EV Digest 4857
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Hooking up three battery chargers in series
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Sudden drop in voltage
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range issue' (long))
by "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range issue' (long))
by "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: good name for at EV: hockey stick
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range issue' (long))
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: ADC Regen again
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: good name for at EV: hockey stick
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Drag racing and the range issue
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Emission arguments, was Re: Getting permission to recharge at work
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) Re: More about tires
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: 200A draw @ 30mph - is this normal (more figures please)?
by "Mueller, Craig M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Curtis and KSI
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Time for tires.
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
If you have more then one 12V battery charger and they are isolated as you
have stated, then there is no danger in using multiple battery chargers at
the same time. If you have 3 chargers, then hook them up to the first 3
batteries and charge until those 3 are full. As each battery gets done
charging you can move that battery's charger over to the next one in line.
This is called modular charging. You can even use one charger per battery
if you have enough chargers. There are a couple of downsides. One is that
you have to make sure that each of your batteries actually gets a full
charge before going for a drive, or you will quickly ruin any uncharged
battery. Also, you may run out of current capacity on a given circuit if
you try to start all the chargers up at the same time, or if you have too
many ineffecient chargers plugged into the same circuit. This will cause
your circuit breaker to trip.
damon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Hooking up three battery chargers in series
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:08:28 +0000
you are asking for a fire when one of the connections come lose . dont do
it . instead go to a machine salvage co and get a larger transformer and
the got some full wave bridge rect.
-------------- Original message --------------
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone ever hooked three or and number of battery chargers in series
to
> get the required battery charging voltage. Does anyone have any
objections
> on this. The battery chargers are all isolated by the way.
>
> Or is it better to just charge three 12 volt batteries in series.
>
> Cheers
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I dont think that is true. Our battery manual brings out specific
temperature requirements for charging batteries. In colder temps the
movement of electrons is slowed.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:12 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Sudden drop in voltage
no internal resistance and the molecualar friction will keep a charging
battery warm . check ur a.e. shop they should be of some help .
-------------- Original message --------------
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the specifications for batteries are given
at
> a specific temperature (I think 72 degrees F) and the rating drops
> significantly as you go lower in temperature. Following the thought
process
> that a battery charges in the same manner that it discharges it would
stand
> to reason that in lower temperatures it would not charge completely. I
> remember seeing a post a while back concerning battery heaters for colder
> climates. I would think that you would need to heat the batteries during
> the night during the charge cycle to make sure they are working
efficiently.
> If you plan to discharge them in cold climates you would also need to heat
> the batteries to make sure they can transfer the amps efficiently.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michaela Merz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:05 PM
> To: Mark Hastings
> Cc: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Sudden drop in voltage
>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> Same thing happened to me yesterday. My 120 V S-10 was sitting happily
> charged in the driveway (overnight temps in the low 40s), everything
> looked fine (idle voltage around 129). I went driving (temps around 55-60)
> and, after like 15 Miles my voltage went down to about 90 (under load),
> 108 without load. Usualy, at that point, the batteries should have about
> 1/2 charge remaining. I barely made it home and checked the car and
> batteries, all ok. Today, before driving, I hooked the charger up and
> topped the batteries. Worked better.
>
> BTW. I am in South Texas and I will put the car in the garage overnight
> from now on.
>
> Michaela
>
> > I have been driving my used S-15 conversion with new batteries for about
6
> > months or so. The batteries have been well maintained. Water level is
> > good, connections are tight, voltage is inline when I checked on the
first
> > of the month.
> > On my way home last night which would be mile 20 or so of my daily
driving
> > I had just crossed over a highway onto the road into town when my
voltage
> > dropped from 120 to <90 on my 126 volt pack. I pulled over and checked
and
> > no loose connections or hot terminals. Everything looked ok.. If I drove
> > at <50 amps then it was fine so after waiting a few minutes I limped the
> > last could miles home keeping it above 120 and pulling over for everyone
> > to pass.
> > When I got home I turned my heater on to keep some load on the batteries
> > and checked the voltages. One battery was at 5.8 volts and the rest were
> > at 6.05 or so. Could a single reversed cell cause that huge of a voltage
> > drop? It wasn't dry inside or hot to touch anywhere. Or because the
> > weather has now dipped below 75 degrees did my short 22-24 mile commute
> > suddenly become impossible with my 21 US2200s. When I had my emeter
hooked
> > up the commute would take around 60 amps.
> > I hadn't even thought the texas winter could pose any problems after
> > having EVs in connecticut buried in snow and still being able to make
it.
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John has some very good points, a lot has to do with knowing the culture
and values of the company you work for. My employer is very much into
"environment" type causes, probably not the least because they would
like you to recycle aluminum cans, recycled aluminum is cheaper for them
to make into new cans, reduces costs, makes company money. As such they
are much more open to the environmental approach. If I worked for
Exxon, I certainly would not use that approach. The loyal employee
approach would work a lot better.
Our company is very open to access to top management and it is not
unusual to have conversations with the president or VP's, either
formally or informally. If your company is more rigid, a different
approach would be needed.
Regarding the emissions of Electric Cars, I avoid getting into that
discussion as I have elected to get my power through the "wind source"
program. It costs me a little more every month, but it is worth it
simply to avoid the emissions arguments.
Absolutely keep written correspondence short and to the point. Use the
written stuff to get attention and obtain the 10 minute face to face.
That's where you can really explain your case.
Yes, a "north 40" spot is generally much better than the by the door
spot. My main EV charge location is about 4 blocks away from my office.
While that short of walk will not make me a skinny as Lance Armstrong,
it doesn't hurt.
Keep the ideas coming. All of us are limited in our ideas based on our
background and environment. The more ideas and example listed the more
likely you will find something that will work for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Neon John
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:34 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range
issue' (long))
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:24:37 -0600, "Adams, Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>2) Talk to maintenance and facility people. They usually know where
>the outlets are and often assign parking spaces too.
This is pretty close to the Admiral Grace Hooper philosophy: It is much
easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission. I'd just start using
an outlet if it was handy and didn't require running a cord across a
pedestrian walkway and deal with any objection as it develops.
>3) Get endorsements from the local chapter of the Asthma or American
>Lung Association (or local equivalent) The ALA has been very
>supportive of electric vehicles in Denver
A good way to set off a manager's BS alarm. Several bad ingredients
here. Appearance of outside influence in company affairs and
indications of ecofreakism or save-the-world-ism, neither of which are
particularly welcome in a corporate environment. Sell the recharging as
a benefit to you, the loyal company employee.
>5) Do the calculations and offer to pay for your fuel. Use real
>numbers and the actual electric rate your employer pays. Most people
>think that will be $25 or more per week - $1,220 per year (that's what
>they pay for their commuting fuel). When they find out you need less
>than $2.00 per week for fuel, they may realize the cost is
>insignificant. Maybe compare it to what it takes to run one of those
>1500 W space heaters.
Yes. I suggest buying a $35 power meter and actually measuring the
energy consumption for charging the car over, say, a week. Showing that
it is cheaper than those space heaters that all the chix seem to have
under their desks should have a significant impact.
>6) Take all the information you can find about the tons of pollutants
>you are not dumping into their air, summarize how much CO, CO2, Nox etc
>you avoid putting into the air over a year. Put it into a report.
>Review it with your company medical or insurance contact. Get their
>support.
No. See above. Because the negative impact of a so-called
whistle-blower can be so huge, large corps are VERY sensitive to
anything that might indicate a predisposition to tattle or to support
radical causes. Such a presentation of propaganda could well get you
tagged as a potential troublemaker and greatly limit your future.
Then there is the matter that any document claiming that EVs are cleaner
than modern gas cars is simply false. Especially until nuclear becomes
the predominant source for electricity. A manager with some technical
competence will quickly recognize the fiction presented as truth. That
could have a very negative career impact.
>Finally take all of this information put it in a well written portfolio
>and present it to a person that can make a real decision. The janitor,
>The owner, the CEO, the CEO's spouse, whoever. Just don't mess with
>people that can only say no (most of middle management). Walk them
>through the portfolio and be prepared to discuss details if asked.
I'd be really careful with that. Large corps (and some small ones) have
rigidly defined chains of command, even if the org chart doesn't say so.
Going outside the chain of command is not a career-enhancing
move in these environments. This is a lesson I learned the hard way,
more than once, it seems.
Working through the chain of command, I'd still leave off the eco-whacky
stuff and instead present a simple, direct case for the outlet as a
benefit to you. Do NOT write an epistle!! A survey I read in a
business mag said that the average business correspondence gets perhaps
15 seconds to make its case.
That used to be about right for me when I was in upper management. I'd
scan the first sentence or two of the first few paragraphs. If my
attention wasn't snagged, the document met either the round file or the
morgue (where we kept potentially legally important documents),
depending on the contents. Even if a document snagged my attention, if
it didn't have to do directly with the bottom line, it got maybe a
minute or two.
If at all possible, I'd ask for a face-to-face meeting with the
decision-maker. You'll get much more time that way. Get your facts in
a row so that it takes no more than 10 minutes to make your case. Do all
the homework ahead of time. Structure your case to be cost-neutral to
the company. So as to avoid the appearance of special treatment, try to
find a way to charge without having to always have the "best" parking.
If the lot is lit, perhaps an outlet could be attached to a lighting
stand. If so, volunteer to take a spot out in the "north 40" so that
others won't bitch about your special treatment. Investigate and
determine the feasibility ahead of time. Be prepared to pay for all the
costs involved. Make it easy to say YES.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, I've used that too. The last company I worked at I agreed to put
my EV charge money into the founder's Friday Beer Fund. Since the
founder shared the beer with everyone (small company) I never had any
problems from anyone.
Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Don Cameron
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:07 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range
issue' (long))
A case of beer often works wonders... seriously. Get to know the
facilities staff. Show off your vehicle, let them take it for a ride.
Suck up to them. Once they are "charged" up about the car, drop a
subtle comment about "opportunity charging". Very effective, less
paperwork.
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adams, Lynn
Sent: October 25, 2005 1:25 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Getting permission to recharge at work (WAS The 'range issue'
(long))
Ok, this thread is getting very interesting. Perhaps if we put together
all of our ideas on how get permission (from cooperative or
non-cooperative
employers) we could increase the availability of charging locations.
Here are my first ideas:
1) If you work at a company that has fleet vehicles, talk to the fleet
vehicle manager. They are aware of many of the state/local advantages
to alternative fuel vehicles. (This has worked for me)
2) Talk to maintenance and facility people. They usually know where
the outlets are and often assign parking spaces too.
3) Get endorsements from the local chapter of the Asthma or American
Lung Association (or local equivalent) The ALA has been very supportive
of electric vehicles in Denver
4) Learn about potential tax advantages for installation of
"alternative fuel vehicle refueling stations" In Colorado there is a
large tax credit available to employers to install them. There is even
a larger credit if those refueling stations are available for public
use.
5) Do the calculations and offer to pay for your fuel. Use real
numbers and the actual electric rate your employer pays. Most people
think that will be $25 or more per week - $1,220 per year (that's what
they pay for their commuting fuel). When they find out you need less
than $2.00 per week for fuel, they may realize the cost is
insignificant. Maybe compare it to what it takes to run one of those
1500 W space heaters.
6) Take all the information you can find about the tons of pollutants
you are not dumping into their air, summarize how much CO, CO2, Nox etc
you avoid putting into the air over a year. Put it into a report.
Review it with your company medical or insurance contact. Get their
support.
7) Get a human interest article in your company newsletter. Be sure to
provide the newsletter with all the above information.
Finally take all of this information put it in a well written portfolio
and present it to a person that can make a real decision. The janitor,
The owner, the CEO, the CEO's spouse, whoever. Just don't mess with
people that can only say no (most of middle management). Walk them
through the portfolio and be prepared to discuss details if asked.
Good luck
Lynn Adams
My employer has installed a 240V outlet at each of our locations for me
to use. Neither is near the front door, but one is out of the weather
under the loading dock! See my 100% electric car at
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/379.html
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pool, Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:28 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: The 'range issue' (long)
We've been down that road. After volunteering all of that I was told
that allowing me to charge at work would amount to giving me a reserved
parking space which would also go against company policy.
I believe the people I spoke to were really reaching and grasping at
straws. I don't believe they were being honest with me, but until I can
find out their true reasoning for denying allowing me to charge I won't
really know why they are being dishonest.
Ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Evan Tuer
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:36 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: The 'range issue' (long)
On 10/25/05, Pool, Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And don't forget it also needs to be more reliably accessible! I've
> been told I can't charge at work because then my company would be
> providing me a benefit that they wouldn't be providing anyone else and
> that they wouldn't benefit from letting me charge. Until I can
> overcome that or reduce my range requirements I'm nervous about taking
> on building an EV.
A suggestion; offer to pay for the installation of the outlet,
electricity you use, plus a token monthly fee for the service. Then,
they're not providing you a "benefit" - it's a service, bought and paid
for. The company benefits through the payment, and if they want it
could be used as something interesting to put in the company newsletter,
or local press publicity.
I guess I'm pretty lucky in that my company agreed to do this for me.
But, persevere, and ask nicely, and you may get somewhere.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I know many on this list have environmental agenda's and enjoy stuff like
this, but I fail to see either vehicles or electricity in this post let
alone used together in the same context. Let's leave it alone before we
start another EVDL culture war...
From: Robert Baertsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: good name for at EV: hockey stick
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:24:12 -0700
<< hockeyStick.gif >>
The Wall St Journal has a good story about the dubunking the global warming
debunkers.
Send a hockey stick to Rep. Joe Barton Texas and tell him where to put it.
Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire
Two New Papers Question
Results Used to Challenge
Influential Climate Study
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 26, 2005; Page B3
Two global-warming skeptics who questioned an influential climate study and
prompted a congressional inquiry are now facing critics of their own, as a
pair of new research papers take issue with their results.
The new findings are the latest round in a politically charged dispute over
the "hockey stick," a widely publicized graphic showing that temperatures
during the late 20th century were likely higher than at any time in the
past 1,000 years.
The hockey stick, so-called because global temperatures show a sharp
blade-like rise in recent decades, was prominently featured in a 2001
United Nations report that said the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of
global warming.
A dispute erupted earlier this year when oil and minerals consultant
Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, both Canadians, published a
scientific study detailing possible mathematical errors in the hockey-stick
result.
Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University climatologist who was the
author of the hockey-stick findings, claimed the charges were part of a
campaign to cast doubt on global warming.
The clash broadened in June, when Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas), head of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, ordered an inquiry into the work of
Dr. Mann and two co-authors and requested extensive details of their
methods and data.
Critics accused Rep. Barton of seeking to bully scientists and chill
global-warming research. Until Dr. Mann turned his mathematical procedures
over to the committee in July, he had declined to provide his scientific
critics with a complete description of them.
In a written statement, Larry Neal, a spokesman for the committee, said the
inquiry is justified because "combating global climate change is a
trillion-dollar prospect" that would be funded by taxpayers. Mr. Neal said
the committee staff hasn't yet begun a detailed analysis of the information
it collected from scientists.
Now, two independent research reports say the Canadians' critique may have
limited significance. The studies, appearing this month in the journal
Geophysical Research Letters, find that while there is a statistical snafu
in the hockey-stick math, it may not strongly affect the graph's accuracy.
One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht,
Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to
be of very minor significance" when applied to some computer-generated
models of climate history, according to a statement released by lead author
Hans von Storch.
The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution fellow Peter
Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated the effect of the problem.
"The truth is somewhere in between, but closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers
said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von
Storch, agreed they had yet to address all of the Canadians' criticisms.
The complex debate, which turns on statistical technicalities, isn't likely
to end soon. In replies published in the same issue of the journal, Mr.
McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick defended their conclusions. "We are not
withdrawing an inch," Mr. McIntyre said in an interview.
The dispute was the subject of a page-one story in this newspaper in
February.
Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than
scientific significance. That's because, they say, other studies of past
temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any
time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all
come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:57:08 -0700, Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Then there is the matter that any document claiming that EVs are
>> cleaner than modern gas cars is simply false. Especially until
>> nuclear becomes the predominant source for electricity. A manager
>> with some technical competence will quickly recognize the fiction
>> presented as truth.
>
>Is this true?
>
>I though that even with 100% coal power, EVs were cleaner by almost
>any measure.
First off, realize that we're discussing differences in vanishingly
small quantities. The conundrum arises when people without any real
knowledge argue using numbers they've read somewhere but who don't
understand their origins or true meanings. The emissions limits for
cars, for example. A modern car is allowed so many grams of this and
that per mile (can't recall the numbers off the top of my head and
they don't matter anyway for these purposes.) One might compare these
limits with those from a power plant, whip some math out to compute
how many EVs could charge from the power plant and conclude that the
plant is overall cleaner. Not true on many fronts.
First off, the emission limits are LIMITS, values that cannot be
exceeded. The OEM must achieve those limits over the whole fleet and
do it for 100k miles or 5 years. The result is that production cars
far exceed the limits in order to have enough fleet headroom to allow
for aging, unforeseen component degradation and so on.
I've sat in many an OEM emissions dyno room and watched the
state-of-the-art emissions measuring equipment absolutely flatline,
all zeros. Will all cars do that well? No. Will most? Yes.
In fact, almost all the current gas vehicle emissions R&D has to do
with the parked condition and the first 15 seconds of operation when
cold. Evaporative emissions control work primarily centers on gas
diffusion through the walls of the gas lines and rubber seals. This
is the major reason rubber tubing has been mostly replaced with that
hard plastic stuff for fuel lines. Startup emissions reduction has
generated some pretty wild proposals. Things like electrically
heating the catalyst before cranking, using phase change heat storage
to dump heat into the block before cranking, electrical intake air
heaters and so on. At some point one has to ask which is sillier -
the necessary methods or the limits?
There is another factor that enters into the comparison that seldom
gets discussed - the reliability of diversity. When emission controls
are spread across millions of individual emitters (cars), we know two
things. One, some small fraction of the systems will always
malfunction and two, no single event or cluster of events can cause a
near complete failure of the emission systems. Nothing short of a
disastrously bad fuel distribution could cause millions of individual
emissions systems to fail.
Compare that to a state-of-the-art coal plant. The failure of one
single component, say, a critical pump or valve, can completely shut
down a stage of emission control. If the scrubber shuts down, for
example, the plant emits a relatively huge amount of particulates and
sulfur. A single small failure can completely defeat the emission
controls of millions of EVs by proxy if they were charging from that
plant.
The naive might think the plant would be shut down during an emissions
system failure. Not so, in most places. Most utilities have little
or no reserve and so have to operate any plant that can be operated,
either intact or patched together with bailing wire and duct tape.
They may get an EPA waiver. They may choose to pay the daily fine
which, in the case of government utilities like TVA, leads to the
curious practice of the left hand giving money to the right hand.
There is a situation where EVs have a clear advantage over even modern
gas cars and that is in pathological areas such as SoCal. In places
like these, if the power plants are located away from the pathological
areas so that their emissions don't add to the existing problem, then
EVs could greatly help things. Critics point out that this only moves
the points of emissions. That is absolutely true but is also
absolutely what is needed. Move the emissions to a place where they
don't matter.
There are only a few places in America where that situation exists.
Everywhere else, an EV conversion would not make any difference either
way. Here in Cleveland, TN, for example, the air is so clean that the
EPA doesn't bother to monitor it full time. Probably not even part
time. Trying to sell EVs as a means to "clean the air" would draw
amused shakes of the head. OTOH, with TVA's abundant hydro and
nuclear power and the resulting low power rates, selling EVs as a
means to reduce transportation costs and hassles would work. If there
were any EVs to sell, that is.
Like most issues that spawn slogans and causes, the "cleanliness" of
gas vs EV cars is a complex issue that is not amenable to simplistic
sound bite answers. The real answers are complex and will be highly
region-specific.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes I do.
And no it won't help.
You need the carbon on the copper to move the amps.
It depends on your regen control and methods.
Look up compensating and pole face windings in aircraft Starter generators.
Interpoles are also required.
You can do regen in a AvDC motor, but you have to do a LOT of things so they
don't destroy themselves.
What works... may eat brushes up at a good clip.
I have a Dyno that uses a 8 inch AvDC as the load. I can dial in what ever
field currents I want and then hammer it with a differnet 8 incher driving
as a motor.
Solid no arcing Regen takes some really creative brush movments.
If you can't do this, don't try it.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 6:17 AM
Subject: ADC Regen again
> >From the list I understand that the biggest hurdle with ADC regen is
arcing of
> the brushes due to them being slightly "advanced" for street work.
> My ADC motor has two pairs of brushes, presumably one set is more advanced
than
> the other and combined they create a slightly advanced magnetic field
across the
> armature with respect to the stator.
> What if the more advanced pair were disconnected during regen? This would
leave
> the other pair to pick up the regen current and possibly reduce arcing.
> Does anyone on the list have experience with this?
> Rod Dilkes
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ever think we might just be at the end of the last ice age???
That maybe punny Man might not really matter to the geology of this
planet...Yet?
We also like to keep the political threads off this list since we all have
very different views.
Oh I forgot, the polical correct crowd needs to think we are forever
destroying this planet, and then we should be guilty of even breathing.
The only problem I have with global warming is it's screwing up my Skiing
season.
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Baertsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:24 AM
Subject: good name for at EV: hockey stick
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ot You need to get them contactors flipped faster, and give him some ramp on
both the Series launch and the reattack after a S/P switch over.
And bigger water passages in the Zilla so we don't need a 30 PSI pump to
move 2.5 Gallons in less than a couple Eons...
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otmar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
> At 7:34 AM -0700 10/25/05, John Wayland wrote:
> >...It was a 12.245 @ 104.50 mph pass, that begins with the front end
> >off the ground and resulted in a fantastic 1.591 second 60 ft.
> >time.You can clearly hear the tires trying to get traction, and,
> >hear the series-to-parallel upshift and the accompanying faint tire
> >chirping as the torquey Siamese 8 electric motor has its way with
> >them.
>
> That is one fantastic video!
> What a beautiful launch!
>
> Many kudos go out to you and Tim and everyone else who made it happen.
>
> Near the 3.5 second mark of the video, is that where the S/P shift
> happens? I only ask because it looks like there is a flash of light
> under the car at that point and the abrupt ramp up of current could
> be flashing the motor brushes. Maybe we do need a current ramp there.
>
> --
> -Otmar-
>
> http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
> http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neon John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Drag racing and the range issue
"X" could be:
"refuel" in under 5 minutes
I am working on this one myself...
Wayland is charging the White Zombie in about 12 minutes with a 12.5 Kw
charger... I am working on a 18Kw one for him....
Hint John needs more Generator.
Or Grid feed.
If I weighed 300 lbs and wanted to attract favorable attention, I'd
NOT compete in a marathon. That is the same as an EV trying to
compete in endurance/range events. Like Clint said, A man's gotta
know his limitations.
I see we both have the same Heroes
A caustic attitude and a large hand gun.
Madman
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
<<<<
Like most issues that spawn slogans and causes, the "cleanliness" of
gas vs EV cars is a complex issue that is not amenable to simplistic
sound bite answers. The real answers are complex and will be highly
region-specific.
John
>>>>
Can I get an AMEN to that! There are no simple solutions to this question. EVs
should be a much bigger segment of the vehicle population, but they can't
become the be-all-and-end-all (which is why I've had to commute with an ICE for
the past 2 years since Ford took away my NiMH Ranger).
Whether I can or cannot commute with the lead-acid Ranger won't matter, because
we are a "more than one car" family anyway. How many people have several cars
(running ones, not those decorating their yard) and could do just as well
substituting EVs for most of them? I don't need a pickup truck, but since Ford
is letting me buy one, I'll be happy to have it! I just hope I don't have to do
any repairs myself...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You might want to check out the Time for tires thread. My truck weighs
about the same maybe a little less but within a few hundred pounds. I would
think 1400 pounds would be plenty of capacity per tire. I'm looking at a 14
inch tire. It might be good to find something with the same diameter as
stock. As narrow as possible and with the highest load carrying capacity.
I'm looking at a car tire now it is a 75 in height. 18 pounds weight and
44psi.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?make=Goodyear&model=Integrity&vehicleSearch=true&partnum=365SR7INT
There is a 225 tire here but it only carries 1834 pounds of weight. The 205
might be good also. Lighter in weight but still carries 1600 pounds. Still
more than you need. These tires have horrible consumer feedback but I think
it is because of user underinflation (caused by bad manufacturers pressure
requirements) Some users got 60k use out of them. They do have bad feed
back for wet handling also. So it sounds like a lrr tire. I'm going to try
to find some used. Lawrence Rhodes......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Viera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 6:27 PM
Subject: More about tires
Hi,
While we're talking about tires...
I've been looking for new tires for my Mazda truck, in hopes of lowering
its rolling resistance (the current tires absolutely suck and are about to
die) and preparing it for its near future hybridization and/or EV
conversion -- either way it will be gaining some weight ;-).
1. Is having too high of a load/pressure rating ever a problem? For
example, one of the tire models I'm looking at for my truck (Kumaho
Venture HT) can be purchased either with a 2335lb. @ 65PSI load rating or
2680lb. @ 80PSI load rating. Seeing as how the two tires are otherwise
identical and are about the same price, is there any reason why I
shouldn't go ahead and get the 2680lb. @ 80PSI tires? The truck currently
weighs 3700lbs.
2. The former owner put larger-than-stock 255/70/R16 size tires on the
truck. They seem excessively wide to me at about 10.2" wide and 30.1" in
diameter. I'm considering going down to the 225/75/R16 size which would
bring the diameter down some to ~29.4" but notably decrease the width to
8.2". Supposedly the stock sizes for this truck were 225/70/R16 (~8.9"
wide), or 235/60/R16 (~9.6" wide) tires as an option, though I can't
verify this. Is there any reason why decreasing the tire width slightly
below that of stock would be a bad idea (i.e. unforeseen handling/traction
issues)???
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roland,
Thanks for the info - Your torque trick... is this with the
wheels jacked up, or are you indicating that 8 inch-pounds of torque
will actually move your vehicle? I suspect you are talking ft-lbs since
I can't imagine 8 in-lbs would even break the motor loose.
Either way, when I jacked my front end - motor not in gear &
brakes removed (to ensure they weren't dragging) - I'd estimate about 25
ft-lbs (300 in-lbs) to move the tires. That, along with your current
draw figures give me a great deal of encouragement to pursue some
serious front axle/tranny maintenance.
Since I'm running a significantly lower voltage, I'd expect the
current draw would be somewhat higher for me than what you report - but
my vehicle is much lighter too.
I also got the following information from an EV conversion
supplier:
A 2600 lb Geo draws about 60-90 amps at 50 MPH.
A 4300 lb S-10 draws about 160- 200 amps at 50 MPH
Both with 144 volt systems.
I made a quick run at 50mph with my 120v pack, and it draws a
solid 200A if not a little more (recall, I'm at 3200-3300 lbs).
Thanks again,
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Wiench [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:39 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Drivetrain resistance (200A draw @ 30mph - is this normal)?
Hello John,
After I have assembly my motor and drivetrain, I did a roll out test to
see how much torque its takes to move the EV on flat smooth concrete
floor.
Put the transmission in 1st gear and attach a inch pound torque wrench
to a bolt that screws into the input shaft of the motor. Set the torque
wrench for 5 in.lbs. and see if its clicks. If it does than keep
raising the torque until is does not click anymore and starts moving the
vehicle.
To give you some references so you can compare your EV with my EV:
My EV weight is 6890 lbs
Tires are at 65 PSI
Battery Pack at 180 volts at 260 AH
Battery charge to 233 volts or 7.76 volts for 6 volt battery or 15.53
volts per 12 volt battery. (is a equalization or balance charge)
All 30 each 6-volt batteries are all in with of 0.01 volts of each
other.
Battery temperature at or about 80 degrees F.
Ambient air temperature at or about 70 degrees F.
No wind.
Level drive on smooth pavement.
Axil ratio is 5.57:1
1st gear overall ratio is 19.495:1
2nd gear overall ratio is 13.925:1
3rd gear ratio is 5.57:1
Full Synthetic Gear Oil
At 25 mph in 1st gear, the battery is 40 amps and motor is 75 amps
At 35 mph in 2nd gear, the battery is 60 amps and motor is 100 amps
At 50 mph in 3rd gear, the battery is 140 amps and motor is 200 amps
I can move my EV with 8 in.lbs. of torque in 1st gear.
12 in.lbs. of torque in 2nd gear.
30 in.lbs. of torque in 3rd gear.
If you are in that range or lower, than your mechanical should be ok.
If not, than the first thing to check out is your brake pads. Jack up
the tire off the ground and see if they will spin freely. My did not at
first when I install very thick brake pads. I just had to wear them it
a little.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: John G. Lussmyer<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Drivetrain resistance (200A draw @ 30mph - is this
normal)?
At 10:52 AM 10/25/2005, Mueller, Craig M wrote:
>I'm running a 1993 Daytona conversion, and have the suspicion that
>my drivetrain is causing undue resistance. My drive ammeter shows a
>draw of 150-200A at 30-35 mph (flat ground - good tire
>inflation/type). Is this expected for compact car conversions in
>general. From my research, I understand 75A is more in line with
>other's experiences.
The pack voltage makes a BIG difference. So, what voltage are you
running at?
--
John G. Lussmyer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com<http://www.casadelgato.com/>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill Dennis wrote:
> When the input to a Curtis 1231C's KSI input is switched off, does the
> controller stop sending current through the throttle leads? Thanks.
Yes.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They're working great on mine thus far. I've even over inflated them slightly.
What I had on the car before is not a good grounds for comparison because they
were 5+ year old extremely weather cracked generic tires, but with them at
40mph my current draw was about 65 amps. When I put the integrities on, which I
went 10mm skinnier, it's now down to about 50 amps. I could deffinitely feel a
difference, but again the comparison probably isn't a good one.
They use this tire on a lot of OEM's, and I'm guessing they do to squeeze every
extra drop of fuel economy out of their cars. If you read the reviews for a LRR
tire like the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 (165/65/14, like I mentioned, Insight
tire) they are about the same, so so traction in wet or snow. I'm happy with
them though. Heck, you've got nothing to loose either, I think they have a 30
day buyback guarantee or something to that effect.
Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
195/75 SR14
These Integrities are perfect in diameter. Carry 1400 pounds max load and
are the lightest of the tires that carry 1300 pounds or more. However read
this scathing review.
http://www.tirerack.com/survey/SurveyComments.jsp?additionalComments=y&tireMake=Goodyear&tireModel=Integrity&vehicleSearch=true&partnum=365SR7INT&commentStatus=P
If someone says they're riding on the rims is that good for EV's?????
Lawrence Rhodes...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Suiter"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Time for tires.
>I put a set of Goodyear Integrity tires on my Saturn. They come in a lot of
>different sizes. I have no deffinitive proof they are LRR, but the web site
>does state "fuel efficiency." I also know someone who had a production S-10
>where the oem tigerpaw LRR tires were done so they replaced them with
>Integrities which resulted in the same range for the truck. If nothing else
>they do feel like they roll fairly nicely, and are rated for 44psi.
>
> Lawrence Rhodes
wrote:After 25 years and 6000
> miles the 6.00 LT 45psi orginal equiptment tires on
> the Electravan are real close to the wear bars. Didn't get much mileage.
> Don't handle well. Poor range. Bias ply. I am looking at the Potenza
> RE92 XL's that the First Prius uses. Lose an inch in diameter. Ultra 800's
> have 205's that are just about right. Michelin also in a 225 has the right
> diameter. . There are some Goodyear trailer tires that have a wide range
> of
> inflation and load carrying capacity.
> http://www.goodyear.com/rv/pdf/rv_inflation.pdf Maybe they'd make a good
> EV
> tire.
> I'm figuring using the tire that has the closest diameter to the orginal
> equiptment and as narrow as possible without sacrificing load carrying
> capacity. I figure running max pressure in any case. There are no LT tires
> available in 14 inch anymore. Michelin recommends one but it is a P 225/70
> 14
> Lawrence Rhodes
> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
> Reedmaker
> Book 4/5 doubler
> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
> 415-821-3519
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> Later,
> Ricky
> 02 Red Insight #559
> 92 Saturn SC2 EV conversion in progress
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
Later,
Ricky
02 Red Insight #559
92 Saturn SC2 EV conversion in progress
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
