means that you would need 57.5/.6 or 96 of these batteries. They
weigh 70 pounds apiece, so that's 6720 pounds of batteries. The
Sprinter can't carry that much weight!
These numbers are misleading, though - if your amp draw exceeds 75
amps, which it probably will since you're hauling so many pounds of
batteries, the energy you can get out the batteries will drop due to
something called Peukert's Effect. You probably should only count on
15 minutes of full-speed travel.
Practical experience (the late Red Beastie -
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/037.html ) has shown that freeway
speed in an unaerodynamic vehicle can be maintained for an hour
with less than half that weight in batteries.
You should definitely not travel at full speed if you want any kind of
range at all.
So that's your starting point. You can lower power requirements by
reducing your performance requirements, but you're on your own there.
I understand that there are various pieces of software that can help
determine hp requirements for race cars - perhaps one of those could
be
used to get a more precise number.
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://www.gdunge.com/
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The company that sells these (PowerStream) is in Orem, Utah.
I assume they must be legally importing them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
> Easy, China is notorious for violating patents.
>
> Now try importing these batteries to the US. You /might/ get lucky and
> get one set in.
>
> > http://www.powerstream.com/Ni-Prism.htm
> >
> > has NiMH cells with capacities from 12 to 100 AH. How do they get
around
> > Chevron's patent?
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Lemke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
> >
> >
> >> Because Chevron Oil now owns the patent rights for NiMH batteries of
the
> > size of 10 a/hr and larger.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why can't the EAA hire some fundraiser(s), rake in the
> >> cash, initialize an EV-size NIMH production facility,
> >> and sell to members at an affordable price? How hard
> >> can it be?
> >>
> >> Mark
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 ---
Does anyone know the exact patent number for this Cobasys / Chevron NiMH
patent?
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: NiMH Batteries (was Re: Introductions)
> But this does not stop people from making the original patented
> formulation which falls into public domain.
> Lipitor just fell into public domain.
> Do you think merck would have allowed it if there had been any way to
> game the system?
>
> Nimh batteries as originally patented will fall into public domain 17
> yrs after the origianl patent date which probably is only 5 or 10 yrs
> away. Then anyone will be able to make them without paying royalties or
> getting permission.
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:00 pm, Lee Hart wrote:
> > From: Kenneth Dove
> >> This is definitely NOT the case as concerns pharmaceuticals. Patents
> >> expire after 17 years.
> >
> > With pharmaceuticals, it appears the favorite method is to reformulate
> > the drug slightly, and patent it again.
> > --
> > Lee Hart
>
> www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
> and the melting poles.
>
> www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is rare that the original concept of a patent gets extended.
Trademarks and copyright however have been extended by congress far
longer than originally established. The mickey mouse disney case
prompted the latest extension when I think disney fought the fact that
mickey was about to go into public domain and congress changed the law.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:00 pm, Kenneth Dove wrote:
This is definitely NOT the case as concerns pharmaceuticals. Patents
expire after 17 years.
Lee Hart wrote:
From: D3
When is this patent scheduled to expire and fall into "public domain"?
Probably "never". There are lots of legal tricks now being used to
extend patents indefinitely. For instance, you claim there was an
error in the patent, and re-file an amended version. This re-starts
the timer all over again. If Chevron/Cobasys is truly interested in
maintaining the patent, it they have the financial and legal resources
to drag in on indefinitely.
The sad fact is that the only way a patent expires nowdays is that the
owner dies or ceases to pay the legal fees to maintain it. Or, that
some competitor with a huge war chest challenges its validity in
court. Decades and tens of millions of dollars later, the patent may
get invalidated.
--
Lee Hart
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Eveeyone is ignoring the criteria.
Lets stick to extending the length to increase the solar input from the
roof and just see how long we have to be to get 65 or 70 mph using
direct soalr drive to hub motors without batteries.
Again the solar races have a rule limiting length which is why they
can't go faster (can't use more pv's) . We don't.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:00 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Check out the solar racing teams. These vehicles are indeed made out
of
carbon fiber and titanium, and are extremely aerodynamic. Most the
driver
has to lay down and just barely fits inside. Some (most?) have budgets
in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And with all of that they can't drive at 70 mph using just their
massive
solar panels that cover the top of the vehicle. They need to use their
onboard batteries to hit these kinds of speeds.
Solar races generally have a solar charging period in the morning, a
racing period, and then another solar charging period in the afternoon.
And even
So assuming money was no object, could you just build a vehicle from
scratch out of titanium or carbon fibre in order for it to be
lightweight enough to make a difference? Or will something
6'x15'x6' (WxLxH) still be too big to go anywhere faster than a snail?
On Feb 17, 2007, at 1:22 AM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
From: Jerry McIntire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 17, 2007 1:18:46 AM CST
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: At what cd (drag coef) and roof size for a van would
the drag of the vehicle be less than the electricity generating
rate of pv's on the roof?
I'm going to take an educated guess-- with a Grand Caravan covered
with PV, maybe 2-3 mph continuous. NO freeway speeds.
Take a look at the solar race vehicles, extremely light with lots
of PV. They can generate some decent speeds, but a minivan?!?
Forget drag, the weight of the van is the biggest factor.
Jerry
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So it needs to be a land train then.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 2:24 pm, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
let's be generous and say that we get 100W out of every 2ft length of
van.
To get 20 kW it will need to be 400 ft long.
That is why you don't see a car run forever on a freeway on solar
panels
alone.
And that of course assumes that a 400 ft long van doesn't weight any
more
or have any extra drag. I came up with closer to 800 feet, then again
I
started with the Sprinter's frontal area (about 50% more than an S10)
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As you remember, I put in a new 1200A Raptor, and had
a new set of batteries installed in Jan. With 225 mi.
under my belt on the new Raptor, I have an issue that
is cropping up, and I'm stumped to figure out what the
heck it is.
After I've put about 6-9 mi. on the pack, (2-3 kWh
or so), I get some huge battery voltage sags. I mean
from 146V down to 89V or so. It's just a few seconds,
maybe 5 at the most, so I'm not entirely fearful for
destroying the pack, but I've never seen this before!
Is it still a part of the break-in period on the
batteries? Perhaps I should not be so hasty to
charge; ie drain the batts. harder? I usually don't
charge unless I've pulled 3 kWh or more out. If I let
the car rest an hour, the problem disappears!
Maybe I need to do some harder equalizing. I've been
charging until current falls to 2.8-2.9A. Maybe they
can go lower? The voltages look good, but I must
admit I've yet to make an SG reading...
- I've turned down the current max control on the
Raptor, as I only need 600A. Am I not turned down
enough, and the effects of high current draws on the
motor are causing this? That would seem to me to
affect motor amps, which I don't monitor, not battery
amps, though... Should I turn the max current to full?
This has really got me vexed, guys! Appreciate the help.
Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too!
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Now that's what I'm talking about. I've actually been brewing a plan
like this in my head for quite some time – even before I started
researching EV land cars, but at that time I was thinking more along
the lines of a water vessel. I just don't know enough yet to
confidently start such a project. I need to learn more first, which
is the plan.
As far as the tent-camping idea, that won't do it for me on a long-
term basis. This vehicle is meant to be a living area, not a storage
locker. I'll have a small refrigerator and a couple other small
appliances. I might be thrifty, but I'm not anxious to have people
look at me with pity and drop quarters into my cup. I'm just trying
to demonstrate the excess of consumer culture, the foolishness of
environmental degradation, and the greed demonstrated by two people
living in a house big enough for an army of 50 on land big enough to
feed an entire third-world country. I need to do it in style, though,
or the message will fall on deaf ears. I'm perfectly capable of doing
the industrial design parts competently, it's just the engineering
stuff I'll have to learn from scratch.
As for my size, I'm 5'8" and 120 lbs. So, I'm no couch potato, but I
haven't done any heavy lifting in a while so I'm a bit puny at the
moment, but these ideas are awesome. How cool would it be to make a
hybrid that operated on a combination of solar, wind, electric, and
human power? When one source dries up for the day, start another.
Might turn into a logistical nightmare, though. I'll have to read more.
The main challenge will be figuring out how to make it happen without
it taking years to finish. I'm looking at about a six-month timeframe
for completion, so I have to take extra time for planning to make
sure I do it right the first time.
I've never heard of some of these vehicles you mentioned, so I'm
going to Google them to see what else I can find out this weekend.
On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
If you build a vehicle from scratch, there are many more things
you can do. People have built vehicles that use about half the
above amounts of power. For example, the GM EV1 was as low as 160
wh/mi, and the Solectria Sunrise I'm working on got down to 120 wh/
mi.
Special "no holds barred" vehicles can get even lower. The solar
race cars are around 20 wh/mi; the Swiss Twike is 40 wh/mi. These
tend to be ultra-light ultra-streamlined ultra-efficient vehicles
that are very far from normal.
If you are "up" for a big project, it is possible to build an
ultra-light, ultra-streamlined, ultra-efficient vehicle that is
big enough to live/camp in. It would probably look like the
Ultravan, or Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion car (scaled to whatever
size you needed). Be aware that you would be exploring largely
uncharted areas; most people have no experience in this, so their
advice is likely to be mostly "noise".
If you want something you can do right now, on a budget, with
limited skills and resources, you might look for one of the old
postal step-vans that have been the subject of EV conversions.
Candidates include a Grumman postal van (an all-aluminum van with
a VW front end and engine), Commuter Vehicles ComutaVan
("stretched" Citicar) , Battronic Minivan, or AM General Electruck
(postal jeep).
On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
A lightweight long van type idea to see if there is some reasonable
highway speed that can be maintained for a low cd van type vehicle
without batteries (so weight is low) in near full sunshine.
Would it have to be 20 ft long and hinged in the middle?
My guess would be a 30 hp engine running a peak (so 30 hp) would
move an
aerodynamic van on level ground at 65 with bad acceleration which is
fine. Frankly maybe even less power is required (and it is power not
energy because the time is instantaneous)
Using your conversion 746watts =1 hp then say
22,000 watts at the wheel motors (no tranny to save mechanical
losses.
Or maybe it could be a limo with a long body and lower height for
even
less aerodynamic resistance.
Anyway at some point you reach a length that will will because
roof area
increases much faster than drag when you lengthen a vehicle.
Hinging it
in the middle if necessary would be a drag because there would be
more
wheel rolling resistance and joint aerodrag but still each section
should add to power more than take away with drag.
I just want to get to that magic length for a van or a limo so the
thing
could rol on level ground endlessly during sunny days..
Call it the solar wanderer or camper. The perfect long range low
operating cost cross country touring vehicle with sleeping space.
On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
Better yet, build a small vehicle, light weight with good enough
storage.
Figure out the minimal amount of gear you need to take and make the
vehicle just big eough to carry that and as many batteries as you can
stuff in it.
Perhaps start with the frame from a late 80's 1 ton toyota pickup
(these
were actually quite small. If you build a low profile, light
weight body,
this will allow you to carry 1 ton of batteries.
That should get you 120-150 miles range as long as you don't drive to
fast. Farther if you drive at say 30 mph.
If you are recharging from solar, then you won't be able to drive
that far
every day, parhaps once a week.
Or maybe go even smaller, and carry less gear. Think backpacking.
Build
something like this:
http://www.blueskydsn.com/BugE_Concept.html
but a bit bigger so you can carry perhaps 10-12 bateries instead
of only
4, and your dogs of course.
This is close to your budget too.
How athletic are you? Even a couch potato can produce 70-100
watts while
pedaling. Make a pedal powered generator and pedal it while
writing or
possibly even while driving. The nice thing about this is you can
produce
power even at night.
3 hours of pedaling should easily provide you with 200-300 watts,
twice
that if you are in excellent shape. That's enough to charge about
one
battery. At 120W solar panel can produce at least that much in a
day if
you have good sunlight.
Your first question was why are EVs so small, the reason is it
costs too
much to make them big. If you don't have a lot of money, think
small.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: GWMobile
>But this does not stop people from making the original patented
>formulation which falls into public domain.
>Lipitor just fell into public domain.
>Do you think merck would have allowed it if there had been any way to
>game the system?
They don't always succeed. But they always try! :-)
Patents originally described the idea in terms clear enough that one "skilled
in the art" could understand and duplicate it. It wasn't illegal to build a
patented invention; only to *sell* it for profit. It was expected that people
(even competitors!) would build it to test and evaluate, and perhaps even
improve it.
Take a look at any of Tom Edison's patents. They are clear and concise; you can
readily understand it, and even built it.
But patents today have become very strange documents. Rather than explain, they
are written to hide the idea with legal jargon, convoluted wording, and other
tricks. Rather than enable you to built or test it, they'll leave out key data,
or spread it between many unrelated patents.
The danger in this game is that if you make the patent *too* obscure, or leave
out important information that renders the idea unusable, your competitors will
use this as grounds to get your patent invalidated.
When ECD wrote the original nimh patent, they had no idea how to actually
*make* a practical cell -- so it isn't in the patent. They stumbled around a
long time trying. Their licensees are the ones who figured out how to do it
(and wrote their own patents along the way).
To make a practical nimh cell, you'd have to use information from many separate
patents. Each one will have its own licensing agreements to navigate before you
could sell any cells. And, you'd find that a lot of information was missing in
the patents -- the inventors won't tell you until *after* you sign the
agreement.
--
Lee Hart
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Bath wrote
I get some huge battery voltage sags. I mean
from 146V down to 89V or so. It's just a few seconds,
maybe 5 at the most, so I'm not entirely fearful for
destroying the pack, but I've never seen this before!
I've had a similar problem. Diagnosis: loose wire in my home-made
expanded scale voltmeter.
Battery amps not affected.
John in Sylmar, CA
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: csilver
>Now that's what I'm talking about...
OK; If we throw enough ideas out, you might find one that is appealing. Let us
know, and we can find more like it.
One more I thought of is the R. Q. Riley "Phoenix".
<http://rqriley.com/phx.html>
It's a camper van body that you build on an old VW microbus chassis. Small and
light for travelling, but it opens up when parked to be roomy enough to live
in. Though an old design, it could be considerably upgraded with what we know
today. For instance, the roof could be solar cells, so you have several times
the area when parked and unfolded.
>I've never heard of some of these vehicles you mentioned, so I'm
>going to Google them to see what else I can find out this weekend.
Even Google will have trouble with them :-) They were limited production
vehicles, not sold to the general public. But you'll find people on the EV list
that have or have had all of them, and they occasionally turn up in junkyards
or Ebay. You can get a great deal if the seller doesn't know what he's got.
--
Lee Hart
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This argument that info is hidden is common but it simply isn't true.
Patents must be defended therefore they are as explicit as possible
while being as broad as possible - not mutually exclusive.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 4:52 pm, Lee Hart wrote:
From: GWMobile
But this does not stop people from making the original patented
formulation which falls into public domain.
Lipitor just fell into public domain.
Do you think merck would have allowed it if there had been any way to
game the system?
They don't always succeed. But they always try! :-)
Patents originally described the idea in terms clear enough that one
"skilled in the art" could understand and duplicate it. It wasn't
illegal to build a patented invention; only to *sell* it for profit. It
was expected that people (even competitors!) would build it to test and
evaluate, and perhaps even improve it.
Take a look at any of Tom Edison's patents. They are clear and concise;
you can readily understand it, and even built it.
But patents today have become very strange documents. Rather than
explain, they are written to hide the idea with legal jargon,
convoluted wording, and other tricks. Rather than enable you to built
or test it, they'll leave out key data, or spread it between many
unrelated patents.
The danger in this game is that if you make the patent *too* obscure,
or leave out important information that renders the idea unusable, your
competitors will use this as grounds to get your patent invalidated.
When ECD wrote the original nimh patent, they had no idea how to
actually *make* a practical cell -- so it isn't in the patent. They
stumbled around a long time trying. Their licensees are the ones who
figured out how to do it (and wrote their own patents along the way).
To make a practical nimh cell, you'd have to use information from many
separate patents. Each one will have its own licensing agreements to
navigate before you could sell any cells. And, you'd find that a lot of
information was missing in the patents -- the inventors won't tell you
until *after* you sign the agreement.
--
Lee Hart
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: GWMobile
> This argument that info is hidden is common but it simply isn't true.
> Patents must be defended therefore they are as explicit as possible
> while being as broad as possible - not mutually exclusive.
I'll give you an example. Edwin Land of Polaroid was a genius at writing
patents. The patent for the SX70 instant film meticulously listed every
ingredient, plus a lot that weren't necessary. It listed the amounts of each
ingredient, but as ranges; 2-5% of this, 10-30% of that, etc. It listed the
processing steps needed, but in a "one or more of the following..." manner.
Eastman Kodak spent years trying to make film from the instructions in that
patent. They eventually gave up, and invented their own version of instant
film. When it came out, Polaroid sued them for patent infringement. After many
expensive court battles, Polaroid won. They were able to convince the judge
that buried among the millions of permutations of the descriptions in that
patent, the method Kodak used could be inferred. Kodak had to pay damages, and
recalled and destroyed millions of dollars worth of their instant camera
products.
--
Lee Hart
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Roden wrote:
> Delta-Q chargers are reportedly of higher quality, though I
> think I recall reading that they're produced by contract
> assembly plants in China.
Yes, but by *a specific* (ISO900x, etc. certified) contract manufacturer
in China. While we are all familiar with low quality Chinese products,
it is the case that there are manufacturers there who can deliver high
quality products.
Delta-Q is a Canadian company, and all of its products are designed by
our engineering team here in Canada, and all product support is from our
Canadian office.
> Also, regrettably, the Delta-Q algorithm is not under user
> control. With some chargers, when a battery in your pack
> goes south, you can just remove it, adjust the charger's
> finish voltage, and keep driving for a while. Not so with
> a Zivan or Delta-Q. Such changes require factory (or perhaps
> dealer) intervention.
Mostly correct. Each Delta-Q charger comes with up to 10 charge
algorithms installed that the user can select from amongst, and users
can purchase an optional USB dongle that allows them to install other
algorithms or software updates themselves using the charger's serial
communications capability.
Cheers,
Roger (who works for Delta-Q ;^).
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Bath wrote:
> After I've put about 6-9 mi. on the pack, (2-3 kWh
> or so), I get some huge battery voltage sags. I mean
> from 146V down to 89V or so. It's just a few seconds,
> maybe 5 at the most, so I'm not entirely fearful for
> destroying the pack, but I've never seen this before!
You wrote not that long ago about odd E-Meter readings since installing
the DCP1200, and as I recall you tracked it down to interference from
the traction wiring with the higher current controller. Is a new
problem, or the same one? Are you sure? ;^>
> If I let the car rest an hour, the problem disappears!
Disappears as in you can now put a further 6-9mi of similar driving on
the pack without the sag reappearing? If it disappears, but you don't
actually drive as far as you did before the problem first appeared (or
drive as hard), then it might be a temperature-related problem
(something gets hot, results in sag, cools off in 1hr rest, and you then
don't drive far/hard enough to heat it back up, so it seems the problem
has 'cured' itself)
> The voltages look good, but I must
> admit I've yet to make an SG reading...
An hour's rest would give time for the acid to diffuse and might let a
weak cell 'recover' enough that you wouldn't see the sag immediately
upon resuming driving, but if the sag remains 'cured' as you continue
driving, then I can't see it being a problem related to a
weak/undercharged cell(s).
> - I've turned down the current max control on the
> Raptor, as I only need 600A. Am I not turned down
> enough, and the effects of high current draws on the
> motor are causing this? That would seem to me to
> affect motor amps, which I don't monitor, not battery
> amps, though... Should I turn the max current to full?
The DCP current limit only sets battery current, not motor loop current.
So, you've got the battery side limited to 600A, but the DCP1200 will
still happily push more current through your motor whenever the present
motor operating point (speed, load) allows.
You may still have some EMI issues if you've got any E-Meter wiring
running near the controller or the motor loop wiring.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There's a guy here in Anchorage working on a conversion for a highschool
project that he wants to finish by the end of the year.
Anybody have a 6.7" to 8" motor and/or a 120V to 144V controller they'd be
willing to sell? He's still working on the donor, maybe
a Bug or metro or something of the sort.
Thanks
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a bunch of 26/24 ga non-insulated ring terminals, but I have no
bottoming die to crimp them with. I can get by using the 22/18ga crimp
notch on a pair of cheap crimp/cut/strip tools, but it lacks repeatability.
Does anyone know _definitively_ (please, no "this site / store has a
whole bunch of die types" -- I've searched the sites already) where I
can get a die set (ideal /paladin style) that will crimp ring terminals
this small? Alternatively, does anyone know of a die that's not for
uninsulated ring terminals, but will crimp them properly, or does anyone
have any suggestions on how to do reliable repeatable crimps?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Cor, lots of cool looking leaning 3 wheelers on
that web site.
I've been listening to the chatter from my 9 year old
son all day about how cool the Carver vehicle is and
how we should be driving one (we watched all of the
videos on the Carver web site, pretty cool indeed).
this has certainly sparked the interest of my 9 year
old son. Hopefully I can get him interested enough to
help me build my next EV (which is the plan!). Lee
Hart has the right idea in promoting future EV'rs with
his BEST program. I helped send him a pallet of
treadmill motors that will help with this project. If
they can't be used for the BEST program hopefully they
can be used on one of his other projects. Sharing
resources on this list definitely helps promote the EV
cause.
Thanks for the link!
Rod
--- Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An overview I found here:
> http://www.tonyfoale.com/gallery/Trike/index.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Rod Hower
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:10 AM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: FreedomEV Competition - or just more
> hype?
>
> Ebfield
> Are you sure this is spelled correctly?
> I couldn't find anything close on google (or google
> images).
> Thanks,
> Rod
> --- jerryd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Don and All,
> >
> >
> > >From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> > >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:15 PM
> > >Subject: FreedomEV Competition - or just more
> hype?
> > >
> > >
> > >> http://www.flytheroad.com/
> >
> > Neat unit but as far as competition, I'm
> not worried ;^D
> > I agree with it's methods, design as I was
> planning on doing a
> > narrow vehicle MOL like it so if sucessful saves
> me from doing that. I
> > own 2 Honda Gyro's that use the same tilting
> principles and they are
> > the best handling, braking narrow MC's I've ever
> ridden but that also
> > makes me wonder just what Carver has patented.
> Ebfield also made one.
> > At least it's not as ugly as the Carver was.
> > It's a completely different market than
> the Freedom EV and not
> > anywhere near as safe and doesn't have side by
> side seating which will
> > probably doom it in the US for real high mass
> production.
> > And they will have a very hard time
> building it for that
> > price. It will need better aero if they want the
> range they say on
> > batteries at that price if even then.
> >
> > Jerry Dycus
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
