EV Digest 6897

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: gas taxes...
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  2) Re: TS cell exchange... WAS:Re: New Subscriber
        by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  3) Re: EV Library, What Books Would You Recommend?
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  4) Re: EV achilles' heel
        by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  5) Re: Toyota nixes lithium-ion battery for next generation Prius, for now.
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  6) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  7) Re: How the Prius Works
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  8) Re: EV achilles' heel
        by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  9) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 10) Re: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)
        by dale henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 11) Re: EV achilles' heel
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 12) Re: [EV] Re: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)
        by Eduardo Kaftanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 13) Re: How the Prius Works, Old stuff and Jetta, how it works better!
        by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 14) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 15) Re: How the Prius Works
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 16) Re: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 17) RE: How the Prius Works
        by "Chuck Hays" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 18) Re: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 19) Re: thundersky cells (was: new subscriber)
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 20) Turbine Range Extender (was: EV achilles' heel)
        by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 21) (no subject)
        by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, June 13, 2007 11:58 am, Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G
wrote:
> I don't think the GPS thing will ever kick off.

Oregon didn't use a GPS. There's already a mileage counter in the internal
computer on all new cars. In a pilot plan, they charged a per-mile fee,
charged when the car was refueled.

I imagine someone buying a PU from one of these construction companies
that fills from their own tanks. Imagine paying $5,000 for your first tank
of gas. <g>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:27 PM 6/14/2007, jukka wrote:
So what's it gonna be ? Can I ask new cells for you for free or not ?

But I insist that we replace all of the cells from everyone who bought BS on that purchase. And since you might be getting new cells without BMS.. I would suggest sticking with LFP cells now. Agreed ?

Personally, I don't really care what variation of Lithium cells they are.
I'd just like some that actually WORK and live up to their specifications.
I had designed, built, and tested a BMS for mine. Too bad the cells weren't worth using. I'd LOVE to have a Sparrow with a decent range. The YellowTop range of 25 miles or so just doesn't help me get to work - which is currently 32 miles away.
I'd happily re-do all my BMS work as well.

--
John G. Lussmyer      mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....         
http://www.CasaDelGato.com

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Wow, it's $60 bucks!

I'd buy it for $20, but I'd rather put $60 toward my own EV fund.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "JS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: EV Library, What Books Would You Recommend?


Mike Chancey wrote:
. . . .
I know that there are a lot that should be added, some how to, some why to, and some just history.
*********************************
Yesterday I received 'The Car that Could". After reading five chapters I recommend it to all EVers.

"The Car That Could. The Inside Story of GM's Revolutionary Electric Vehicle" by Michael Shnayerson.




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I think we've got two different discussions going on here at this point. Onboard common use, and trailered for occasional use. I'm suggesting using a generator on a trailer for half my power requirement for 1% of my trips. Given that:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: EV achilles' heel


This is hardly the first time it's come up.
People argue that the genny will allow them to get another 10% of range or whatever so they can use it more often. The per-mile smog emissions might be 10x higher than a car, but it's only 10% of the time. Otherwise they would not try to own an EV at all.

If you use it 1% of the time to allow you to run a lighter pack the other 99% of the time, thus not requiring as much electricity the other 99% of the time, saving the emissions caused by generating that electricity, then what?

My point is, I think if you are planning on using it 10% of the time, you've probably underdesigned your range for your purposes. If you never need it, you're probably toting too much lead around and using too much electricity because of it, which has it's own significant emissions penalty at the power plant (assuming you're not solar).

It's a valid theory, but I doubt it has any merit in practice. It is only a rather marginal gain in range unless you plan to spend a very long downtime running the genny to drive a few miles or use a HUGE genny.

I don't think so. I think a 10kW generator that would go full throttle during acceleration and then throttle to 5kW during cruise would take enough peak demand off the batteries to extend their capacity significantly (avoiding Peukert's affect (spelling?)), as well as the additional charge generated. This is going to greatly depend on average speed during the trip.

It seems unlikely that suddenly this small gain in range lets you drive all that much more. Sure if your trip to work is 30 mi and you can only manage a 28 mi range- but how often is that really the case? And if your batteries are that marginal for the job, how long till they age enough so the little boost a genny gives still won't let you get there? Especially if you're taxing them to their limit to make the trip over and over (deep discharges).

I think using it daily just means you've built yourself something less than a BEV. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about less reliance on gassers for trips up to maybe 2x your normal range. That probably covers most requirements that exceed normal EV range.

The generator comes with a significant need for weight and space. It requires some clearance to anything flammable or meltable, and needs to have an exhaust system routed again. This could easily displace the weight available for 2 or 3 batts or more, and displace the volume of 4 or 5 batts.

I'd agree with that if we're discussing mounting the generator in the EV and using it often. But if you look at the end of this post, you're responding to a post about a genny on a trailer for 1% of trips. No space in the EV, no exhaust system in the EV. However, if you're proposing adding additional batteries instead, are you hauling that additional weight around all the time? That takes space and adds weight all the time, for an occasional need. Is that wise, or overdesigning?

It's also embarrasing and likely illegal to drive with a loud, smelly generator. And it will almost certainly be loud.

I don't see why a generator has to be louder or dirtier than the gassers all around you as you drive. It very well could be based on the same ICE that the other cars are running. The original discussion I believe was comparing and contrasting a genny to a pusher. Would coupling a running drivetrain to the back be less illegal?

I'd be more than willing to readily accept a change in the situation if a small, powerful, efficient, quiet, and clean generator became available. Or even 3 out of 5 if the change is significant.

I'm proposing putting a small, emissions controlled car motor with a gen head on a trailer, muffler, cat and all. Not small, but clean and capable of 10kW when needed. I would fully expect that if it was driven much past 2x the normal range that way, you'd end up using more gas and creating more emissions than a gasser. So, based on that assumption, the question becomes how often do you need to drive farther than normal range, but less than 2x? It that covers most of your out of range requirement, this might make sense.

The Capstone Microturbine is sort of there, but in the end the efficiency in generating electricity just doesn't seem to measure up. It's quiet, fairly powerful, well designed, and low emissions, but when I ran some calcs it doesn't look like it's a whole lot more efficient than the original engine. Maybe some- but not enough to redesign the car and spend thousands on a hacked-together system.

All I can say is that of what I've seen of generators on the market that people have considered, none will provide a practical service for an EV. Will displace so much of the EV's batt capacity that the already limited capabilities of the EV make it a near-useless EV that relies on the generator too much. Then it's just a horrifically dirty and inefficient engine and STILL has a very limited range, and there's no apparent merit to that that I can see.

I'd agree if the discussion is limited to mounting a contractor's generator onboard. Certainly we'd have to do better than that.

Marty


Danny

Marty Hewes wrote:


I could pull a small generator on a trailer for that 1% of the time I need it. Virtually no downside when I don't use it.

More comments below:




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Yes, I heard this too. They aren't getting the expected pack lifetime from Lithium yet.

Many Priuses (Prii?) are rolling over 100k now with a functioning pack. They want to improve on this.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:43 AM
Subject: Toyota nixes lithium-ion battery for next generation Prius, for now.


There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal stating that Toyota has
decided not to use a lithium-ion battery in its next generation Prius whose launch was scheduled for the fall of 2008. Instead they say they will use a more advanced version of the nickel metal hydride battery presently in use.

The lithium-ion battery technology they refer to uses lithium cobalt oxide, not the same as the lithium battery produced by A123. There is mention that Toyota has not given up on lithium-ion technology. There is mention that they have been testing a Prius equipped with lithium-ion technology that they still
consider experimental, presumably the more advanced lithium iron phosphate
chemistry similar too or perhaps provided by A123.

Lawson Huntley



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- There is no brake, there just is the MGs acting as generators. This way there is minimal loss.

The only "brake" is on the wheel side... a mechanical pawl engages the final drive. Just like an automatic.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works


That website is AWESOME!  That is EXACTLY what I was looking for.  Now I
totally understand how it does it.  I didn't even think about a shaft
rotating within another shaft for the MG1 engine combo.  Smart.  So
basically there has to be some kind of brake on the sun gear while the
MG2 is powering the car.  Then the MG2 is driving the car and MG1 is
free to suck off some of the spinning to power accessories.  When the
system runs low on power, the brake releases, starts the engine, and now
power is coming from the engine with assist from MG2 in the 78% engine
22% MG2 split as mentioned in the ecrostech article.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Major
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:57
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works


You can find a lot on the web about the power split Prius design and
operation.  Here's one


http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info


Jeff



--- "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Phil,

I read the wikipedia article and it still sounds like what the article

Jeff sent the link for.  MG1 is the generator hooked to a planetary
gearbox.  It sounds like the are now calling the planetary gearbox a
"differential" now instead.  The wikipedia and the ecrostech articles
don't show pictures of the mechanicals of the system.  Does anyone
have pictures of how MG1 and MG2 connects?  Saying that
MG1 connects to the
Sun gear doesn't show HOW it connects.  Does it have a gear on the
outside that MG1 drives?  Does it have clutches like the sun gear of
an automatic have?  I like the mention of MG2 connected through the
driveshaft.  That makes sense since it is responsible for the torque.
It looks like MG1 could be just chained to the ICE motor and run only
when the motor is running.  It would be really nice to see one of
these out of the car so each part could be shown and a more detailed
operation explained.  Personnally I think the ecrostech article is
much more informative.  The wikipedia article is interesting but as I
understand it wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information

since anyone can edit the data.

Jody

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of (-Phil-)
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:01
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: How the Prius Works

I suggest you guys do a modicum of research..... You are incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

-Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: How the Prius Works


> No, the CVT is a proper transmission and can carry
the full HP of the
> engine to the wheels.
> There is only one electric motor/generator.
Actually there's a second

> motor for engine starting and providing
countertorque for the CVT
gears
> but it's not a drive motor.
> The motor/generator is only there to boost the
peak engine power and
allow
> the engine to shut off when its high power is not
needed and there is
> sufficient battery power to meet the driver's
demands.
>
> Danny
>
> Dan Frederiksen wrote:
>
>> I didn't say it was a series hybrid. I said it
was essentially an
>> electric clutch. isn't it?
>>
>> I don't think the prius arrangement could be
cheaper than a series
>> layout. I would be interested in hearing the
design justification but

>> doubt it would satisfy
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Danny Miller skrev:
>>
>>> No, it has a mechanical CVT transmission in
there.  Gears and all.
The
>>> Prius is a parallel hybrid, if the wiring
between a generator and
motor
>>> were the only link from engine to wheels then
it'd be a series
hybrid.
>>>
>>> It's interesting to note that the engineers
spent an awful lot of
design
>>> time, expense and weight to make a CVT tranny
rather than add a
separate
>>> motor from the generator so they can run at
different speeds.
Either
>>> the losses are simply too high or the second
motor is more expensive

>>> than the tranny.
>>>
>>> The earlier generations of Prius used an
electric motor that could
not
>>> produce great acceleration or top speed without
the engine.  In 2003
the
>>> hatchback had a 50KW motor instead of the
earlier 30KW and 33KW
ones.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>
>>> Dan Frederiksen wrote:
>>>
>>>> (-Phil-) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just to clarify, the Prius doesn't have a
separate CVT.  The CVT
*is*
>>>>> the motor/generators!
>>>>> By shuffling power between the 2 motor/gens
you effectively have a

>>>>> CVT. It's a totally ingenious system!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> aside from the fact that the end result is an
expensive ICE car and
not
>>>> an EV. it's effectively an electric clutch. the
design will not
survive
>>>> and should never have been. if one was
conspiratorially inclined
(and
>>>> one is) one might be suspicious that they
intentionally chose a bad

>>>> design because it could give the illusion of
being environmentally
>>>> friendly while still remaining a pure ICE car.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>






________________________________________________________________________
____________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just out of curiousity, but I thought long ICE discussions weren't
supposed to happen here???

Otherwise, the new Mini Cooper is a fair discussion topic. (It replaces
the generator by using regeneration... and gets more MPG than the Prius.)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Keep in mind that if you could reduce your battery draw 33%, you're going to get somewhat more than 33% more range because the batteries won't be derated by Peukert's (spelling) effect as badly. The whole should be a little better than the sum of the parts for a change. Now if you throttled up the generators during acceleration, and throttled them back down during steady cruise, you could improve upon that gain even more without taxing the generator excessively.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: EV achilles' heel


Let's do some math.
Say you have an EV with economy of 300wh/mile cruising at say 50mph. Power
consumption: 15kw
A pair of Honda 3kw in a trailer as a genny could deliver a steady 4.8kw
fairly quietly, efficiently and okay, with pollution, but that 4.8kw of
steady output and with an 80% efficient charger would reduce the battery
consumption rate by 3.84/15 or 27% extending your effective range by the
same 27%.
So that 30mi EV range is now 35miles as a noisy hybrid.
You're right, it hardly seems worth it.

Now, it is worth it if you can get that %power reduction to 50% or better or can reduce your speed and power consumption to effect the same. On my boat, this strategy has allowed 45mile runs on a charge on the Columbia River with real tired batteries. The boat can cruise at 4knots with about 1.8kw draw.
With the single Honda 2kw genset onboard with home-built Vicor-based
chargers plugged in, the genset/charger setup delivers 1.44kw steady into
the batteries, reducing the electron burn rate from the batteries by 80%.
So running with genset going steadily (1/3gal/hr) extends my battery range
to 5x what it is with batteries alone.

So it really comes down to needing a good percentage of your cruise power
being provided by the genset/charger to make it worthwhile.  With my boat,
it's still a bit short in my opinion---2.4kw steady output from the genset
would be perfect.

-Myles Twete
"The Reach Of Tide" Electric Barge Cruiser:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/492


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I imagine if you ever found a Prius with a blown ICE, you could, with a metric crapton of work, take it out and just use the 2 MGs in an all electric car. You'd have to re-write the software, or (probably easier) just cut the existing controls right up to the inverter and put in your own logic to drive them.

With the ICE out, you could increase the electric-only speed, as both MGs would be running.

A little known mode of the Prius is called "coast" where you are going too fast for Electric only, but the car doesn't want the ICE running. It shuts off the ICE and alters the valve timing somehow to drastically reduce pumping loss. The ICE still turns, but no fuel, no spark, and no air.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works



   Jeff> You can find a lot on the web about the power split Prius design
   Jeff> and operation.  Here's one

   Jeff> http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info

Sorta makes you wonder if you could replace the ICE with more batteries or
another motor + some extra batteries.

--
Skip Montanaro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.webfast.com/~skip/



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
just saw a tv ad for a nissan car with a CVT, don't
have any info on it, i normally don't pay attention to
car commercials

--- TrotFox Greyfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Chet,
> 
> Yes it could be used for EV's but once you've got
> two motors in there
> anyway why not just link them up normally?  There's
> no reason to have
> them turning at different speeds compared to each
> other.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> What worm gear?  There is no worm gear in the Prius
> E-CVT.
> 
> Trot, the frustrated, fox...
> 
> On 6/14/07, Dan Frederiksen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > off the top of my head you would need two motors
> besides the relatively
> > complicated worm gear in a system that promises to
> eventually do without
> > any gears at all.
> > it's a needless complication
> >
> > Chet Fields wrote:
> > > Trying to get back on topic, couldn't a similar
> design be used to create a CVT for EV's? Something
> > > that would allow for torque multiplication at
> low speeds and yet low RPMs for high speeds.
> > >
> > > It would need 2 motors connected to probably sun
> and planetary carrier? Could also work kind of
> > > like the series/parallel switching. And the
> controller would have to be more complicated. Would
> > > any of the motors need to also run backwards?
> > >
> > > Just trying to stimulate some thought. ( I don't
> want to burn my neurons on this one alone :-)
> > >
> > > Chet
> 
> -- 
> |  /\_/\       TrotFox         \ Always remember,
> | ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon \ "There is a
> |  >\_/<       [EMAIL PROTECTED]       \ third
> alternative."
> 
> 


Albuquerque, NM
http://geocities.com/hendersonmotorcycles/blog.html
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1000
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1179
http://geocities.com/solarcookingman


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel 
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I find this post to be a personal  attack.

Don Blazer

In a message dated 6/14/2007 6:00:46 AM Pacific  Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
wrong
I don't care to  reiterate the obvious for the blind. maybe you'll 
realize the truth when you  buy one. you'll probably hve forgotten 
though, maybe even think it was your  idea to begin with

Cor van de Water wrote:
> Hi  Dan,
>
> It depends on the situation people are in:
> some  have never a need to go more than a few miles, so
> the EV is their only  car and does not need range extension.
>
> Some have an occasional  need and know that renting a car
> will be the most efficient way for  their transportation
> need and they do not need to bother with an unused  ICE car
> during the time in between.
>
> Many others have  more than one car, so before each trip
> they think for half a second  which car is appropriate.
>
> Very few people use range  extension.
> Most times it is a total disappointment, a kludge  that
> takes away from the simple and clean EV idea.
> In addition,  even thinking about making a genset or
> something comparable get good  emissions is a royal pain.
>
> There is very little point if you are  interested in saving
> the environment to have an EV that needs its genset  a small
> percentage of the time but spews out many times more  crud,
> defeating the whole purpose.
>
> I did not even  address reliability, NOISE, and other issues.
>
> Not everyone is  thinking about it from this perspective
> and sometimes habit and comfort  are stronger than dedication
> as can be witnessed when someone needs to  mow his lawn.
> Most lawnmowers belch out more during one hour of  mowing
> than the modern car does during an entire week of driving
>  (not including CO2).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> 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 Dan Frederiksen
>  Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:07 AM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>  Subject: EV achilles' heel
>
> I think everyone can live with the  cost of replacing lead acids once in a
> while, and the energy loss in  them from common discharge and even assuming
> some heads would pop out of  dark odorfilled areas and we would fix the
> electronics cost for  conversions we still have the EVs current achilles'
> heel, the  range.
>
> how many have tried using a small combustion engine for  range extension in
> EVs? I imagine for instance a turbocharged 250cc  motorcycle engine or even
> look into the possibility of using a tesla  turbine because of its 
simplicity
> and potentially very compact size.  (presumably run very smoothly too)
>
> anyone tried auxiliary  combustion?  I know JB Straubel did a trailer but
> that was a full  size car motor as opposed to a small onboard one.
> is everyone driving  pure EV?
>
> Dan
>
>
>    




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:08:21PM -0700, dale henderson wrote:
> 
> just saw a tv ad for a nissan car with a CVT, don't
> have any info on it, i normally don't pay attention to
> car commercials
> 

Nissans CVT is a real CVT. It uses toroidal internal + a special oil.

(source: discovery channel)


-- 
Eduardo K.            | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl  | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://ev.nn.cl       | 
                      |         Yo.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---

----- Original Message ----- From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works


No.
In my country we have a joke, it is about a man driving
on the freeway when he hears a traffic warning message on
the radio: watch out, there is a report of a wrong way driver.

"What!" the man exclaims, "Not one, I see hundreds of them!"

I dare you to answer the questions in my post.
If you really want, you can send them to me.

  Hi Cor an' EVerybody;

Sorta reminds me of the lines in one of my 78 RPM records, a WW1 offering, on Victor Talking Machine, "His Master's Voice".

     " Did ya see my little Jimmy marching,

       With the soldiers down the avenue?

        And Hey did ya notice?

        They were all out of step but Jim?

Cute "Proud Parents" type song, about 1917, I havent played it lately, but that was the jist of it.

" When does the last train go to Buffalo? As if you should live so long?" 1916 humor! We're down to one and counting!

or my twisted Amtrak daze humor " When do we get to Boston?..... I don't know, we've never made it!"

Or, a more current offering; In Planes Trains and Automobiles, John Candy's line when people were Yelling at them, indead ,going the wrong way on the freeway. "You're going the WRONG WAY!!" Wrong way??? HOW does HE know where were going?" All kidding aside we have folks stopped almost every week going the wrong way on I-95!!!They usually end up as hood ornaments on Freightliners and Peterbilts!

   OK, back to how Prei work?? Just fine! and other OT humor!

       Seeya

       Bob

        back again.

OK, to be a bit on topic, I just had the Jetta's wheels, actually Front End aligned, this am.What do ya say? Yawn? Well, what a shock! Pun intended!!What a difference when yur wheels are all pointed in the same direction!!Well, I Had had the front end apart, to replace the struts, treated the car to new tires. Cooper, Kenecticas,Why? They were on sale at Bennie's (local dept store)and are good for 44psi. Oh yeah! Throw away those cheepo damn Chinese pressure gages!! Guy said I had 50-to60 psi in the tires!!I THOUGHT I was running 45-50 maybe?The Guyz at New Image Automotive in Higginum ,CT (like Speonk, NY an actuall place, 'taint making that up!) worked on the car over an hour, busting free adjustments that had to be done.

A few hours later I rolled out, and ROLLED along. Gees! Like a train! Could go along the 2 laner 40-50 at 75 amps! Like I wasn't towing something!I could coast downhill, like EVerybody else! Powering back, at 75-100 amps with everybody else! Should get a hellova lot better miliage!Talk about EV grin?

So, tip and question of today; When's the last time you had your Jewel alinegned? Not lately? Your tires tell the tale, though. Guy said I was chewing up the new tires, already, as I had too much Toe Out. Gees! they LOOKED OK when I put it back together?!Well, youse guyz know all this, but friemdly reminder. I towed the Rabbit home from Power of DC a few years ago. Drove it to work the next day, I had to force it to stay on the road! I knocked the shit out of the front end towing it home, through NYC's famous wading pool size potholes!At the shop the car on the lift, the insides of the front tires werre warn threadbare! Steel mesh showing, but on the outside, looked fine?Argument for a good car trailer? A realignment, new front tires and we were honeymooning again.Other issues led to the Rabbit's demise.Jetta is a nicer car, but I DO miss the hatchback feature of the Wabbit.You can actually carry 4 people in Jetta, Like I carry 4 people very often?

  Anyhow, thought I'd pass along asome good stuff in 'tooning yur car.

    Seeya

Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- That Flash application at the bottom is awesome. That's the best explanation yet.... hands on!

I hope everyone here gets a chance to play with it!

Thanks Chet!

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chet Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works



--- "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There has to be a clutch in there somewhere.  Otherwise there would be
constant pressure on the engine to turn over.  Looking at the picture it
looks like there is some sort of clutch attached between the PSD shaft
and the engine.  That would make sense if it was that way.  Then the
engine PSD shaft could turn freely ...

The planetary gears are capable of spinning independantly of the carrier (in place, so to speak), therefore, as the ring gear (MG2) drives the vehicle forward, the planetary carrier stays in place as the sun gear rotates backwards with the planetary gears spinning in between.

http://eahart.com/prius/psd/

and when the system wants to start
the engine all it has to do is engage the clutch for a second or two and
disengage again.  Then when it is ready to take the power to move the
vehicle it can engage again and start to develop torque to move the car.
It is my understanding that the engine will never be on when the car is
at a stop.  That is why the car failed the georgia emissions test.

But the engine can spin freely with the vehicle stopped as the planetary gears then transfer the power to the sun gear (MG1) and acts as a generator to recharge the batteries. It does this every start up sequence to warm up the system. In fact, if you take off immediately while the engine is running is doesn't even provide any power while it is warming up for about a minute. All power
comes from MG2.

HTH,

Chet



____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Also keep in mind, the computer can adjust the valve timing in such a way as to make starting very easy, similar to a compression release.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: How the Prius Works


I get it now.  If the car is running off MG2, then the ring gear is
spinning, the planet gears are stopped (engine off) and MG2 is spinning
from the drive of the gears of the planets.  If MG1 was to slow down for
any reason then power would be transmitted from the ring gear to the
planet gears, turning over the engine.  Since the engine is an atkinson
cycle engine, not much torque would be needed to get it started.  The
computer basically has to decide how much power is needed to drive the
wheels of the car, how much MG2 is providing, and how slow to run MG1 to
get the ICE to deliver the rest.  Pretty smart!

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of TrotFox Greyfoot
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 13:02
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: How the Prius Works

Actually, no there doesn't.  the electric motors are capable of
operating in such a manner that the engine doesn't turn even though the
wheels do.  MG1 is not directly connected to the engine as it appears to
be.  It is in fact only directly connected to the torque split device.
This page explains it fully:
http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-transmission

That cutaway seems to not match what I originally saw when I first
researched the Prius.  Also, the way that diagram represents the system
there might as well be no power split device.  I think there might be a
bit of optical illusion going on as to how those parts all interconnect.
The clutch-like object looks to be just the engine's flywheel and
interconnecting parts.

Trot, the technical, fox...

On 6/14/07, Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There has to be a clutch in there somewhere.  Otherwise there would be

constant pressure on the engine to turn over.  Looking at the picture
it looks like there is some sort of clutch attached between the PSD
shaft and the engine.  That would make sense if it was that way.  Then

the engine PSD shaft could turn freely and when the system wants to
start the engine all it has to do is engage the clutch for a second or

two and disengage again.  Then when it is ready to take the power to
move the vehicle it can engage again and start to develop torque to
move the car.
It is my understanding that the engine will never be on when the car
is at a stop.  That is why the car failed the georgia emissions test.


--
|  /\_/\       TrotFox         \ Always remember,
| ( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon \ "There is a
|  >\_/<       [EMAIL PROTECTED]       \ third alternative."



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- You literally could use a differential out of a car. You *could* do this, but I'm not sure there is any benefit. The control system gets very complex fast. It would also have to be motors/controllers that support bi-directional modes (regen), and also tight RPM control, so using AC is probably the only easy way to do it. (easy being relative)

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chet Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:36 AM
Subject: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)


Trying to get back on topic, couldn't a similar design be used to create a CVT for EV's? Something that would allow for torque multiplication at low speeds and yet low RPMs for high speeds.

It would need 2 motors connected to probably sun and planetary carrier? Could also work kind of like the series/parallel switching. And the controller would have to be more complicated. Would
any of the motors need to also run backwards?

Just trying to stimulate some thought. ( I don't want to burn my neurons on this one alone :-)

Chet



____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Michael Wendell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

can the insight's supplemental motor move the car on its own?

No. It cannot and does not run independently of the
ICE. Even if it could, it is approximately 10 hp and
so you wouldn't get much. I believe the Civic
version is about 15 hp.

Honda's system is more like "electric turbocharging"
than hybrid technology. Sad to say, because we own
one ('03 Civic), but the new Prius is hybrid done
right and Honda is just trying to make a bad deal a
little sweeter.

I understand the new version of the Civic Hybrid
can move on E alone, but because of having the
E-motor physically connected to the ICE you still
have to turn over the ICE even if it isn't firing.
That, to me, seems like a real energy waster.

Honda's done some innovative things with variable
valve timing and turning off some active cylinders
under partial load, but they really missed a bet
doing the hybrid system the way they did. I'd
LOVE to be able to put a honkin' pack in the
trunk and be able to drive 25 miles at 40 mph
on the batteries alone -- but as it is there's
not a thing you can do to improve it.

They tried to play with the "electric turbocharger"
idea with the Accord Hybrid, but I see they're
no longer making it because it didn't sell. Truth
to tell, if I want a pavement-ripping Accord I'll
spend less money putting a real turbo on it.

I suspect they didn't want to licence the Prius
system from Toyota the way Ford did. I've been
hearing the word "Betamax" in my head when
I look at the Civic lately. :)=)}

Chuck

_________________________________________________________________
Upgrade to Windows Live Hotmail for free today! www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA151
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- This is the first thing you've said that I actually agree with, even though I'm loathe to admit it..... :-p

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Frederiksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: EV CVT (Was: How the Prius Works)


off the top of my head you would need two motors besides the relatively complicated worm gear in a system that promises to eventually do without any gears at all.
it's a needless complication

Chet Fields wrote:
Trying to get back on topic, couldn't a similar design be used to create a CVT for EV's? Something that would allow for torque multiplication at low speeds and yet low RPMs for high speeds.

It would need 2 motors connected to probably sun and planetary carrier? Could also work kind of like the series/parallel switching. And the controller would have to be more complicated. Would
any of the motors need to also run backwards?

Just trying to stimulate some thought. ( I don't want to burn my neurons on this one alone :-)

Chet



____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7





--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I second this.  I would trust Lee with my EV's life.... =)

After hearing his and other accounts of how the TS cells failed, I would NEVER consider buying or recommending them. If I start hearing good reviews from him and others, it could definitely change my mind.

-Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Wendell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: thundersky cells (was: new subscriber)


I'm referring to the fact that the TS has kept its name but the
ownerships and resources are quite different from the screwups.
...
Do you really think that changing the name would solve this issue ? We
just might do that. But seriously. I wish there would be another way to
gat around this. New cells ?

How about if you then send me the complete list of broken cells ?
I know Victor and Lee got some. Who else ?

as a non-invested bystander in this conversation, i for one would love to
see lee get some thundersky cells. why? well, if lee comes back to the list
and tells me that they worked, and how he used them, i'd be very likely to
buy some for my project. as a complete newbie, i'm unlikely to jump in and
try them out on my own, they're exensive and i'd most likely ruin them
anyway.

i'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

m.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Not too long ago I had the pleasure to work on a Capstone C-30 Turbine generator. Amazing piece of technology. As soon as I got my hands on it, I felt the urge to cram it in an EV.

It's extraordinarily clean and very small and light with only one moving part, and even that one part is suspended with low friction air bearings.

It would be the ideal range-extender. I hatched this plan in my head to make a removable sled that could be loaded in for long trips. I also toyed with the idea of taking a large chunk of the pack out when this is done.

In the end, this would only make sense if I was limited to one vehicle, although it sure would be neat!

-Phil
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don,
Thanks for the idea.. I had thought about that myself.. a simple swamp cooler
would work well especially for that short of time.  Also, when I leave in the
morning, don't really need Air conditioning... it's only in the afternoon..  My
employer is pretty flexible, and I might be able to work something out there...
I am good friends with the building manager, and I park under lighted/covered
parking.. I might be able to get him to put a locked outlet down the pole where
I park.  Even if he wants to charge me for the electricity I'm sure it would
amount to a dollar a day.  At that rate.. I'd pay a year in advance...

Thanks again for the advice
Dave out.



>Hello Dave
>
>Your best plan would be to work on your employer to allow charging at work.
>Your required 35 miles is going to be hard enough to achieve with lead acid.
>You  will have to spend between 30 and 50 thousand for the batteries alone to
>go  70 to 90 miles. It also sounds like you are going to want AC? You could
>figure a  10 or 15% deduction when running that. Or as others has posted use a
>cooler with  ice or some other way without adding added drain on the pack.
>
>Low cost new technology batteries are not here yet.
>
>Don Blazer

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to