EV Digest 6945
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Make it
by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog, In Training, again.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Make it
by Ian Hooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Custom Gears
by "Alan Brinkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: VOLTS vs AMPS
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) regarding the Solectria Sunrise
by "gulabrao ingle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: VOLTS vs AMPS
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: VOLTS vs AMPS
by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Make it
by Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Make it
by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: vroombox and EV ?
by "Florian Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Understanding Motor Specs Torque
by "Rob Hogenmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) 55 MPH Part II
by "Rob Hogenmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Understanding Motor Specs Torque
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog
by Tom Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message --- I feel the same way. a cheaper controller certainly can be done. a lot cheaper a sub 500$ zilla1k equivalent if someone foxconn'ed it (mainstream mass production, not typical b2b pricing mentality)unfortunately those with experience don't want to take the 60 minutes it takes for them to design a simple practical circuit to this effect so others have to do the much greater task of getting training and experience first and then doing itsome few will help out a little bit if asked about something isolated but most here will rather fight itDan Phelps wrote:Sorry I live in your country and have different ideas than you.. Maybe you should burn me at the stake like a witch for thinking.Mitchell-------Original Message------- From: Peter VanDerWal Date: 6/24/2007 11:04:32 AM To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Imagination is the key for discovering new ideas. Making a cheaper controller is NOT a new idea. If it was practical to Make a controller that was significantly cheaper than existing ones, then The Chinese would be flooding the market with cheap controllers. Hell, they are quite capable of ripping off existing designs and copying Them. Their labor costs are cheaper, so they should be able to save a Bundle right? But they aren't, so ask yourself, "Why not?" Because the main reason the controllers are so expensive is because they Use expensive components. If you can discover a way to build them cheaper, awsome let us know. But if you are going to come here with the attitude that you are going to Solve this because you have more immagination than we do (or the rest of The world), please save the attitude until you have a working prototype to Display. Asking questions is great, so is learning from others. Just leave the Attitude at home please.Gee I would have thought that Imagination was the key . You have to dreama dream and then make it real... It cant be done because nobody have one it.. This is your song? Sounds like the world would still be flat if that was the case.. Only the rich and those who study at the university are cable of doing any thing hunn.. Nessesity is the mother of invention.. Which would go to reason that if a cheaper control; Can be made it will be by somebody that don't have one yet. Relax my friend and dream a little Mitchell-------Original Message-------From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06/24/07 02:42:02 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Some things have change a lot in 100 years. Going 15 miles an hour was fast In 1907. When you increase the speed to today's standards it requires muchHigher Ah rate from the batteries. This is not a fair comparison getting there Faster is not done with the same amount of energy. If it was inexpensive to make the controller and could be done for what you Feel is a fair price someone would have done it.As pointed out below it is always more expensive to make anything in unitsOf one. Don BlazerWhich is what I am doing asking questions.. How ever .. The way I see it .. Very little has changed in the E V area if the first car made 100 years ago Could get 40 to 100 miles on a charge ,, And I am not thinking better .. IAm thinking cheaper.. Which is better to me. We will see maybe I will haveNothing .. But it sure don't sound like shit to me .. A switch that turns on And off for 700 bucks.. Mitchell -------Original Message------- From: damon henry Date: 06/23/07 21:39:04 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make itJust be aware that there have been tens of thousands of people using theirImaginations for over 100 years when it comes to a lot of the technology That you will be dealing with. There is a much likelier chance you will Re-dream up someones old bad idea than come up with something spectacularly New. Electric motors are a very mature technology. Usually when dealing With a mature technology like this the best approach is to look at what Others have done before you and either make a minor improvement or adapt aCertain known approach to your special requirements. DamonFrom: "Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Make it Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:54:27 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)Thank you very much.. That is the information that I needed to continue my search.. Imagination is the key to success not a trip down the same road everybody else has took. MitchellFrom: Peter VanDerWal Date: 06/23/07 19:55:21 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make itSeeing how a controller is only a on off switch that has a frequencythatvarries .. The faster it goes the faster you go ..That is incorrect. Some controllers vary the frequency, but that is to Control other issues, NOT the speed. The speed is controlled by changing the pulse width (Hence the term PWM: Pulse Width Modulation) Basically it changes the relationship between how long the switch is on vs Off. If it's on for 50% of the time and off for 50%, you get 50% of the Speed. On for 25%, off for 75%, 25% speed. However, the frequency Remains the same.I am sure this can be reproduced without spending 700 bucks..That is easy to say when you don't have a clue what is inside the box. The biggest part of the cost is the power stage. This uses expensive Chunks of silicon. Not only that, but there are ofetn 20 or more chunks All connected in parallel to share the load. The really expensive Controllers use matched silicon (usually matched by hand) so that they Share the load evenly. Then they need something called low ESR capacitors, lots of them. These Are also very expensive. Then you have to spend a lot of time and blow up a lot of silicon refining Your design, because at these power levels LOCATION of the parts becomes Critical, as does the exact method they are connected together and to the Circuit card. So part of the cost of the controllers is recovering the Costs of designing it. Early on I figured it would be simple and cheap to build my own Controller. I discovered that when buying the parts at retail costs (instead of bulk discounts) it cost just as much to buy the parts as it Did to buy the controller. Then you have to go through the whole process Of blowing up your own silicon figuring out how to set everything up, so Now you have to buy MORE parts and it ends up costing you MORE than buying A controller.The question I need to know is at what rate dose the averagecontrollerson and off frequency change to and from. In time sec .and How many time in a sec . To archive O to max speedAs I said that is the wrong question. However, most pick a relatively High frequency (say 15khz) because the pulses make the coils in the motor Vibrate, just like a big speaker. If you pick a low frequency, then you Can actually hear the coils vibrate, it makes a whistling or squealing Sound. If you pick to high a frequency then you end up with extra Switching losses (the energy you loose when the silicon turns from off to On, or vice versa)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message -------- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:06 PM Subject: Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog > MIKE WILLMON wrote: >> Granted, if you're going to be tooling around at 315 mph, then you'll >> definitely need a tranny, EVen with an AC powered prime mover. I >> just wonder how long it took him to get to the first 100mph though >> ;-) > > Bob Rice, how fast does the Japanese bullet train, or French Acela go? > They are transmissionless. :-) > > -- Hi Lee an' All;ALL the hy speed trains are simply geared to go as fast as the designers want them to go. The Bullet, in Japan is doing about 160 in regular service as the NEW Taiwan Hy Speed rail recently opened(RAH!)A friend survived it and she said it was great, real smooth! Well! Hell! It's a NEW RR! The trains came from Japan. There was a great clip on You Tube of them being built, offloaded in Taiwan, and going for a spin. Korea, SOUTH , of course has a Hy-speed job, too, google Korail. Go for a spin!France, just a few months ago, kicked up the Rail Speed record to 357 MPH, or so, NOT wimpy KPH , but REAL MPH. It was on our TV here, I taped a clip of it, one of those 2 minute things, but it was a hoot to see it blast by an underpass! The old expression" Blink and ya missed it" never was more true! Good thing the TGV line has no grade crossings and people tend to stay OFF the trak! Darwin's law applies here. I THINK all these hot shot trains are running AC now? The first Japanese Bullet was running DC drive, but the origional trains have gone to the Great RR yard in the sky? Maybe a few survive in museums? I rode them 40 years ago in Japan, and marveled at the smooth 120MPH ride, AND the gracious Japanese RR guyz that let me up in the head end(Locomotive). I got the shop tour and all, too. I just barged into JNR's head office in Tokyo and asked if I could SEE a few Bullet trains. I got the total tour/ride! You'da thought I was the Emporer's kid or something!Bullet trains are busting out all over! China has the Shang Hai Maglev, It does in the 300's, too!! China chickened out on a national system, as they, maglevs are HIDIOUSLY expensive to build. I think China is gunna go with the French, Alstom system, as there isn't the best of feelings between China and Japan, today. Lingering resentment of the way Japan treated Chinese folks in WW-2 ,Rape of Nan Jing, etc ,etc. No wonder they are building up a military , nowadaze; "Never Again!". You Tube has some great Chinese RR clips. I'm impressed at how fast their regular trains go! China dropped the fires on regular scheduled STEAM trains, last year. They are going direct to electric, in a lot of places, forgoing the Diseasel stage we're in in the USA.They build nice looking electrics, in country. Interestingly enough the lokies bought for the Tibet RR came from GE, the "Bring Good Things to Life people", in USA. They were fitted with special turboes for 14k plus foot alditude, as the RR heads up toward MT Everest.Most Diseasels would be severly out of breath up there! But electric? Surprised the Chinese didn't string wires over that RR.Maybe not much electric in Tibet?China will EVentually join the hy speed RR club, they are planning on it.Sleep well, tonight. It'll NEVER happen here!Yur lucky to have Amtrak, keeping alive 19th century RR schedules here! As they struggle to get funding, with the Best Govt. Oil; Money can Buy, you will need a home "Regine Change" to see any serious money going into RR's A 5 sence a gal gas tax would fund a Bullet Train System HERE. NYC Chicago in 3-4 hours, NY Miami about the same?the 1934 speed record of the Pioneer Zephyr STILL stands, between Chicago-Denver. Go buy or rent the 1934 movie "Silver Streak" Shows it doing it's thing! Streak was capable of 100 mph plus with it's Winton 201 Diesel engine. See it, live, in Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry,What a place! Got LOST in that for a DAY, and didn't see it all! The U boat was cool to see, too. A live U boat dragged from lake Michigan, into their building! No tranny in THAT ether<g>!Best we run now is the Acela Express, a knockoff of the French TGV, like handing out Porsches and Farraris to speed up rush hour commutes, flying the Acela is an excersize in frustration! Only got about 30 miles of track you can put the pedal to the metal on! Between Boston and NYC you have SO many speed slowdowns, learning to run Acela is a simple 5 minute task! But knowing WHERE the corners are. 30-45mph you HAVE to slow down to or you will piss off a trainload of good folks by dumping the whole outfit down the embankment! For a few million bux, you could rebuild the whole RR so Acela could get going and STAY going for 200 miles!The magnificent Pennsylvania RR right of way was upgraded in the 30's and electrifyed for 100 MPH plus speeds, by 1938 you could ride electrically NYC to Wash, cutting a few hours off Steam's best time.With 25 HZ 11000 volts of power. it is STILL 25 HZ, today!WHY? They could just BUY all the 60hz power they wanted. Amtrak runs converting substations BIG ac motors turning BIG 25hz alternaters, a throwback to when it all opened! But to us RR buffs you COULD run a 1934 era GG-1 electric for fan trip service.# 4935 is all painted up Pennsy colors as built in '34, you can meet and visit her in the PA RR Museum in Strasburg, PA.Ready to return to service<g>! THEY ran universal motors, probably COULD run DC, too? The New Haven engines they copied ran both third rail or AC, depending where you were, no overhead wires in Grand Central Terminal, it's all DC 600 volts, has been for almost 100 years.Trains run simple gear reductions, a BIG gear on the axle a small gear on the traction motor, about 3 to one for Pas. and 5 to one for freight.Back in the early daze the NYC ran direct drive, BIG armatures with the wheels pressed on each end, the field poles , 2, were in the truck frame! They were wildly successful, lasting for 70 years! The old Lionel trains of the Titanic era , electric lokies, were based on that model, the S motor.The Pennsy was equilly creative, THEY had no truck with the motor armature axle trick(too much unsprung weight). No, they mounted a HUGH DV Series motor up in the carbody and drove with steam like connecting rods and counterbalances. They, too lived for 50 years plus, they were certainly picturesque with thrashing siderods, at speed!The only gearboxes/transmissions I can think of on the RR was the turn of the century, the LAST one, a Hall Scott Motor car, had a big gas engine a clutch and open frame gear box, set up like a motor boat with the drive shaft going through the floor to the 3rd axle where it went into a differential like bevel gear setup. I asked the guy at the museum, CA RR museun, near Sacremento," Where is the engineers seat" He laffed and said the engineer was TOO busy to sit down!What with the Armstrong like clutch, running it was like the SF cable car Gripman, HE doesn't sit down ether!By the teens the gas car guyz went to generators and traction motors for the gas electric motor cars. They were the grandaddy of the Diseasel lokies reportedly popular today. Electro Motive was the big builder back them General Murders saw a good thing and bought out Electro Motive in the early 30's. They STILL make the best Diseasels lokies on the planet! EMD's will run away and hide from GE's best offerings! But I sure enjoyed running Con Rails GE B-23-7s for sheer pulling, lugging, power.Oh yeah! The Budd RDC rail cars used a tranny similar to the Buick Dyna flow, only a tad bigger, variable pitch torque converter setup, at 55 mph or so they locked into direct drive. First ones rolled out in '49 or so, they would still be running yet, if anybody wanted them. Some have fallen into private , loving hands and homes, and still run! Tourist train stuff. Easiest stuff to repair and work on! If you buy one, the RR's aren't crazy about you going out for a spin! So you donate it to a RR museum, and play there.Rio Grande and Southern Pacific TRIED a bunch of German Krass Maffai Diesels with mechanical drive back in the 60's They worked OK but never cought on in a diseasel electric world.Also the Union Pacific tried Gas Turbine lokies Out West, turbines turning BIG generaters for the traditional DC traction motors. A few examples survive in RR Museums. RR's don't care for a verity of engine forms, they like standardization, which was a GM selling point to their mechanical depts.So, like EV's RR's tried a lot of facinating stuff; Google Kitson Stills engine, I won't spoil the story<g>!Seeya Bob* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Well, here's a starting point for those wishing to make a DC speed controller (YMMV):http://www.zeva.com.au/SpeedyCircuit.jpgAs shown it was designed to run a 24V electric trolley, but if you use high voltage linear regulators and add a 12V reg for driving the 414, it could handle about a hundred amps at 120V. Just program the micro to convert the throttle ADC input into a PWM output (one line of code), with a thermal cutoff via another ADC. You can use the free version of CodeVisionAVR to program the micro (http:// www.codevision.be/).Scale it up (more FETs, more caps, more freewheel diodes, and definitely more safety features!) and it could handle more power, but it's about then you'll start to discover the difficulties with carrying 100kW+ through such a small box! In particular, component layout becomes critical for minimising inductance between power devices, and printed circuit boards just won't do - you need chunky bits of copper.Anyway, I'd encourage people to actually try building some speed controllers. It's a great learning experience, and it definitely gives you an appreciation for what Otmar has achieved with the Zillas! (However I still say Curtis are overpriced :)-Ian On 25/06/2007, at 2:50 PM, Dan Frederiksen wrote:I feel the same way. a cheaper controller certainly can be done. a lot cheaper a sub 500$ zilla1k equivalent if someone foxconn'ed it (mainstream mass production, not typical b2b pricing mentality)unfortunately those with experience don't want to take the 60 minutes it takes for them to design a simple practical circuit to this effect so others have to do the much greater task of getting training and experience first and then doing itsome few will help out a little bit if asked about something isolated but most here will rather fight itDan Phelps wrote:Sorry I live in your country and have different ideas than you.. Maybe you should burn me at the stake like a witch for thinking.Mitchell-------Original Message------- From: Peter VanDerWal Date: 6/24/2007 11:04:32 AM To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Imagination is the key for discovering new ideas. Making a cheaper controller is NOT a new idea. If it was practical to Make a controller that was significantly cheaper than existing ones, then The Chinese would be flooding the market with cheap controllers. Hell, they are quite capable of ripping off existing designs and copying Them. Their labor costs are cheaper, so they should be able to save a Bundle right? But they aren't, so ask yourself, "Why not?" Because the main reason the controllers are so expensive is because they Use expensive components. If you can discover a way to build them cheaper, awsome let us know. But if you are going to come here with the attitude that you are going to Solve this because you have more immagination than we do (or the rest of The world), please save the attitude until you have a working prototype to Display. Asking questions is great, so is learning from others. Just leave the Attitude at home please.Gee I would have thought that Imagination was the key . You have to dreama dream and then make it real... It cant be done because nobody have one it.. This is your song? Sounds like the world would still be flat if that was the case.. Only the rich and those who study at the university are cable of doing any thing hunn.. Nessesity is the mother of invention.. Which would go to reason that if a cheaper control; Can be made it will be by somebody that don't have one yet.Relax my friend and dream a little Mitchell -------Original Message-------From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06/24/07 02:42:02 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Some things have change a lot in 100 years. Going 15 miles an hour was fast In 1907. When you increase the speed to today's standards it requires muchHigher Ah rate from the batteries. This is not a fair comparison getting there Faster is not done with the same amount of energy. If it was inexpensive to make the controller and could be done for what you Feel is a fair price someone would have done it. As pointed out below it is always more expensive to make anything in unitsOf one. Don BlazerWhich is what I am doing asking questions.. How ever .. The way I see it .. Very little has changed in the E V area if the first car made 100 years ago Could get 40 to 100 miles on a charge ,, And I am not thinking better .. IAm thinking cheaper.. Which is better to me. We will see maybe I will haveNothing .. But it sure don't sound like shit to me .. A switch that turns onAnd off for 700 bucks.. Mitchell -------Original Message-------From: damon henry Date: 06/23/07 21:39:04 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Just be aware that there have been tens of thousands of people using theirImaginations for over 100 years when it comes to a lot of the technology That you will be dealing with. There is a much likelier chance you will Re-dream up someones old bad idea than come up with something spectacularly New. Electric motors are a very mature technology. Usually when dealing With a mature technology like this the best approach is to look at what Others have done before you and either make a minor improvement or adapt aCertain known approach to your special requirements. DamonFrom: "Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Make it Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:54:27 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)Thank you very much.. That is the information that I needed to continue my search.. Imagination is the key to success not a trip down the same road everybody else has took.MitchellFrom: Peter VanDerWal Date: 06/23/07 19:55:21 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make itSeeing how a controller is only a on off switch that has a frequencythatThat is incorrect. Some controllers vary the frequency, but that is to Control other issues, NOT the speed. The speed is controlled by changing the pulse width (Hence the term PWM: Pulse Width Modulation) Basically it changes the relationship between how long the switch is on vs Off. If it's on for 50% of the time and off for 50%, you get 50% of the Speed. On for 25%, off for 75%, 25% speed. However, the frequency Remains the same.varries .. The faster it goes the faster you go ..That is easy to say when you don't have a clue what is inside the box. The biggest part of the cost is the power stage. This uses expensive Chunks of silicon. Not only that, but there are ofetn 20 or more chunks All connected in parallel to share the load. The really expensive Controllers use matched silicon (usually matched by hand) so that they Share the load evenly. Then they need something called low ESR capacitors, lots of them. These Are also very expensive. Then you have to spend a lot of time and blow up a lot of silicon refining Your design, because at these power levels LOCATION of the parts becomes Critical, as does the exact method they are connected together and to the Circuit card. So part of the cost of the controllers is recovering the Costs of designing it. Early on I figured it would be simple and cheap to build my own Controller. I discovered that when buying the parts at retail costs (instead of bulk discounts) it cost just as much to buy the parts as it Did to buy the controller. Then you have to go through the whole process Of blowing up your own silicon figuring out how to set everything up, so Now you have to buy MORE parts and it ends up costing you MORE than buying A controller.I am sure this can be reproduced without spending 700 bucks..The question I need to know is at what rate dose the averagecontrollerson and off frequency change to and from. In time sec .and How many time in a sec . To archive O to max speedAs I said that is the wrong question. However, most pick a relatively High frequency (say 15khz) because the pulses make the coils in the motor Vibrate, just like a big speaker. If you pick a low frequency, then you Can actually hear the coils vibrate, it makes a whistling or squealing Sound. If you pick to high a frequency then you end up with extra Switching losses (the energy you loose when the silicon turns from off to On, or vice versa)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Rob, Are you trying to hook up to a motor with, for example, a 13 spline shaft? I have a 6.7 inch Advanced DC motor with a 13 spline shaft that I am working on. It is a SAE B spline. I have called and mailed a split-tapered hub to California Broach in Los Angeles CA . They are going to bore the hub to the correct size, and then use a broach to cut in the 13 teeth. The hub will then fit into a sprocket, and run a 520 chain to a drive wheel. Splined shafts are used for pumps and pto shafts, slip on fit, but a tapered hub or something with a tight installed fit is not common at all. I should get my part back in two weeks, and I'll E-mail the list how it fits. On a scale of 1 to expensive, the machining will be... expensive! But for the set up on one part there is now way around it. The cost for 1,000 parts would be o.k. per each, but for one the set up has to be covered. I researched a motorcycle front sprocket with 13 splines, but the fit was a little loose. A snowmobile with a wide double chain sprocket had more meat for the shaft connection, but I felt a tight fit was best. THE EV Album has a Harley 3 wheel motorcycle with a splined motor. The owner used a custom key and stock tapered hub to clamp up to the shaft, with the key holding on two teeth. Alan ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rob Hogenmiller Sent: Sun 6/24/2007 8:12 PM To: EV Discussion Subject: Custom Gears Is there a well known company that makes custom gears/sprockets to go on splined shafts?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7B706.131537B2" Subject: RE: Custom Gears Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:51:52 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thread-Topic: Custom Gears Thread-Index: Ace21r6srzFePiXlSuCnRLX3yAJ1hAAKwcce References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Alan Brinkman--Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:01:27 -0800 From: Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: VOLTS vs AMPS To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT To be technically correct electrons flow the same speed in a particular medium, which is some relatively high percentage of the speed of light. Amps (or electrical current) is a measure of the amount of electrons that flow past a certain point in 1 second. More amps is more electrons per second > Joseph Tahbaz wrote: > > What are amps? Well, amps are how quickly the electricity moves. More > amps, which means the electricity is moving faster, which means more > watts (power) > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:38:41 +0530 From: "gulabrao ingle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: regarding the Solectria Sunrise MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_132463_32109818.1182762521604" ------=_Part_132463_32109818.1182762521604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi I was reading the other day of a car known as the solectria sunrise,but surprisingly there is no information avaliable about the specifications of the car or how it could get 375 miles on a single charge, Where can I get detailed information, blue prints, technical specifications or even some hi-res photos of this car ? Are there any owners of this car on the list at present ? What was so special about the construction of this car that it could get 375 miles on a charge ? How costly was it ? Any information , pointers or links would be appreciated Gulabrao. ------=_Part_132463_32109818.1182762521604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------=_Part_132463_32109818.1182762521604--Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:09:34 -0800 From: Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: VOLTS vs AMPS To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Not to confuse things more, but for the record to introduce the proper technical terminology here goes. The Volt is the basic unit of electrical potential and is defined as the energy per unit of charge. 1 Volt = 1 Joule per 6.023^23 electrons. Or in other words 1 Joule of energy will elevate a coulomb of charge to what is defined as 1 volt above a reference potential. The Joule is the basic unit of energy. 1 Joule = 0.00094 Btu = .737 foot pound = .0013 horse power seconds or simply for EV purposes it = 1 Watt second. The Amp is the basic unit of electrical current flow. 1 amp is simply the number of coulombs of electrons that pass a given point per second. The Watt is the basic unit of electrical Power. 1 Watt = 3.412 Btu/hr = .737 lbf/second = .0013 horse power or simply for EV purposes it = 1 Joule/second and can be calculated as Volts x Amps. So to sumarize: Power = V x A = Joule/Coulomb x Coulomb/sec = Joule/sec = Watt Energy = Watt x sec = V x A x sec = Joule/Coulomb x Coulomb/sec x sec = Joules There is a very neat Mike, Anchorage, Ak.Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:29:13 +0200 From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: VOLTS vs AMPS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit well the electric effect propagates at a significant portion of the speed of light in vacuum but afaik the electrons literally move at a snail's pace. further there are no such things as electrons but only nonlinearly coupled waves continuously replenished in tendential constellations called electrons to be technically correct :) Mike Willmon wrote: > To be technically correct electrons flow the same speed in a particular > medium, which is some relatively high percentage of the > speed of light. Amps (or electrical current) is a measure of the amount of > electrons that flow past a certain point in 1 second. > More amps is more electrons per second > > >> Joseph Tahbaz wrote: >> >> What are amps? Well, amps are how quickly the electricity moves. More >> amps, which means the electricity is moving faster, which means more >> watts (power) >> >> >> > > >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:51:03 -0800 From: Mike Willmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Make it To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Dan Frederiksen wrote: > > I feel the same way. a cheaper controller certainly can be done. a lot > cheaper > a sub 500$ zilla1k equivalent if someone foxconn'ed it (mainstream mass > production, not typical b2b pricing mentality) Then Shut Up and do it, I double dog dare you. (only because I know you can't or won't) even if you had a schematic, bill of materials and a general parts layout. So here's a challange to you Mr Fredriksen, take this open source design which has been discussed on this board http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/racingcontroller.html (I'm surprised that with your drive and devotion to the cause you haven't found it already) and scale it up slightly to Z1K specs (156V at 1000 amps on either or both the input or output) and build me one for $500. I will be the first to buy one from you. Here's another interesting read: http://innovexpo.itee.uq.edu.au/2003/exhibits/s354264/, Why don't you check out the archives here beginning back on 8/27/06 Subj: Building a Controller Yourself and picked up again 9/23/06 Subj: Open Source Designs for Controllers > > unfortunately those with experience don't want to take the 60 minutes it > takes for them to design a simple practical circuit to this effect so > others have to do the much greater task of getting training and > experience first and then doing it Actually if you thought it would take "those with experience" 60 minutes to design, then at least you could go take a course or something and design one in a few days yourself, right? If it is so simple as you say then everyone one of us electrical engineers would have dozens of designs each just waiting in line at the patent office. And if there were so many of those then there would surely be several that would offer them up for free, no? > > some few will help out a little bit if asked about something isolated > but most here will rather fight it Many here actually know what it takes to both research/design and market a product. You sir seem to know neither. No one will do it for you in your name, and why should they. Mike, Anchorage, Ak.Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:15:01 +0200 From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Make it Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nice to know about other designs but I'm not looking to copy a design. I want to know what I'm building to ensure the kiss and more. I'm certainly smart enough to do it but it is an up hill battle having to get proficient in EE first. you might well be right about the won't part though. procrastionation is a real enemy of mine (not that many of you have done it :) if what I propose is so impossible how do you explain JB Straubel's electric porsche controller. from the pictures it looks very simple and he was able to do it from scratch. unfortunately he didn't want to show and tell either. curious bunch lastly I didn't say I would sell them for 500$. that was mass production price. profitable even Dan Mike Willmon wrote: >> Dan Frederiksen wrote: >> >> I feel the same way. a cheaper controller certainly can be done. a lot >> cheaper >> a sub 500$ zilla1k equivalent if someone foxconn'ed it (mainstream mass >> production, not typical b2b pricing mentality) >> > > Then Shut Up and do it, I double dog dare you.Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:45:01 +0200 From: "Florian Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: vroombox and EV ? To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I´m doubting that the vroombox is actually available. There´re just preorder options on the website and no information from users/owners. Maybe Vaporware ? -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:08:54 -0400 Von: "Andrew Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Betreff: Re: vroombox and EV ? > Sure, why not? But I'd rather use the horn- or if close enough, just > call out, "Hi guys! Coming through!" Or such like. > Or you could carry Zamfir around with you: remember, "Pan Pipes > Save Lives!" > > > > Hm. That doesn't sound right. > > On 6/24/07, Florian Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thinking about the pedestrians that don´t hear an EV coming, i was > wondering if it´s possible to install the vroombox in an EV. > > > > What do you think ? > > > > http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/ > > -- > > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? > > Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger > > > > -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessengerMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Rob Hogenmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EV Discussion" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Understanding Motor Specs Torque Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:58:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've noticed some motors give their specs in Nm, some in LB-IN, and some LB-FT. I was wondering is 12 LB-IN the same as 1 LB-FT? and is 1 Nm the same as 3.28 LB-FT ? God blessMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:43:13 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> I disagree, Electric motors ( compared to IC engines) have much >> broader >> torque curves and are generally efficient over a wide RPM range. > > Hi Phil and all, > > Please show me comparison graphs with an electric motor and an ICE motor > demonstrating this at a torque value of over 100 lb-ft over a 7000 rpm > range. Plenty of electric motors can do that, umm the Solectria and Seimens motors come to mind. However, I can't think of a single ICE that can perform like that. > Broader torque curves??? I think you'll see that the torque curve > for even the best electric motor falls off precipitously with rpm Well then you'd think wrong. On electric motors torque is almost always related to current. If you can provide enough current over the full operating range of the motor, then it will have a flat torque curve. Again the Seimens and Solectric AC motors have a flat torque curve from zero to well over 7,000 rpms. I believe the Seimens will go to 10,000 or so. > (particularly > past its rated speed), and John Wayland and Bill Dube can tell you all > about > asking for high output at high rpm from a high-performance DC motor. > That's > just one of the ways they turn them into plasma balls. In this case, they are running those motors at FAR beyond their rated specs. You have to expect to have a few problems now and then when you are running motors at 10x their rated power levels. >> CV transmissions make the most sense for motors or engines that work >> best >> at a very narrow RPM range. For EVs, a CV transmission would be a >> solution without a problem. >> > > I take it you're on the direct-drive side of the EV fence, but the fact is > that even electric motors have continuous duty ratings for a reason. What does Continuous duty ratings have to do with the torque characteristics of the motor? You are talking apples and oranges. The contiunous duty rating is ONE point on the torque curve. > closer you keep your motor to ideal efficiency/temperature/amp draw, the > longer it will last and the happier your controller and batteries will be. > In a high-voltage system for a daily driver, for example, would you rather > have motor speed at 6500 rpm at 80 mph, or 3500? Well that would depend entirely on the motor. An AC motor with a 12,000 rpm redline would probably be sitting in it's sweet spot at 6500 rpm. On the other hand a motor with a 6,000 rpm redline would probably be hurting. Also, something many people don't realize, the sweet spot (max efficiency) on a motor CHANGES depending on applied voltage and load. Generally speaking, at low voltage and low load (like when you are moving slowly) the sweet spot is at a fairly low RPM (handy that) whereas when you are moving fast and the aerodynamic drag is putting a large load on the motor, so you are applying more voltage to get more current through the motor (and therefor getting more Torque and More RPM) the sweet spot will typically move up to a higher RPM. The wide power band and moving sweet spot means that most conversions will work best (efficiency) with 2 or 3 gears. A CVT has enough losses that it will eat up any small gain in motor efficiency and then some. Look at the torque curves for the Seimens motor/controller and Victor's site. As I recall the system efficiency varies less than 10% over the majority of it's operating range. In fact I think it's less than 6%. > Lon Hull, > Portland, OR > > -- 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.Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Rob Hogenmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EV Discussion" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: 55 MPH Part II Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:30:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From what I've been reading it takes about 60 ft/lbs of torque to maintain an average vehicle at 55mph. Or around 5-10HP. I've noticed that there inexpensive motors that produce the HP ratings no problem, but from what I'm reading the won't produce the torque requirements, for example this motor meets the HP rating but not the torque, http://www.electricmotorsport.com/PARTS/Perm.htm What other motors might I be eyeballing that could maintain 55mph? ( I will have the capability to use two motors, but prefer not too if not necessary.) I have a near unlimited run to reach 55mph so it's not important that I have a motor that help me reach 55mph quickly (I'll be using a gas engine to propel me to speed), I'm hoping to find one the will help me maintain that speed, to do some testing of theories on a budget. God blessMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Understanding Motor Specs Torque Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:47:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, 12 IN-LBs = 1 FT-LB. There is 12 inches per foot in this measurement. one FT-LB = to 1.356 Nm. There is a metric conversion that is in your computer. Just type metric conversion in your search engine. Roland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Hogenmiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EV Discussion" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:58 AM Subject: Understanding Motor Specs Torque > I've noticed some motors give their specs in Nm, some in LB-IN, and some > LB-FT. > > I was wondering is 12 LB-IN the same as 1 LB-FT? > > and is 1 Nm the same as 3.28 LB-FT ? > > God bless > >From: Tom Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:24:03 +1200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Manly EV's, RE: EV are for girls blog On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 06:43 -0700, Peter VanDerWal wrote: > >> I disagree, Electric motors ( compared to IC engines) have much > >> broader > >> torque curves and are generally efficient over a wide RPM range. > > > > Hi Phil and all, > > > > Please show me comparison graphs with an electric motor and an ICE motor > > demonstrating this at a torque value of over 100 lb-ft over a 7000 rpm > > range. > > Plenty of electric motors can do that, umm the Solectria and Seimens > motors come to mind. Indeed, have a look at this spreadsheet. It plots torque curves for various Seimens motors with various battery voltages. http://www.metricmind.com/data/performance.zip Note, this doesn't work with openoffice, but did when I tried the real Excel.
--- End Message ---
