EV Digest 6450
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Battery load tester
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) global warming - 25 inconvenient facts about the argument
by "Seth Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: NiMH D size battery closeout
by "Rick Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: 450 HP in 60 little Orange Boxes!
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: global warming - 25 inconvenient facts about the argument
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: global warming - 25 inconvenient facts about the argument
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: "New" motors for the KillaCycle
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) "electric" emblem
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) 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 Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Torqeedo Power lithium-manganese
by Lock Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: "electric" emblem
by "Dr. Andy Mars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: "electric" emblem
by "George J. Jones, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) 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 Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: global warming - 25 inconvenient facts about the argument
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) BMS comparison
by "Osmo S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) 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 Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) 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 Steve Condie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) RE: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I have two load testers. The typical 12V battery tester that has heating
elements in a metal case combined with a voltmeter - its for 12V but I am
sure will work for 8V. Purchase it at your local auto store.
The other one I have is a couple of coils of coat hanger I immerse into a
bucket of water. Gives me a nice 100A draw, but a little difficult to lug
around.
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 Richard Acuti
Sent: February 21, 2007 4:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Battery load tester
I'm about to buy a new pack of 8v floodeds for my car.
I usually read that folks who buy bulk batteries like this test each one
before they let the delivery guy go.
Obviously a just a voltmeter isn't the answer. Is there a load tester I can
buy or can I build one cheaply? I envision something like a string of
lightbulbs across the terminals while measuring voltage.
Thanks,
Rich A.
_________________________________________________________________
Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Top school degrees online - in as
fast as 1 year
http://forms.nextag.com/goto.jsp?url=/serv/main/buyer/education.jsp?doSearch
=n&tm=y&search=education_text_links_88_h288c&s=4079&p=5116
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
this may be a bit off topic, but as a sort of review (a national review,
actually) of one of the a priori
principles behind the electric car movement, global warming and the
environment, I for one appreciate hearing all sides of the issue. See The
National Review's take on the Inconvenient Truth movie:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
I heard that Al Gore has recently had to recant and 'qualify' some of
the material and the quotes he gave in the movie (can't find any references,
please send them along if anybody can find news stories about it), and in
searching for reviews of it (other than adulatory Al worshipping ones), ran
across this. I've always liked William Buckley and his National Review, a
political leaning that certainly puts me at odds with Al Gore on most
everything, and likely with part of the evdl list. But, as the search for
truth in the matter should be the guiding principle, I would welcome any
knowledgeable commentary on this.
I am planning on starting a local midwest ev group, and don't want to be a
propagandist on fundamental principles, represent all sides fairly, etc.
I imagine such a topic could evoke tons of heated commentary, but
perhaps a few knowledgeable
remarks might be in order. I know the So. Cal smog thing is always a big
concern and argument, but historically similar (though likely less nasty)
smog was found there by the early explorers, some sort of 'thermal
inversion' due to the geography, right?
I think the ev argument about this and CO2 esp. is that, even with pure
coal produced electricity (much like here in OH, something like 90% or 99%
of OH electrical energy comes from our coal), CO2 emissions are about 3/4
what they are due to regualr combustion engines (so that's good, plus I hear
that you can request your energy be from renewable sources, for something
like a 20% rate hike, but then you could drive an electrtic car 'entirely
fueled by renewable energy' (it just gets allotted to their renewables
purchases, though the electrons don't know where they are coming form, of
course). Plus of course you can deal with plant greenhouses gases at the
plant a little easier than from out of your car (i.e. not going to retrofit
CO2 traps on existing cars, though plants can always be made cleaner,
presumably).
Thanks,
Seth Myers
p.s. I leave on vacation in a day, and so likely won't be around for much of
the ensuing fireworks ...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So sorry for being a little stupid about this but how would I go about
making a test rack for these cells? Do you use resistance heaters? Light
bulbs? I would like to at least test a couple cells and give it a shot.
Thanks for the help and advice.
-Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John G. Lussmyer
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: NiMH D size battery closeout
The ones at the link I posted are cheaper.
At 03:27 PM 2/20/2007, Ian Hooper wrote:
>Cheapest (D cells) per Ah I've come across:
>
>http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=568
>
>On 21/02/2007, at 4:37 AM, John G. Lussmyer wrote:
>
>>At 11:19 AM 2/20/2007, Rick Todd wrote:
>>>I was snooping around the internet and stumbled upon a closeout of
>>>NiMH D
>>>size rechargeable cells. Here is the link if anyone is interested.
>>>
>>>http://www.onlybatteries.com/showitem.asp?
ItemID=13883.61&cat1=14&uid=1425
>>
>>I think these are cheaper per AH:
>>http://www.onlybatteries.com/showitem.asp?ItemID=13768
>>
>>--
>>John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://
>>www.CasaDelGato.com
>>
>
>
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all
--- John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a new slogan at Plasma Boy Racing....11's in
> 07!
What's the saying gonna be in 4 years... 7's in '011
LMAO!
Can't wait to see you race this year John. Should be
a good race year all the way around. Best of luck to
all you guys pushing the limits!
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 21 Feb 2007 at 9:35, Seth Myers wrote:
> this may be a bit off topic, but as a sort of review (a national review,
> actually) of one of the a priori principles behind the electric car
> movement, global warming and the environment, I for one appreciate hearing
> all sides of the issue.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is an appropriate topic for discussion on the
EVDL.
I don't see serious problems with passing references to the subject, though I
don't think they're especially helpful. But when it comes to an explicit
discussion of climate change, the phrase "... tons of heated commentary ..."
doesn't begin to cover it. If we get into this, it WILL start arguments. That
will distract us from the main purpose of the EVDL, which is to get people
into the seats of EVs. The signal to noise ratio of the list will drop
perilously
close to unity. We will lose members. These are not good things.
Friends, it doesn't matter to anyone here - or at least it shouldn't - why you
want to (or already do) drive an EV. Whether you do it for environmental
reasons, or because it's different, or because you want energy
independence, or because you're sore about fluctuating fuel prices, or
because you like the quiet smoothness, or whatever - you're here on the
EVDL because you're interested in EVs. Nobody should need to convince
you.
Our raison d'etre here is to help you build or buy an EV, not argue about why.
By the time you get here, you should be beyond that.
If you want to read about the climate change controversy, I encourage you to
do so somewhere else. There are thousands of websites and publications,
all the way from reasoned to frantic, where you can read and consider the
arguments. That's what search engines are for. Go for it.
If you want to argue about it, at Yahoo Groups, the search terms "global
warming" turn up 420 hits (!) for groups mentioning these words in their
descriptions. Google Groups has 91 matches. Get thee hence, and flame
away all you wish. But please DO NOT discuss climate change on the
EVDL.
IMO, these discussions are a waste of time anyway. This is a subject on
which almost all minds are already made up. You should quit writing (and
fighting) about this stuff, and get out there and work on your EV!
David Roden
EVDL Administrator
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is off topic, please only post on subjects directly related to building
EVs.
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 Seth Myers
Sent: February 21, 2007 6:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: global warming - 25 inconvenient facts about the argument
this may be a bit off topic, but as a sort of review (a national review,
actually) of one of the a priori
principles behind the electric car movement, global warming and the
environment, I for one appreciate hearing all sides of the issue. See The
National Review's take on the Inconvenient Truth movie:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjF
lNjc=
I heard that Al Gore has recently had to recant and 'qualify' some of
the material and the quotes he gave in the movie (can't find any references,
please send them along if anybody can find news stories about it), and in
searching for reviews of it (other than adulatory Al worshipping ones), ran
across this. I've always liked William Buckley and his National Review, a
political leaning that certainly puts me at odds with Al Gore on most
everything, and likely with part of the evdl list. But, as the search for
truth in the matter should be the guiding principle, I would welcome any
knowledgeable commentary on this.
I am planning on starting a local midwest ev group, and don't want to be a
propagandist on fundamental principles, represent all sides fairly, etc.
I imagine such a topic could evoke tons of heated commentary, but
perhaps a few knowledgeable remarks might be in order. I know the So. Cal
smog thing is always a big concern and argument, but historically similar
(though likely less nasty) smog was found there by the early explorers, some
sort of 'thermal inversion' due to the geography, right?
I think the ev argument about this and CO2 esp. is that, even with pure
coal produced electricity (much like here in OH, something like 90% or 99%
of OH electrical energy comes from our coal), CO2 emissions are about 3/4
what they are due to regualr combustion engines (so that's good, plus I hear
that you can request your energy be from renewable sources, for something
like a 20% rate hike, but then you could drive an electrtic car 'entirely
fueled by renewable energy' (it just gets allotted to their renewables
purchases, though the electrons don't know where they are coming form, of
course). Plus of course you can deal with plant greenhouses gases at the
plant a little easier than from out of your car (i.e. not going to retrofit
CO2 traps on existing cars, though plants can always be made cleaner,
presumably).
Thanks,
Seth Myers
p.s. I leave on vacation in a day, and so likely won't be around for much of
the ensuing fireworks ...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all
--- Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully Jim can chime in and tell us what he did
> to these motors.
First off, thanks Bill for the kind words and your
trust in letting me work on your baby's!
I plan on putting up a detailed report on what I found
when I get time. I just got over having the flu for
the second time in like 3 weeks which has totally
sucked (actually it blew, lmao). Some nasty bugs
running around Oregon right now.
Anyway what I noticed was a repeated failure to the
same area on the brush holders. There was in fact
signs that something did get into the motor on at
least one of the CE plates as Bill descibed in his
post a while back. Regardless, the damage was all in
the same location, so that gives me a history.
Besides beefing up the brush leads with .250 X .500
copper (triple wrapped with Fusa Fab) I installed a
Nomex shield to cover the thin (easy to melt) springs
to the area where the terminal and leads are closest
to the opposing holders.
I also trimmed the ears off the holders and gave them
all 3 coats of Glyptal. I learned that I have to wait
at least a day between coats or it blisters which
happened on the first plate and ticked me off
something awefull!
I also coated the riser and comm face of the armature
and hand picked each mica slot by hand about 15 times
(lol) to remove all the smear between them. This was
in fact a new L91 motor so the comm is OEM. It's my
hope that by getting those mica slots nice and crisp
it'll help to prevent the flashover from happening, at
least a little more resistant to it. The Nomex shield
will hopefully protect the fragile springs if it does
arc, where Bill can get additional run in if it can be
kept to the main body of the holder and not melt the
springs to plasma.
Bill doesn't have an RPM issue, so I didn't feel a
need to Kevlar band the comm. What I'm finding is
what's good for the goose, isn't always needed for the
gander so to speak. Wayland, Bill, and Rod for
example all have differnt needs so I try to work with
them to help solve those issues the best I can.
Wayland is going to be getting up to the RPM's here
soon that could benifet from the Kevlar banded comm!
BTW Bill, Wayland got to hold your plates before you
got to, being he came by the day before I shipped them
out, hehe. Hopefully I'll get to do some upgrades to
his motor being I've added to the bag of tricks a
little since I built his. Anyway I'll get some pics
up of both the damage and some additional pics of the
upgrades here soon.
Hopefully this shines some light on what was done and
why.
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
I am looking for whoever got the "electric" car emblem manufactured. I want
to make some of my own (for a completely different product), and want to
find a manufacturer.
thanks
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here's a quick calculation of the size EV that might be needed to
sustain 60 MPH using solar cells in full sunlight (1000W/sq. meter):
Start with a flatbed about the size of a standard US tractor trailer (53
feet by 8 feet). This measures in at close to 40 square meters. Cover
it with monocrystalline solar cells at 15% efficiency. This gives
around 6KW in full sunlight (40 sq. meters * 1000W/sq. meter * .15).
You'd need to make this long, flat vehicle aerodynamic and lightweight
enough to get 100Wh/mile at 60MPH in order to work out to 6KW
(100Wh/mile * 1mile/60seconds * 3600seconds/hour). So if my math is
right, then this gives a vehicle about the length and width of a tractor
trailer that can achieve 100Wh/mile to run on solar cells. 40 sq.
meters of solar cells in aluminum frames weigh in at about 1600 lbs., so
you'd probably need to ditch the frames and attach the cells directly to
keep the weight down.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just some batts I haven't seen mentioned on the EVDL. Being marketed
for marine propulsion, but may be of interest to lubbers also...
Seen here:
http://www.torqeedo.com/en/hn/products/power/product-description.html
or tinyURL here:
http://tinyurl.com/324my8
Torqeedo Power 37-58
37.0 V
58 Ah
2,137 Wh
19 (41.9) Kg (lbs)
3 Hr mi. charge time
After 500 cycles of discharging the batteries down to 20% of their
charge and recharging them to full capacity, Torqeedo Power batteries
still carry 90% of their original capacity.
tks
Lock
Toronto
human-electric hybrid pedestrian
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Go to http://gettagz.com/ for any custom emblem you want - or e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or call her at 877.563.1233 - she is very helpful -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: "electric" emblem
Hi all,
I am looking for whoever got the "electric" car emblem manufactured. I
want
to make some of my own (for a completely different product), and want to
find a manufacturer.
thanks
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 2/21/2007
3:19 PM
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.austinev.org/evtradinpost/signs.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: "electric" emblem
Hi all,
I am looking for whoever got the "electric" car emblem manufactured. I
want
to make some of my own (for a completely different product), and want to
find a manufacturer.
thanks
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You know, people complain about the "new math" but one thing I like that my
kids were taught was to make a rough approximation of the answer from known
data and see if the answer you get from your calculation corresponds - just to
make sure you're not off by an order of magnitude or something.
My response to this post was "6KW is about 6 HP. 6 HP won't move a flatbed
truck at 60 MPH."
Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's a quick calculation of the size
EV that might be needed to
sustain 60 MPH using solar cells in full sunlight (1000W/sq. meter):
Start with a flatbed about the size of a standard US tractor trailer (53
feet by 8 feet). This measures in at close to 40 square meters. Cover
it with monocrystalline solar cells at 15% efficiency. This gives
around 6KW in full sunlight (40 sq. meters * 1000W/sq. meter * .15).
You'd need to make this long, flat vehicle aerodynamic and lightweight
enough to get 100Wh/mile at 60MPH in order to work out to 6KW
(100Wh/mile * 1mile/60seconds * 3600seconds/hour). So if my math is
right, then this gives a vehicle about the length and width of a tractor
trailer that can achieve 100Wh/mile to run on solar cells. 40 sq.
meters of solar cells in aluminum frames weigh in at about 1600 lbs., so
you'd probably need to ditch the frames and attach the cells directly to
keep the weight down.
Bill Dennis
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup project and noticed that
for one likely configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts T-145, Curtis 1231)
that the most efficient point of operation was generally in the lowest gear
possible (i.e. highest numerically) without overspeeding the motor. "Most
efficient" for me means minimum battery amps used.
For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient (66 amps), with 2nd gear
requiring 78 amps and 3rd gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or so which
isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to for very long. At higher
speeds the difference seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear would pull 191
amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because of the 9" motors
theoretical efficiency curve? Does real-life bear these calculations out? etc.
40 mph is a popular speed out here in the country so this may be a practical
question after all.
thanks,
Frank
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yeah!
Stop arguing and build an ev!
Use that hot air to power your car :-)
. You should quit writing (and
fighting) about this stuff, and get out there and work on your EV!
David Roden
EVDL Administrator
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 ---
Hello All,
I´d like to hear your comments about these two BMS - how do they
compare to each other? Which one would you choose to control lithium
cells? Are there others to choose from?
http://tinyurl.com/2wmw2e
http://tinyurl.com/3bdj7j (see PDF in english)
terveisin,
Osmo
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Frank
I would highly recommend you do NOT run the ADC 9" at
6600 rpms, even in short durations. Although the only
hard data I have on the comm rpm limit was a blown
comm (well actually it just cracked in 3 places but
same difference) at 7000 rpms. It happened when the
armture was not hot or being used really, the car was
on blocks trying to set the rev limiter when it blew.
John Benson learned the hard way, hopefully you can
benifet from his hard knock which will prevent you
from a costly mistake and an expensive motor rebuild
or replacement. ADC lists the limit at 5K and you
might get away with 5500 but I'd keep it away from
anything approaching the 6K area.
Hopefully this helps. I have lots of pics of failed
9" motors on my site if you need proof, lol. In fact
the 9" motors are the reason I started Kevlar banding
those comms. Sorry no data in yet on how that's going
to work and by how much and I'm not looking forward to
finding out <shutter>.
Anyway I just had to chime in here. It's so important
that we all help to create happy EV'ers, not just
EV'ers!
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
http://www.hitorqueelectric.com
--- Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup
> project and noticed that for one likely
> configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts T-145,
> Curtis 1231) that the most efficient point of
> operation was generally in the lowest gear possible
> (i.e. highest numerically) without overspeeding the
> motor. "Most efficient" for me means minimum
> battery amps used.
>
> For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient
> (66 amps), with 2nd gear requiring 78 amps and 3rd
> gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or so which
> isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to
> for very long. At higher speeds the difference
> seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear would pull
> 191 amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because
> of the 9" motors theoretical efficiency curve? Does
> real-life bear these calculations out? etc. 40 mph
> is a popular speed out here in the country so this
> may be a practical question after all.
>
> thanks,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve, I wasn't off by any order of anything. I was trying to show how
difficult (nearly impossible) it would be. You'd need to be able to
move a flatbed truck-sized vehicle at 100Wh/mile for this to work. That
was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Bill Dennis
Steve Condie wrote:
You know, people complain about the "new math" but one thing I like that my kids were taught was to make a rough approximation of the answer from known data and see if the answer you get from your calculation corresponds - just to make sure you're not off by an order of magnitude or something.
My response to this post was "6KW is about 6 HP. 6 HP won't move a flatbed truck at
60 MPH."
Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's a quick calculation of the size EV that might be needed to
sustain 60 MPH using solar cells in full sunlight (1000W/sq. meter):
Start with a flatbed about the size of a standard US tractor trailer (53
feet by 8 feet). This measures in at close to 40 square meters. Cover
it with monocrystalline solar cells at 15% efficiency. This gives
around 6KW in full sunlight (40 sq. meters * 1000W/sq. meter * .15).
You'd need to make this long, flat vehicle aerodynamic and lightweight
enough to get 100Wh/mile at 60MPH in order to work out to 6KW
(100Wh/mile * 1mile/60seconds * 3600seconds/hour). So if my math is
right, then this gives a vehicle about the length and width of a tractor
trailer that can achieve 100Wh/mile to run on solar cells. 40 sq.
meters of solar cells in aluminum frames weigh in at about 1600 lbs., so
you'd probably need to ditch the frames and attach the cells directly to
keep the weight down.
Bill Dennis
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello John,
I am running a Warp 9, Zilla 1k and 180 volts of T-145's with a 1st gear
ratio of 19.495:1, a 2nd gear ratio of 13.925:1 and a 3rd gear ratio of
5.57:1 in a 6860 lb EV. About 1/3 of my weight is batteries.
In 1st gear at 25 mph which is 6000 rpm the battery amperes is about 50 amps
and the motor amps is about 80. In 2nd gear at 35 mph which is 6000 rpm the
battery amperes is about 70 amps and motor amps is at 120. In 3rd gear the
battery amps is about 180 amps and motor amps is at about 250 amps.
This data is very close to the Uve's EV calculator, if you subtract and
accessory drive loads that may be driven off the pilot shaft of the motor,
which I can de-clutch and any DC-DC converters that come off the battery.
Plugging in different motors will also give you different results. For
example my GE-11.5 inch motor with commentator poles that is rated at 165
volts and has a service factor of 1.5 or 247 volts max can run very
efficient at 165 volts which is the maximum voltage sag I allow the 180 V
pack to drop.
This 11.5 in. motor at 60 mph has a battery amps of 170 amps at 60 mph
instead of the 9 inch at 180 amps at 50 mph.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
> I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup project and noticed
> that for one likely configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts T-145,
> Curtis 1231) that the most efficient point of operation was generally in
> the lowest gear possible (i.e. highest numerically) without overspeeding
> the motor. "Most efficient" for me means minimum battery amps used.
>
> For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient (66 amps), with 2nd gear
> requiring 78 amps and 3rd gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or so
> which isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to for very long. At
> higher speeds the difference seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear
> would pull 191 amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because of the 9" motors
> theoretical efficiency curve? Does real-life bear these calculations out?
> etc. 40 mph is a popular speed out here in the country so this may be a
> practical question after all.
>
> thanks,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry, Bill - I didn't mean to imply that you were. The thing is, you're using
units of measurement - wh/mi - which you and I may understand the
significance of, but which a lot of people reading this won't. We know from
prior discussions on this list that 100 wh/mi is attainable - but only by a
very small, very efficient, very aerodynamic vehicle, travelling at less than
60 MPH. But reading your post might lead someone with more of a passing
interest in EV's to conclude "Hmm, so all I need to do is take the frames off
my semi's PV panels and I can drive it at 60 MPH on solar power." Stopping at
an earlier and simpler stage of the calculation - 6KW, which translates to
about 6 HP of optimal power generation, makes the point clearly by sticking to
more familiar data points. We spend a lot of time here disabusing newbies of
overly-optimistic expectations about EV's. I figure it's worthwhile to keep
the realistic parameters clear and up-front.
Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steve, I wasn't off by any order of
anything. I was trying to show how
difficult (nearly impossible) it would be. You'd need to be able to
move a flatbed truck-sized vehicle at 100Wh/mile for this to work. That
was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Bill Dennis
Steve Condie wrote:
> You know, people complain about the "new math" but one thing I like that my
> kids were taught was to make a rough approximation of the answer from known
> data and see if the answer you get from your calculation corresponds - just
> to make sure you're not off by an order of magnitude or something.
>
> My response to this post was "6KW is about 6 HP. 6 HP won't move a flatbed
> truck at 60 MPH."
>
> Bill Dennis wrote: Here's a quick calculation of the size EV that might be
> needed to
> sustain 60 MPH using solar cells in full sunlight (1000W/sq. meter):
>
> Start with a flatbed about the size of a standard US tractor trailer (53
> feet by 8 feet). This measures in at close to 40 square meters. Cover
> it with monocrystalline solar cells at 15% efficiency. This gives
> around 6KW in full sunlight (40 sq. meters * 1000W/sq. meter * .15).
>
> You'd need to make this long, flat vehicle aerodynamic and lightweight
> enough to get 100Wh/mile at 60MPH in order to work out to 6KW
> (100Wh/mile * 1mile/60seconds * 3600seconds/hour). So if my math is
> right, then this gives a vehicle about the length and width of a tractor
> trailer that can achieve 100Wh/mile to run on solar cells. 40 sq.
> meters of solar cells in aluminum frames weigh in at about 1600 lbs., so
> you'd probably need to ditch the frames and attach the cells directly to
> keep the weight down.
>
> Bill Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Jim - I have a tendency to lug motors/engines rather than overrev but it
seems that EV's might like to be revved a bit higher. What would you recommend
for a practical, long-term rev limit on the 9" motor?
thanks
Frank
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:26:13 PM
Subject: Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
Hey Frank
I would highly recommend you do NOT run the ADC 9" at
6600 rpms, even in short durations. Although the only
hard data I have on the comm rpm limit was a blown
comm (well actually it just cracked in 3 places but
same difference) at 7000 rpms. It happened when the
armture was not hot or being used really, the car was
on blocks trying to set the rev limiter when it blew.
John Benson learned the hard way, hopefully you can
benifet from his hard knock which will prevent you
from a costly mistake and an expensive motor rebuild
or replacement. ADC lists the limit at 5K and you
might get away with 5500 but I'd keep it away from
anything approaching the 6K area.
Hopefully this helps. I have lots of pics of failed
9" motors on my site if you need proof, lol. In fact
the 9" motors are the reason I started Kevlar banding
those comms. Sorry no data in yet on how that's going
to work and by how much and I'm not looking forward to
finding out <shutter>.
Anyway I just had to chime in here. It's so important
that we all help to create happy EV'ers, not just
EV'ers!
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
http://www.hitorqueelectric.com
--- Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup
> project and noticed that for one likely
> configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts T-145,
> Curtis 1231) that the most efficient point of
> operation was generally in the lowest gear possible
> (i.e. highest numerically) without overspeeding the
> motor. "Most efficient" for me means minimum
> battery amps used.
>
> For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient
> (66 amps), with 2nd gear requiring 78 amps and 3rd
> gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or so which
> isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to
> for very long. At higher speeds the difference
> seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear would pull
> 191 amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because
> of the 9" motors theoretical efficiency curve? Does
> real-life bear these calculations out? etc. 40 mph
> is a popular speed out here in the country so this
> may be a practical question after all.
>
> thanks,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roland,
What kind of vehicle is that. Wow that sucker is heavy! What
kind of range do you get with T145s?
Jody
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roland Wiench
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 13:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
Hello John,
I am running a Warp 9, Zilla 1k and 180 volts of T-145's with a 1st gear
ratio of 19.495:1, a 2nd gear ratio of 13.925:1 and a 3rd gear ratio of
5.57:1 in a 6860 lb EV. About 1/3 of my weight is batteries.
In 1st gear at 25 mph which is 6000 rpm the battery amperes is about 50
amps and the motor amps is about 80. In 2nd gear at 35 mph which is
6000 rpm the
battery amperes is about 70 amps and motor amps is at 120. In 3rd gear
the
battery amps is about 180 amps and motor amps is at about 250 amps.
This data is very close to the Uve's EV calculator, if you subtract and
accessory drive loads that may be driven off the pilot shaft of the
motor, which I can de-clutch and any DC-DC converters that come off the
battery.
Plugging in different motors will also give you different results. For
example my GE-11.5 inch motor with commentator poles that is rated at
165 volts and has a service factor of 1.5 or 247 volts max can run very
efficient at 165 volts which is the maximum voltage sag I allow the 180
V pack to drop.
This 11.5 in. motor at 60 mph has a battery amps of 170 amps at 60 mph
instead of the 9 inch at 180 amps at 50 mph.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
> I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup project and
noticed
> that for one likely configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts
T-145,
> Curtis 1231) that the most efficient point of operation was generally
in
> the lowest gear possible (i.e. highest numerically) without
overspeeding
> the motor. "Most efficient" for me means minimum battery amps used.
>
> For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient (66 amps), with 2nd
gear
> requiring 78 amps and 3rd gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or
so
> which isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to for very long.
At
> higher speeds the difference seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear
> would pull 191 amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because of the 9" motors
> theoretical efficiency curve? Does real-life bear these calculations
out?
> etc. 40 mph is a popular speed out here in the country so this may be
a
> practical question after all.
>
> thanks,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
See EV album: Camino.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
Roland,
What kind of vehicle is that. Wow that sucker is heavy! What kind
of range do you get with T145s?
Jody
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roland Wiench
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 13:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
Hello John,
I am running a Warp 9, Zilla 1k and 180 volts of T-145's with a 1st gear
ratio of 19.495:1, a 2nd gear ratio of 13.925:1 and a 3rd gear ratio of
5.57:1 in a 6860 lb EV. About 1/3 of my weight is batteries.
In 1st gear at 25 mph which is 6000 rpm the battery amperes is about 50 amps
and the motor amps is about 80. In 2nd gear at 35 mph which is 6000 rpm the
battery amperes is about 70 amps and motor amps is at 120. In 3rd gear
the
battery amps is about 180 amps and motor amps is at about 250 amps.
This data is very close to the Uve's EV calculator, if you subtract and
accessory drive loads that may be driven off the pilot shaft of the motor,
which I can de-clutch and any DC-DC converters that come off the battery.
Plugging in different motors will also give you different results. For
example my GE-11.5 inch motor with commentator poles that is rated at
165 volts and has a service factor of 1.5 or 247 volts max can run very
efficient at 165 volts which is the maximum voltage sag I allow the 180 V
pack to drop.
This 11.5 in. motor at 60 mph has a battery amps of 170 amps at 60 mph
instead of the 9 inch at 180 amps at 50 mph.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Battery amps in Uve's EV Calculator
> I was plugging-in different scenarios for my pickup project and
noticed
> that for one likely configuration I might use (9" ADC, 144 volts
T-145,
> Curtis 1231) that the most efficient point of operation was generally
in
> the lowest gear possible (i.e. highest numerically) without
overspeeding
> the motor. "Most efficient" for me means minimum battery amps used.
>
> For example, at 40 mph 1st gear is most efficient (66 amps), with 2nd
gear
> requiring 78 amps and 3rd gear 84 amps. RPM in 1st would be 6600 or
so
> which isn't something I'd probably subject the motor to for very long.
At
> higher speeds the difference seems to diminish (ex. 60 mph in 2nd gear
> would pull 191 amps with 3rd requiring 202 amps).
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions are; is this because of the 9" motors
> theoretical efficiency curve? Does real-life bear these calculations
out?
> etc. 40 mph is a popular speed out here in the country so this may be
a
> practical question after all.
>
> thanks,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
--- End Message ---
