[EVDL] Reversing a shunt or Sepex motor was VW Epri Bus
Hi Dave etc Normally the GE etc Sepex or Finer field shunt motors use a FET H bridge that diagonally PWM's in forward direction on the field and then when you flip in reverse it immediately uses the other two diagonal Fets to go backwards. No noticeable delay from forward to reverse. Have a renewable energy day. Mark Sent from my iPhone ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EPRI TVA VW electric bus
What we seem to have deduced is that the controller and motor are a matched pair. It seems without doubt that the controller manages the voltage delivered to both the armature and the fields, otherwise the "reverse switch" wouldn't be workable. I'd image that the sequence would be something like: 1) accelerator released: controller ready, no field or armature 2) accelerator depressed: full field, armature current limited, probably ramping up. 3) accelerator depressed further, full armature current, full field. This would occur at what I'm calling "idle" speed. 4) at some point, pressing the accelerator further results in the beginning of field weakening while maintaining full armature. 5) release accelerator partially: full armature current, restore field current to a greater level. Regenerative braking proportional to pedal position. 6) completely release accelerator: Well, this is a bit of conjecture. Dropping the armature at any point during deceleration would result in the regenerative braking going away all at once, which might be dangerous if the driver wasn't expecting it, so I'd say that the controller maintains the armature current until the vehicle has slowed to the point where regen is weak or nil, probably the "idle" speed, then it ramps down or cuts the armature current. All of this is subject to the field voltage. If, like Lee suggests, it might be a low voltage field, then the controller might have a buck/boost function for the field, which would complicate our armchair diagnosis. I do remember when I was researching the Siemens 1GV series motors last year during my lithium conversion, I ran across some documentation that seemed to show some series field windings along with the shunt/sepex field. The compound field arrangement might be the key to having stall/low RPM torque available so the motor doesn't need to idle. Thinking about it, it's entirely possible that the SCT developers went with the full-armature/idling motor both because they didn't want to have to build controllers that could handle the armature current, but also because that thought that a car that "idles" would be more intuitive for drivers used to ICE vehicles. Earlier this month the local utility contacted me about entering my car in the town's annual Spring parade. I had to decline because idling at 1,800 RPM in first gear results in a ground speed of 9 MPH. This wasn't going to work and I was unwilling to ride the clutch for an hour to keep from riding up on the parade entry ahead of me. Maybe I should dig that Zilla 1K out of the parts pile and experiment with armature control. Sad News For Meghan Markle And Prince Harry track.volutrk.com http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5ceac6f37b42046ec583fst02vuc ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EPRI TVA VW electric bus
Mr. Sharkey via EV wrote: What we seem to have deduced is that the controller and motor are a matched pair. It seems without doubt that the controller manages the voltage delivered to both the armature and the fields, otherwise the "reverse switch" wouldn't be workable. Yes, that sounds likely. I'd image that the sequence would be something like: 1) accelerator released: controller ready, no field or armature 2) accelerator depressed: full field, armature current limited, probably ramping up. 3) accelerator depressed further, full armature current, full field. This would occur at what I'm calling "idle" speed. 4) at some point, pressing the accelerator further results in the beginning of field weakening while maintaining full armature. 5) release accelerator partially: full armature current, restore field current to a greater level. Regenerative braking proportional to pedal position. 6) completely release accelerator: Well, this is a bit of conjecture. Dropping the armature at any point during deceleration would result in the regenerative braking going away all at once, which might be dangerous if the driver wasn't expecting it, so I'd say that the controller maintains the armature current until the vehicle has slowed to the point where regen is weak or nil, probably the "idle" speed, then it ramps down or cuts the armature current. That's a good guess. Though, a sepex controller is capable of very sophisticated motion control. You don't see sepex in fork lifts very often; but you do find them in more sophisticated EVs, and applications like cranes and elevators, where the operator wants precise control of position, torque, and speed. My old sepex controller was very crude; but it worked! :-) The armature had 4 steps; off, 36v with series resistor, 36v direct, 72v direct. The field had a big rheostat in series to the pack (36v or 72v). When the accelerator pedal was released, the pack was switched to 36v. The field rheostat was 0 ohms, so full 36v field. As you pressed the pedal, cam switches gave the armature 36v with resistor, then 36v without resistor. Above that, the rheostat began increasing resistance to weaken the field and speed up the motor. The field got to minimum resistance near full throttle. At full throttle, a cam switched the pack from 36v to 72v to get "full warp speed". A characteristic of this setup is that it tried to be a constant-speed drive. If I held the pedal in one position, the car tended to go at the same speed, drawing a lot more power uphill, and doing regen down hill. I didn't want to suddenly push the pedal to a new position, because the motor would "fight like hell" to get to the new speed as quick as it could. The only thing preventing me from breaking drive shafts or getting my teeth planted in the steering wheel was that it was a relatively small motor (70 lbs; rated 30v 500a) and a heavy vehicle (a 1974 Datsun pickup with a dozen golf cart batteries). If, like Lee suggests, it might be a low voltage field, then the controller might have a buck/boost function for the field, which would complicate our armchair diagnosis. My guess is that they wound the field for some fraction of pack voltage, so they didn't need a buck/boost controller. They could get (say) 4x field by applying 120v to a 30v field winding. Your controller just has to be aware of how *long* it can over-voltage the field before heating becomes a problem. The field has a lot of mass; it can stand large over-voltages for many minutes, and there is usually a blower that runs all the time for cooling it. I do remember when I was researching the Siemens 1GV series motors last year during my lithium conversion, I ran across some documentation that seemed to show some series field windings along with the shunt/sepex field. The compound field arrangement might be the key to having stall/low RPM torque available so the motor doesn't need to idle. Yes. The most sophisticated applications for big DC motors are normally compound (multiple series and shunt field windings). You can get just about any imaginable characteristic just by careful choice of which windings are powered. There are also interpoles, which add even more possibilities. But that's a whole 'nother topic. Thinking about it, it's entirely possible that the SCT developers went with the full-armature/idling motor both because they didn't want to have to build controllers that could handle the armature current, but also because that thought that a car that "idles" would be more intuitive for drivers used to ICE vehicles. Well, when people convert ICE's with automatic transmissions, they often *do* need to keep the motor idling, just to keep they transmission pumped up and working. And people have come to expect cars to "creep". Earlier this month the local utility contacted me about entering my car in the town's annual Spring parade. I had to decline because idling at 1,800 RPM in first gear
Re: [EVDL] EPRI TVA VW electric bus
The Lucas Bedford vans used a sepex motor. Armature control was via an SCR, with the field driven via a bipolar transistor circuit. Battery voltage was 216v nominal of 3KQ11 tubular plate lead acid. It was usually the field controller that The first version of the Reva G-Wiz is a sepex motor too. On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 18:46, Lee Hart via EV wrote: > > Mr. Sharkey via EV wrote: > > What we seem to have deduced is that the controller and motor are a > > matched pair. It seems without doubt that the controller manages the > > voltage delivered to both the armature and the fields, otherwise the > > "reverse switch" wouldn't be workable. > > Yes, that sounds likely. > > > I'd image that the sequence would be something like: > > > > 1) accelerator released: controller ready, no field or armature > > 2) accelerator depressed: full field, armature current limited, probably > > ramping up. > > 3) accelerator depressed further, full armature current, full field. > > This would occur at what I'm calling "idle" speed. > > 4) at some point, pressing the accelerator further results in the > > beginning of field weakening while maintaining full armature. > > 5) release accelerator partially: full armature current, restore field > > current to a greater level. Regenerative braking proportional to pedal > > position. > > 6) completely release accelerator: Well, this is a bit of conjecture. > > Dropping the armature at any point during deceleration would result in > > the regenerative braking going away all at once, which might be > > dangerous if the driver wasn't expecting it, so I'd say that the > > controller maintains the armature current until the vehicle has slowed > > to the point where regen is weak or nil, probably the "idle" speed, then > > it ramps down or cuts the armature current. > > That's a good guess. Though, a sepex controller is capable of very > sophisticated motion control. You don't see sepex in fork lifts very > often; but you do find them in more sophisticated EVs, and applications > like cranes and elevators, where the operator wants precise control of > position, torque, and speed. > > My old sepex controller was very crude; but it worked! :-) The armature > had 4 steps; off, 36v with series resistor, 36v direct, 72v direct. The > field had a big rheostat in series to the pack (36v or 72v). > > When the accelerator pedal was released, the pack was switched to 36v. > The field rheostat was 0 ohms, so full 36v field. As you pressed the > pedal, cam switches gave the armature 36v with resistor, then 36v > without resistor. Above that, the rheostat began increasing resistance > to weaken the field and speed up the motor. The field got to minimum > resistance near full throttle. At full throttle, a cam switched the pack > from 36v to 72v to get "full warp speed". > > A characteristic of this setup is that it tried to be a constant-speed > drive. If I held the pedal in one position, the car tended to go at the > same speed, drawing a lot more power uphill, and doing regen down hill. > I didn't want to suddenly push the pedal to a new position, because the > motor would "fight like hell" to get to the new speed as quick as it > could. The only thing preventing me from breaking drive shafts or > getting my teeth planted in the steering wheel was that it was a > relatively small motor (70 lbs; rated 30v 500a) and a heavy vehicle (a > 1974 Datsun pickup with a dozen golf cart batteries). > > > If, like Lee suggests, it might be a low voltage field, then the > > controller might have a buck/boost function for the field, which would > > complicate our armchair diagnosis. > > My guess is that they wound the field for some fraction of pack voltage, > so they didn't need a buck/boost controller. They could get (say) 4x > field by applying 120v to a 30v field winding. > > Your controller just has to be aware of how *long* it can over-voltage > the field before heating becomes a problem. The field has a lot of mass; > it can stand large over-voltages for many minutes, and there is usually > a blower that runs all the time for cooling it. > > > I do remember when I was researching the Siemens 1GV series motors last > > year during my lithium conversion, I ran across some documentation that > > seemed to show some series field windings along with the shunt/sepex > > field. The compound field arrangement might be the key to having > > stall/low RPM torque available so the motor doesn't need to idle. > > Yes. The most sophisticated applications for big DC motors are normally > compound (multiple series and shunt field windings). You can get just > about any imaginable characteristic just by careful choice of which > windings are powered. There are also interpoles, which add even more > possibilities. But that's a whole 'nother topic. > > > Thinking about it, it's entirely possible that the SCT developers went > > with the full-armature/idling motor both because they didn't want to > > have to build controllers th
[EVDL] Smart ED charging issue
Does anyone here have any experience diagnosing the Smart ED? Here's what's going on with mine: My 2013 Smart ED is no longer charging. When I plug it in to the EVSE, I hear the usual clicking of contactors in the car, the EVSE contactor closes and then opens again within a half second, and the dashboard flashes "Malfunction". This repeats as long as I have the EVSE connected. (Yes, I have tried three EVSEs, all of which used to work with the car) I have tried to scan for error codes with an iCarsoft MBII and a Delphi DS150, but neither will scan the EV specific systems. Any suggestions for a scan tool, or do I have to take it to a shop with a STAR tool? Anything I could check without a scan? I have verified that there is no damage to the wires connecting the charge inlet to the charger module in the car. Bill ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] $35k std Tesla-3 w/ software-locked features being delivered
https://electrek.co/2019/05/26/tesla-start-selling-standard-range-model-3-locked-features/ Tesla starts delivering ‘Standard Range’ Model 3 at ~$35,000 with locked features May. 26th 2019 Fred Lambert [images https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/TEsla-Model-3-Standard-Range-hero-1.jpeg https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/Tesla-Model-3-Standard-Range-first-software.jpeg https://i2.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_4556.jpeg https://i1.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_3929.jpeg https://i1.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_2014.jpeg https://i1.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_3103.jpeg https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_0373-2.jpeg https://i2.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_7369.jpeg https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/05/IMG_3096.jpeg ] A few months after starting to sell its long-promised ~$35,000 base Model 3, Tesla had yet to actually deliver the vehicles with the listed configuration. Now it looks like Tesla is starting to deliver the ‘Standard Range’ (SR) Model 3 with software-locked features. In February, Tesla launched its base Model 3 for $35,000 [ https://electrek.co/2019/02/28/tesla-model-3-standard-battery-interior/ ] – something that the company had been promising for years. But things got increasingly complicated after the launch as Tesla removed the configuration from its website and made it more difficult to order the vehicle just a month later. Furthermore, the vehicle was only sold as a software-locked version of the ‘Standard Range Plus’ (SR+) Model 3. Tesla explained: “Its range will be limited by 10%, and several features will be disabled via software (including our onboard music streaming service, navigation with live traffic visualization, and heated seats). When it comes to the actual hardware, the two versions of the vehicle, which now start at $35,400 and $39,900, are identical. The automaker started to deliver Model 3’s to people who bought the Standard Range last month, but we checked with a few owners and they all report still having access to all the same features as the ‘Standard Range Plus’ to this day. It appeared that Tesla didn’t release a software update for the Standard Range until now. For the first time, we learn of Tesla delivering new cars with Standard Range software-locked features (hat tip to Marc Benton). John Rougeux told Electrek that he picked up his Model 3 at Tesla Nashville Saturday and it was delivered as a Standard Range: The vehicle is limited to 220 miles of range and as far as we know, it’s the first Model 3 delivered with the limitation. Rougeux’s VIN is in the 297,000s and he told Electrek that it was built in March. Based on the process to acquire the vehicle, it appears that Tesla had a SR+ Model 3 inventory that they updated to a SR before delivery: I noticed via Tesla online that Columbus had one. I called, and was told that no, they didn’t have it. He called me back and said that Indy had a fleet car that wasn’t ever used and could be sold. I put the deposit down on it this past Wednesday, May 22nd. Then the next day I found out it was in Nashville instead. Friday at 6pm, I was told the total due and it was the price of a Standard Range Plus, with Autopilot. I told her that I wanted the SR, not the +, which she told me that NOBODY has the Standard Range and that the Standard Range Plus would NOT be downgraded. After a few phone calls, she called back and apologized, saying that I was right. I went today (Saturday, May 25th) and picked up the car at 11am eastern time. The entire hardware of the vehicle is exactly the same as the Standard Range Plus, including things like the seats and center console, which were originally supposed to be different: But unlike previous buyers of Standard Range Model 3 vehicles, Rougeux’s Model 3 has software-locked features. For example, while the seats are all equipped with heating elements, only the front seats can be heated. The range is limited to 220 miles. The vehicle doesn’t have live maps and fog lights enabled: All of Tesla’s vehicles except for the Standard Range Model 3 come with Autopilot as a standard feature. Rougeux’s Model 3 doesn’t have the base Autopilot package: Interestingly, Standard Range Model 3 vehicles are not supposed to have the ‘Immersive Sound’, but it is enabled on Rougeux’s Model 3: Tesla says that they will let Standard Range Model 3 owners upgrade to Standard Range Plus features and vice-versa. Electrek’s Take It doesn’t look like it was a priority for Tesla to write the new version of the software with the features disabled, especially since they have been pushing hard for people to buy the SR+ anyway. At the same time, it’s probably smart for Tesla to give SR owners access to those features for a while before taking th
[EVDL] EVs= NO Risk> "Electromagnetic radiation" is not "radioactivity"
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/electric-cars-dont-pose-risk-for-radiation
Electric Cars Don't Pose a Risk for Radiation
Experts agree: There is no unhealthy radiation exposure from EVs.
May 21 2019 Bob Schildgen
Hey Mr. Green,
I have an electric Fiat 500e that I love. I have been hearing flack from
some people saying that electric cars are “radiation boxes” and that the
radioactivity caused by the electric engine is unhealthy. Your thoughts on
this issue?
—Mary Anne in Encinitas, California
Various authorities ranging from bioengineers to Consumer Reports affirm
that there is no risk of unhealthy radiation exposure from electric
vehicles. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers studied
radiation near an electric vehicle’s floor and found only 20 percent of the
limit recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection. The only precautions I have found are that people with implanted
devices such as cardioverter-defibrillators should avoid getting too close
to the motors or battery packs of electric vehicles when they are generating
a lot of power.
There can be more significant radiation exposure from other forms of travel,
such as flying. About 11 percent of the average American’s total exposure to
radiation can occur on one coast-to-coast flight, according to the Centers
for Disease Control. While this is less than the exposure from one chest
X-ray, some studies indicate that flight crews and frequent fliers have an
elevated rate of many types of cancer.
When it comes to the hazards of car travel, you’re better off focusing on
the basic fact that car crashes remain one of the most common ways people
get hurt in this country, whether the car is powered by polluting gasoline
or squeaky-clean electrons. The National Safety Council estimates that last
year alone, 40,000 people died in car crashes, while a mind-boggling 4.5
million were seriously injured.
[comments ...
Rick Steeb [ https://www.facebook.com/rick.steeb.5 ]
"Electromagnetic radiation" is not the same as "radioactivity". There are no
atomic particles emitted from electic motors or their controllers. Your
chromosomes are perfectly safe.] ...
[© sierraclub.org]
+
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20190524/life-features/zero-carbon-electric-transport-is-already-in-reach-for-small-islands.710787
Zero-carbon electric transport is already in reach for small islands
May 24, 2019 We focused on the Caribbean and the rapid progress which is
already underway on the island of Barbados – now the third highest user of
electric vehicles in the ...
https://images.theconversation.com/files/275893/original/file-20190522-187153-1irp4sz.jpg
For EVLN EV-newswire posts use:
http://evdl.org/archive/
{brucedp.neocities.org}
--
Sent from: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Smart ED charging issue
I'll assume you've tried both a level2 and a level1 EVSE with the same
symptoms.
I suggest you the search link
https://www.google.com/search?q=Smart+ED+charging+Malfunction
to pose your question on the several smart forums that come up.
For EVLN EV-newswire posts use:
http://evdl.org/archive/
{brucedp.neocities.org}
--
Sent from: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
