EV Digest 5416
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: which comes first
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Now that's a hybrid
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Reverse with series motors, was: Does John really need revers e?
was:White Zombie
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
by "David Ankers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Reverse with series motors, was: Does John really need
reverse? was:White Zombie
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) cost containment.
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) What is it with CVTs?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Does John really need reverse? was:White Zombie Update...360
Volts...More HP!
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Flywheel Batteries (Elecro Mechanical Batteries?)
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: New AC system option (was Re: Nissan AC conversion)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: New AC system option (was Re: Nissan AC conversion)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Now that's a hybrid
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Zilla anyone
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: TEVan info needed
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, you can buy a PFC-30 and buy batteries later. It will not matter if
they are 6,8 or 12 volt models because the charger will adjust to any
reasonable voltage.
Battery management can work with the PFC series chargers because the Regbus
interface is built into the charge controller. It can turn down or shut down
the charger through the remote cable.
The PFC chargers do not have automatic temperature compensation. You will
have to manually adjust the pack voltage as the seasons change. To get
automatic temperature compensation requires purchasing battery regulators
that sense the temperature AT THE BATTERY and turn down the charger through
the Regbus.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Rothenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: which comes first
> With all the discussion of used battery packs, I think I'll
> try to use the pack I have until D-day...but to use it, I need
> a charger. My question for the list is, can I just buy a charger
> (possibly PFC-30), and choose batteries later?
> (I am looking for a plug-n-forget)
> How does that fit with possibly wanting/needing Battery Management?
> (Hoping to be able to reuse 24-odd battery cables :-)
>
> I am still taking an inventory, car appears to have one breaker
> and one contactor, so I'll need one of each.
>
> Thanks
> Seth
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Can you ride it out the back while the van is moving like Knight Rider?
They always showed him driving into the back of that truck, and implied
that he did it at 60 MPH, but wouldn't that car launch into the back of
the truck once the rear wheels (doing 60) hit the stationary (in a
relative sense) ramp?
Anyway, sounds like you had fun doing this.
damon henry wrote:
... I simply loaded my EV motorcycle up in the back of my van and
drove halfway to work, then unloaded and rode the rest of the way...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
Intuitively, I agree with you. Take a bunch of potential energy in one
spot and release it suddenly, it _must_ go somewhere, either as sound,
heat, light. Best you can do would be to turn it into heat, and have an
escape mechanism for any hot gasses that precludes outright explosion.
This is doable (I've seen demonstrations of bomb-proof airplane cargo
containers that puff out then "deflate"). They claimed to have the
problem solved, but I'd rather see the test films.
Of course, if gasoline were discovered yesterday, and someone said "I'm
going to create controlled explosions and use it to move a vehicle," I'm
sure there'd be quite a bit of skepticism.
Neon John wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:03:39 -0700, Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
8< Much snippage about explosions
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Slight math error:
12 kg is over 26 lbs,
as a US pound is almost 1/2 kg.
(a metric pound is exactly 1/2 kg)
Note that to store this amount of energy in a flywheel
is must be about 2 ft in diameter and about 500 lbs heavy
and run somewhere around 30,000 RPM.
For the record: I do not believe in a gentle de-lamination
and spooling down of the flywheel, because it has magnetic
bearings! as soon as it loses just a tiny bit from one side
it is no longer in balance, the bearings will lose containment
and I have trouble to see anything else than an immediate,
destructive, release of energy.
Either a release of a large amount of super-heated steel vapor
(the former housing "rubbed away") or shrapnel in all lanes
of the road. In a battery there is internal resistance and
a fuse to limit the instantaneous power release.
What safety is limiting the flywheel from releasing all its
power in a fraction of a second?
Regards,
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 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Neon John
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:50 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:03:39 -0700, Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The rotors were comprised of a composite material that was essentially
>like thread wound onto a bobbin that was held in place by a resin --
>sort of like a wheel comprised of spindled fiberglass thread. The idea
>being that in a catastrophic rotor delamination, it would merely
>unravel. I'm not sure what form the energy would take -- heat, I
>guess. Also, the modules were designed to contain in the event of such
>a failure.
This claim by the flywheel advocates is where I start having
heartburn. I've calculated the energy release effects before but this
time I decided to it in familiar EV terms.
Let's suppose a 50KWh flywheel. That would be equivalent to a 250
volt, 200 amp-hour pack. A nice pack that would make an EV quite
practical for many people.
Suppose that this energy is explosively released, as in a flywheel
failure. How does that much energy compare to other familiar
energetic events?
I decided to put this energy release in terms of pounds of TNT. We've
all seen hand grenades and bombs explode, if not in military service
then on the news.
>From reference material, I find that TNT releases about 15KJ per gram
or about 4 kilocalories per gram. Using a units conversion program I
convert that to 4.1667 watt-hours per gram.
If 50KWh is released essentially instantly, that is, explosively, then
that works out to 50KWh /4.1667 WH/gm = 12,000 grams = the explosion
of 12kg of TNT. Twelve kilograms is 5.45 lbs.
Thus, a 50KWh flywheel disintegrating releases the same explosive
energy as about five and a half pounds of TNT.
To put this in perspective, a standard WW-II "pineapple" US hand
grenade:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/appf.h
tm
Contained 55 grams of TNT. The flywheel releases 12,000/55 = 218 hand
grenade's worth of explosive energy.
The modern M26 hand grenade that looks like a green orange (on that
same page above.) contains 170 grams equiv of TNT. Thus one flywheel
explosion is equivalent to 12,000/170 = 7 M26 hand grenades.
In other words, a 50KWh flywheel disassembling itself would result in
a big-assed explosion :-(
Even if they somehow figure out how to slow the disintegration (I
can't imagine how but play along) so that it takes place over, say, a
second, 50KWh released inside the container will still vaporize the
contents and burst the housing from pressure. It won't be a high
explosion but it WILL be an explosion similar to a steam or black
powder explosion. A seriously large one.
Almost any failure mechanism (flywheel burst, bearing failure,
generator rotor failure, vacuum failure, etc) one can anticipate
results in explosive energy release, something even the most energetic
battery chemistry doesn't face. I just don't see the application fit
in the mobile environment where weight considerations preclude any
sort of containment vessel.
I had my first net.discussion in this area back in the mid-80s when
the Internet was still a wee pup. The flywheel advocates tried to
wave their arms and make this problem go away back then and 20 years
later I don't see that anything has changed. I'm neither pro- or
anti-flywheel. I'm simply trying to evaluate the risk involved in
that sort of energy release.
I'm NOT a flywheel expert nor a materials nor a kinetics expert so I
quite possibly could be wrong in concept or have made a math mistake
and I welcome corrections. But I don't think I'm wrong.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:16 AM
Subject: RE: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
> Slight math error:
> 12 kg is over 26 lbs,
> as a US pound is almost 1/2 kg.
> (a metric pound is exactly 1/2 kg)
>
> Note that to store this amount of energy in a flywheel
> is must be about 2 ft in diameter and about 500 lbs heavy
> and run somewhere around 30,000 RPM.
>
> For the record: I do not believe in a gentle de-lamination
> and spooling down of the flywheel, because it has magnetic
> bearings! as soon as it loses just a tiny bit from one side
> it is no longer in balance, the bearings will lose containment
> and I have trouble to see anything else than an immediate,
> destructive, release of energy.
> Either a release of a large amount of super-heated steel vapor
> (the former housing "rubbed away") or shrapnel in all lanes
> of the road. In a battery there is internal resistance and
> a fuse to limit the instantaneous power release.
> What safety is limiting the flywheel from releasing all its
> power in a fraction of a second?
> Hi All;
Not to mention the driving/handling issue with the gyroscopic effect, of
all that rotating iron or whatEVer? For a single rail train these things
held it up, turning wasn't as much an issue. Trains don't hafta swerve,
much<g>! I think we should stick to more benign batteries, and a damn good
fuze and lineswith.
Mt two farads worth
Bob
> Regards,
>
> 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 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
> Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
> Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Neon John
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:50 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:03:39 -0700, Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The rotors were comprised of a composite material that was essentially
> >like thread wound onto a bobbin that was held in place by a resin --
> >sort of like a wheel comprised of spindled fiberglass thread. The idea
> >being that in a catastrophic rotor delamination, it would merely
> >unravel. I'm not sure what form the energy would take -- heat, I
> >guess. Also, the modules were designed to contain in the event of such
> >a failure.
>
> This claim by the flywheel advocates is where I start having
> heartburn. I've calculated the energy release effects before but this
> time I decided to it in familiar EV terms.
>
> Let's suppose a 50KWh flywheel. That would be equivalent to a 250
> volt, 200 amp-hour pack. A nice pack that would make an EV quite
> practical for many people.
>
> Suppose that this energy is explosively released, as in a flywheel
> failure. How does that much energy compare to other familiar
> energetic events?
>
> I decided to put this energy release in terms of pounds of TNT. We've
> all seen hand grenades and bombs explode, if not in military service
> then on the news.
>
> >From reference material, I find that TNT releases about 15KJ per gram
> or about 4 kilocalories per gram. Using a units conversion program I
> convert that to 4.1667 watt-hours per gram.
>
> If 50KWh is released essentially instantly, that is, explosively, then
> that works out to 50KWh /4.1667 WH/gm = 12,000 grams = the explosion
> of 12kg of TNT. Twelve kilograms is 5.45 lbs.
>
> Thus, a 50KWh flywheel disintegrating releases the same explosive
> energy as about five and a half pounds of TNT.
>
> To put this in perspective, a standard WW-II "pineapple" US hand
> grenade:
>
>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/appf.h
> tm
>
> Contained 55 grams of TNT. The flywheel releases 12,000/55 = 218 hand
> grenade's worth of explosive energy.
>
> The modern M26 hand grenade that looks like a green orange (on that
> same page above.) contains 170 grams equiv of TNT. Thus one flywheel
> explosion is equivalent to 12,000/170 = 7 M26 hand grenades.
>
> In other words, a 50KWh flywheel disassembling itself would result in
> a big-assed explosion :-(
>
> Even if they somehow figure out how to slow the disintegration (I
> can't imagine how but play along) so that it takes place over, say, a
> second, 50KWh released inside the container will still vaporize the
> contents and burst the housing from pressure. It won't be a high
> explosion but it WILL be an explosion similar to a steam or black
> powder explosion. A seriously large one.
>
> Almost any failure mechanism (flywheel burst, bearing failure,
> generator rotor failure, vacuum failure, etc) one can anticipate
> results in explosive energy release, something even the most energetic
> battery chemistry doesn't face. I just don't see the application fit
> in the mobile environment where weight considerations preclude any
> sort of containment vessel.
>
> I had my first net.discussion in this area back in the mid-80s when
> the Internet was still a wee pup. The flywheel advocates tried to
> wave their arms and make this problem go away back then and 20 years
> later I don't see that anything has changed. I'm neither pro- or
> anti-flywheel. I'm simply trying to evaluate the risk involved in
> that sort of energy release.
>
> I'm NOT a flywheel expert nor a materials nor a kinetics expert so I
> quite possibly could be wrong in concept or have made a math mistake
> and I welcome corrections. But I don't think I'm wrong.
>
> John
> ---
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.johngsbbq.com
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:30:13 -0700, Cor van de Water
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I asked myself: what is the simplest way to make one series
>motor reverse, without affecting its normal performance?
I described a much simpler method a couple of weeks ago that involves
no contactors in the main power circuit, no odd voltages or extra
batteries. It involves a minor change to the motor and one single
pole contactor that is open during normal operation and one relay that
is open during normal operation. In other words, no added resistance
to the normal power circuit. I'm currently implementing this design
on my Citi to eliminate all the reversing relays and wiring.
Step one is to add a lightweight shunt winding to each field pole
using available space. The winding is for intermittent duty so it
doesn't have to be heavy. It's designed to receive pack voltage.
A single pole normally open contactor is wired so that when energized,
the series field is shorted out. The controller output goes directly
to the armature.
The shunt field is hooked in magnetic opposition to the series field.
When reverse is selected, the main contactor closes, shunting the
current around the series field and the relay is closed, applying pack
voltage at low current to the shunt field. The reverse polarity shunt
field causes the motor to turn in reverse.
Because of limited space, the shunt field will only supply a fraction
of the field of the series winding but that is enough. It will simply
result in higher armature current at low speed. Given the short
duration of reversing, again this is of no concern.
I'd probably interlock the shunt field relay through the throttle pot
microswitch so that it is only energized when actually moving.
There is an even simpler (electrically) method that involves only the
contactor and some mechanical modification. In this design, the
solenoid simultaneously shorts the series field and mechanically
inserts an NIB permanent magnet through a small hole drilled in the
field pole. This small supermagnet supplies sufficient field to run
in reverse.
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Poulsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: EMB's .. Electro Mechanical Batteries
> John,
>
> Intuitively, I agree with you. Take a bunch of potential energy in one
> spot and release it suddenly, it _must_ go somewhere, either as sound,
> heat, light. Best you can do would be to turn it into heat, and have an
> escape mechanism for any hot gasses that precludes outright explosion.
> This is doable (I've seen demonstrations of bomb-proof airplane cargo
> containers that puff out then "deflate"). They claimed to have the
> problem solved, but I'd rather see the test films.
>
> Of course, if gasoline were discovered yesterday, and someone said "I'm
> going to create controlled explosions and use it to move a vehicle," I'm
> sure there'd be quite a bit of skepticism.
>
Yeah! You would hafta have a lisenced engineer to run it, being downright
dangerous , no insurance Co would write a policy for it, couldn't operate it
on a public street, would scare the horses.
Hi EVerybody;
Almost as questionable as running a streetcar 130 years go with
electricity! Isn't it a form of lightning?It will jump out and zap the
passengers? Others had doubts that it would be able to keep up with a
running car. And , becides, it will put all the horses out of work! Better
be safe and run cars with good old reliable steam power!Or already perfected
teams of horses.
My two horses worth.
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thank you. My only remaining question would be: is that possible with a
*single* 8" or 9" motor? Or am I asking too much?
Apart from hat minor question, things look great (especially great if it's
possible with an impulse motor).
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Shanab
Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:38 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
170V * 1000A = 170,000/750 = 226hp * .60(EFFIENCY) about 135HP
or
1000 amps = 240lb ft at 96volts at motor if you can keep a 96 volt
differential and stay in current limit at 100 amps for x seconds and
know the mass of your vehicle and a few more things like gear ratio and
tire diameter you can get G-forces and integrate. then take your
rpm*torque/5252 = hp
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 11:30 PM 26/04/06 -0700, Cor van de Water wrote:
I asked myself: what is the simplest way to make one series
motor reverse, without affecting its normal performance?
Then I thought: if you take a low voltage battery and connect
that via a low voltage contactor to the Field winding, such that
it sends a current through the motor >opposite< to the normal
current flow and you dimension the voltage so it allows a fixed
current of (for example) 100A through the Field windings, then
G'day Cor - and all
Neon John probably has the best solution for minimal extra contacors, and
if there is space in the motor for the extra windings. It will also work on
a single motor, which my proposal won't (and isn't meant to).
John has two motors, and has just finished major rebuild of them. He does
not want to add any more weight than he can get away with, or add any
additional resistance in series with the motors, or unbalance the load
sharing of the motors. Cheap is good, too. My proposal to John, which he
sees as being a good option for him at this time (without modifying the
motors and adding least weight) is as follows:
P1 (Parallel
contactor #1)
o=o F1 A2
B+[]M+==o o===@@@===@@@=======M-
Zilla | | | Zilla
| | Series | [B-
| | Contactor |
| | o=o |
| |==o o===| |
| | P2 | Parallel
| F2 A1 | o=o | contactor
|==@@@==|=@@@=|=o o==| #2
| |
| |=========|
| |
o=o | | o=o
|====o o=| |=o o======|
| Reverse contactors |
| |
|=B+M+ M-
| [ 12V (if enough) ]
| [ aux controller ]
| B-
| |
|====B+ B-==========|
Auxiliary
battery - switched away from vehicle system
You will note that this relies on connecting the field of one motor in
series with the armature of the other, the series/parallel contactors that
are already required remain effectively unchanged. To get reverse, only the
parallel #1 contactor is closed. Reverse current goes in reverse through
the armature of motor 2, forward through the field of motor 1 (which does
no work since the armature of motor 1 has no current path). Reverse current
continues forward through the armature of motor 2 (powering in reverse) and
returns to the reverse controller. This adds a pound or three of low-power
contactors and a low voltage controller, rewires the motors a bit and
allows fully controlled reverse. There are peripheral issues of if 12V is
enough power for reverse, locking out the Zilla, getting throttle signal to
the auxiliary controller.
This is an unconventional approach, the theory says should works, but as we
know well:
"In theory, the diference between theory and practice is nil, in practice,
the difference between theory and practice couldn't be greater". It may not
work, for unforseen reasons - but it may do his job adequately - and I'm
interested to see if it works OK. But it sounds as though John has his
hands full at this time, so reverse comes later, so I'll have to be patient.
Regards
James
(still plodding along with a 1978 Daihatsu 1300kg truck conversion)
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David,
Yes, one motor is plenty in a Civic sized car.
Yes, you can get that sort of power from an 8" or 9" motor.
(They get hot when you push them that hard though.)
Just remember that you are building a street car for Australian roads.
Being electric, you wont have the range to get out into the countryside,
so mostly sub/urban streets with a bit of motorway/freeway thrown in for
good measure.
You are not going to be circuit racing this thing, so you won't need
massive power for long periods.
Just short bursts for taking off from the lights, getting up to speed on
the motorway, passing etc.
No probs with overheating the motor.
Don't forget that the cars you are considering are front wheel drive, so
traction will be your limiting factor for max power anyway.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Ankers
> Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 6:08 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
>
>
> Thank you. My only remaining question would be: is that
> possible with a
> *single* 8" or 9" motor? Or am I asking too much?
>
> Apart from hat minor question, things look great (especially
> great if it's
> possible with an impulse motor).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Shanab
> Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:38 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
>
> 170V * 1000A = 170,000/750 = 226hp * .60(EFFIENCY) about 135HP
>
> or
>
> 1000 amps = 240lb ft at 96volts at motor if you can keep a 96 volt
> differential and stay in current limit at 100 amps for x seconds and
> know the mass of your vehicle and a few more things like gear
> ratio and
> tire diameter you can get G-forces and integrate. then take your
> rpm*torque/5252 = hp
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Usually, on a DC motor, this is either the continous or 1hr rating. The
maximum HP is usuualy dependent on factors external to the motor, e.i. max
power from the batteries or max power from the controller.
Not to mention max power that your driveline can withstand and max power
that your suspension can get to the ground, etc.
On the AC motors I've seen they list continous and max power, but that's
because they are specifying what the motor & controller are capable
of....asssuming you can feed the controller enough power.
> Can anyone actually explain what the 62HP figure means? I keep getting
> bitten by power figures with electrics. Is that max, constant or just an
> example? What would this motor do at 170V and 1000amps? Explode? Break the
> car's drive shafts?
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sure it's possible, the question is "how long will it last"
My advice would be to try building somthing a little more ordinary before
you try building a drag racer. That way you can melt-down/blow-up cheaper
components while learning.
> Thank you. My only remaining question would be: is that possible with a
> *single* 8" or 9" motor? Or am I asking too much?
>
> Apart from hat minor question, things look great (especially great if it's
> possible with an impulse motor).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Shanab
> Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:38 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: RE: Can someone correct a misunderstanding?
>
> 170V * 1000A = 170,000/750 = 226hp * .60(EFFIENCY) about 135HP
>
> or
>
> 1000 amps = 240lb ft at 96volts at motor if you can keep a 96 volt
> differential and stay in current limit at 100 amps for x seconds and
> know the mass of your vehicle and a few more things like gear ratio and
> tire diameter you can get G-forces and integrate. then take your
> rpm*torque/5252 = hp
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:50 -0600, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The voltage divisions contain the costs (or at least
>compartmentalize it.) Works very well.
Depends on your definition of "working". One can't say whether
voltage divisions are working now or not simply because there isn't a
statistically valid sample. In other words, half a dozen people still
at the shade-tree "bolt'n'pray" (bolt on parts and pray that they
work.) does not a case make either way. (memo to the poorly educated:
Please don't waste bandwidth telling me how many people there actually
are EV racing. "half a dozen people" is a literary technique known as
hyperbole. You probably slept through that part of English
Composition class but Google can help you make up for it.)
Suppose I decide that I want to own, say, the 72 volt class and I have
enough money to do whatever I want (or hire it done.) Let's see how a
voltage classification would work.
For the motor I'd build or have built an ironless superconducting AC
system. Having the inertia of an iron core in the rotating parts of a
drag motor is really dumb so that would go bye-bye. As would copper
losses. The rotor would use whatever the optimum lightweight
superconducting materials turn out to be. My money would buy national
lab and university R&D so the optimized design would be quickly
developed.
The shaft would be either titanium tubing or extremely thin wall super
metal like Maraging 300, depending on what computer simulation and FEA
tells me has the best weight-strength product.
Nothing particularly leading edge needed in the driver/controller area
since all it takes is money to buy sufficient existing technology.
My batteries would be pyro batteries (the technology used in nuclear
weapons that can supply tens to hundreds of kilowatts for a few
seconds to the firing package.) Pentagon-level expensive one shot
affairs but that's no matter since money is no object and the only
class rule regards voltage. That I'll be sending tens to hundreds of
thousands of amps through cryogenic conductors at that 72 volt
potential doesn't matter, right?
I'll be in the same situation as top fuel driver with more power on
hand than can be used. Again depending on what simulations tell me, I
may go the slipper clutch route instead of a wide dynamic speed range
motor system. That makes the motor and the controller design much
simpler.
None of what I've mentioned is particularly exotic or made of
unobtanium, it's simply breathtakingly expensive. TVA is currently
installing a superconducting VAR generator for voltage stabilization
which means that the technology is mature and reliable. Pyro
batteries have been around since the Manhattan project, though they've
gotten a LOT better. The material science isn't particularly leading
edge. The only thing necessary is the megabuck or so's worth of
applied engineering to fit it to the application.
Now suppose the powers that be say to themselves, "crap, Neon was
right, voltage classes aren't enough" and then force me to use
"conventional" technology (there goes the argument about racing
leading the edge of innovation...) No pyro batteries, no
superconducting stuff, no exotic DOD-developed alloys.
I'll still use money to win. I'll hire Siemens or Westinghouse to
build me the highest powered AC drive that will fit under the hood.
I'm going to use a few thousand of those Moli cells but instead of
trying to cram them into improvised battery holders made of PVC
tubing, I'm going to design or have designed a custom high performance
battery system. Batteries will be packed into modules. I'll
consider them to be semi-disposable so no BMS needed.
The cells will be individually charged in a custom high speed charging
machine that assembles them into modules. The modules will snap
together to form the necessary series-parallel arrangement to get the
desired power level.
After each heat, the modules will be removed and placed back in the
machine where they will be disassembled and the individual cells
tested, weak ones being discarded (or handed down to shade-trees like
Wayland) and the good ones rapid charged. Of course we'll have bought
out the production of the battery plant for some period of time so
that we'll have sufficient stock to select the best of the best cells.
I can anticipate such a machine occupying one or more semi trailers
but no big deal since money is no object.
With either scenario, when I pull up to the line with a million
dollars or so worth of drag car to run in the 72 volt class, will
anyone still say that voltage classes limit cost?
In this article I haven't described a single item, technology or
material that cannot be bought right off the shelf, given enough
money. All it takes is for someone with the resources to decide that
it's worth doing.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't get why some of you folks are so hung up on using a CVT with an
electric motor.
As far as I've been able to determine, nobody makes a CVT that is as
efficienct as a manual tranny.
CVTs make sense with ICEs because you can gain over all system efficiency
by keeping the ICE in it's narrow efficiency RPM band.
But electric motors have such a wide efficency band that you end up
loosing over all.
Think about it, the major OEMs spent millions trying to develope the most
efficient EVs possible, NONE of them used a CVT.
In fact they ALL used single reduction ratio transmissions.
A well designed single reduction tranny can be upto 98-99% efficient, a
CVT is never going to come close.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I talked with John a few weeks ago about a way of re-wiring the existing
> motors so that *with no additional high power contacts* he can get reverse
> on the siamese pair. It requires an additional little low-voltage
> controller and two little changeover contactors to reverse power the
> motors
Umm exactly how would you use little contactors to reverse wire the motors
without disconnecting the high power connections? Without, that is,
shorting out something?
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
the guys in the 2ne link are already ahead .. 80,000 rpm's
versus the 65,000 rpm's on which the llnl labs were working
quote
-----------------
The Company has begun patenting an ultra-efficient, low loss motor generator
which has been run to 63,000 rpm. After further development and testing this
unit is expected to achieve reliable operational speeds of more than 90,000
rpm and will be used in longer term energy wheel and portable applications
------------------
unquote
and they have plans for higher rpm's too !
..peekay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Don Cameron" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Flywheel Batteries (Elecro Mechanical Batteries?)
> > Manufacturers:
> > http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/flywheels.htm
> > http://www.afstrinity.com/other-facts-faqs.html
> >
>
> The first entry lead to:
>
http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/docs/SmartEnergy25.
pdf
> which has specs for the 25kWh version - 3150lbs total weight = 8wh/lb
> (less than any battery), and a 200kW peak = 64w/lb (less than AGMs),
> but you'd have no Peukert factor to deal with and they're rated to
> have *300,000 operating cycles*. Should fit public transit, or ganged
> up as back-up for a stationary installation, but near-future EVs are
> more likely to end up with a lithium pack.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date: 25/04/2006
>
>
___________________________________________________________
NEW - Yahoo! 360 Your one place to blog, create, publish and share!
http://uk.360.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> All, there is an opportunity to get low voltage version of Siemens
> AC system. Simovert 6SV-1 long inverter 65VDC...160VDC input) and
> 1FV5104WS09 AC synchronous motor. The motor has a max torque of 75 Nm
> and a max motor speed of 6000 rpm. Max power of the system is
> 30...35kW then. It was used in City STROMer - OEM built (in Europe)
> VW Golf.
30kw can move a vehicle up to 3,000 lbs to highway speed....eventually.
This is about the max power level in my truck. Acceleration is kinda
lethargic, glacial almost.
I think this would be a really nice setup for a really light weight car
though.
> The motor has flange face mating with VW tranny but of course
> as with any adapter plate can be bolted to any tranny.
Hmm, if someone buys one of these and doesn't need the adapter plate, I
might be interested in buying it (the adapter plate)
> The cost: few first systems (may be 10-15 or so) will be
> sold for $4.6k everything: see it as $2.3k motor and $2.3k
> inverter. Only together, preprogrammed to work together,
> no fiddling please.
Wow! sweat deal Victor.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> One other conversion question: The 88 Nissan Pulsar has power rack and
> pinion steering. The current rack & pinion unit has leaking seals and
> needs
> to be changed anyway. What are my options here? Do people typically change
> to manual steering? (haven't researched if stock parts are available to do
> this yet). Do they put on a larger steering wheel for leverage with manual
> steering?
>
> I assume the curb weight will be as heavy or heavier after conversion so
> power steering may still be needed for low speed maneuvering. Is there an
> efficient or "demand" electric pump or servo motor and controller I can
> install so it only uses power when I crank the steering wheel?
>
Power steering is a convience, not a requirement. There have been
vehicles MUCH heavier than yours that use manual steering.
I don't know if there is a drop in replacement for yours. Depending on
how mechanically inclined you are, you could always adapt the manual rack
from a different vehicle.
Or just connect the input and output coprts on the steering rack with a
short hydrualic line. Several folks have done this with acceptable
results.
Or you can buy the electric power steering pump from an old toyota MR2.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> a single charge, but I wasn't sure how much tougher the second half of the
> run would be. I have a two mile very steep grade to climb to get over the
> hills. I'm using back roads, so the speed limit is slower which is an
> advantage as far as ahrs used, but the gearing on my EM is such that I was
> worried I might overheat my motor at the lower RPMs. The motor did get
> hot, but not so hot to have me worried.
FWIW, if you ignore aerodynamic looses, the energy required to climb a
hill is basically the same whether you go up it fast or slow. So, if you
have the power, you are better off going up it fast and keeping the motor
heating down.
You might have the best results by taking a run at it and keeping the
throttle wide open the whole way up.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> BTW, If I use a motor that is bigger than the
> minimum required for the job, will it automatically
> consume more power? In theory, it will allow me
> to gear up to try to find the big motor's sweet spot.
>
Depends on how much bigger you go.
For example a 6.5" ADC draws about 20-25 amps @ 12V just spinning on it's
own.
So I I was to use one of these for my electric bicycle, it would probably
draw more power than the little PMDC motor.
If you go from an 8" ADC to a 9" ADC in a car, it might take more, it
might take less. Depends on where in the efficiency curve for each you
end up spending most of your time.
The difference will be small however.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'll send it tomorrow. I'm in Winnipeg, and the
program is not on my laptop, it's on the desktop at
home.
Rod
--- evranger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rod,
>
> Great! Yes, I bought a programmer/development board
> for the 705B series and
> have spent many hours trying to get the precious
> EPROM bits read out of the
> defective chips. Turns out that the uController from
> each of the two logic
> boards that I have been working with have a problem.
> Fortunately, by
> massaging the data that was read from each, I was
> able to manually put
> together a programming file to try out. It appears
> to simulate successfully
> on the IDE that came with the programming board.
> But, it would be nice to
> check it against the source code. Are you willing to
> send me the source
> code? The IDE has a compiler that I could generated
> object code with and set
> if it matches my hand crafted code. I'll be trying
> the new programming file
> on a windowed version of the chip that came with the
> programmer before I
> blast the OTP parts I purchased. The new chips are
> MC68HC705B16N. A spare
> logic board may be needed as several parts have
> smoked along the way during
> debugging. Whew, I know more about this design than
> I ever wanted to!
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Rod Hower
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:01 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: TEVan info needed
>
> I have the source code but no way of programming the
> MCU (although I have a a couple of tubes of unused
> MCU's) Do you have a programmer? I also have
> several
> TEVan logic boards with various states of code
> programmed in them. Let me know what version of
> logic
> board you need to get running, I can probably help.
> Rod
>
> --- evranger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am restoring a TEVan back to life and have found
> a
> > defective IO pin on
> > it's microcontroller chip on the logic board. I
> have
> > a replacement 705B16N
> > micro-controller chip but have not been able to
> > successfully read back the
> > EPROM contents of the one with the defective IO
> and
> > transfer the program to
> > the new chip. Does anyone know if the source code
> or
> > programming files exist
> > for these older TEVan controllers?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dave Luiz
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
