EV Digest 4862
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) (no subject)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) Re: good name for at EV: hockey stick
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Orbital dimensions?
by "Christopher Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: plug-in hybrid, was Re: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
by Edward Ang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: high voltage heater options
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) EV theory: Will sagging batteries cause high amps destroying controllers?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EV theory: Will sagging batteries cause high amps destroying
controllers?
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Relative pollution
by "Dave Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Radiator
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: EV theory: Will sagging batteries cause high amps destroying
controllers?
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Radiator
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
by Edward Ang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Jim,
What I didn't realise is that there are also two sets of field windings so it
kind of negates my theory. But there must be a way to get good regen on ADC
motors! I will keep looking into it.
Rod Dilkes
Hey Rod
Unless you've done some mod's on that motor, you can not have one or two pairs
"more advanced" than the other pairs. What do you mean by advanced more than
the other? Each 180 degree pairs are linked through the commentator to each
other completing the connection. If you tried to disconnect one or more of the
pairs you would open the circuit or put all the current onto just one brush per
holder and would fry the brushes. Why do you think you have some brushes
advanced more than others?
Hope this helps
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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 ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Argon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > fight
> > > over the pump.
> > > Hi EVErybody;
Victor makes some good points, but my question is arent the Utility Co.
s regulated? Sonehow? Like you don't see electricity going up during prime
driving season as gas has for YEARS!Maybe I'm thinking of the good old daze
BEFORE deregulation, as in CA when Emron owned the power plants?
> > > We wonder what it will be like to be the only
> > people
> > > driving when the real shortage hits!
It will be fun, BEFORE Yahoos that are bummed out because THEY can't get
gas, smash out yur windshields or torch your car. You better be packing a
piece at this point anyhow.They were shooting at the rescue choppers in New
Orleons. But it would sure be great to drive in a SUV free world, for awile.
Convert a Sherman Tank anybody??
Seeya
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Eric Poulsen wrote:
> Rather than design your frame around one particular battery, why not
> choose a range of possible batteries, and make sure your boxes can
> accommodate the largest? You can shim the smaller ones with expanded
> polystyrene to prevent shifting, or make a metal internal frame that
> bolts to the box, but the (removable) frame is customized to hold down
> whatever battery you feel like using.
Hi Eric,
The range of batteries one is likely to use for such an EM isn't really
too broad. With direct drive and real-highway-speed capability, big
amps will be needed. My main concern is to make sure I can accommodate
all the popular group 34 batteries. There will be a surprising amount
of shimming involved even in this tightly defined group. (A BCI group
definition seems to be only a guideline.) Those who want to get
creative will find that two Hawker 26 Ah batteries will nicely fit into
a group 34 envelope. Or three 14 Ah SVRs. Plenty of possibilities.
Size and weight are big concerns in an EM. Designing the frame to hold
group 34 batteries covers the bases I need to cover without compromising
anything too much. So far it looks like I'm on track to have a very
torsionally rigid frame that will hold ~340 lbs. of batteries, but only
weighs around 30 lbs. - about half what a typical big "standard" bike
frame weighs. Such are the advantages of purpose-built vs. a conversion
or "universal fit".
Note also that this is being designed primarily as a street bike, one
that can safely carve through turns at extreme angles. It will have a
cg about the same height as most sport bikes, so it won't hold its
batteries quite as low as a drag racer might want. Still it will be
easy to bolt on a drag racing extended rigid rear frame that will hold a
huge slick. With the ability to hold 288V of SVRs and two 6.7" motors,
drag racers should have plenty to smile about.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Doug,
You are in for some unexpected surprises. The Prius
would complain with a "Hybrid System Error" if you try
to recharge the HV pack with the car on. I did the
experiment myself. You will have to disconnect the
12V battery to clear the error.
As far as I know, you could get around it if you only
power up the HV pack ECU and not the car. This way,
the battery ECU keeps track of the SOC. And, the next
time you power up the car, it tells the car its new
SOC.
Ed Ang
AIR Lab Corp.
--- Doug Hartley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am also interested in also going the other way. I
> have thought about how
> best to do this and here is my plan:
>
> I have a second (2006) Prius on order, (which seems
> to have been delayed
> from November to late December, due to the high
> demand). Once that arrives,
> I will easily, as agreed, be able to pry my 2005
> Prius from my wife's hands
> by giving her the new one. (She began driving the
> one we have this spring
> when I started driving my electric Skodas again
> after winter storage, and I
> now rarely get to drive it.) With both of us
> borrowing elsewhere to pay it
> off, so as to get the Toyota finance loan on the new
> one, the 2005 will
> really be mine legally. Then it will be no problem
> in that sense to do some
> modifications.
> I want to connect up EV mode and add a plug-in
> rechargeable battery pack of
> say 96V to 102V nominal (Lithium ion preferrably,
> e.g. TS initially to test
> with since it can be borrowed from the Skoda
> hatchback, then Valence Gr 24
> 100A-h). An efficient boost converter will step
> this up to about 210V,
> diode connected to the original Prius pack, which
> stays in place and works
> like usual. This boosted output can be set to the
> desired regulated
> voltage, independent of the 96V pack state of
> charge. The added energy will
> be available until depletion when the converter gets
> switched off at the set
> depth of discharge. This added 210V energy source
> will support and work
> with the NiMH pack for longer electric-only runs and
> more electric power
> contribution on the highway. This method will be
> less "invasive" and risky
> for a "tinkerer" or "hacker" like me to accomplish,
> compared other methods
> that require removing the original battery pack and
> replacing it with a full
> voltage pack. This replacement pack method, although
> excellent as it has
> been done by Valence and Energy CS, requires either
> 1) the development of a
> new battery management module to talk to (and tell
> lies about being fully
> charged to) the Prius computer, or 2) waiting for
> the Valence and Energy CS
> Prius conversion kits to be available, which might
> be a while for Canada.
> (Later, when available, I would like to be involved
> in that program in
> Canada.)
> I will not try to, or need to, recharge the
> original NiMH pack. It can
> just work like normal, but not work so hard,
> considering the added EV mode
> distance and capability. It should be easy to have
> an Anderson or similar
> 96V pack disconnect, so as to be more acceptable and
> "standard" for
> servicing the rest of the vehicle by Toyota, when
> arriving at the dealer
> with it disconnected.
>
> I am commissioning eCycle to develop the heart of an
> efficient boost
> converter for this purpose (this winter). About 40
> Amps output, from about
> 90A input, is what I have requested. I will have
> some programming to
> contribute to get the desired features. Once tested
> and successful, I plan
> to make this boost converter available to others who
> want to make this
> relatively easy kind of plug-in hybrid.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Doug
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:31 AM
> Subject: Re: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
>
>
> > As far as getting access to the high voltage
> output, I
> > only added a pair of wires to the output side of
> the
> > battery pack. These terminals are after the
> > contactors and are accessible after removing quite
> a
> > bit of stuff that covers the battery pack. These
> > terminals are only energized when the Prius is
> "Ready"
> > mode.
> >
> > I have a pdf copy of the dismantling manual. It
> took
> > a good hour of work to get to these terminals.
> Toyota
> > really do not want us to temper with them.
> >
> > Besides this, I also have a 1200W 12Vdc-120Vac
> > inverter wired to the 12V battery, the EV Mode
> button
> > installed, trailer hitch receiver, LED dome
> lights,
> > and added an AUX input to the JBL amp.
> >
> > Ed Ang
> > AIR Lab Corp.
> >
> > --- Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Very cool! Did you "just" add a HV connection
> point
> >> to a stock Prius, or
> >> have you made any other modifications?
> >>
> >>
> >> Edward Ang wrote
> >> > ... I took the oppotunity to test recharging it
> >> > with the HV connection I added to our 2004
> Prius.
> >> > ... The Prius HV pack is 210V-230V DC ...
> >> > I was able to recharge at 18A max from the
> Prius.
> >> The
> >> > Sparrow was at about 170V. So, this is over
> 3kW!
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Coate
> >> 1970's Elec-Trak's
> >> 1998 Chevy S-10 NiMH BEV
> >> 1997 Chevy S-10 NGV Bi-Fuel
> >> http://www.eeevee.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the many good options and advice offered. Since at least
one person has experience using a single 240V core at 312V, and I am
below this, I am leaning that direction.
Victor, I had to tear off the dash anyway...gotta wire for
instrumentation at some point, you know. Besides, in my case, I'm
doing a bit of work on the interior as well. Besides, on a 20 year old
car ( and really on any used car), it never hurts to vacuum out the
gunk that has collected in the ductwork. It was surprisingly clean,
although the AC evaporator core had some pine straw and a couple of
leaves wedged against it.
David Brandt
Don't take life too seriously, it's only temporary.
On the other hand, the permanent things are really important.
912-826-7189 (hm)
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Edward,
can you tell us how you did this?
I am very interested in this, because it will
be my first line of defense after opportunity charge!
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3673 eFAX: +31-84-717-9972
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jim Coate
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:11 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
Very cool! Did you "just" add a HV connection point to a stock Prius, or
have you made any other modifications?
Edward Ang wrote
> ... I took the oppotunity to test recharging it
> with the HV connection I added to our 2004 Prius.
> ... The Prius HV pack is 210V-230V DC ...
> I was able to recharge at 18A max from the Prius. The
> Sparrow was at about 170V. So, this is over 3kW!
--
Jim Coate
1970's Elec-Trak's
1998 Chevy S-10 NiMH BEV
1997 Chevy S-10 NGV Bi-Fuel
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It was put to me that a controller failure could be caused by sagging
batteries struggling to put out enough power to run the controller. Since
there was sag in voltage the amps go up. Is this a possible failure mode?
Could this be caused by too wide a range of voltage acceptance by a
controller?
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 10/27/05, Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was put to me that a controller failure could be caused by sagging
> batteries struggling to put out enough power to run the controller. Since
> there was sag in voltage the amps go up. Is this a possible failure mode?
> Could this be caused by too wide a range of voltage acceptance by a
> controller?
If the battery voltage drops and you continue to take the same power
(drive at the same speed) then of course the current input to the
controller will increase.
Will it cause the controller to fail? No. Not unless the controller
is undersized and doesn't protect itself from the additional heating.
But if that is the case, it would most likely fail going up the next
hill anyway.
So it's definitely not true as a general rule, even if it has
happened in some specific instance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
One thing that jumps out at me is that upstream emissions of EVs are being
compared with the tailpipe emissions of ICEs. Once you start looking at the
emissions produced in refining oil into gasoline, EVs look even better. You
can keep going upstream for both, but I'm not aware of any studies doing
that.
If you haven't already seen it, an interesting paper is at
http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf
Also, as you point out, a few large sources of pollution can be controlled
easier than hundreds of thousands of small sources. The technology is
available to make even coal fired generating plants much cleaner. The
sticking point is the cost, and utility companies have a powerful lobby.
Dave Davidson
From: Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Relative pollution
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:36:55 -0700
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Neon John wrote:
> 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.
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
States that all the pollutants in the US excepting SO2, and particulates
would drop substantially.
>From that site:
NCs CO NOx SO2 Particulates
US -96 -99 -67 +203 +122
US CA -96 -97 -75 -24 +15
France -99 -99 -91 -58 -59
These seem like fairly large values (including the increase of SO2).
>
> First off, the emission limits are LIMITS, values that cannot be
> exceeded.
Why is it that they cannot be exceeded?
Due to legal issues?
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/speeches/speech4.gif
>From http://www.epa.gov/otaq/speeches/mto-9508.htm:
The second major challenge that we are facing is the problem of in-use
deterioration. While all new vehicles offered for sale must be designed
and produced to meet emissions standards, actual in-use performance is not
as good. Too often, broken or malfunctioning parts or simply lack of
proper maintenance or repair results in vehicle emissions significantly
above the standards. [Slide #4] This slide, reflecting lifetime HC
emissions, shows an increase in HC emissions of approximately 77%.
> The OEM must achieve those limits over the whole fleet and
> do it for 100k miles or 5 years.
The chart above shows that this is not the case.
> 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 had two cars both of which I owned in MI and moved to CA.
One was a 1991 Jeep Cherokee with about 220K miles on it.
When I took it to get smog tested, it had more then 20x the allowable
amount of
NOx. It might have been more, but the test report was pegged at that value.
The other ones were way over also, but that is the one that tagged me a
gross
polluter.
Why didn't I have this fixed while I was in MI? The car was never tested in
MI. It ran smooth, the check engine light was not on and even if it was, I
would have ran it into the ground (I was very poor). Also, it did not get
very
good mileage indicating elevated CO2 emissions.
So, that means my single gas car was worse then more then 20 new cars,
or what, 10,000 EVs?
That is one of the major reasons EVs are so much better. You have one
huge emissions control device. This device is monitored more closely then
the one on my Jeep. Also, my EV gets cleaner over time as plants are
upgraded
and the source mixture improves.
Vs ICE powered vehicles which always get dirtier (None are ILE).
>
> 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.
The data we've seen so far indicates that most will not. Here are the stats
on
the age of the US fleet:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics//2005/html/table_01_25.html
>From that URL:
Median Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the United States
Year Autos LT All Trucks
2003 8.6 6.6 6.7
2004 8.9 6.4 6.6
>From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html:
An average vehicle, therefore, traveled farther in 1994 than in 1988:
11,400 miles per year compared with 10,200 miles per year (Figure 3.2).
So, now we can figure out how much the average US car pollutes:
11400 Miles per year * 8.9 year old car == 101460 Miles on avg car in US.
Now that we know how many miles the average car has gone today, we can
see how bad its pollution is today. If you look at the gif I posted above,
you can see that the average US car is emitting twice the legal limit of
HC today.
Based on this, EV's look even cleaner then we once though before.
<..snip..>
> At some point one has to ask which is sillier -
> the necessary methods or the limits?
The limits seem fine, the fact that the cars in the US are not below the
limits is the problem.
>
> 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.
The problem is that these systems degrade on there own, and they need to be
serviced regularly in order to remain compliant. The information posted
above shows that they are not.
>
> 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.
>
http://www.epa.gov/echo/compliance_report_air.html
5,940 facilities total.
5,487 facilities are in compliance, or "on compliance schedule".
677 facilities are in violation.
So, 8.7% of coal plants are currently non-compliant.
Based on the data seen in slide 4 posted above, the average car in the US
today will be non-compliant after driving around 35,000 miles.
Seeing as how the average car has driven 101460 miles, This would seem to
indicate that a much larger percent of the US auto fleet is non-compliant
when compared to coal fired power plants.
> 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.
This is one of the major differences, nobody charged me a daily fine
because my
emissions control was not working. I did not even need to use duct tape
and bailing wire :)
>
> 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.
Where does all the pollution produced by coal fired power plants, and cars
go?
<..snip..>
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes your On/ off procedure is correct for saving the AC rated contacts in
the PFC charger.
How much can you power can you suck from the Prius?? The PFC20 charger
should move almost 5 Kw from the 230 pack to the Sparrow. You should beable
to get almost 25 amps of 230 into the charger and over just about the same
output. Most PFC20s tune up to 4900 to 5100 watts output power.
The PFC30s can move 30 amps in the AC mode and if you Tune for DC only You
get about 40 amps through put.
My question is how hard can you draw down the Prius batteries before it
folds over, and the Generator can't keep up?
Some PFC chargers come whit a 277 VAC and 80 VDC breaker. This would be the
best breaker I have installed for DC charging but still is rather under
rated for breaking a DC Fault.
But....
It's good to know that you can use a Hybrid to charge a full EV. This is
fun ways to use a PFC charger... that I never intended...
The Plug in Hybrid... needs to beable to supply 50 amps to a PFC charger so
we can fast charge the REAL EV.
Wow... What next?
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:58 AM
Subject: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
> I turned off the PFC-20 (non-buck) on our Sparrow over
> the weekend and my wife forgot to turn it back on when
> she plugged in at her office. She only realized that
> half way home when the E-meter showed 2 amber lights
> (<50%). I took the oppotunity to test recharging it
> with the HV connection I added to our 2004 Prius.
>
> Rich, I know this probably void the charger's
> warranty, but I think it is out-of-warranty long ago
> since I purchased it back in 2002. Anyhow, correct me
> if I am wrong. It is very important that you never
> use the charger's breaker to turn it on or off while
> charging. The breaker is rated for AC only. The
> Prius HV pack is 210V-230V DC. Also, if anything goes
> wrong, the breaker is not able to turn off the
> charger. Having said that I think it is safe to use
> the breaker if the current setting is turn all the way
> down.
>
> This is the sequence I did to recharge. Get the Prius
> in "Ready". Turn on charger but current at zero.
> Plug in Sparrow. Turn current nob slowly and watch
> the charging current not to exceed 20A (or whatever
> the max should be for your charger).
>
> This is the sequence to disconnect. Turn current nob
> to zero. Unplug Sparrow. Turn Prius off.
>
> I was able to recharge at 18A max from the Prius. The
> Sparrow was at about 170V. So, this is over 3kW! Not
> bad. We waited half an hour to get the 10 miles
> needed to get home. The ICE kicked in and out
> magically. It is nice to have a low emission
> generator!
>
> Note: Stock Sparrows also have an AC interlock relay.
> This relay would probably overheat if you power it
> with DC. I switched the AC relay with a 12V version
> and powered it with a universal input 12V power
> supply. This allows me to use any voltage AC or DC
> from 90V to 240V.
>
> Ed Ang
> AIR Lab Corp.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey folks...
The Radiator graphs in Ryan's cooling Kit spec 3 GPM for minimum Rtheta.
That's Why I am trying to get 3 GPM in the total cooling loop. I had to toss
the Dart and Well 3 GPM made sense.
The Radiator clearly won't flow this much without more pressure drop
than I had. I got 1 GPM through it without the Zilla plumbed in and .625
with the Z2K in line. So... need more pump pressue.
Then I got to thinking... this pump has like...10 GPM at 2 psi volume.. so..
If I ran the radiator in parallel with the Z2K, I could get that 1 GPM
though the radiator, and still get .625 Across the Zilla.
Getting a lower Rtheta ,and still getting max flow through the Zilla.
Well I have not figured out which scrubs more heat. This depends on pump
pressue and volume. If we can double volume and not have th pressure
drop...much, parallel loops should get more water moving and scrub more
heat. If we get a higher pressure pump and it has less volume... then
keeping the whole system in series makes sense.
Keep in mind I am trying to make a system that can't be over whelmed....
I am tired of making excuses about hot chargers in Texas...
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Radiator
> In a message dated 10/26/2005 6:30:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> << This should hold true pumping hot water threw a radiator, if you pump
it
> too fast threw the radiator, it does not stay in long enough for the water
to
> cool down. >>
>
> That is an old wives tale.
> Faster liquid flow transfers more heat.
> (must be my turn to be brusque and borderline inconsiderate..)
>
> Ben
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: Evan Tuer<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: EV theory: Will sagging batteries cause high amps destroying
controllers?
On 10/27/05, Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
> It was put to me that a controller failure could be caused by sagging
> batteries struggling to put out enough power to run the controller. Since
> there was sag in voltage the amps go up. Is this a possible failure mode?
> Could this be caused by too wide a range of voltage acceptance by a
> controller?
If the battery voltage drops and you continue to take the same power
(drive at the same speed) then of course the current input to the
controller will increase.
Will it cause the controller to fail? No. Not unless the controller
is undersized and doesn't protect itself from the additional heating.
But if that is the case, it would most likely fail going up the next
hill anyway.
So it's definitely not true as a general rule, even if it has
happened in some specific instance.
It may depend of what type of controller you have. In my Zilla the battery
pos and neg goes to the Zilla with output to the motor. In this type of
controller the motor ampere is higher than the battery amperes.
In my CableForm 900 amp controller, it was wire in series with 180 volts of 2
volt battery cells rated at 300 AH and easily pull 600 amps on a 2 mile up hill
grade at 60 mph. My battery and motor amp meter would read about the same.
One time I had the battery sag down to 135 volts while I was seeing how far I
the drive EV at 15 mph average city driving. It began to slow way down to 5
mph at about 88 miles which I was about 1 mile from my house. The motor and
battery amperes drop in proportion to the voltage. I could not pull more than
100 amps at the time.
To get home at a faster speed, I let the EV set for about 15 minutes. This
allow the acid deep into the very thick battery grids to come to the surface of
these plates. This process is call battery defusion time. I was able to
travel the next mile slowly building up to 15 mph and again ending up at 0 mph
right at my house. The ampere never went above 100 amps while doing this
while pressing the accelerator to the floor.
This is the advantage that a EV has over a ICE, trying to get home with a
empty fuel tank.
Today, I never go below 50% battery capacity.
Roland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is pretty off-topic, but if you look at it from a heat management
point of view, then you could see that the reason that you can adjust the
loops flow is two-fold:
- different loops are different lengths/resistance, so to make each loop
create the same amount of heat in the floor (avoid uneven heating or even
stalling in one loop) you "pinch" the flow in the shorter loops.
(each loop should have an adjustment, not only overall)
- too hot water returned makes for a very inefficient heating, as the
heater will be able to give more heat to the water when the incoming temp
is lower, also the heat loss will be lower when the average water temp
is lower, so there is a balance how to get the needed amount of heat in
your floor while also optimizing the amount of gas usage.
You can get a bit more heat into your floor by turning up the flow, but
this may even cause damage to your floor when starting cold on a tile
floor, because too much heat too soon will crack the tiles, they actually
need to be heated gradually. Also your gas usage will go through the roof
as the heater will not be able to add much heat when the water comes into
the heater still very hot.
(Floor heating also has a very limited max temp, so the heater actually
should never heat the water to anywhere near boiling - it will modulate
or shut off and on to limit the water output temp.)
Anyway - pumping hot water around FASTER will always allow more heat
transfer if the temp difference is large (hot radiator - cold air)
but will limit the heat transfer where the temp difference is small
(hot water - hot heater).
You can also see this by taking your example to the extreme:
if you need slow flowing water to give off a lot of heat, then make it
slower - at some point it will be at standstill and give off the max
amount of heat (all) but after it cooled down, there will be no more
heat coming, so the total amount is not how much you got out of this
batch of water in the radiator, but from ALL water through the radiator
and that goes up with the avg temp of the water in the radiator, as the
heat transfer is only based on the temp difference between radator and
the ambient air temp (the fan is used to blow more cold air and avoid
buildup of a hot air bubble around the radiator at standstill, which
reduces the temp difference)
When the hot water races through the radiator, its heat transfer is
max as the avg temp is equal to the inlet temp, and all water gives
off only a tiny amount of heat, but overall the cooling is max.
because the temp difference with ambient is max.
Since all this heat is coming from the Zilla (in this case) you can
see that the cooling is also maximum, even when the temp of the water
racing through the Zilla is almost equal on exit as on entry - it is
the temp difference between heatsink (actually the transistor die)
and the water that makes for the amount of cooling - this is exactly
as in an electrical circuit: THere is thermal resistance between the
transistor, via the heatsink, into the cooling water and the is a
"Potential" ("voltage") of temp difference between transistor and
cooling water (average temp) so there is a "thermal current" of
heat flowing into the cooling water from the transistors, which
gives a certain potential (temp) difference in steady state, which
only depends on the thermal resistance.
The actual transistor temp is dependent on the cooling water avg temp
(which can be reduced a little by harder pumping) and the thermal
resistance between the transistor and cooling water (which can be
reduced by using better transistors or better conducting heatsink)
and the amount of power per transistor (which can be reduced by using
more transistors = lower power per transistor).
As long as the temp inside the transistor is low enough, there is no
reason to modify any of the above, as you can see all of them are a
cost increase, except maybe the harder pumping which may be relatively
easy by using a different pump and pushing the pressure through the
Zilla heatsink first.
Rule of thumb is that every 10 deg C increase reduces life by 2x
(if I recall correctly) so an 80 deg C piece of electronics will
live twice as long as a 90 deg C unit. (It may even be more
pronounced than this, correct me if I am wrong)
Hope this clarifies,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3673 eFAX: +31-84-717-9972
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Roland Wiench
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:26 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
Actually, the slower the and smaller tubing may be better. I found out this
with my hot water floor heat in the concrete floors in my house.
Each zone has one loop of 200 feet of 3/8 inch rubber like tubing. There is
a Honey Well Temperature Meter on the feed and another one of the return.
There is a ball value that is used to adjust the flow.
The return pumps can be adjust to feed 1 to 6 gallons a minute.
The water is heated up to 140 degrees and which is goes into the floor and
comes backs at 80 degrees with the return pump set at 1 gallon per minute.
The floor acts like a heat sink which pull 60 degrees out of the water.
Now if I crank up the return pump to 6 gallons per minute than the return
temperature is about 110 to 120 degrees.
This should hold true pumping hot water threw a radiator, if you pump it
too fast threw the radiator, it does not stay in long enough for the water
to cool down.
But, to cool off the Zilla, you must pump cold water faster the Zilla, so
there is more cold water per area of the Zilla.
Maybe a two pump two loop system could be tested out. One 1 gallon per
minute pumps the water from a holding tank and threw the radiator and back
to the holding tank. Then from this holding tank pump at 6 gallons a minute
threw the Zilla and back to the holding tank which mixes with the colder
water.
This is how a hot water heating system is done.
There is a Mechanical Engineering Formula that can be used to determine how
much energy its take to heat a certain volume of water.
Knowns:
Its takes 4500 watts to heat 20 gallons of water 90 degrees rise in 60
minutes.
If the water is 70 degrees, it will take 60 min. to rise it to 160 degrees.
You can proportion this down as follows using a base temperature of 70 deg.
rising it 90 degrees to 160 degrees:
4500 watts @ 20 gals.@ 160 deg.@ 60 mins.
4500 watts @ 10 gals.@ 160 deg.@ 30 mins.
4500 watts @ 5 gals.@ 160 deg.@ 15 mins.
4500 watts @ 1 gal. @ 160 deg.@ 3 mins.
If you measure the temperature of the water going in and out of the zilla,
you can estimate how much the heat sink puts out in energy.
Example:
9000 watts @ 1 gal. @ 160 deg. @ 1.5 mins.
13,500 watts @ 1 gal. @ 160 deg. @ 1 min.
Or with a 45 degree rise:
4500 watts @ 1 gal. @ 115 deg. @ 1.5 mins.
2240 watts @ 1 gal. @ 115 deg. @ 3 mins.
Increasing the watts up decreases the time.
Decreasing the watts down increase the time.
Amount of cooling time of a hot water system:
If you have 1 gallons of 160 degree water and mix it with 1 gallons of 70
degree water, you will have about:
(160 + 70)/2 = 115 degree water.
If the radiator holds 1 gallon and is large enough area so it would cool the
160 water to 70 degrees (ambient temp) and mixes with 1 gallon of the Zilla
loop, the temperature could be down to 115 degrees.
The Zilla does not hold 1 gallon, but this is made up by pumping 6 times
faster in the Zilla loop than the radiator loop.
If you have much more coolant water in the radiator loop, the lower
temperature will be attain:
Known: My Zilla cooling system data.
I am using a 3/8 return line from the Zilla, that goes into a GM remote fill
tank of about 1.5 gallons that is used for engines that is lower than the
radiator. The 3/8 stub goes into the top of the tank, but built in tube
extends all the way down below the water level, so no air gets in the
pumping loop.
>From this holding tank, A Maxi-Jet 1200 1 gpm pump that plugs right into
the 3/4 fitting at the bottom of this tank. This goes down to a copper oil
radiator that holds about a 1/2 gallon that has a large GM electric fan,
Then back up to the Zilla.
I have a water temperature sensor on the return and also on the feed, plus a
heat sink temperature sensor
With
the ambient temperature of 80 deg. F the Zilla temperature never went above
83 degrees, which is a 3 degrees rise.
One day, while I had the car park out in a 100 degree day, the under hood
temperature was 140 degrees, measure by my Honeywell remote temperature
sensor. The heat sink temperature was about 135 degrees before starting up.
Starting up the cooling system the Zilla temperature quickly drop to 110
degrees and than slowing drop to about 100 degrees, which is the same as the
ambient temperature.
So slow pumping threw the radiator and maybe a faster pump threw the
heatsinks may work better.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Rudman<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
Yea Ot that's what I am seeing. also the 90 Deg bends on your fittings are
pretty adverse to High fluid flow.
What was getting me is not the flow through our equipment but the need for
3
GPM across the radiator to make thier claimed Rtheta.
With as little as flows through the Zilla I am very impressed with what it
does with it.
Do you know My Z2K makes a really nice 500 watt heatsink...Just by pumping
hot water through it???
Messed up my watt flow numbers... I ended up heating the metal bench that
the Zilla was on...
And relax the water was only 150 Deg F..
The PFC40L charger can use less water, I am doing the really nasty hot
weather testing... And un like You I have to beable to run at Full power
on
a continuous load.
The partial bypass and stiffer PSI to make sure you have the flow you need
is what I am trying to figure out.
Rich Rudman
Manzanita Micro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otmar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: 1.591 second 60 ft. WZ Launch Video
> >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.
>
> Granted, I can see room for improvement there.
>
> >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...
>
> They seem to be cooling just fine at the slow flow that they get now.
> Why do I need more? It would take an awfully good reason to get me to
> change a design that works so well. That small heatsink is critical
> the the whole electrical design, it would be very difficult to
> increase the coolant flow rate if I wanted to. As long as it's
> working so well, I think it's staying just as it is.
>
> I can see that you may need more flow for your charger, maybe we'll
> need a partial bypass around the controller to provide enough flow to
> your charger on the same loop.
>
> --
> -Otmar-
>
> http://www.CafeElectric.com/<http://www.cafeelectric.com/> Home of the
Zilla.
> http://www.evcl.com/914<http://www.evcl.com/914> My electric 914
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think your first thermostat was broken.
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3673 eFAX: +31-84-717-9972
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:08 AM
To: 'ev@listproc.sjsu.edu'
Subject: RE: Radiator
I can speak from experience on that point. My JEEP Cherokee, with a 160
thermostat, ran 210 pulling my boat. When I switched to a 190 thermostat
the engine ran 190 max 195. Giving the radiator time to cool the water
enabled the engine to manage its heat more effeciently.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:01 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Radiator
In a message dated 10/26/2005 6:30:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
<< This should hold true pumping hot water threw a radiator, if you pump it
too fast threw the radiator, it does not stay in long enough for the water
to
cool down. >>
That is an old wives tale.
Faster liquid flow transfers more heat.
(must be my turn to be brusque and borderline inconsiderate..)
Ben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich,
I have the non-buck version of the PFC-20. Didn't you
set it to put out 20A max? I turned the current all
the way up and get 18A into the Sparrow which was at
about 170V dropping to 17.6A at about 180V. I did not
measure the Prius voltage. But, I think it was around
210V at this rate.
Anyhow, I did run a test using my PFC-50 on my 192V
EV. I think I was able to do 40A at about 210V or
over 8kW. But, I did not run the test long enough to
see if the Prius would complain because my connector
is not rated at this current. It was a few months
ago. I was just making sure that I could do it.
At the rate I was charging the Sparrow. The ICE did
not even rev up. It felt like it was at idle speed.
I think the motor/generator is 20kW. So, it should be
safe up to 10kW. I am sure one of us would have a
chance to test this soon.
Ed Ang
AIR Lab Corp.
--- Rich Rudman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes your On/ off procedure is correct for saving the
> AC rated contacts in
> the PFC charger.
>
> How much can you power can you suck from the Prius??
> The PFC20 charger
> should move almost 5 Kw from the 230 pack to the
> Sparrow. You should beable
> to get almost 25 amps of 230 into the charger and
> over just about the same
> output. Most PFC20s tune up to 4900 to 5100 watts
> output power.
> The PFC30s can move 30 amps in the AC mode and if
> you Tune for DC only You
> get about 40 amps through put.
> My question is how hard can you draw down the
> Prius batteries before it
> folds over, and the Generator can't keep up?
> Some PFC chargers come whit a 277 VAC and 80 VDC
> breaker. This would be the
> best breaker I have installed for DC charging but
> still is rather under
> rated for breaking a DC Fault.
>
> But....
> It's good to know that you can use a Hybrid to
> charge a full EV. This is
> fun ways to use a PFC charger... that I never
> intended...
> The Plug in Hybrid... needs to beable to supply 50
> amps to a PFC charger so
> we can fast charge the REAL EV.
>
> Wow... What next?
>
> Rich Rudman
> Manzanita Micro
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:58 AM
> Subject: PFC-20 Running off Prius HV Pack
>
>
> > I turned off the PFC-20 (non-buck) on our Sparrow
> over
> > the weekend and my wife forgot to turn it back on
> when
> > she plugged in at her office. She only realized
> that
> > half way home when the E-meter showed 2 amber
> lights
> > (<50%). I took the oppotunity to test recharging
> it
> > with the HV connection I added to our 2004 Prius.
> >
> > Rich, I know this probably void the charger's
> > warranty, but I think it is out-of-warranty long
> ago
> > since I purchased it back in 2002. Anyhow,
> correct me
> > if I am wrong. It is very important that you
> never
> > use the charger's breaker to turn it on or off
> while
> > charging. The breaker is rated for AC only. The
> > Prius HV pack is 210V-230V DC. Also, if anything
> goes
> > wrong, the breaker is not able to turn off the
> > charger. Having said that I think it is safe to
> use
> > the breaker if the current setting is turn all the
> way
> > down.
> >
> > This is the sequence I did to recharge. Get the
> Prius
> > in "Ready". Turn on charger but current at zero.
> > Plug in Sparrow. Turn current nob slowly and
> watch
> > the charging current not to exceed 20A (or
> whatever
> > the max should be for your charger).
> >
> > This is the sequence to disconnect. Turn current
> nob
> > to zero. Unplug Sparrow. Turn Prius off.
> >
> > I was able to recharge at 18A max from the Prius.
> The
> > Sparrow was at about 170V. So, this is over 3kW!
> Not
> > bad. We waited half an hour to get the 10 miles
> > needed to get home. The ICE kicked in and out
> > magically. It is nice to have a low emission
> > generator!
> >
> > Note: Stock Sparrows also have an AC interlock
> relay.
> > This relay would probably overheat if you power
> it
> > with DC. I switched the AC relay with a 12V
> version
> > and powered it with a universal input 12V power
> > supply. This allows me to use any voltage AC or
> DC
> > from 90V to 240V.
> >
> > Ed Ang
> > AIR Lab Corp.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
