EV Digest 6640
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Alternator info
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EV - radio interview - podcast available
by Juergen Weichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: C,mm,n (common) open source car project by Dutch universities
by "Andrew Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: A Tale of Two Currents
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: C,mm,n (common) open source car project by Dutch universities
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: EV - radio interview - podcast available .. brochure .. 2 sided ..
english and french
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: EV Converter Needed in san Francisco
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: C,mm,n (common) open source car project by Dutch universities
by "Nate Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) EV APU (genset) emissions & FE
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Wanted: US Electricar EV group message archive - in your email fo
lder?
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: EV Converter Needed in san Francisco
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: EV APU (genset) emissions & FE
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: A motor named Damon
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) Request to Bruce ..
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: controller
by "David Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Since I see a lot of posts about installing an alternator for various reasons.
This site has some really interesting info:
http://www.svapowerproducts.com/html/alternators.html
For example:
"This was and still is to some people the industry standard one wire
alternator. It is a low cost alternative for low output, low tech
applications, such as farm, marine and older street vehicles. There
are over 30 variations of this unit available. We do not recommend
them in applications with sensitive electronics."
Did you know that?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
peekay wrote:
having gone thru the website www.evco.ca i have an observation :
on this page - http://www.evco.ca/brochure.pdf a correction
is needed .. the english version french front page (right side)
and the french version has an english page
..peekay
If you print it and fold it into a tri-fold brochure it will all make
sense. :-)
J
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The physical architecture of so-called "PC's" (as opposed to
Macintoshes, which are also Personal Computers) differs from other
architectures such as the Mac, the SPARC, the Amiga, etc. by being based on
an "open" standard available to many manufacturers rather than relying on
proprietary "closed" chipsets or ROM instructions. In neither this case nor
that of the 'c,mm,n' car should the process be referred to as "open source"
since that refers to intangible "source code" objects as Victor states;
perhaps it would be more accurate to call the project an "open standards
development" project or some such.
On 4/6/07, Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cor,
I wish them luck, but I'd call them c'mon rather than c,mm,n.
Open source car attempt is the same as attempt for an open
source computer. Unlike intangeable open
source products (like Linux OS for instance) as generic
item as a car will have as many opinions for what's right
as many participants but some one has to pay for iron
coper and other materials going into building actual
vehicles. I do appreciate academic interest and know something
cool can be designed by bright group of people. But this is
not sustainable. Do you seriously believe some one will pay for
solution(s) he/she thinks are really wrong?
I did. I bought an ICE powered car.
Please show me *anything* tangeable (having material in it
worth money) open source based being produced in numbers
anywhere in the world.
Victor
Depending on what you mean by "open source" this could be any
unpatented product.
By the way I'm pretty sure this thread is now about as far off-topic as
it's possible to get. Sorry about that.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
MPPT also compensates for battery voltage as well. A 15V, 500mA solar
panel puts out 7.5W. If you put this across a dead lead-acid battery at
10.5V, you will get 500mA @ 10.5V, only 5.25W. The MPPT will convert it
and could make as much as 714mA @ 10.5V. Actually it's not going to be
100% efficient so it'll be less than that, but the point is it will turn
excess voltage into more current capacity.
Danny
Cor van de Water wrote:
The latter will work and optimize the power no matter how hot or
cold the panel is, they will always operate the panel in the MPP
and therefor those are generally termed MPPT (Max Power Point
Tracker). The output will always be enough to charge the battery
no matter whether the input is at 17V or 14V. The advantage is
that the battery can receive a higher current, so it will use the
energy from the solar panel more effectively. HomePower has tested
a bunch of these many moons ago and came to the conclusion that
in colder climates (where the difference between MPP and battery
voltage is greatest) they can give up to 20% higher charge into
the batteries.
In very hot weathers, they also have their place for the
finish-charge of solar batteries.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
since the website says :
"... the world's first open-source car, was revealed at AutoRAI, the
Amsterdam car show. The initiative and vision behind the c,mm,n (pronounced
"common") comes from the "Stichting Natuur en Milieu" (The Netherlands
Society for Nature and Environment) and the three technical universities of
Delft, Eindhoven and Enschede.
The vehicle's technical drawings and blueprints are freely available online,
and everyone is invited to add their own ideas and modifications, provided
of course that these are shared again with the community."
it is obvious that the 'online' availability of tech drawings, blueprints
are similar to the online availability of source codes of programs which are
'open source'
it may work .. it may not work .. who can know for sure now ? but if THREE
'technical' universities are involved in the designing .. and if 'everyone
is invited to add' their own ideas and modifications .. i guess it is like
the open source code
andrew's analogy of assembled computers not being open source is correct ..
there was hardly any collaborative effort by 'everyone' .. users, makers,
assemblers to 'add' their ideas/modifications ..
but like this list, and many others like this list, there are lots of
exchanges of ideas, plans and as long as many contribute to the design, it
is best understood as 'open source' .. in the absence of any other better
category by which this initiative can be described
peekay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: C,mm,n (common) open source car project by Dutch universities
> The physical architecture of so-called "PC's" (as opposed to
> Macintoshes, which are also Personal Computers) differs from other
> architectures such as the Mac, the SPARC, the Amiga, etc. by being based
on
> an "open" standard available to many manufacturers rather than relying on
> proprietary "closed" chipsets or ROM instructions. In neither this case
nor
> that of the 'c,mm,n' car should the process be referred to as "open
source"
> since that refers to intangible "source code" objects as Victor states;
> perhaps it would be more accurate to call the project an "open standards
> development" project or some such.
>
> On 4/6/07, Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Cor,
> >
> > I wish them luck, but I'd call them c'mon rather than c,mm,n.
> >
> > Open source car attempt is the same as attempt for an open
> > source computer. Unlike intangeable open
> > source products (like Linux OS for instance) as generic
> > item as a car will have as many opinions for what's right
> > as many participants but some one has to pay for iron
> > coper and other materials going into building actual
> > vehicles. I do appreciate academic interest and know something
> > cool can be designed by bright group of people. But this is
> > not sustainable. Do you seriously believe some one will pay for
> > solution(s) he/she thinks are really wrong?
>
>
>
> I did. I bought an ICE powered car.
>
> >
> >
> > Please show me *anything* tangeable (having material in it
> > worth money) open source based being produced in numbers
> > anywhere in the world.
> >
> > Victor
> >
>
> Depending on what you mean by "open source" this could be any
> unpatented product.
>
> By the way I'm pretty sure this thread is now about as far off-topic
as
> it's possible to get. Sorry about that.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/750 - Release Date: 4/6/2007
9:30 PM
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hmm .. it IS a pdf 'brochure' .. and to print and fold
would be right
..peekay
(end of this thread !)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Weichert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: EV - radio interview - podcast available
> peekay wrote:
> > having gone thru the website www.evco.ca i have an observation :
> > on this page - http://www.evco.ca/brochure.pdf a correction
> > is needed .. the english version french front page (right side)
> > and the french version has an english page
> >
> > ..peekay
> >
> If you print it and fold it into a tri-fold brochure it will all make
> sense. :-)
> J
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/750 - Release Date: 4/6/2007
9:30 PM
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
He could always look up Reverend Gadget in L.A.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Roderick Wilde
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 6:41 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: EV Converter Needed in san Francisco
>
>
> I just received this request this morning. Anyone know of someone in this
> are that could do this?
>
> Roderick Wilde
> EV Parts, Inc.
> www.evparts.com
>
>
> Name (Company Name): Michael Ford
>
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi I live in the San Francisco area and was wondering if you knew any
> mechanics that could do an electric conversion for me.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 4/6/07, Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Open source car attempt is the same as attempt for an open
source computer. Unlike intangeable open
source products (like Linux OS for instance) as generic
item as a car will have as many opinions for what's right
as many participants but some one has to pay for iron
coper and other materials going into building actual
vehicles. I do appreciate academic interest and know something
cool can be designed by bright group of people. But this is
not sustainable. Do you seriously believe some one will pay for
solution(s) he/she thinks are really wrong?
(he/she may be organization or even government, makes no difference).
I don't believe business in Holland works that much
different than anywhere else in civilized world, but
what do I know. I'm not pessimistic, but skeptical
until convinced otherwise (would be happy to!).
Please show me *anything* tangeable (having material in it
worth money) open source based being produced in numbers
anywhere in the world.
The difference here is that an open source computer requires that you have a
fairly impressive array of facilities to produce a computer
processor/ram/chipsets/etc. An open source car requires that you know how
to weld a frame according to a blueprint and assemble various other pieces
together according to a set of instructions. There are some tricky parts to
produce in a generic car EV, but nothing that a sufficiently resourceful
individual couldn't do.
You make it sound like there are no costs to software open source projects.
You reference Linux, which has several commercial backers and several more
companies making a business out of selling their packaging of it. They (ie.
Redhat) take the GNU Linux kernel (an open source project by itself) and
wrap it up with other open source solutions to provide a complete operating
system. Any company has the right to resell the same product, so long as
they abide by the rules of the licensing, namely that what they sell must
also be open source (I realize I'm summarizing the GPL quite excessively).
Thus, companies could take these open source concepts, improve on them,
bundle them with other pieces they develop, and sell their own product.
That seems like something "worth money" to me being produced in numbers.
The rationale of requiring physical materials seems to be completely
removing a large portion of our current economy, the service industry, which
I believe is the direction this country is headed in.
Even without a business model behind it the concept of open source is the
community, the shared knowledge, the freedom. If people are willing to form
the community around this new open source project, then the innovations
possible could be immense. If people cling to the closed mind mentality and
that everything is a trade secret, then the innovation will be slower or
halted (it is in the business's financial interests to limit the rate of
innovation to guarantee a future improvement to their product, and thus a
future revenue stream).
<rant>
So how about this. Form a community, share your knowledge, and quit
stopping the rest of us from changing the world. I would love to see a
company take their controller, strip out all the fancy features besides
regulating motor speed and horsepower and let the world see.
</rant>
My apologies for dragging this topic forward into off-topic land, but I have
some very passionate views about open source and Linux in particular.
--
-Nathan Gordon
If the database server goes down and there is no code to hear it, does it
really go down?
<esc>:wq<CR>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been taken to task for a somewhat dismissive response to a recent
question or comment about genset APUs. So I thought that I would amend that
response and provide some possibly useful information. Rather than
repeating what's available in the archives already, however, I thought it
might be worth adding some data to the discussion.
While I recognize that minimizing emissions isn't an important consideration
for all EV hobbyists, many of us are interested in being clean or "green."
Others may find the comparison of at least academic interest.
We've said here before several times that an EV with an APU genset produces
appreciably greater emissions than an equivalent ICEV. However, seldom does
anybody cite actual numbers. So, with a fair bit of handwaving and many
(probably unfounded) assumptions, I've put together a rather questionable
but perhaps useful comparison between 3 flavors of ICEVs that EVDL members
might own, and a light passenger car conversion (Honda Civic, Geo Metro,
etc.) EV powered by an APU.
Any corrections for errors that I may have made are most welcome.
First, let's look at EPA passenger car and light truck emissions standards.
Tier 1 EPA limits (fully applicable to 1997 model year vehicles, 50k mile
warranty required) :
NMHC (nonmethane hydrocarbons) + NOx (gasoline) = 0.65 g/mi
CO = 3.0 g/mi
Tier 1 ULEV EPA limits (from 2001, as I understand it, mandatory in CA and
voluntary in 49 states; I don't know which vehicles meet this standard but
they are probably all passenger cars and not "light" trucks) :
NMHC + NOx = 0.24 g/mi
CO = 1.7 g/mi
And, for those who want to compare the cleanest ICEs (such as 2004 and later
Toyota Prius), PZEV / light duty SULEV-II EPA limits :
NMHC + NOx = 0.03 g/mi
CO = 1.0 g/mi
Now, let's calculate our genset's emissions. We make several assumptions.
1. Our genset was made after 2000, when EPA's second tier regulations on
small spark-ignition engines for portable equipment took effect. (Might
have been 1999, I'm not sure I got that right.)
2. Our genset was made by a reputable manufacturer. It's not some cheap
knockoff purchased at a tool fair for $300, and thus the manufacturer has
made an effort to meet EPA standards.
3. A small, well-designed passenger car conversion EV requires about 10kW to
travel a constant 60 mph on flat ground. Thus our genset can produce 10kW
continously.
4. We are traveling at a constant 60 mph.
5. The genset is always operating at full load.
6. We neglect any effects of the genset's additional weight or aerodynamics
on the efficiency of the EV.
7. We neglect losses from rectification of the genset's output and in the
EV's charger and other electronics. The 10kW figure cited above is taken as
the entire sum of the input.
8. Generator efficiency is 75%. On the net, I found a Honda genset with an
11hp engine (8.2kW) which has a rated full load output of 6kW. From this I
deduce (possibly erroneously) that the generator in this genset is about 75%
efficient.
As I said, lots of assumptions. Corrections would be welcomed.
EPA rates non-handheld engines for general duty service - including portable
generators - not in grams of emissions per hour, but in grams per kiloWatt-
hour. This is kiloWatt hours of >>engine output<<, not electrical output.
Applying our 75% efficiency to the above 10kW, we find that our genset's
engine has to produce a continous 13.3kW to keep the car moving at 60mph.
Now, let's compute our genset's emissions from traveling 1000 miles at
60mph.
EPA Tier 2 standards for non-handheld engines > 225cc are :
12.1 g/kWh HC + NOx
11.2 g/kWh NMHC + NOx (note 1)
549 g/kWh CO
Note 1 : I couldn't find the NMHC figure on the EPA website; this number
came from Canadian standards, which the document claimed are harmonized with
US EPA standards.
To travel 1000 miles at 60 mph we will have to run our genset for 16.7
hours. We are using 13.3kW of engine output * 16.7hr = 213kWh from engine.
Engine emissions per 1000mi =
11.3 g/kWh * 213 kWh = 2407g NMHC + NOx
549 g/kWh * 213 kWh = 116937g CO
Dividing by 1000 we find that on average, in this very strictly defined
situation, our clean, EPA qualified genset produces
2.4 g/mi NMHC + NOx
117 g/mi CO
Compared to a pre-2001 passenger car (or most "light" trucks), operating at
the very limit of EPA standards, our genset-driven EV produces :
270% more NMHC + NOx (3.7 times as much)
3800% more CO (39 times as much)
Compared to a more recent Tier 1 ULEV passenger car, the genset-driven EV
produces :
900% more NMHC + NOx (10 times as much)
6800% more CO (69 times as much)
And compared to a very clean passenger car (PZEV-SULEV II, such as 2004+
Toyota Prius), the genset-driven EV produces :
7900% more NMHC + NOx (80 times as much)
11600% more CO (117 times as much)
Now, some thoughts on fuel consumption. The assumption has been that a
genset will yield poor returns in the MPG department. This may in fact turn
out to be true, when all factors are considered (especially the extra weight
and/or aerodynamics hit of the genset). But ignoring those figures, we find
something interesting.
I found this page which gives specs for a 9.7kW genset with a Honda GX-610
engine:
http://www.jobsite-
generators.com/multiquip_portable_gas_generator_ga_9.7hz.html
It weighs 349lb (!) and runs for 6.75 hours on its 10 gal gasoline tank.
That's roughly 1.5 gph. The page doesn't specify whether this is at half
load or full load, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume
for the moment that it's at full load.
If so, our 16.7 hour, 1000 mile trip will require 25gal of fuel, for an FE
of 40mpg! This compares surprisingly well with the 48mpg overall I get with
my 1995 Honda Civic VX ICE.
Of course, in the real world this calculation may fall apart. Add the
weight and aerodynamics hit (350lb on a trailer will affect a small EV), the
possibility that an actual "10kW" genset couldn't supply that much power for
several hours straight, and possibly a less efficient engine type - and it's
hard to say what the real world mpg would be.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
To add to Mike's request:
Is there anyone who has all messages from the
USElectricar_ev Yahoo group?
We are trying to reconstruct the info in the group that Bruce
Parmenter deleted last month, one member had the messages from
March 03 to Sept 06, we are looking for people who might have
a backup of the group and/or messages outside this period.
We still hope that Bruce reconsiders his decision to delete
the group - one email from him to Yahoo is all it takes.
But time is running out and Bruce is unresponsive, so we
need to find alternative ways to avoid that Bruce's action
has serious consequences for EV owners.
You can find the messages that we have been able to salvage
in the new US Electricar group, files section, name:
uselectricar_ev-15-Mar-03_21-Sep-06.zip
(You need to become member to access the files - I could only
open the message archive to the world for reading)
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/uselectricar/files/
Your contribution is much appreciated by all current and
future US Electricar owners.
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 Mike Phillips
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:32 AM
To: EVDL
Subject: US Electricar group Deleted
About a month ago, the main yahoo group for US Electricar EV's was deleted
without cause, or notice to the participants, who had contributed blood
sweat, tears, and dollars to keeping these EV's on the road. There were many
thousands posts that were directly related to troubleshooting and repairing
these EV's. This group as I recall was
5-7 years old.
A second USElectricar group was started a year ago as the primary group was
so hard to join, due to an automated scripting function that the owner had
designed. So it sat stagnant. The owner has refused to ask Yahoo to
un-delete the group. Yahoo will also not intervene without the owners
consent. In about 3 weeks the groups archives will be purged from Yahoo
servers forever.
The original USElectricar EV group that was deleted is owned by Bruce
Parmenter. He posts here regularly. I think the EV community has come
together many times to keep vehicles from being crushed. Maybe they can come
together to keep these vehicles from rotting away as well, by keeping the
technological information flowing that prevents EV rust.
Anything that anyone can be done to convince Bruce to bring the old group
back, or even transfer ownership, will be doing these EV's a real service.
Thanks,
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Roderick,
How much does this Mike want to be involved?
Does it need to be in SF or can it be in another city?
There are several converters (of their own vehicles)
in SF and nearby, I have not heard of a commercial
converter.
He could start by contacting the local chapter of EAA
and talk to nearby businesses like Electro Auto.
Hope this helps somewhat.
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 Mike Willmon
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: EV Converter Needed in san Francisco
He could always look up Reverend Gadget in L.A.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Roderick Wilde
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 6:41 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: EV Converter Needed in san Francisco
>
>
> I just received this request this morning. Anyone know of someone in
> this are that could do this?
>
> Roderick Wilde
> EV Parts, Inc.
> www.evparts.com
>
>
> Name (Company Name): Michael Ford
>
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi I live in the San Francisco area and was wondering if you knew any
> mechanics that could do an electric conversion for me.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the tip Randy. However there is only 1 axle I think is worthy of
placement under the Pinto and thats a Ford 9". The 3
pinion bearigs in the carrier housing decides that for me. The other benefit
is that they don't use C- clips to retain the axles.
I am considering buying the snazzy new parts, as you say, and only pay shipping
one way. Free shipping to Alaska is non-existant.
Its hard enough to find a vendor that will even ship something through the US
Postal Service. That point aside however I am still
considering just buying a fully prepared race axle assembly. USPS is out of
the question for the whole assembly though. But it
may be the easiest way since after all the modifications I'll have to do to
this donor will cost me to the point that the little
extra for the purpose built unit will be worth it.
I got detailed measurements of the existing Pinto rear end and have done some
figuring on this Bronco 9" donor. The way it needs
to work is that the typically shorter passenger side now becomes the longer
side. I can find a stock passenger side that will fit
the Pinto passenger side, but the new driver side needs to be 6.5" shorter.
That would mean I have to find a stock 31 spline axle
that was stock at 25.375" (maybe it exists). But if shipping costs me $85 each
way and the respline costs $85, it comes out the
the same as two new axles at $85 each plus one way shipping of $85. So if I
can find a 25.375" stock axles with the right lug
pattern I'll have to consider getting the snazzy newer parts.
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Randy Burleson
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
>
>
> I had another thought that kicked into my forebrain during my morning
> commute (which I normally spend ranting at other drivers and spilling
> more coffee than I drink, but which today was oddly removed of traffic
> or frustration).
>
> Evaluate whatever axle you throw under that Pinto for c-clips -- if
> you're thinking about changing axles, now may be a good time to plan
> ahead. NHRA rules don't allow cars running tens or better to have c-clip
> rear ends (break a c clip axle--lose your tire). Dunno about NEDRA. With
> so many c-clip eliminator kits available that also provide big-bearing
> capability, you should at least consider the options available.
>
> And as to the point I was making about checking the net price to your
> door, what I meant was: 1.) ship to mainland plus 2.) spline cut plus
> 3.) ship back to North Pole might be more than 1.) buy snazzy new parts
> and 2.) ship to North Pole, ESPECIALLY if you can find a vendor that is
> willing to do free shipping (may be tough to Alaska!).
>
> I was poking around that Drivetrain Outlet website, and saw replacement
> axles as low as $85 if you can backtrack to a stock dimension (maybe use
> two short-sides to get the width you need?).
>
> With the traffic I experienced (or rather DID NOT experience) on my
> commute this AM, I am off to buy a lottery ticket. Perhaps a Tesla is
> only a PowerBall ticket out of reach!
>
> Randii
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think that typically "run hours" for a genset are specified at half load.
So the FE falls to 20 MPG in this optimistic case...
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 David Roden
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EV APU (genset) emissions & FE
I've been taken to task for a somewhat dismissive response to a recent
question or comment about genset APUs. So I thought that I would amend that
response and provide some possibly useful information. Rather than
repeating what's available in the archives already, however, I thought it
might be worth adding some data to the discussion.
While I recognize that minimizing emissions isn't an important consideration
for all EV hobbyists, many of us are interested in being clean or "green."
Others may find the comparison of at least academic interest.
We've said here before several times that an EV with an APU genset produces
appreciably greater emissions than an equivalent ICEV. However, seldom does
anybody cite actual numbers. So, with a fair bit of handwaving and many
(probably unfounded) assumptions, I've put together a rather questionable
but perhaps useful comparison between 3 flavors of ICEVs that EVDL members
might own, and a light passenger car conversion (Honda Civic, Geo Metro,
etc.) EV powered by an APU.
Any corrections for errors that I may have made are most welcome.
First, let's look at EPA passenger car and light truck emissions standards.
Tier 1 EPA limits (fully applicable to 1997 model year vehicles, 50k mile
warranty required) :
NMHC (nonmethane hydrocarbons) + NOx (gasoline) = 0.65 g/mi
CO = 3.0 g/mi
Tier 1 ULEV EPA limits (from 2001, as I understand it, mandatory in CA and
voluntary in 49 states; I don't know which vehicles meet this standard but
they are probably all passenger cars and not "light" trucks) :
NMHC + NOx = 0.24 g/mi
CO = 1.7 g/mi
And, for those who want to compare the cleanest ICEs (such as 2004 and later
Toyota Prius), PZEV / light duty SULEV-II EPA limits :
NMHC + NOx = 0.03 g/mi
CO = 1.0 g/mi
Now, let's calculate our genset's emissions. We make several assumptions.
1. Our genset was made after 2000, when EPA's second tier regulations on
small spark-ignition engines for portable equipment took effect. (Might
have been 1999, I'm not sure I got that right.)
2. Our genset was made by a reputable manufacturer. It's not some cheap
knockoff purchased at a tool fair for $300, and thus the manufacturer has
made an effort to meet EPA standards.
3. A small, well-designed passenger car conversion EV requires about 10kW to
travel a constant 60 mph on flat ground. Thus our genset can produce 10kW
continously.
4. We are traveling at a constant 60 mph.
5. The genset is always operating at full load.
6. We neglect any effects of the genset's additional weight or aerodynamics
on the efficiency of the EV.
7. We neglect losses from rectification of the genset's output and in the
EV's charger and other electronics. The 10kW figure cited above is taken as
the entire sum of the input.
8. Generator efficiency is 75%. On the net, I found a Honda genset with an
11hp engine (8.2kW) which has a rated full load output of 6kW. From this I
deduce (possibly erroneously) that the generator in this genset is about 75%
efficient.
As I said, lots of assumptions. Corrections would be welcomed.
EPA rates non-handheld engines for general duty service - including portable
generators - not in grams of emissions per hour, but in grams per kiloWatt-
hour. This is kiloWatt hours of >>engine output<<, not electrical output.
Applying our 75% efficiency to the above 10kW, we find that our genset's
engine has to produce a continous 13.3kW to keep the car moving at 60mph.
Now, let's compute our genset's emissions from traveling 1000 miles at
60mph.
EPA Tier 2 standards for non-handheld engines > 225cc are :
12.1 g/kWh HC + NOx
11.2 g/kWh NMHC + NOx (note 1)
549 g/kWh CO
Note 1 : I couldn't find the NMHC figure on the EPA website; this number
came from Canadian standards, which the document claimed are harmonized with
US EPA standards.
To travel 1000 miles at 60 mph we will have to run our genset for 16.7
hours. We are using 13.3kW of engine output * 16.7hr = 213kWh from engine.
Engine emissions per 1000mi =
11.3 g/kWh * 213 kWh = 2407g NMHC + NOx
549 g/kWh * 213 kWh = 116937g CO
Dividing by 1000 we find that on average, in this very strictly defined
situation, our clean, EPA qualified genset produces
2.4 g/mi NMHC + NOx
117 g/mi CO
Compared to a pre-2001 passenger car (or most "light" trucks), operating at
the very limit of EPA standards, our genset-driven EV produces :
270% more NMHC + NOx (3.7 times as much)
3800% more CO (39 times as much)
Compared to a more recent Tier 1 ULEV passenger car, the genset-driven EV
produces :
900% more NMHC + NOx (10 times as much)
6800% more CO (69 times as much)
And compared to a very clean passenger car (PZEV-SULEV II, such as 2004+
Toyota Prius), the genset-driven EV produces :
7900% more NMHC + NOx (80 times as much)
11600% more CO (117 times as much)
Now, some thoughts on fuel consumption. The assumption has been that a
genset will yield poor returns in the MPG department. This may in fact turn
out to be true, when all factors are considered (especially the extra weight
and/or aerodynamics hit of the genset). But ignoring those figures, we find
something interesting.
I found this page which gives specs for a 9.7kW genset with a Honda GX-610
engine:
http://www.jobsite-
generators.com/multiquip_portable_gas_generator_ga_9.7hz.html
It weighs 349lb (!) and runs for 6.75 hours on its 10 gal gasoline tank.
That's roughly 1.5 gph. The page doesn't specify whether this is at half
load or full load, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume
for the moment that it's at full load.
If so, our 16.7 hour, 1000 mile trip will require 25gal of fuel, for an FE
of 40mpg! This compares surprisingly well with the 48mpg overall I get with
my 1995 Honda Civic VX ICE.
Of course, in the real world this calculation may fall apart. Add the
weight and aerodynamics hit (350lb on a trailer will affect a small EV), the
possibility that an actual "10kW" genset couldn't supply that much power for
several hours straight, and possibly a less efficient engine type - and it's
hard to say what the real world mpg would be.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Want to
unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or switch to
digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage
http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It may be that Jim will change the name of this motor to The Omen };->
Can't wait to see what vehicle it finally makes it into.
It seems a little small for a '58 Fury. But hey, maybe it will have a lot of
heart....or an evil twin heart :-O
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of James Massey
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: A motor named Damon
>
>
> At 08:21 PM 5/04/07 -0700, Jim wrote:
> >Hey all
> >
> ><snip>Just wanted to share a story about a boy and his first
> >motor and how I'm gonna rip his heart out when I put
> >it up on Ebay for 125.00 LMAO!
> >
> >What you thought it's gonna be a happy ending? hehe.
>
> Well I think someone just showed up which twin is the evil one...
>
> 8^P
>
> Happy Easter!
>
> Regards
>
> [Technik] James
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The 9 inch uses 3% about more power than a 12 bolt.
Don
In a message dated 4/7/2007 12:12:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for the tip Randy. However there is only 1 axle I think is worthy of
placement under the Pinto and thats a Ford 9". The 3
pinion bearigs in the carrier housing decides that for me. The other
benefit is that they don't use C- clips to retain the axles.
I am considering buying the snazzy new parts, as you say, and only pay
shipping one way. Free shipping to Alaska is non-existant.
Its hard enough to find a vendor that will even ship something through the
US Postal Service. That point aside however I am still
considering just buying a fully prepared race axle assembly. USPS is out of
the question for the whole assembly though. But it
may be the easiest way since after all the modifications I'll have to do to
this donor will cost me to the point that the little
extra for the purpose built unit will be worth it.
I got detailed measurements of the existing Pinto rear end and have done
some figuring on this Bronco 9" donor. The way it needs
to work is that the typically shorter passenger side now becomes the longer
side. I can find a stock passenger side that will fit
the Pinto passenger side, but the new driver side needs to be 6.5" shorter.
That would mean I have to find a stock 31 spline axle
that was stock at 25.375" (maybe it exists). But if shipping costs me $85
each way and the respline costs $85, it comes out the
the same as two new axles at $85 each plus one way shipping of $85. So if I
can find a 25.375" stock axles with the right lug
pattern I'll have to consider getting the snazzy newer parts.
Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Randy Burleson
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
>
>
> I had another thought that kicked into my forebrain during my morning
> commute (which I normally spend ranting at other drivers and spilling
> more coffee than I drink, but which today was oddly removed of traffic
> or frustration).
>
> Evaluate whatever axle you throw under that Pinto for c-clips -- if
> you're thinking about changing axles, now may be a good time to plan
> ahead. NHRA rules don't allow cars running tens or better to have c-clip
> rear ends (break a c clip axle--lose your tire). Dunno about NEDRA. With
> so many c-clip eliminator kits available that also provide big-bearing
> capability, you should at least consider the options available.
>
> And as to the point I was making about checking the net price to your
> door, what I meant was: 1.) ship to mainland plus 2.) spline cut plus
> 3.) ship back to North Pole might be more than 1.) buy snazzy new parts
> and 2.) ship to North Pole, ESPECIALLY if you can find a vendor that is
> willing to do free shipping (may be tough to Alaska!).
>
> I was poking around that Drivetrain Outlet website, and saw replacement
> axles as low as $85 if you can backtrack to a stock dimension (maybe use
> two short-sides to get the width you need?).
>
> With the traffic I experienced (or rather DID NOT experience) on my
> commute this AM, I am off to buy a lottery ticket. Perhaps a Tesla is
> only a PowerBall ticket out of reach!
>
> Randii
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We still hope that Bruce reconsiders his decision to delete
> the group - one email from him to Yahoo is all it takes.
repeating request to bruce .. please respond !
..peekay
(anyone wanna add his name below mine ?)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But thats because the pinion shaft is located lower on the ring gear which
increases tooth contact area. That, the extra 1.8" dia
on the ring gear and the third pinion bearing nearer the gear means much more
raw strength (probably by more than 3% in the torque
ability) The 12- bolt may very well be able to take all the abuse that I'll
throw at it, so if nothing else it comes down the ease
of the drop out center section and not having to change out the C- clip
retainers. If long range efficiency were the goal the 3%
power savings might be worth it. But for drag racing the all important
"kick-ass-right-now characteristic of electric motor
torque" for the launch clearly puts my decision on the tougher Ford 9". During
launch when RPM's are low anyway I think the
efficiencies might be a wash.
Mike,
Anchhorage, Ak.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:19 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Mike's Pinto Project (reprise)
>
>
>
> The 9 inch uses 3% about more power than a 12 bolt.
>
> Don
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2007 12:12:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Thanks for the tip Randy.....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is a good starting point:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/osmc
http://www.robotpower.com/products/osmc_info.html
David Hankins
-----Original Message-----
From: mike golub [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: controller
you got a link?
--- David Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info Steve.
>
> I'll checkout that list.
>
> The OSMC has a plan and a parts list for a do it
> yourself controller that
> uses Mosfets and is rated for 160 cont and 400 peak.
> I'm guessing that would
> not last to long hooked to an 8 or 9" motor.
>
> David Hankins
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Peterson
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:36 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: History Lesson?
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 12:56 -0700, David Hankins
> wrote:
>
> > >From what I've read so far it looks relatively
> straight forward to design
> > and build a controller (a little knowledge can be
> a dangerous thing in the
> > wrong hands). So what Am I missing? What makes
> them so expensive?
>
> I'm far from the most qualified to answer this, but
> in a word: amps.
>
> Assuming you're talking about controlling a motor
> for a car, you're
> talking about switching at least a couple hundred
> amps thousands of
> times/second. Many systems are switching 500 or more
> amps.
>
> When you just want to switch a few amps, some
> fifty-cent mosfets will do
> the job. To switch the kind of current drawn by
> motors in cars, you need
> a device called an IGBT (a type of transistor).
> These cost more than a
> hundred bucks apiece and you probably would need
> several. On top of
> this, when you switch a motor on and off you
> generate voltage spikes
> which have to be "absorbed" and large diodes are
> used for this--these
> are not fifty cent items, either.
>
> All this current creates a lot of heat which means
> heatsinks which means
> some fancy way of attaching the IGBTs (and maybe the
> diodes) to some
> serious heat sink material. One of the Zilla
> controllers is water
> cooled, just to give you some idea of what we're
> talking about here.
>
> Then there's the parts to drive the IGBTs--these are
> not like "logic
> level" mosfets that can be driven with a micro--you
> need quite a bit of
> current to switch them, so now you're talking about
> driver circuitry
> (and components) for the IGBTs.
>
> And, of course, you have to connect this all
> together--you're not going
> to do it with solder and one-ounce copper-clad PCBs
> :-) Those
> connections have to withstand the current, the heat,
> be low resistance,
> be reliable, and mechanically strong because you're
> attaching some
> mighty big cables to those IGBTs. Take a look at the
> inside of a
> household breaker panel to get some idea of what's
> required and remember
> that those are typically designed for 200 amps (open
> one up in the
> hardware store).
>
> Then you have to package the whole thing up for the
> "hostile"
> environment it's going to run in: wet, cold, dust,
> heat.
>
> And the list goes on....not simple, not cheap, but
> doable. Again, I'm
> talking about controllers for cars--things that draw
> less current are
> easier. If you're really interested, you could
> subscribe to the evtech
> mailing list at www.evtech.org. There's a guy on
> that list that's going
> through the process of designing/building one now.
>
> --Steve
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
--- End Message ---
