EV Digest 2458
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by "VanDerWal, Peter MSgt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
by "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
by "Rod Hower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
by Edward Ang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
by "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
by "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Here we go AGAIN! WARNING!
by "Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
by Matthew Muelver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
by "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) EDISON DISALLOWS CONDUCTIVE CHARGING ON EV TOU METERS
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) EDISON DISALLOWS CONDUCTIVE CHARGING ON EV TOU METERS
by Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) OT slightly. DODGE BAWL
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: EDISON DISALLOWS CONDUCTIVE CHARGING ON EV TOU METERS
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Silent Running
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) EV Races on TechTV today
by Steven Ciciora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22) RE: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: EDISON DISALLOWS...
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Silent Running
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: EV Races on TechTV today
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) RE: Amps Volts can Kostov take?
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
>Regarding twin motors: I have considered it, and decided to go with
>one for several reasons:
>
>One is cheaper
>One is lighter and smaller -- more room for batteries
>One is easier to attach
>One is quieter (minor consideration)
>One hopefully keeps the CG lower for better cornering
>Two get less stressed
>Two seems to be the NEDRA trick of late
>
>I'm hoping that going sepex helps with the last two points. I think
>alot of the stress the motors get is from current multiplication.
>Getting the same torque for less motor current I'm hoping gives good
>power without fireballing.
As I understand it fireballing happens more because of high voltage than
high current (at least that's what I understand), Usually it's high voltage
AND high current, but the higher the voltage the less current is needed to
fireball.
Seems to me if you put a lot more power through a motor than it is rated for
you run the risk of fireballing regardless of whether it's sepex or series.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Rod,
From : Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : Re: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
Date : Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:24:39 -0500
When I worked in AZ as a Co-op student I lived in an apartment complex in
Avendale. They had solor water heaters on the roof and I think rarely had
to use external sources to heat the water. This was nice for heating the
pool and jacuzzi in the winter and most apartment units used the 'free' hot
water from the roof units. I would think this is the most cost effective
and energy efficient way of heating the water. They may have been less
concerned with energy conservation than saving money on the utilities
(although I could be wrong). These things worked quite well in the winter
(at least in AZ) and I'm sure saved considerable money for the slum lords.
If you consider all of the inefficiencies of using solar water heating it
is still free except for the up front cost of the equipment. I wonder how
much of this is used in other parts of the country? In Ohio we use smog
and pollution to keep heating cost down :-)
My parents used to have a similar setup. Solar-heated water was stored in a
storage unit much like a water heater. From there it was pumped into a
standard water heater to be brought to a temperature safe for the dishwasher
(140 degrees F.) Saved a lot of money on heating. After kids in the
orchard behind us broke the panels with rocks a couple of times, my dad
didn't replace them until after houses were built behind us. The next year,
a relief valve failed and a freeze shattered the panels. They came down
shortly thereafter.
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Coleman Powermate has an Ametek blower on board.
We are working with at least 10 different fuel cell companies.
Most of them are concentrating on the stationary market for systems that
require
reliable backup power or are located somewhere that does not have
convenient power sources. Several of these companies are also working
on fuel cells for onboard vehicle systems, but these are targeted in the
short term
for military or high end vehicles with BIG electrical demands.
I told them I would do some 'free' testing if they sent me a 5kW unit for
my TEVan (no takers yet).
The problem with using the fuel cell as the primary power source on an EV
is the high energy density needed. There are also problems with shock,
vibration
and a wide range of ambient operating temperatures.
The only way to get such high energy ratios is to use a high pressure pure
hydrogen
storage tank. This has the obvious safety issues coupled with no
infrastructure.
Fuel cells are definitely moving ahead for the stationary market, but it
will be a long
time before you'll see them in cars that we can afford. Focusing on this
technology
for automotive is just another ploy to extend selling vehicles with higher
profit margin without
requiring significant improvements in average gas milage with the
technology that already exists.
The old 'bait and switch' method, but what would you expect from a country
run by oil executives?
Rod
www.qsl.net/w8rnh
I received an email from Coleman about its new fuel
cell system. I could imagine this being used soon on
some of our cars.
Did somebody say fuel cell vehicles are decades away?!
;)
http://www.airgen.com/
Some simple specs:
MODEL NO. FC01001
POWER 1000 Continuous Watts
OVERLOAD CAPACITY 1600 VA for 2 Seconds
VOLTS 120 VAC +/-3%
FREQUENCY 60 Hertz
WAVEFORM Perfect Sine-Wave
NOISE 65 dba @ 1 Meter
FUEL CELL Ballard NexaTM Power Module
SURGE PROTECTION 360 Joules
BATTERIES Sealed Lead Acid
WEIGHT (LESS FUEL) 101 lbs.
DIMENSIONS 27.3" x 15.8" x 19"
UL APPROVED Yes
CSA APPROVED Yes
WARRANTY 1 Year
Ed Ang
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was thinking may be one of these sitting on the back
seat. It would be cool to charge the pack while
shopping at locations without public charging
stations.
Or, if we could generate hydrogen at home and refuel
the unit, we won't even need charging at work. A
9-hour workday could put 8-9kWh back to the pack for
the trip home. Then, we recharge the pack and refuel
the fuelcell with hydrogen at night.
Ed Ang
--- "VanDerWal, Peter MSgt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder how much Ballard would charge for just
> the PEM fuel cell?
> If Coleman is selling the whole 1KW UPS for $6,000
> then I'll bet the 1KW
> fuel cell is only about $2,000-$3,000.
>
> That would indicate that a 10 KW fuel cell for under
> $20,000 is possible in
> the near future.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that these
> fuel cells can't handle
> the bouncing and vibration from a moving vehicle.
>
>
> >I received an email from Coleman about its new fuel
> >cell system. I could imagine this being used soon
> on
> >some of our cars.
> >
> >Did somebody say fuel cell vehicles are decades
> away?!
> >;)
> >
> >http://www.airgen.com/
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I could very well be all wrong but I am thinking that the amount of wood
that is burned for heating would get lost in the noise along side of the
amount that goes up in forest fires each year. Also I think with wood you
miss out on things like mercury.
Andre' B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If something cannot be defined, it does not exist.
Isaac Newton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
>
> Andre
>
> don't know where you live.
> Wood is just as bad as coal.
>
> I'm not just being prejudiced.
> the polutants from it are terrible unless
> a catalist is used or a water wash on the effluent.
>
> Where I am in the woods of midstate NY
> Electric is the best.
>
> Heat pump in a 1500 sq ft all electric house.
> Our cost is less than $120 per month
> on a 10 month cost budget.
> and all polution is centralized
>
> where it can be more easily delt with
>
> My 2c
> Pete
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Someday, maybe, the human race will come to realize that in order for there
to be a long term stable self sufficient society at the high standard of
living we all want (which is much higher then most people can currently hope
for) the world population density will have to come way down. Self
sufficient meaning that we are no longer tapping into energy that was stored
a very long time ago.
I sometimes fear that small compact efficient electric cars may actually
make the problem worse in the long run by creating higher population
densities.
Andre' B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If something cannot be defined, it does not exist.
Isaac Newton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of David Roden (Akron OH USA)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT (But Energy and Beer Related)
On 5 Dec 2002 at 10:47, Andre Blanchard wrote:
> I live
> well out of town and heat solely with wood cut on my own land, I can not
see
> myself living any other way.
We're really fortunate that some of us can do this in North America. Much
of the rest of the world doesn't have the luxury of the wide open spaces
that we have.
South Korea, for example, was literally denuded of forests by many years of
Japanese occupation, followed by the Korean War. After the war they mounted
an intensive reforestation campaign, and it's still illegal to burn wood
there without special permission. Not that many Koreans could anyway, since
the country's total land mass is about the same as Indiana's, and most
people live in highrise apartments.
There are many parts of Europe which are similar -- "country living" is only
for the farmers and the very wealthy.
What I don't yet fully understand is why, when so many Europeans live in
cities, they can't get enthusiastic about EVs. Maybe it's partly because
hardly anybody has a garage, but I'm sure that's not the whole story. (Some
of this has been discussed recently by a couple of our European
correspondents. That information has helped me understand to some extent.
Thanks folks.)
David Roden
Akron, Ohio, USA
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The question can arise whether with the development of such tech-
nological means of communication as radio, film, and the daily
press, freedom of thought is possible at all. Does this not mean
constant infection with whatever ideas are in circulation?
-- Czeslaw Milosz, 1942
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Really good question. I tend to simplistically think of motors as
fuses, too much current melts them. I do know if you get too much
voltage, arcing can destroy things pretty quick. And, of course, high
voltage enables higher currents, more heat, and higher rpm, that can
destroy motors. Guess I'll just have to turn up the wick a little at
a time until I see arcing or smell something burning. :) I'm planning
on staying in known voltage regions (240 to 336 V), and maybe twice
"regular" current (but only 1/2 of Wayland current) levels, but with
sepex hope that motor current is actually more modest than a "600"
amp controller doing 3x current multiplication.
--- "VanDerWal, Peter MSgt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm hoping that going sepex helps with the last two points. I
> think
> >alot of the stress the motors get is from current multiplication.
> >Getting the same torque for less motor current I'm hoping gives
> good
> >power without fireballing.
>
> As I understand it fireballing happens more because of high voltage
> than
> high current (at least that's what I understand), Usually it's high
> voltage
> AND high current, but the higher the voltage the less current is
> needed to
> fireball.
>
> Seems to me if you put a lot more power through a motor than it is
> rated for
> you run the risk of fireballing regardless of whether it's sepex or
> series.
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just fer th fun of it....I have a P3 750 with windows XP and I have never
had a virus. Under tools I have outlook express look at the content of an
attachment before it is sent to me. I get E-mails all the time with the
content removed!!!!
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Here we go AGAIN! WARNING!
> Bob Rice wrote:
> > Can somebody recommend a system, short of trashing the PC and going
> > Mac, program that kills this shit, BEFORE it gets into your computer?
>
> Basically, if you use the most popular computer and software, the
> hackers and virus-writers will get you. At the moment, that means a
> Pentium PC with one of the latest versions of Windows, and Outlook for
> your email.
>
> I use a Mac, and have never had a virus on it. I also have a Pentium PC,
> but run Windows 3.1 and Netscape; again, I've never had a virus on it.
> --
> Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:25 PM, Edward Ang wrote:
I was thinking may be one of these sitting on the back
seat. It would be cool to charge the pack while
shopping at locations without public charging
stations.
Talk about a range extender! Why not just plug your PFC-20 into it and
drive 'till the H2 runs out? Actually, you'd be able to keep going on
"reserve" (your normal pack capacity) until you could find somewhere to
fill 'er up. Of course, to do this you'd probably need more than one,
and probably a bigger H2 storage unit than what it comes with.
Or, if we could generate hydrogen at home and refuel
the unit, we won't even need charging at work. A
9-hour workday could put 8-9kWh back to the pack for
the trip home. Then, we recharge the pack and refuel
the fuelcell with hydrogen at night.
Ed Ang
We could develop our own homebrew H2 refilling stations! Can you see
the first cross-country fuel cell vehicle being an EV conversion
refueled at private residences on its way from one coast to the other?
Sounds like fun! Isn't there a way to make H2 from water using solar
power?
Matt
--
If you're reading this, chances are your either:
A. A Honda freak, just like me.
'01 M.C. Blue Insight 5 spd. #1898, 57.1 LMPG @ 24,900 mi.
B. A Mac Addict, just like me.
Dual-1GHz PowerMac G4, iBook 800MHz 12.1"
or
C. An EV freak, just like me!
:-)
<http://www.thewbstreetteam.com/click.php?id=5&memberID=387>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Edward Ang wrote:
> I was thinking may be one of these sitting on the back
> seat. It would be cool to charge the pack while
> shopping at locations without public charging
> stations.
>
> Or, if we could generate hydrogen at home and refuel
> the unit, we won't even need charging at work. A
> 9-hour workday could put 8-9kWh back to the pack for
> the trip home. Then, we recharge the pack and refuel
> the fuelcell with hydrogen at night.
Only a few flies in the ointment:
- a spec not listed is the 1500hr operating lifetime of the Nexa fuel
cell itself ... just over 33 weeks of use if you used it as suggested
(9hr workday, 5 days/week). $6000/167 days (charges) = ~$36/charge in
up-front equipment costs.
- the 101lb weight is *without* fuel; a 196cu-ft cylinder weighs another
133lbs, stands 51" tall, and will run the fuel cell for 11.5hrs at
*half* power... better plan on squeezing in a pair of them if you want
to get 8-9kWh back into the pack in 9hrs. The hydrogen is stored at
2000psi; even if you can generate "fuel cell grade" hydrogen at home, it
may be a challenge to generate the required quantity overnight and
compress it into the cylinder.
- the cost of hydrogen fuel is said to be about $15/100 cu-ft; your
application would consume a pair of 196 cu-ft cylinders *daily*...
$60/day for charging! Then there are the tank rental and delivery
charges...
- the operating environment for the Nexa fuel cell is 3C-30C (37-86F)...
better live in a temperate climate and not leave your EV parked in the
sun!
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All up looks like you would be better off putting a few more GC batteries in
the car. Better energy density and better storage efficiency. Before you
get exited about full cells remember that hydrogen is not a fuel (an energy
source) like oil but merely a way to store energy like a battery. Unless
you are getting the hydrogen from oil or natural gas in which case it would
be more efficient to drive one of the current hybrid cars.
Andre' B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If something cannot be defined, it does not exist.
Isaac Newton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Roger Stockton
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 1kW Hydrogen Fuel Cell $5995
Edward Ang wrote:
> I was thinking may be one of these sitting on the back
> seat. It would be cool to charge the pack while
> shopping at locations without public charging
> stations.
>
> Or, if we could generate hydrogen at home and refuel
> the unit, we won't even need charging at work. A
> 9-hour workday could put 8-9kWh back to the pack for
> the trip home. Then, we recharge the pack and refuel
> the fuelcell with hydrogen at night.
Only a few flies in the ointment:
- a spec not listed is the 1500hr operating lifetime of the Nexa fuel
cell itself ... just over 33 weeks of use if you used it as suggested
(9hr workday, 5 days/week). $6000/167 days (charges) = ~$36/charge in
up-front equipment costs.
- the 101lb weight is *without* fuel; a 196cu-ft cylinder weighs another
133lbs, stands 51" tall, and will run the fuel cell for 11.5hrs at
*half* power... better plan on squeezing in a pair of them if you want
to get 8-9kWh back into the pack in 9hrs. The hydrogen is stored at
2000psi; even if you can generate "fuel cell grade" hydrogen at home, it
may be a challenge to generate the required quantity overnight and
compress it into the cylinder.
- the cost of hydrogen fuel is said to be about $15/100 cu-ft; your
application would consume a pair of 196 cu-ft cylinders *daily*...
$60/day for charging! Then there are the tank rental and delivery
charges...
- the operating environment for the Nexa fuel cell is 3C-30C (37-86F)...
better live in a temperate climate and not leave your EV parked in the
sun!
Cheers,
Roger.
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Dymaxion wrote:
> > >I think
> > >alot of the stress the motors get is from current multiplication.
> > >Getting the same torque for less motor current I'm hoping gives
> > >good power without fireballing.
and later:
> I'm planning on
> staying in known voltage regions (240 to 336 V), and maybe
> twice "regular" current (but only 1/2 of Wayland current)
> levels, but with sepex hope that motor current is actually
> more modest than a "600" amp controller doing 3x current
> multiplication.
I'm not sure I am following your reasoning... the mechanical power
output by *any* motor must be less than the electrical power input to it
(volts * amps); how do you expect to get comparable power out of a
sep-ex motor unless you provide it with comparable input power as the
series wound machine requires?
At low motor RPM, the motor voltage will be low and the current high;
this is why the current multiplication of the "600" amp controller
results in good low end torque. If you reduce that motor current by a
factor of 2 you have just cut your power in half and lost your low end
torque. I suppose it could be argued that with sep-ex you could pour
the amps to the field but limit the armature current to spare the
brushes/commutator and in doing so perhaps get a smaller loss in power,
but I would be inclined to poll performance EVers like Rich Rudman, etc.
and find out if series motor brush/commutator life in spirited street
use is nearly the issue you seem to think it is before going this route.
I believe that fireballing becomes a concern mainly when high voltage
and current are applied to the motor simultaneously (what "high" means
will vary from one motor make/type to the next, and what constitutes
"high" current may depend on how high the motor voltage is at the time).
The high current multiplication is only provided at low motor voltages,
and motor voltages only remain low until the RPM pick up, so it seems
unlikely that current multiplication of the controller is going to be a
significant factor in the probability of fireballing a given motor.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Some excellent comments, thanks. I realize I'm doing the "handwaving"
kind of analysis here.
Certainly, the input power is very close, between sepex and series.
As you said, sepex puts more current in the field, giving more
torque, and series recirculates the current (current multiplication)
to give more torque. This is more pronounced at low RPM, and motor
current = battery current once in current limit mode, for series.
So here is where the handwaving starts... Say at stall, it seems that
having 1800 series motor amps has got to be tougher on the motor than
sepex 600 amps, no matter what the voltage. Same power in, and same
power out, in both cases. Haven't some of the NEDRA guys zorched
their motors on the starting line?
I think the basic debate is this: Is voltage or amps more harmful to
the motor? I'm taking the amps side (for now at least :) ). I do
realize there are many NEDRA racers that pour alot of amps through
their series motors, and they keep ticking.
Fireballing/racing is not the only motivator for sepex. Another is to
do something a little different from most, kind of a research
project. I also want regen, home of the 2002 Winter Olympics has some
serious hills. Worst case I see is having to have the motor rewound
back to series again :) .
--- Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> torque. I suppose it could be argued that with sep-ex you could
> pour
> the amps to the field but limit the armature current to spare the
> brushes/commutator and in doing so perhaps get a smaller loss in
> power,
> but I would be inclined to poll performance EVers like Rich Rudman,
> etc.
> and find out if series motor brush/commutator life in spirited
> street
> use is nearly the issue you seem to think it is before going this
> route.
>
> I believe that fireballing becomes a concern mainly when high
> voltage
> and current are applied to the motor simultaneously (what "high"
> means
> will vary from one motor make/type to the next, and what
> constitutes
> "high" current may depend on how high the motor voltage is at the
> time).
> The high current multiplication is only provided at low motor
> voltages,
> and motor voltages only remain low until the RPM pick up, so it
> seems
> unlikely that current multiplication of the controller is going to
> be a
> significant factor in the probability of fireballing a given motor.
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey David:
> On 5 Dec 2002 at 7:45, Marvin Campbell wrote:
>
>> So Edison finally came out and installed my TOU meter but you're gonna LOVE
>> this:
>>
>> They won't allow me to charge my Soleq EVcort on that circuit.
>>
>
> So did they put a lock on all the j-boxes in the circuit? If not, what's to
> stop you from doing some rewiring once they've installed everything they
> require and driven their SUVs back to the SCE office?
Way ahead of you on THAT angle!
But still I'm compelled to play by the rules as I don't want to give them a
reason to come and pull my TOU meter and boot me from the program- which
apparently I'm only allowed into because of my RAV4 EV charger from Clean
Fuel.
The main reason I'm participating in the program is to do what I can to
create as much demand for ANY EV related program as I can personally
demonstrate, as only demand can drive growth. As soon as Hollywood Toyota
coughs up my RAV4 EV we'll be running two EV's, but by excluding one of them
from their program, Edison has now cut my contribution in half.
Mostly it's the principle of the thing. They tout their program for
promoting EV's, and then exclude an EV simply because it doesn't use an
inductive charger? What about when the charging standard changes back to
conductive after 2006? Will they then exclude all the inductively charged
EV's?
What tha' hey?
J. Marvin Campbell
Culver City, CA
Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat.
(Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they drive crazy first.)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> From: "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:59:53 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: EDISON DISALLOWS CONDUCTIVE CHARGING ON EV TOU METERS!
>
> I wonder what the efficiency difference is between the conductive and
> inductive connections especially if you include the cost/energy of the
> equipment required. Seems to me if they are requiring you use a system that
> costs more and wastes more energy they really only want the good PR of
> offering the program, but they would rather that you did not actually take
> advantage of the program.
NAW!!!...You think? That's a mighty cynical view there Andre.
Next thing you know you're going to suggest big business sticks us with the
crappier inefficient technology, while using all the good stuff for their
own money-making enterprises. (Funny how common electromotive systems are in
big business, but EV's just aren't feasible for all us little people.)
I think I'll go shoot some heroin and put on my rose-colored glasses; when I
wake up maybe the Bush administration will have all been a bad dream.
Prost!
Marv
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
DODGE BAWL
Looking to minimize your impact on the environment? Don't buy a car
-- and especially don't buy anything made by DaimlerChrysler. The
U.S.-based automaker ranked dead last on a survey, released yesterday
by the Union of Concerned Scientists, of pollution levels in vehicle
fleets. The survey looked at the environmental implications of the
six largest car manufacturers in the U.S. market, which together sell
nine out of every 10 vehicles purchased here. Those vehicles account
for vast percentages of smog-forming pollution and carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. From best to worst, the companies were Honda,
Toyota, Nissan, Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler. Toyota
was the only company to cut its fleet's average CO2 emissions between
model years 2000 and 2001. The only company to move up in the survey
was Ford, which went from being second-to-last in the previous survey
to fourth in the current one. UCS credited that change to the
environmentally friendly leadership of William Clay Ford, Jr.
straight to the source: MSNBC.com, Reuters, 04 Dec 2002
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=754>
only in Grist: Teaming up with Bill Ford, Jr. -- in the comic
adventures of Zed, last of his species
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/zed/zed113001.asp?source=daily>
do good: Take action to buy an eco-friendly car
<http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/consumption.asp#pledge>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Maybe it would reassure them if you had an avcon, that can't easily
power anything but an EV, instead of a regular plug?
--- Marvin Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:59:53 -0600
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: EDISON DISALLOWS CONDUCTIVE CHARGING ON EV TOU
> METERS!
> >
> > I wonder what the efficiency difference is between the conductive
> and
> > inductive connections especially if you include the cost/energy
> of the
> > equipment required. Seems to me if they are requiring you use a
> system that
> > costs more and wastes more energy they really only want the good
> PR of
> > offering the program, but they would rather that you did not
> actually take
> > advantage of the program.
>
> NAW!!!...You think? That's a mighty cynical view there Andre.
>
> Next thing you know you're going to suggest big business sticks us
> with the
> crappier inefficient technology, while using all the good stuff for
> their
> own money-making enterprises. (Funny how common electromotive
> systems are in
> big business, but EV's just aren't feasible for all us little
> people.)
>
> I think I'll go shoot some heroin and put on my rose-colored
> glasses; when I
> wake up maybe the Bush administration will have all been a bad
> dream.
>
> Prost!
>
> Marv
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What would people be willing to pay for a board that they could buy with a
number of samples preloaded into it along with the ability to play those
samples at varying rates depending on output from VSS?
Board would need to be combined with a inexpensive power amplifier and
speaker to actually produce engine sounds..
I happen to already have almost all the code for this - wrote it for Bruce
Sherry..
S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Silent Running
> >From : Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Subject : Re: Silent Running
> >Date : Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:38:08 -0800
> >
> >John Force at launch comes to mind.... and that sound from a Ford
> >Fiesta????
>
> I'd be cool with a bell I could run manually in crowded spaces. Like a
nice
> EMD-locomotive-sounding bell, not a bicycle bell.
>
> On the other hand, a user-selectable speed-sensitive "Jetson's" sound
would
> be cool too. Or for driving in the Bay Area, a BART train sound. :-)
>
> Tim
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
See:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/0,24330,3410274,00.html
You can download a video clip of what aired.
- Steven Ciciora
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 20:03, David Dymaxion wrote:
> Really good question. I tend to simplistically think of motors as
> fuses, too much current melts them. I do know if you get too much
> voltage, arcing can destroy things pretty quick. And, of course, high
> voltage enables higher currents, more heat, and higher rpm, that can
> destroy motors. Guess I'll just have to turn up the wick a little at
> a time until I see arcing or smell something burning. :) I'm planning
> on staying in known voltage regions (240 to 336 V), and maybe twice
> "regular" current (but only 1/2 of Wayland current) levels, but with
> sepex hope that motor current is actually more modest than a "600"
> amp controller doing 3x current multiplication.
>
FWIW the 600 amp rating on motor controllers is motor current, not
battery current. I.e. the battery current will usually be less than 600
amps except for the brief moment when the controller comes out of
current limit, at which time battery current will equal 600 amps and
then start to fall.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Also one has to consider elect. an mech.condition of all brush motors when
over current and over voltage is applied.Do the brushes move or retrack under
load?Are the fields/brusholders placed correctly(not on the stock ge motors I
started with)(for nameplate use YES)The brushes will retrack under heavy
sideload use thus different bearings and housings are nessary to help.Are
your armatures only commericaly balanced,vibs at high rpms may cause brush
bounce,any hi bars?These mech.an elec.balancing issues must be overcome to
obtain maxium outputs from your brush motors or you will fireball.
DENNIS KILOWATT BERUBE the CURRENTELIMINATOR still the only ev in the 8
sec territory without any arcing issues......................
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 22:27, David Dymaxion wrote:
> Some excellent comments, thanks. I realize I'm doing the "handwaving"
> kind of analysis here.
>
> Certainly, the input power is very close, between sepex and series.
> As you said, sepex puts more current in the field, giving more
> torque, and series recirculates the current (current multiplication)
> to give more torque. This is more pronounced at low RPM, and motor
> current = battery current once in current limit mode, for series.
>
> So here is where the handwaving starts... Say at stall, it seems that
> having 1800 series motor amps has got to be tougher on the motor than
> sepex 600 amps, no matter what the voltage. Same power in, and same
> power out, in both cases. Haven't some of the NEDRA guys zorched
> their motors on the starting line?
>
> I think the basic debate is this: Is voltage or amps more harmful to
> the motor? I'm taking the amps side (for now at least :) ). I do
> realize there are many NEDRA racers that pour alot of amps through
> their series motors, and they keep ticking.
>
Umm, I think you have a slight misunderstanding of series motor
controllers. If they only list one number (i.e. 600 amp) then this
means 600 MOTOR amps. Battery current is always the same or less
(usually less) than motor amps. There might be an exception to this but
I'm not aware of one. The guys building racing controllers will often
have different pack and motor limits, but they usually list both.
Let's take a hypothetical racing controller, say 1200 amps at 336V. At
launch the motor is stalled and current jumps to 1200 amps...at a couple
volts. The voltage is too low to fireball, but as the motor spins up
current stays at 1200 amps but the voltage climbs. This is when you get
into the danger zone, sooner or later the voltage will get high enough
that 1200 amps will cause a fireball. If you've built the motor right
this voltage will be higher than your pack can deliver when under a 1200
amp load.
> Fireballing/racing is not the only motivator for sepex. Another is to
> do something a little different from most, kind of a research
> project. I also want regen, home of the 2002 Winter Olympics has some
> serious hills. Worst case I see is having to have the motor rewound
> back to series again :) .
>
That's always been my favorite reason for doing things (to be
different).
For example my latest idea (dream) for regen is to use a fwd and have
the front wheels turn a generator head that feeds a PFC charger with a
variable output current.
<sigh> if I could afford it I'd just do it right and get an AC
motor/controller.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Dymaxion wrote:
>
> Maybe it would reassure them if you had an avcon, that can't easily
> power anything but an EV, instead of a regular plug?
No, they'd want the proof that no one is going to drag in Avcon paddle
fitted dishwashers and take advantage of their charging station ...
What's next?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen wrote:
>
> What would people be willing to pay for a board that they could buy with a
> number of samples preloaded into it along with the ability to play those
> samples at varying rates depending on output from VSS?
>
> Board would need to be combined with a inexpensive power amplifier and
> speaker to actually produce engine sounds..
Try John's stereo audio inputs... Isn't it fun?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
that was cool, but it's pretty funny how half the dragsters were
gas.... :-)
Seth
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:03 PM, Steven Ciciora wrote:
See:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/
0,24330,3410274,00.html
You can download a video clip of what aired.
- Steven Ciciora
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
...
> That's always been my favorite reason for doing things (to be
> different).
>
> For example my latest idea (dream) for regen is to use a fwd and have
> the front wheels turn a generator head that feeds a PFC charger with a
> variable output current.
>
> <sigh> if I could afford it I'd just do it right and get an AC
> motor/controller.
Can I do something (other than giving it away :-)) to make it happen?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Dymaxion wrote:
> As you said, sepex puts more current in the field,
> giving more torque, and series recirculates the current
> (current multiplication) to give more torque.
Actually, I didn't quite say that (I certainly didn't mean to say it!).
A series motor does not "recirculate" the current, and this is not what
I understand us to be referring to as current multiplication.
The current multiplication I am referring to is performed by the
controller, and is independant of the motor type or what the motor does
with the current: a modern PWM (buck-converter) controller behaves
almost like a step-down transformer; when the output (motor) voltage is
less than the input voltage, the output (motor) current is
proportionately greater than the input current. That is, if you apply
300V to the input but only 100V is applied to the motor terminals, then
the current into the motor could be as much as 3x (300/100) the input
(battery) current. Doesn't matter if said output current is going into
a series or sep-ex motor (well, other than the fact that the controller
may be relying on the inductance of the series motor's field winding for
proper operation, and could get unhappy if connected just to an armature
winding ;^).
The multiplication you seem to be referring to is the fact that the
torque developed by the motor is proportional to the product of the
strengths of the armature and stator magnetic fields, and these field
strengths are in turn proportional to the current flowing through the
respective winding. In the series motor the current through the
aramture and stator windings is the same, so torque is [theoretically]
proportional to the square of the current.
In a sep-ex motor the armature and stator ("field") currents can be
different from one another, but the torque developed is still
proportional to their product: if you halve the armature current, then
you must double the field current if you hope to maintain the same
torque.
> This is more
> pronounced at low RPM, and motor current = battery current
> once in current limit mode, for series.
Actually, motor current = battery current once *out* of current limit
mode, and the controller is typically only in current limit at low RPM.
> So here is where the handwaving starts... Say at stall, it
> seems that having 1800 series motor amps has got to be
> tougher on the motor than sepex 600 amps, no matter what the
> voltage. Same power in, and same power out, in both cases.
No argument: 1800A has got to be tougher than 600A... but you don't have
the same power in and out because if you limit the current to 600A you
must apply 3x (1800/600) the voltage at the motor terminals to have the
same power in. The catch is that at stall the motor essentially looks
like a low value resistor: you cannot get 3 times the voltage at the
motor without supplying 3x the original (1800A) current. If you limit
the current to 600A, then you will develop 1/3 the original voltage at
the motor terminals, and end up with 1/9th the original power in (1/3
original current x 1/3 original voltage).
Now, in the sep-ex case you are referring to 600 ~armature~ amps vs 1800
armature ~and~ field amps in the series motor case. In order for you to
compare input power between the two you must also state the field
current being applied to the sep-ex motor. As a hand-waving exercise,
let's assume you are comparing a series wound Kostov to the same motor
rewound for sep-ex operation. Since the same space is available for the
field windings in both cases, it seems reasonable that if you want
similar field strength from the sep-ex motor with 1/10th the field
current, you will end up with 10x the number of turns of much smaller
wire. The sep-ex field will have to be fed 180A to produce the same
field strength as the original field when fed 1800A. So, if you want to
decrease the armature current by a factor of 3 to 600A while maintaining
the same input power, you must force 3 x 180 = 540A current through the
field. Can the smaller wire take this? How about your field controller
(typical sep-ex controllers are capable of delivering about 1/10th the
armature current to the field, so ~50A for a controller that also
provides 500A to the armature)?
> Haven't some of the NEDRA guys zorched their motors on the
> starting line?
Not sure, the more common off-the-line failures seem to be mechanical
(spontaneous disassembly of the drivetrain), or supply-related (e.g.
popping a battery or fuse).
> Fireballing/racing is not the only motivator for sepex.
> Another is to do something a little different from most, kind
> of a research project. I also want regen, home of the 2002
> Winter Olympics has some serious hills. Worst case I see is
> having to have the motor rewound back to series again :) .
I appreciate the motivation, but caution that you also want extreme
performance levels... levels that are presently only serviced
off-the-shelf by components for series DC. If you go sep-ex, the
biggest controllers available are 500A or 800A (armature current), with
about 1/10th that level available for the field. You may be able to
match (or slightly exceed) the performance of a "600A" series
controller... at the same 96-144V maximum input voltage that these
sep-ex controllers are restricted to, but this will be a far cry from
the performance levels you appear to be after.
Homebrewing something may be possible, but producing something that
supports regen, and NEDRA-like performance, and provides better
reliablilty than an off-the-shelf series motor and controller will be a
daunting (and expensive!) task. I wish you the best of luck!
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
