EV Digest 6471
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) expired patents concerning electric hub motors
by Geopilot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) electric wheel hub invented in 1896! or earlier
by Geopilot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) VW buggy, was: Re: EV bashing
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Wow, What a difference 1 or 2 bad batteries makes
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Solutions, Re: Fixing Mark's S-10 EV
by Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Questions on EV
by Jason Franzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Fully sprung 'direct drive' (was: Regenerative suspension)
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) DARPA Army wheel hub motor electric vehicle with diesel cogeneration
capability.
by Geopilot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Regenerative suspension
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
by "Kaido Kert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) wavecrest super battery patent
by Geopilot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Switched SCR controller, Was: Contactor Controller
by "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Switched SCR controller, Was: Contactor Controller
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Aero pickup and low cost EV's
by "jerryd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Questions on EV
by xx xx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
by xx xx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: 6V AGM regulator design
by Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
the following bring up a multitude of electric wheel hub motor patents
http://www.google.com/patents?num=100&q=electric+wheel+hub+motor&btnG=Search+Patents&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1987
also search hub motor before 1940 to see when the idea was really invented.
http://www.google.com/patents?num=100&q=electric+hub+motor&btnG=Search+Patents&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1987
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
electric wheel hub invented in 1896! or earlier
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT572036&id=Es1CAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2-IA1&dq=hub+motor&num=100&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1945#PRA1-PA3,M1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SFEVA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_hybrid_cars
>
> Hi EVerybody;
My local rag, the New Haven Register had a BETTER pix; one of the White
Phoenix Trux with Brian Bliss of Phoenix Motorcars with the Prez, standing
together, on the white house lawn? Great pix! Hard to believe it could
happen inAmerica!I, too, had my 15 seconds of fame(was it THAT long?)in the
same paper a few years ago.
Now, don't expect alot from the Best Govt. Oil Money can Buy, until there
is another chrisis?Hurricane, somebody Farts in the Middle East?But it was a
pleasent surprise to see a EV go Prime Time.
My twp pixils worth.
Bob
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699 - Release Date: 2/23/07
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 06:07 PM 24/02/07 -0800, Paul "neon" G. wrote:
Like <http://evalbum.com/125.html> or <http://www.evfun.com>.
Sorry, I couldn't resist David! I think I may be *safer* as a pedestrian,
but wouldn't have nearly so much fun (and I don't like to walk 10 miles
one way :-) None of those pictures show it but it lacks seat belts too
(1964, not required.) I'm not sure they would help much anyway.
If it would quite raining I would drive it now (already have driven it
once this year.) I keep reminding myself that summer is coming...
G'day Paul, and All
Apologies to those who thread their messages by the secret mumbo-jumbo that
computers use, yes I didn't start a new message.
One of my techs (Ryan) today made a step in doing something similar to
Pauls' buggy, in that he has agreed to purchase his probable donor vehicle
(a somewhat rusted example, floors look OK, missing a guard and no infernal
combustion engine).
Ideas at this point are as follows:
1) Batteries - instead of shortening the floor pan to match the 'tub' of
the buggy, he is thinking to lengthen the 'tub' by the 12" or so that would
be needed to match the floor length - and using this length for a row of
batteries across behind the seats.
2) Motors and axles - twin motors (6.7" to 8", depending on what we can
find) set up in a manner similar to 'gone postal'. Motors parallel to the
axles, belt driven with a custom center arrangement. Maybe Subaru axles?
Anyone have any ideas? The VW has axles that are splined on one end and a T
or spade shape on the other (out of the car, so I got a look), doesn't look
like it would be simple to use those! The alternative (if he can turn up a
good gearbox cheaply) is to use a single motor like Paul.
As always, all comments welcome (good and bad).
Paul, is your Prestolite motor 7.2" diameter and 16 inches long? Just
trying to get a feel for what he will need to match your performance. Also,
I see a couple of batteries peeking out in your motor shot on your web
page, but where did the other 8 go?
Thanks.
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don, My test drive is from my house to a popular shopping center,
nothing special just that it takes a decent amount out but I can still
make it home. a 6 mile round trip
Jack Murry, I have regs. Apples an oranges I'am afraid. Redundancy
exists only in parallel setups if you engineer them as individual serial
strings than can be switched out, else either don't show as capacity and
you quickly over use the others or they become resistors across a
voltage source!.
Jerry, I was really worried about the temperature differential as I
converted in the summer and thought " I live in Fresno,Ca. It doesn't
get that cold here"
Sheesh, that was dumb. None of my boxes are insulated and 1/2 are in
back, enclosed and 1/2 are under hood, heck 7 of them are in the space
where the radiator use to be. I worried about those the most, but to
tell the truth temperature doesn't seem to be the cause.
I did reverse a cell once after a regulator fried (they don't like
getting wet) and drew a battery down below 6 volts. Funny thing is I did
a long 2amp charge until it bounced back above 11 then charged normally
and I swear that is my strongest battery.
We are now down to two choices
Manufactureing defect or trauma.
If it is trauma, it is from bumping them perhaps?. After reading that
aero-environment pdf, I can image where the tightly wrapped cells, if
they touch the sides, could sustain an impact that would damage it and
the plastic would bounce right back.
Or ... there was this one time where I had controller problems and I was
moving the car with a 12V battery in the passenger seat and a set of
jumper cables. I had a block to go and it was going to be a traffic
problem so I decided to use 2 batteries from the pack and 2 sets of
jumper cables. Well I forgot about the path back thru the controller
negative even when the main contactor is off and when I went to hook the
first jumper cable to a battery in the pack, I shorted the bottom 17
batteries. When the smoke cleared I had found I vaporized part of the
post and sent some little lead snot balls rolling away. That happened to
be at that same battery but I figured I couldn't of gotten that many
amps thru jumper cables.
But my question still stands. In a series string, can a bad battery make
the one next to it work harder?
At first the obvious "the current is the same in all devices in a series
circuit" comes to mind, but as i think about it we are talking about 24
power supplies in series. Maybe if 200 amps is needed to move and 50 is
being eaten to heat the bad cell, could that mean that 250 amps flowsd
in all the batteries below that one?
ie
gnd---
250A---250A----250A----250A-50Aheater----200A----200A----controller-motor-gnd
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:38 PM, James Massey wrote:
Can you give some examples (links to on-line information), as I've
often thought about how a pickup chassis with an aerodynamic car body
should make for a high load carrying capacity, low drag EV.
Someone posted this to the EV list a few years ago:
<http://www.rodster.com/>
Roadster bodies that fit onto a Chevy S-10 chassis.
You're right - they look tall. Of course the original roadsters were
tall, too, so that works OK.
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://www.gdunge.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, my name is Jason Franzman, I am a freshman in a Junior
College and I am looking into a engineering major and will hopefully be
transfering to UC Berkley. I am new in to this list and in my
research. I am sure before long you will be bored and annoyed by all
my questions. I am extremely interested in converting a car into an EV
for many reasons. First and for most, my goal is to save the
enviroment and to do this effectively I need the car to reach a
sufficent range of about 150 miles on one charge. I am looking into an
AC converting kit on Electro Automotive specifically the porsche 914 AC
kit. It costs about 13K not including batteries or the body but it
will reach about 150 miles on one charge and can go up to 100
mph. They advise that I use lead batteries but I am also looking into
either Lithium Ion but most likely Nickel Metal Hydride. Also I am
looking into solar panels which I will fit onto the roof, trunk and
hood since they are so flat.
The car will have a significant down
time after 60 miles since Berkely is only 60 miles from my house and
will be able to charge for about 7 or so hours before I return home. I
am looking into the hypothetical best car that I can build and then
from there I will downgrade based on the money.
To tell you the
truth I have about a million questions that I can think of to ask based
on my ideas. Some specific questions are will the solar panels( so far
I can only find ones that do about 6-8% that can bend enough to put on
a car) generate enough electricity to justify the money spent? What do
you think about the choice of car? What is one of the lightest cars
with the most surface area (for solar panels) and most efficent drive
trains in you opinion? Is a kit a good way to go and my last question:
is the Electro Automotive Company I mentioned earlier a reliable
company?
I am really excited to learn that there are other
people who care about the world around them and are willing to do
something about it. The main question that I have is what do you think
of my plan and do you have any advice that can help my pursuit. Any
help would be appreciated and thanks.
Jason Franzman
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Burleson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: Fully sprung 'direct drive' (was: Regenerative suspension)
> Thanks, Michael, for the real-world verification of my suppositions!
> I've eyeballed the Freeway setup before with interest.
As did a number of folks. I was told (by one of the heads) that the Gizmo
was designed because of that odd little car. It was a notable flop in E
design, but spawned a lot of thought.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
DARPA Army wheel hub motor electric vehicle with diesel cogeneration
capability.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ewc/Kennedy.pdf
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I see your point, but...
Let's take the example of the modern off road MC. In the "golden days" we
had spring/shock mounts that are different than the modern cycle. The ride
was stiff, or mild, depending on how you adjusted the shocks. This was
replaced by the mono design, which allowed lots of travel. That was what I
was speaking of in the "weak spring" design... lots of travel. The
spring/shock can/will still have enough support for proper control and
readability. It actually gives more control.
That aside...
A properly designed electric shock *could* actually give a better ride,
variable in situations. At least that's the way things are going. How does a
standard shock/spring setup work? Take the Neon for an example. The SX
models use a very soft spring/shock setup, the racing SRT-4 uses a much
stiffer shock/spring setup. The former has a better ride, the latter a
better performance. I can "upgrade" the shocks on the former, get a stiffer
ride and avoid bottoming out the suspension. But, unfortunately, you get one
rider performance or another.
Now, the standard shock has a single pattern. You can design them so the up
and down strokes have different characteristics (through valving) and you
can set them to be soft for light bumps, and progressively harsher, mostly
through tapering the piston, as I understand it. (More fluid flows in the
first part of the stroke.) Where you lose control, however, is that for all
your ride, you get the same function internally. If you take your car out
for a weekend rally, the ride doesn't change w/o changing suspension.
Now, as I understand this new design, it could be controlled by a computer.
Toyota had a high performance mode in some of their cars (push the button
and engine/tranny were changed to a different mode) and the same could
follow for the electric shock. Or, more likely, the onboard existing
computer could feed this info. (Hard cornering, heavy acceleration, could
trigger a change in the shocks.) I'm thinking the control would be
engineered in. (BTW, this is nothing new. Even GM tried this, back as far as
the 58 Chevy, with their air ride suspension models... near zero sway in
corners, not matter how hard they were.)
I'm just not sure how they expend the energy generated. Do they just use a
large heat generator? If an alternator is kicked into a higher charge rate,
it causes some drag to the engine. If that output electricity isn't taken up
by the battery, where does that force go? Does an excited coil provide
resistance when the electricity isn't used?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 11:05 PM
Subject: RE: Regenerative suspension
> Hi Perry,
>
> No problem, I like a discussion as I am no expert on handling of a car.
Like
> many here, I am EE and need to dig deep into my memory for the physics
> lessons at school (for some reason, EE's got the same math as the math
> programs and in addition the same physics as the physics studies programs,
> before getting into the EE subjects. Kind of a double whammy.)
> My feeling is that it won't work the way you described, so let me try to
> build an argument, then others can fire away and shoot holes in it:
> Sure you can reduce the regen on the wheel for the stroke back after the
> bump, but then the wheel is:
> a. not dampened, it has only the spring, so it will bounce once it hits
the
> street
> b. since the spring is weaker than normal, the force is lower and thus the
> time it takes to move back is longer, so the wheel will not follow the
> (sharp) bump, but lose contact with the road and for a short distance the
> wheel is airborne.
> So, eventually it will be back on the road, but it will take longer
because
> of the weaker spring and it may bounce if it is not dampened, making the
> road contact even worse.
> That is why I referred to electronic suspension, which will counter-act
all
> of this by using sensors and actuators, but then you are feeding power to
> the suspension, not getting it back.
>
> In essence, I think that it could be possible to retrieve a positive
energy
> flow from the suspension - at least in theory, but in practice I see lots
of
> pitfalls and possible handling problems, so I rather not mess with the
> suspension. To me it is more a safety thing, I know what to do to the
wheels
> to optimize range and how to optimize the toe of the wheels to reduce
> friction, but I doubt that suspension is a good area to gain much from,
> while the opportunities to do harm are very large, so this does not look
> like a good trade-off to me.
>
> Interesting subject though.
>
> <Your opinion may vary>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is a video of it, with the Phoenix SUT and as of yet
unidentified A123 PHEV shown on AutoBlogGreen
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/24/president-bush-examines-the-phoenix-electric-sut-and-a-plug-in-h/
wow. the big guy seems to be a wee bit surprised. Bush: "So this is
real ? It aint ten years into the future as i have been told
continuously ?" A123 guy: "yeah, we drove it here"
-kert
On 2/25/07, Bob Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SFEVA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_hybrid_cars
>
> Hi EVerybody;
My local rag, the New Haven Register had a BETTER pix; one of the White
Phoenix Trux with Brian Bliss of Phoenix Motorcars with the Prez, standing
together, on the white house lawn? Great pix! Hard to believe it could
happen inAmerica!I, too, had my 15 seconds of fame(was it THAT long?)in the
same paper a few years ago.
Now, don't expect alot from the Best Govt. Oil Money can Buy, until there
is another chrisis?Hurricane, somebody Farts in the Middle East?But it was a
pleasent surprise to see a EV go Prime Time.
My twp pixils worth.
Bob
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699 - Release Date: 2/23/07
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Interesting way to make a low resistance battery.
wavecrest super battery patent
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5667907&id=mrUoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=5,667,907#PRA1-PA30,M1
website
http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/technology/ip.html
their more efficeitn electric motor
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6812661&id=0GMRAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,812,661
more efficient thermoelectric conversion materials
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/new_nano_design.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Cor, maybe a circuit diagram would be better for this, if I
get a chance I might bother later. The issue which struck me this
morning was how hard it was going to be to charge a pack connnected
together with SCR's.
Chris
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You will ALWAYS have to kill power for an instant, using a
contactor or
> something like that (IGBT, FET) as the SCR cannot be extinguished
once it
> has been fired and you don't want to have two SCRs opened across any
> battery.
> So, you will always need to kill current, re-apply the contactor
and then
> fire the SCRs for the new voltage combination.
>
> BTW, you never want to have less than your entire pack engaged, so
there is
> no point in 1 or more packs in parallel - you always put all your
pack
> sections in parallel at lower voltages, else some will get beaten
up and
> others unused. Not a good way to make a decent range. Spreading the
current
> over as many as possible strings gives you the lowest current in
each, so
> the longest life and range.
>
> 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] On
> Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: James Massey
> Subject: Switched SCR controller, Was: Contactor Controller
>
> Seeing the mention of contactor controllers made me think about
using other
> switching elements instead of contactors.
> Has anyone seen an SCR switched parallel-series switching
controller ?
>
> Using the four 24V pack example, I can see that switching up in 6
stages can
> be done with 9 SCR's, 6 of them rated for full current and 3 rated
for a
> half of maximum current.
>
> Step 1 - one 24V pack
> Step 2 - two 24V packs in parallel
> Step 3 - three 24V packs in parallel
> Step 4 - four 24V packs in parallel
> Step 5 - two (24 x 2 in series) 48V packs in parallel Step 6 -
four 24V
> packs in series
>
> Although it would be possible to introduce intermediate steps at
higher
> voltages this would mean using an inline contactor to commutate all
SCR's
> before reconfiguring them. This would mean a slight jolt as you
accelerate ,
> as the contactor momentarily kills power o the motor
>
> For smoother accelration without the same dropout jolt the steps
above can
> be used
>
> The only way to turn off all SCR's would be to use a contactor
rated for
> maximum current.
>
> If using a microcontroller to control the logic, accelerator pedal
input can
> be detected from a pedal mounted potentiometer and to slow down the
micro
> can drop the single contactor before reconfiguring the SCR's in the
correct
> order for the new pedal postion, there would be very little jolt
doing this
> because unlike ICE vehicles there's is no engine braking.
>
> Having seen the specs for an SW200 contactor, with a 40mV drop per
100Amps,
> the SCR's seem to have about the same loss under heavy loads, they
don't
> click and they're cheap and plentiful, and they remove the lossy
starting
> resistor and give a smoother power takeup at low speeds.
>
> Does anyone know if this has been done already ?
>
> Chris
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Chris,
The R in SCR stands for Rectifier, so current will only flow in one
direction through the device. If you use it for driving, you can't use it
for charging. I see two solutions:
1. Use contactors only
2. Add a diode from the end of each sub-string to either the positive or the
negative charge connector. That way you can charge all batteries in
parallel. The diode can be an SCR if you like them.
Lead Acid does not have much problem with being parallelled and as long as
you can keep the temp the same for all batteries, the charging will balance
fairly well automatically.
This means that for example you can have a max 192V pack and charge it with
a cheap 48V forklift charger...
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] On
Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:03 AM
To: Cor van de Water
Subject: Re: Switched SCR controller, Was: Contactor Controller
Thanks Cor, maybe a circuit diagram would be better for this, if I get a
chance I might bother later. The issue which struck me this morning was how
hard it was going to be to charge a pack connnected together with SCR's.
Chris
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You will ALWAYS have to kill power for an instant, using a
contactor or
> something like that (IGBT, FET) as the SCR cannot be extinguished
once it
> has been fired and you don't want to have two SCRs opened across any
> battery.
> So, you will always need to kill current, re-apply the contactor
and then
> fire the SCRs for the new voltage combination.
>
> BTW, you never want to have less than your entire pack engaged, so
there is
> no point in 1 or more packs in parallel - you always put all your
pack
> sections in parallel at lower voltages, else some will get beaten
up and
> others unused. Not a good way to make a decent range. Spreading the
current
> over as many as possible strings gives you the lowest current in
each, so
> the longest life and range.
>
> 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] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: James Massey
> Subject: Switched SCR controller, Was: Contactor Controller
>
> Seeing the mention of contactor controllers made me think about
using other
> switching elements instead of contactors.
> Has anyone seen an SCR switched parallel-series switching
controller ?
>
> Using the four 24V pack example, I can see that switching up in 6
stages can
> be done with 9 SCR's, 6 of them rated for full current and 3 rated
for a
> half of maximum current.
>
> Step 1 - one 24V pack
> Step 2 - two 24V packs in parallel
> Step 3 - three 24V packs in parallel
> Step 4 - four 24V packs in parallel
> Step 5 - two (24 x 2 in series) 48V packs in parallel Step 6 -
four 24V
> packs in series
>
> Although it would be possible to introduce intermediate steps at
higher
> voltages this would mean using an inline contactor to commutate all
SCR's
> before reconfiguring them. This would mean a slight jolt as you
accelerate ,
> as the contactor momentarily kills power o the motor
>
> For smoother accelration without the same dropout jolt the steps
above can
> be used
>
> The only way to turn off all SCR's would be to use a contactor
rated for
> maximum current.
>
> If using a microcontroller to control the logic, accelerator pedal
input can
> be detected from a pedal mounted potentiometer and to slow down the
micro
> can drop the single contactor before reconfiguring the SCR's in the
correct
> order for the new pedal postion, there would be very little jolt
doing this
> because unlike ICE vehicles there's is no engine braking.
>
> Having seen the specs for an SW200 contactor, with a 40mV drop per
100Amps,
> the SCR's seem to have about the same loss under heavy loads, they
don't
> click and they're cheap and plentiful, and they remove the lossy
starting
> resistor and give a smoother power takeup at low speeds.
>
> Does anyone know if this has been done already ?
>
> Chris
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi James and All,
First let's go through what actually makes an
eff, cost effective EV for those who are just getting into
EV's or other's who haven't studied it, just went with the
flow.
EV's cost by the pound both initally and
running costs. So first is chosing a strong but light glider
as for every pound of glider, you need .7-1 pound, kg of
lead batts if flooded, 15% more if AGM to have long battery
life and very good range, 70-120 miles depending on it's
drag. By having a battery pack that discharges at the 2 hr
rate instead of the 1/2 hr rate because your Ev is so eff,
not only do you get longer battery life, but more range at
the lower power drain rate, increasing your range even more.
If you only need 30-50 mile useable range, you could cut the
battery weight some to save even more running costs,
increase acceleration.
This also means for the same performance one
only needs 1/2 the EV drive power which is about 1/3 the
cost of a sadly now normal 4,000lb conversion!! But don't
feel bad if you own a heavy EV, you can take your EV parts
and put them in a better glider as below for a fairly low
cost and double your performance, ower your running costs!!
Remember, no problems, only solutions.
And you racers, keep on doing what you are
doing!! Many good things have come from you. Thanks. I'll
join you soon once I get more income. Just most of us need
practical commuters, all round flexible EV's that run on
minimun cost.
After reducing weight, next is lowering drag.
Rolling resistance is fairly easy, just clean up the brakes,
change trans, diff fluids, use low rolling resistance,LLR
tires like the Prius ones that are both lightweight at 13
lbs and about as low resistance as you can get. Just these
can in some cases increase range 15%, more if all you do is
slow driving so worth the extra bucks. And worth converting
to 14" wheels to use. I got 12lb mags from Pep Boy's for
just $49 each. Costco has about the best price on Prius
tires though you can haggle at almost any tire place. I've
got 30% off just by keep saying no, getting extras like
balancing, mounting, valve stem for free!
Aero drag is next though is harder because
little things can make a big difference in drag like air
coming out the wheelwells, door jams, vents and even paint
lines in certain places. Air drag is basicly how much air
you accelerate so gathering it and bring it back together
behind your EV is how to reduce it.
Luckily if the front doesn't have really bad
features like more vertical windshields it really doesn't
matter much as a bubble of stagnet air forms in front and
self fairs, this is why the air drag % of the front is so
low. Where it starts to matter is before the widest point a
clean curve, doesn't have to be big, leads the pressurized
frontal air cleanly to the max width, height which now needs
to be smooth to keep the air attached and a shallow curve
leading aft of I perfer 13deg angle or less, 17deg is said
but with crosswinds, ect the 13deg works better in real
life.
A smooth underbelly and/or airdams front
mostly and side helps about 5-10% so worth doing.
Then as you come to the rear end, it needs to
be cut off sharply, without a radius and the air will keep
flowing back, coming together 10-30 ft behind your EV with
the least drag. If you have a radius at the rear, it will
pull the air in tightly forming rotating vortexes that grow
outward, dragging the whole sky with you. That is what you
want to avoid those diverging vortexes.
If your EV has these rounded rear corners,
you can put a 1"x1/8" wedge/spoiler, wide part aft, or
'vortex generators' just before it and that will allow the
air to seperate cleanly and come together nicely aft of the
EV for lowest drag.
Wheelwells are very draggy so one want to
keep air from going into them from under or the engine
compartment as it doesn't come out sideways like any
underneath area that the wheel doesn't need to turn. This is
mostly why blocking the grill lowers drag.
If you look at the Insight, EV-1 or Sunrise
front wheelwells, you will notice a slight curve on the aft
side to gather the air coming out and direct it aft. Tends
to get muddy but great for reducing drag by about 10%
overall!! Rear wheels of course you just put a removeable
cover over as they don't turn.
And of course cut the frontal area as much as
you can by picking a narrow, low as you can go starting body
that has gentle for and aft angles, rounded corners facing
forward. I went taller on the Freedom EV because I want to
see and be seen for safety reasons so took a hit on that one
and made it up by better overall CD.
If safety isn't as much a concern, a 2wh aero
cabin MC is the way to long range, low cost EV's. It's drag
can be so low you can even afford li-ions or new
autowatering nicads for greater range, over 100 miles. This
would make a great production vehicle one could get 50%
profit selling for $25k for easily if not a lot more. A gas
version called the Eco sells for $80k!!
An inexpensive EV is a GC transaxled 40-50
mph trike with a MC front end. Easy to build too. And for
people who don't need over 50 mph often due to bad aero,
it's very hard to beat is a VW bug conversion.
EV drives are very eff and the difference
between the regular and the best is only 10% or so. But the
eff ones, some AC or PM lack starting torque so one needs a
larger hp rating and are usually several times the cost to
buy, repair, especially using high voltage battery strings.
It's much cheaper to just cut drag and save the money.
A lower voltage flooded GC pack is by far
cheaper and 15% lighter than a high voltage AGM string not
only in batteries, but in charger, reg costs too. The price
difference for the same range can be 4x's!!! Your choice. I
know those who have AGM's talk about how messy, ect flooded
are but if you design a good insulated battery box with
forced air cooling, heating not needed even in the cold if
you use them almost every day and make it where you can hose
them down when they get older, you won't have any problem at
a much, much lower cost with little work. A good battery
charger helps keep them from getting messy, long life though
that doesn't mean pricy. A good ferro charger with an
ajustment for winter, summer, older batts is fine for GC
batts.
Now let's get to examples that are reasonably
doable by a handy person or can be hired to do.
Let's take a pickup as that's what started this.
If you can find one, the VW Rabbit pickup or Dodge Rampage,
both mini Elcamino types are good starting points but very
rare now.
Next and easy is older 70's minitrucks that only
weighed 2000 lbs with ICE, stripped out to 1300-1500 lbs
cleaned up aero, rolling drag wise with an aero shell
replacing the bed carrying 16-20 T105s if done right should
get you 80-100 mile range. The aero shell should be rounded
on the front edge and 6" larger, than the cab. This gathers
the now pressurized air and feeds it cleanly to the smooth,
gently curving inward sides, top back to the 4'3" wide rear
and cut off sharply and going down to cover the rear wheel.
Done in light plywood of FG, it can be lighter than the bed
it replaces and can cut aero drag 20-40%!!!
Of course this can be done on larger pickups but
they have such weight it kind of defeats the purpose of a
cost effective EV.
Next is using a chassis from an older minitruck or
small sedan from the 70's or a hotrod one which should be
about 600lbs, not like the S10 one that weighs 1200 lbs or
so, more than my Freedom EV with 100 miles of batts!! Now
add your aero body of choice, availability. I like the
earlest RX-7 because it very light and fairly aero but
Karman Ghias, ect can be used too. Or even ones that don't
look aero but have reasonable sloping windshields, rounded
windshield pillars and smaller frontal areas like a Rabbit,
ect.
Compared to the S10 it's about 5' wide and 3.5'
tall vs 6' wide and 4.5 ' tall so that's 17sq' vs 27sq' or
so. That's a 35% reduction in drag right there before shape
is taken into account, not to mention about 2'x the weight,
thus 2x's the cost.
Next is making an aero shell or bed from lighter
materials like composites or plywood as above.
Or if you don't need a pickup, just use the whole
car body if an aero one or can be modified to be one.
And of course aero kitcars of which there are
1,000's sitting dead in garages which can be great starting
points for under $1500 for EV's. Or new ones from bare bones
FG parts to rolling gliders ready to install the EV drive
and drive away for thoe with deeper pockets!! A GT40 looking
one like the Fiberfab Valkrie or the Factory Five Cobra
Coupe, or of course the premire EV kitcar, the Sunrise EV,
at about 1,000-1,200 lb glider weight, could be quite a good
looking long ranger EV and be fairly fast even on floodeds.
One could do really fast fairly cheaply with BB600's
nicads and a controller bypass or even a CC. Why one would
pick YT's or Orbitals over such a great, low cost, very long
life battery as the BB600's is beyound me. Sure they need
watering but with a good charging regime you can reduce that
to 4-6 times a yr for an almost abuse proof, 20+ yr life,
cold tolerant battery. Too bad they are not larger amphr cap
to work at lower voltages.
Now to the part many EV'ers hate but one has to be
practical is for those who want only 1 car, to build an eff,
low polluting generator to give these eff EV's unlimited
range for those few times one needs more than 80-100 mile
range, can be slide in, started up. Because the above EV's
should get between 80-200wthrs/mile, you can use a very
small, light gen and get great mileage, 50-100 mpg requiring
about 4-6kw/1,000 lbs. I've stated many times before how to
do this as the motor, gen need to be picked carefully to
work well. I'm doing 5kw, 100lb ones on order for sale at
$1600 for the Freedom EV if anyone wants one, 48vdc to
120vdc nom, e mail me offlist. I'd consider doing larger
ones.
Most of these EV's can be done under $5k if you use
surplus, used EV drive stuff and do most of the work
yourself. I'm so cheap I'd do most for under $3.5k. The
Ewoody only cost $500 to build, $500 to run 10 yrs! There is
no reason to have to spend a lot to get an EV and to start
saving big bucks on fuel, ect, after that. Plus one no
longer supports dictators and terrorist supported by our oil
money besides being eco friendly. These eff EV's are a
win-win-win ;^D
So that's a few details to perhaps start us down a
path of better EV's that are cost effective and can beat
ICE's face to face and show Detroit, others how to do EV's
right!
Maybe some others could share their idea's of cost
effective EV's to give inspriration to others? Hopefully
I've insprired some of you to get started on a good EV ;^D
Jerry Dycus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you do a search on the list archives you'll see
some recent posts about vehicle mounted solar panels.
To sum it up, they don't give enough power to justify
the expense. So if you need to save some money, I'd
start right there and forget that idea.
John
--- Jason Franzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, my name is Jason Franzman, I am a freshman
> in a Junior
> College and I am looking into a engineering major
> and will hopefully be
> transfering to UC Berkley. I am new in to this list
> and in my
> research. I am sure before long you will be bored
> and annoyed by all
> my questions. I am extremely interested in
> converting a car into an EV
> for many reasons. First and for most, my goal is to
> save the
> enviroment and to do this effectively I need the car
> to reach a
> sufficent range of about 150 miles on one charge. I
> am looking into an
> AC converting kit on Electro Automotive specifically
> the porsche 914 AC
> kit. It costs about 13K not including batteries or
> the body but it
> will reach about 150 miles on one charge and can go
> up to 100
> mph. They advise that I use lead batteries but I am
> also looking into
> either Lithium Ion but most likely Nickel Metal
> Hydride. Also I am
> looking into solar panels which I will fit onto the
> roof, trunk and
> hood since they are so flat.
> The car will have a significant down
> time after 60 miles since Berkely is only 60 miles
> from my house and
> will be able to charge for about 7 or so hours
> before I return home. I
> am looking into the hypothetical best car that I can
> build and then
> from there I will downgrade based on the money.
> To tell you the
> truth I have about a million questions that I can
> think of to ask based
> on my ideas. Some specific questions are will the
> solar panels( so far
> I can only find ones that do about 6-8% that can
> bend enough to put on
> a car) generate enough electricity to justify the
> money spent? What do
> you think about the choice of car? What is one of
> the lightest cars
> with the most surface area (for solar panels) and
> most efficent drive
> trains in you opinion? Is a kit a good way to go
> and my last question:
> is the Electro Automotive Company I mentioned
> earlier a reliable
> company?
> I am really excited to learn that there are
> other
> people who care about the world around them and are
> willing to do
> something about it. The main question that I have
> is what do you think
> of my plan and do you have any advice that can help
> my pursuit. Any
> help would be appreciated and thanks.
>
> Jason Franzman
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
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 ---
You could practically see the smoke coming out of his
ears when they were discussing the technology ;^) but
at least he's trying and seems to finally realize
there is a problem and solutions are available.
--- Kaido Kert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a video of it, with the Phoenix SUT and as
> of yet
> unidentified A123 PHEV shown on AutoBlogGreen
>
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/24/president-bush-examines-the-phoenix-electric-sut-and-a-plug-in-h/
>
> wow. the big guy seems to be a wee bit surprised.
> Bush: "So this is
> real ? It aint ten years into the future as i have
> been told
> continuously ?" A123 guy: "yeah, we drove it here"
>
> -kert
>
> On 2/25/07, Bob Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lawrence Rhodes"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List"
> <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "SFEVA"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:40 PM
> > Subject: Bush checks out Phoenix SUT.
> >
> >
> > >
>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_hybrid_cars
> > >
> > > Hi EVerybody;
> >
> > My local rag, the New Haven Register had a
> BETTER pix; one of the White
> > Phoenix Trux with Brian Bliss of Phoenix Motorcars
> with the Prez, standing
> > together, on the white house lawn? Great pix! Hard
> to believe it could
> > happen inAmerica!I, too, had my 15 seconds of
> fame(was it THAT long?)in the
> > same paper a few years ago.
> >
> > Now, don't expect alot from the Best Govt. Oil
> Money can Buy, until there
> > is another chrisis?Hurricane, somebody Farts in
> the Middle East?But it was a
> > pleasent surprise to see a EV go Prime Time.
> >
> > My twp pixils worth.
> >
> > Bob
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699
> - Release Date: 2/23/07
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I thought that design was for an 8 volt battery? This is a basic question, but
won't doubling-up on lamps just cause more losses or will it cause extra
voltage drop, as well?
BTW, I appreciate the explanations - this is basic stuff but I'm trying not to
ass-u-me anything!
Frank
----- Original Message ----
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:37:35 PM
Subject: Re: 6V AGM regulator design
From: Frank John
> I've been thinking about design parameters for 6V AGM's. I figure if this
> doesn't > work out that Lee's original 12V design could be implemented
> in a "leap frog" fashion, i.e. batteries 1&2 considered as one group,
> batteries 2&3 together, etc.
You could, but there's no need to do it that way. I already posted a version of
my zener-lamp regulator with two #PR2 lamps (to double the current it can
bypass). Each lamp has a 6.2v or 6.8v 5w zener diode in series with it (one in
each of the two ring terminals).
--
Lee Hart
____________________________________________________________________________________
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 ---
