EV Digest 7027
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: EV's need sleep mode
by "Joseph T. " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Battery Terminals need advice!
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: 80 % discharge voltage
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Another, fairer comparison
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Best Charger?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: EV's need sleep mode
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Another, fairer comparison
by "Loni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Just In from PIR, Wayland becomes a Criminal
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Just In from PIR, Wayland becomes a Criminal
by Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Electric Cars Nearly Ready, but Batteries Are Less So - NY Times article
7/15/2007
by "Beth Silverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Battery Terminals need advice!
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Questions for those in the-know...
by "Joshua Cummins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Just In from PIR, Wayland becomes a Criminal
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) article: The Graf Scooter
by Paul Wujek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: the eVette
by "Tom S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Electric Evette
by "Tom S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---I'm sorry, can you clarify what you mean by sleep mode? On 7/14/07, John Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Production EV's may have a many $k pack. They shouldn't be dumb enough to kill it if parked with lights on, leaky vacum pump etc. What conditions should put them to sleep? How should they be awakened? Anyone know if Tesla or Tango or others go into sleep mode? Is anyone out there making a BMS and not planning to have a sleep mode (for the batteries, not the BMS!) - John
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---I don't use my torque wrench to do them. I use bellville washers, which are like a washer spring, to keep constant tension on them, plus make them "tight but not too tight", plus check them once a month to make sure they're staying tight. peace, --- "Joseph T. " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I may be missing a previous post, and thus not > following, but in general, all posts have lead > terminals." > > Isn't lead a little too soft to have all that > pressure on it, > squeezing it to death! > > By the way, how many ft-lbs of force are usually > used to secure cable > lugs to their battery terminals? > > > On 7/14/07, Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi Patrick, Send 'em back, if you can. Your first > impression was right, > > tinned copper is the norm. If you have an impact > crimper (hammer- type) it > > works well and it's cheap. I use welding cable > (more flexible) and after > > crimping use shrink tubing with hot-melt lining to > seal the deal (and it > > comes in black and red), I've found everything > thru the McMaster Carr > > catalog, check it out. Later, Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "patrick DonEgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:26 PM > > Subject: Re: Battery Terminals need advice! > > > > > > > Do you have a part number or picture we can look > @? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/14/07, Mark Ward > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I was a bit surprised when I ordered some 4/0 > battery terminals thinking > > >> they would be all copper with plating. They > arrived today (24 of them) > > >> and > > >> to my surprise the heads themselves are made of > lead. > > >> > > >> I see this as a problem since they cannot be > soldered on and if they are > > >> overcrimped it might crush the connector part > made of plated copper away > > >> causing a bad connection later. I also see > some potential for the torque > > >> backing off over time. > > >> > > >> So I need advice. Should I send these back? > If so what should I get > > >> instead? > > >> > > >> I don't want to waste expensive cable if these > are not going to work so > > >> if > > >> anyone is using them let me know. > > >> > > >> Mark Ward > > >> 95 Saab 900SE "Saabrina" > > >> www.saabrina.blogspot.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Patrick Ira Donegan > > > TigerBody Electric Vehicles > > > > > > > > > Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too! Learn more at: www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html ____ __/__|__\ __ =D-------/ - - \ 'O'-----'O'-' Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel? Are you saving any gas for your kids? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 15 Jul 2007 at 0:24, Joseph T. wrote: > "Really, IMO the practical limit for any golf car battery, gel or flooded, is > about 500-600 amps" > > I've always heard the same thing about flooded batteries, but never > with gel batteries. Gel batteries, from what I have heard, are not > suitable for DC systems since they cannot provide high current. Please note that I said "golf car batteries." Gel GC batteries are built for higher current than gel marine batteries, just as flooded GC batteries are made for higher current than flooded marine batteries. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EV List Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Please, let's not start an argument over climate change. Some agree that it's happening and it's a concern. Some don't. You're welcome to your opinion. But it's not supposed to be part of the discussion here. Same with nuclear power. Not worth arguing over, as you will not change anyone's mind. Stay away from it and don't start arguments. Global climate change and nuclear power are controversial issues. They generate far more noise (and heat) than information. They're not appropriate topics for the EVDL. Please see the list charter : http://www.evdl.org/help/ "The EV Electric Vehicle Discussion Mailing List is intended to provide a forum to discuss the current state of the art and future direction of electric vehicles. It is not intended to discuss either EV appropriateness or comparisons with other transportation primary drive modes such as the venerable internal combustion engine." Let's stay away from controversial issues that nobody is going to change his or her mind on, please. Thanks for your cooperation. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EV List Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 14 Jul 2007 at 20:11, Joseph T. wrote: > You mention that Zivan chargers aren't that good. Well, the 120 > (input) volt version would be gentler; does that mean the 120 volt > version would be better, or good? The input voltage has nothing to do with the charge algorithm. That seems to be where the problem lies. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EV List Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 13 Jul 2007 at 23:37, John Foster wrote: > Production EV's may have a many $k pack. They shouldn't be dumb enough to kill > it if parked with lights on, leaky vacum pump etc. Most EVs have a main contactor that removes power from the controller and other high demand devices such as the heater. Typically only the DC:DC is powered with very little on its output. I've never seen anyone who connected the brake vacuum pump so that it would operate at all with the key off. As for the headlights, if one left them on, a typical traction battery would have enough energy to power them for 5-8 days. Of course, most modern cars have warning devices or automatic shutoff devices to prevent leaving the lights on, so one would rather expect these to be fitted to either a conversion or production EV. Bottom line is that I don't think this is currently much of an issue. Other comments and thoughts welcome of course. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EV List Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I know I won't be the only person to say this, but please, let's not use the list to attempt to debunk the link between carbon-fuel burning and global warming. It's more than a little irritating, and I'm certain there are plenty of soft holes in the permafrost in which those who agree with these sentiments can bury their heads.Thanks, Lon Hull----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Caplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:32 PM Subject: Re: Another, fairer comparisonI agree. Remember from grade school, CO2 is a limiting factor in plant growth. MoreCO2 means more food and fiber produced, will support a larger population on the planet, less famine and death. Tree rings have been shown to be wider inthe last few decades due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. As far as global warming, just look up. It's the Sun, duh. Gets hotter andcooler, more cosmic rays and then less cosmic rays. There is a long sunspot cycle that controls this. It was warmer than it is now in year 1100 with nofossil fuels burned then. Called the Medieval Warm Period. Temps were ccoling from 1940-1980 and there was a lot of fossil fuel burned then. Forthat matter, the ice caps on Mars are smaller on average now - it's the Sun.Don't let EVs be dissed because of CO2. They are the cleanest ride, and (ifand) when electricity is all made with nuclear power, they will have a virtually all clean pedigree.----- Original Message ----- From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Another, fairer comparisonCo2 and globalwarming is not the number one reason to encourage EV use. Polllution is. Pollution kills people everyday and raises healthcare costs enormously. Global warming and co2 may kill us in 20 50 or 200 years but pollution is scarring your lungs RIGHT THIS SECOND. Frankly I wish people would spend more time talking about pollution than co2. On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:00 am, Cor van de Water wrote: > Zeke, >> An electric car is no cleaner from a CO2 standpoint... > That would surprise me. > I would expect that in total pollution, power plants are allowed > a lot more exhaust than a (modern!) car can emit, but when you > talk about CO2, then you are simply talking about total fuel > consumption. > Since electric vehicles are so efficient, their main loss is > the efficiency of the power plant. Modern plants can achieve > about 50%, but you mention dirty (old?) coal power, so the > efficiency of those could need some improvement, to say it politely. > > Anyhow, the ICE is so horrendously inefficient that it is hard > to start listing what it is that can be improved, Hybrid > vehicles had attached the most obvious issues and indeed, a > very efficient Hybrid can take on many EVs in terms of the > total energy usage, but that is not an apples to apples > comparison, because how can you compare a Prius to a S10 EV? > > The calculations I have seen have always shown EVs much more > efficient in "well to wheels" comparisons, but you may live > in an area that is very backward in terms of generation of > electricity, or maybe your data is flawed - hard to tell > without all the details and I am not a specialist myself, > but I do know about EV efficiency and tricks that are > being played to make them appear to be less than the relief > that they actually bring. > One example is to compare the EPA Highway MPG of the ICE with the > actual consumption of the EV.... > > As always, YMMV. > > Cor van de Water > Systems Architect > Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com > 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 > Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:30 AM > To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu > Subject: Re: Another, fairer comparison > > I recently ran the numbers for an electric car here in Colorado (dirty > coal plants!). An electric car is no cleaner from a CO2 standpoint > than the same car on gasoline. BUT, like John says, use solar or > wind. We > have program where for an extra 2.5cents a kWh you can buy windpower > from > the big windfarms in CO an WY. Or, I have a solar array on my house > (60% > paid for by the utility company -- they love coal, but we had a > statewide > public referendum, and they were forced to offer rebates for solar), > and > right now it's producing about 3 > times as much as my house needs. AND, I can recharge and EV from my > house instead of having to go to Venezuala or Iraq or Nigeria or > wherever, > to get fuel for it. Heck of a lot more convenient eh? > > Z > > On 7/14/07, Timothy Balcer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> John, >> >> Their numbers are using nationwide averages, which use the nastiest >> dirtiest coal plants as part of the equation. Of -course- the very >> latest technology lean diesel engines using biodiesel itself a fuel >> low in pollutants) will win out. It's a matter of stacking the deck, >> because as long as there is a fuel, the oil companies will have the >> hammerlock. >> >> None of that matters. Right now, this second, the grid can support 20 >> million electric cars, assuming they do most of their charging at >> night. Today. That is the amount of power electric companies are >> wasting at night due to wasted capacity. What that means is that for >> the first 20 million electric cars put out there, we are lowering >> pollution no matter HOW the electricity is being produced. >> >> By the time we get 20 million electric cars out there, I'd say we >> could probably have most of those old coal plants cleaned up. So >> honestly, why even talk about this? It's an argument used by the >> petrol folks. I don't care how efficient an electric car is compared >> to petrol, honestly. I mean its NICE that they are so efficient, but >> the big thing about EVs is not that they are so efficient (although >> that is a positive aspect). The big thing about it is that you can >> power them on THE SUN. You don't need -any- liquid fuels whatsoever. >> You can use wind, solar, hydro.. any sort of natural motive power >> instead of having to -burn- anything. And since you won't -have- to, >> then people will suddenly not want to. >> >> That's the real deal. Thats the big-ness right there! This 'well to >> wheels' thing is a red herring and not worth the effort. It's like >> comparing dynamite fishing to fly fishing by talking about how many >> fish you get per joule of energy in a stick of dynamite vs. how much >> heat energy per person is spent fishing for the trout in cold water. >> Ridiculous! >> >> --T >> >> PS: For the record, Nukes are bad from an economic point of view. You >> shouldn't want nukes, mainly because they are so expensive to produce >> and maintain, and so dangerous, that the government has to underwrite >> construction, AND had to pass a bill exempting nuclear power plants >> from liability in the event of a disaster. Honestly, I'd much rather>> build craploads of wind farms and solar plants. They are the >> cheapest, >> long term. No liability issues, no cleanup issues, easy to operate >> and>> maintain. >> >> On 7/12/07, john fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > There is an official government sponsored program at Argonne Labs >> > called GREET to measure exactly what you are all talking about. I >> have > started writing a piece about it, but the details are very complex, and > its > taking a long time. >> > just google GREET argonne should bring it up... >> > >> > anyway the conclusion was highly optimized bio-diesel hybrid IIRC >> > correctly was less polluting than a pure EV using coal-fired>> > electricity. Natural-gas->H2 fuel cell was too of course. Many >> other>> > technologies/fuels were in the same ballpark. I can't tell yet what > parameters they used for each fuel ( and there are many) but it is > truly a > well to wheels attempt at figuring out the cost. >> > >> > Before you all blow a gasket, the reason the bio-diesel does better >> > than EVs is that diesel and especially some kinds of bio-diesel, >> > take a lot less energy and less pollution than coal-fired power. >> > Obviously if you use hydro or solar/wind or natural gas to make > electricity you'll get a different result. The study uses nationwide > averages, rather than state-by-state numbers AFAIK. >> > >> > caveat- haven't crunched all the numbers yet, so read it yourself. >> > >> > Lesson I take from it? >> > You are only as clean as your electrons. >> > gotta get existing coal plants cleaned up right away and focus on >> > all new plants to minimize pollution. Nukes will help but are many >> years > out. I believe this could be seen as a political statement too. >> > >> > John >> > >> > GWMobile wrote:>> > > The comparision has been done it the amount of pollutants >> released>> > > for electric car power production is miniscule compared to >> automotive > gas use. >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude >> better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in>> peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick >> the>> hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may >> posterity forget that you were our countrymen. >> >> -----Samuel Adams >> >> > > > -- > Zeke Yewdall > Chief Electrical Engineer > Sunflower Solar, A NewPoint Energy Company > Cell: 720.352.2508 > Office: 303.459.0177 > FAX documents to: 720.269.1240 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.cosunflower.com > > CoSEIA Certified > Certified BP Solar Installer > National Association of Home Builders > > Quotable Quote > > "In the dark of the moon, in flying snow, in the dead of winter, war > spreading, families dying, the world in danger, I walk the rocky > hillside > sowing clover." > > Wendell Berry www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and the melting poles. www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I was at a neighborhood barbeque called a "Schwenker" when the call came in from John at PIR. For those who do not know what a Scwhenker is, well it is a German form of barbequing that works quite well. The grate is suspended by a chain over an open fire. The grate level can be adjusted by pulling up on the chain which goes through a pulley at the top of the tripod. The grate is constantly moving to and throw by people tap it with their shoe. It works quite well. I realize most of you do not care about the barbeque and want the facts of the race. Anyway I had to cut my fun short to run back to my house to tell all you folks what had happened tonight. The Plasma Boy team experienced some form of controller malfunction just prior to their first run so they had to diagnose the trouble and get it resolved before they could run. John will fill you in on the details when he posts the entire story. Once resolved his next run netted a time of 11.466 at 114.08 mph. The speed was almost as fast as Justin Southam did in 1999 in the "Maniac Mazda" when he did 114.85 mph. this is indeed an historical night for ECS.Roderick Wilde Vintage Golf Cart Parts Specializing in Parts for Harley and many other mature carts www.vintagegolfcartparts.com E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 360-385-4868 P.O. Box 221 Port Townsend, WA 98368
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Jul 15, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Roderick Wilde wrote:The Plasma Boy team experienced some form of controller malfunction just prior to their first run so they had to diagnose the trouble and get it resolved before they could run. John will fill you in on the details when he posts the entire story. Once resolved his next run netted a time of 11.466 at 114.08 mph. The speed was almost as fast as Justin Southam did in 1999 in the "Maniac Mazda" when he did 114.85 mph. this is indeed an historical night for ECS.I just got home from the races. I'm sure for some the post title doesn't seem to make sense. Any car running faster than 11.500 is required to have a roll bar. The night was coming to a close so John let out all the stops and turned the Zilla up. The result was expected. A track official meets John, Tim, and White Zombie back in the pits and gives them their notice. John resorts to racing the work truck :-)Paul "neon" GoochP.S. - we could have gone out and had diner and come back to the track in the time it takes that thing to get down the quarter mile <G>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/automobiles/15BATTERY.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Electric Cars Nearly Ready, but Batteries Are Less So By KEVIN CAMERON Published: July 15, 2007 CLEVER and attractive, the Chevrolet Volt, a design study for a new wrinkle in electric cars, dominated the headlines coming from the Detroit auto show in January. But the introduction was punctuated with an asterisk. In Summers Heat, Even Gas Is Listless (July 15, 2007) In the Chevrolet Volt, a lithium-ion battery pack is placed in the middle of the chassis. The car that promised a fuel economy equivalent of 150 miles a gallon and a total range of 640 miles using its onboard recharging system carried a major caveat: the lithium-ion batteries required to make it a reality are not yet available, and wont be until 2010 at the earliest, industry experts say. The Volt is not the only car waiting for lithium-ion batteries to be roadworthy. Reports last month in Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, a Japanese business newspaper, said that the next generation of the Toyota Prius would be delayed by six months because the carmaker had decided that lithium-ion batteries were not quite ready. Officially, the car was not postponed because Toyota had never announced an introduction date, but such a decision would have major implications: reverting to nickel-metal hydride batteries in todays Prius means finding room for a larger and heavier power pack. A Toyota spokesman, John Hanson, said that while the company saw huge potential in lithium-ion batteries, it wanted to assure future Prius buyers the same levels of affordability and reliability they experience in todays models. The quest for batteries that provide sufficient range at a reasonable cost has gone on for a century. Electric power was a viable alternative when automobiles were first gaining popularity, eventually losing out to combustion engines in the 1920s. In recent decades, research efforts have gained greater urgency. Like King Canute, who as ruler of England commanded the incoming tide to go out, the state of California decreed in 1990 that pollution-free electric cars must come into being. Battery-electric cars looked like a sensible solution for urban air-quality problems because pollutants would be produced where the electricity was generated, rather than where the car was driven. Since the early 1990s the price of gasoline has doubled, and with it the motivation to seek alternatives. Battery technology has evolved considerably; hybrids have arrived, priced to reflect their need for two power plants instead of one and a battery that by itself is one-third of the cars driveline cost. The plug-in hybrid whose battery can be recharged from a wall socket as well as by an onboard combustion engine has attracted a vocal following. Before 1990, the principal battery choices were lead-acid, the familiar auto engine starting battery, and nickel-cadmium. The lead-acid battery is well-proved, but heavy considering the small amount of energy it can store. Nickel-cadmium batteries offer more miles of driving for a given weight and size, but are less attractive because a recycling system is not well-established. They are also at least four times as expensive. The real force driving battery development has been portable electronics and cordless power tools, not vehicles. Both are high-volume applications. The workhorse here is the nickel-metal-hydride battery, which can store three times the energy of lead-acid cells in a package the same size. Nickel-metal-hydride is the most commonly used type of batteries in hybrids and electric-only vehicles because they are long-lived Hondas warranty for the Civic Hybrid battery runs 10 years/150,000 miles in some states but are a great deal more expensive than a basic lead-acid battery. With a rapid recharge taking three hours, they were not the answer to Californias push for mainstream zero-emissions cars. Another new battery type came along in 1991 the lithium-ion battery. Its light weight lithium is the third-lightest of elements improved energy capacity for a given weight, and subsequent developments in electrode chemistry suggest that by 2010 it will be the winning technology for all applications. (It is already common in devices like cellphones and laptop computers.) One problem has been durability, with early lithium-ion units tolerating only 750 cycles of discharge and recharge, or about two years of service, before deterioration of the terminals carrying power reduces charge capacity by 20 percent. A change from a terminal made of carbon to one made of lithium titanate spinel oxide holds the promise of increasing this to 9,000 cycles and 20 years use. Many other battery chemistries exist sodium-sulfur, nickel-zinc and nickel-iron but the major contenders for use in electric vehicles remain the nickel-metal hydride and lithium-ion types. Temperature control is an important consideration in the development of auto batteries; some cell or electrode types need to be warmer than others to function. And there are upper temperature limits overheating and fires from lithium-ion batteries in laptop computers made headlines about a year ago. All batteries slowly lose their charge to small internal currents, which generate heat just as a toaster does. If electrode deterioration increases this self-discharge current enough, catastrophic overheating can occur. Novel electrode chemistries or external control electronics promise to eliminate this hazard. So far, lithium-ion batteries have gained capacity at the rate of 8 percent to 10 percent a year, doubling their ability to store energy over a decade. This and improved electrode chemistry have refreshed the appeal of the battery-electric car. Tesla, an electric-car startup that plans to start delivering its $98,000 Roadster this fall, has developed a power storage system of 6,831 lithium cells, each about the size of a AA battery, that it says will power the car 200 miles. With the prospect of greater range, increased durability and their low cost to refuel, battery-electric vehicles start to look like just a bigger and practical power tool one that may well make more sense than electric cars that use hydrogen fuel cells to produce power. Would urban and suburban citizens buy lots of small electric vehicles at a price competitive with economy gasoline-powered cars? Have batteries matured enough to hit such a price point? Or will new emissions solutions make the small turbodiesel our first choice, as in Europe? It all comes down to price.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---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_01C7C6CC.5B89CEE3" Subject: Electric Cars Nearly Ready, but Batteries Are Less So - NY Times article 7/15/2007 Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:39:01 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thread-Topic: Electric Cars Nearly Ready, but Batteries Are Less So - NY Times article 7/15/2007 Thread-Index: AcfFp+bca+eetuyzQzC/EIJ6ZFdSmwBI4h/c References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Beth Silverman--Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Battery Terminals need advice! Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:20:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Its not foot-lbs, its inch-lbs. There is 12 inch lbs per 1 foot lb. A in bedded stud type post, will be spec to 95 to 105 inch lbs. A battery clamp for a brass battery clamp is spec for 75 inch lbs. A lead battery clamp may be as low as 50 inch lbs. I had the low profile in bedded studs which are only 1/8 inch below the surface to start pulling out at 75 inch lbs, could not make the 95 inch lbs as specified. The deeper in bedded type of stud in a higher post seems to be better. In using a battery clamp connection using a plated brass connector that is torque to 75 inch lbs as specified, it may started to mushroom the lead post out the top. They do not make the lead as hard as they use to. Back in the 70's we can drop a lead battery bar on a hard surface and it will ring, Today it goes clunk. I now use a battery clamp torque to 75 inch lbs, and a stainless steel washer, lock washer and nut on the in bedded stud to apply down ward pressure on the battery clamp which presses it against the base of the post. The pressure of the battery clamp puts a internal pressure around the head of the in bedded stud and the downward pressure prevents the mushrooming and shrink back of the battery post. It likes installing a stud anchor into concrete. I install this type of connection back in 2002. It is recommended to re-torque the battery connection after the first 5 miles of EV running if the torque drops more than 5 inch lbs. If not than check it in the next 10 miles. You therefore can estimate when they need to be retighten. Using the above method of battery clamp and stud fastener, I did not have to re-torque the batteries since 2002. Just check them last month and they are all in with specifications. Roland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph T. " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:47 PM Subject: Re: Battery Terminals need advice! > "I may be missing a previous post, and thus not > following, but in general, all posts have lead > terminals." > > Isn't lead a little too soft to have all that pressure on it, > squeezing it to death! > > By the way, how many ft-lbs of force are usually used to secure cable > lugs to their battery terminals? > > > On 7/14/07, Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Patrick, Send 'em back, if you can. Your first impression was right, > > tinned copper is the norm. If you have an impact crimper (hammer- type) > > it > > works well and it's cheap. I use welding cable (more flexible) and after > > crimping use shrink tubing with hot-melt lining to seal the deal (and it > > comes in black and red), I've found everything thru the McMaster Carr > > catalog, check it out. Later, Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "patrick DonEgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:26 PM > > Subject: Re: Battery Terminals need advice! > > > > > > > Do you have a part number or picture we can look @? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/14/07, Mark Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I was a bit surprised when I ordered some 4/0 battery terminals > > >> thinking > > >> they would be all copper with plating. They arrived today (24 of > > >> them) > > >> and > > >> to my surprise the heads themselves are made of lead. > > >> > > >> I see this as a problem since they cannot be soldered on and if they > > >> are > > >> overcrimped it might crush the connector part made of plated copper > > >> away > > >> causing a bad connection later. I also see some potential for the > > >> torque > > >> backing off over time. > > >> > > >> So I need advice. Should I send these back? If so what should I > > >> get > > >> instead? > > >> > > >> I don't want to waste expensive cable if these are not going to work > > >> so > > >> if > > >> anyone is using them let me know. > > >> > > >> Mark Ward > > >> 95 Saab 900SE "Saabrina" > > >> www.saabrina.blogspot.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Patrick Ira Donegan > > > TigerBody Electric Vehicles > > > > > > > > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Joshua Cummins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Questions for those in the-know... Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:15:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hello, the name is Josh and I am service tech for a prominent electric motor company in the midwest. I have decicded to pool my resources and build my own electric car. Can anyone point me in the direction of three-phase inverters, transformers, batteries, photo-cells, control modules and the like that are being used. Here is the intended setup. 1996 Honda Civic Hatchback 480 volt, three phase motor (0-120hz) No A/C, NO heater will use 2 of 5 gears from honda transmission clutch assy. will be replaced with a static coupling would also like to incorporate optoelectric cells for recharge transducer controlled "throttle" But on a bigger picture, lets collaborate friends, lets start the revolution thats 40 years late! _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Just In from PIR, Wayland becomes a Criminal Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:25:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul, thanks for the clarification for most on the list who are not racers. The roll bar ruling will be a dilemma for John as he has to add weight to the car but will not have the A123 batteries. Maybe if he convinces the track officials that he won't be going this quick next time they might let him back on the track. But knowing John he WILL be breaking the 11.5 second barrier with the Enersys lead acid batteries. Last night I also failed to mention one other very important detail. The Zombie did the eighth mile in 7.234 seconds at an incredible 94.52 mph on the run that netted the incredible 11.466 ET. Congratulations to John, Tim, and the team from Plasma Boy Racing. Paul, can you tell us if the Killacycle made any runs Saturday night? Roderick Wilde "Suck Amps EV Racing" www.suckamps.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:19 AM Subject: Re: Just In from PIR, Wayland becomes a Criminal > On Jul 15, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Roderick Wilde wrote: > >> The Plasma Boy team experienced some form of controller malfunction >> just prior to their first run so they had to diagnose the trouble and >> get it resolved before they could run. John will fill you in on the >> details when he posts the entire story. Once resolved his next run >> netted a time of 11.466 at 114.08 mph. The speed was almost as fast as >> Justin Southam did in 1999 in the "Maniac Mazda" when he did 114.85 mph. >> this is indeed an historical night for ECS. > > I just got home from the races. I'm sure for some the post title doesn't > seem to make sense. Any car running faster than 11.500 is required to > have a roll bar. The night was coming to a close so John let out all the > stops and turned the Zilla up. The result was expected. A track official > meets John, Tim, and White Zombie back in the pits and gives them their > notice. John resorts to racing the work truck :-) > > Paul "neon" Gooch > > P.S. - we could have gone out and had diner and come back to the track in > the time it takes that thing to get down the quarter mile <G> > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: > 269.10.5/899 - Release Date: 7/13/2007 3:41 PM > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:27:57 +0000 From: Paul Wujek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: EV List <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> Subject: article: The Graf Scooter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vectrix has plans for a Hydrogen Fuel-cell plug-in hybrid scooter: http://jalopnik.com/cars/lighter_than_air-scooting/the-graf-scooter-278441.php -- Paul Wujek ([EMAIL PROTECTED])Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:34:13 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: "Tom S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: the eVette Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi John, Thanks for your positive input. Tom Sines -----Original Message----- >From: "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jul 14, 2007 4:09 PM >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu >Subject: Re: the eVette > >Check out any vintage of army tank for a "di wheel" diff-steering vehicle. >The current iterations of the M1 Abrams can hit highway speeds. > >Of course having a track "cheats" as far as stability, and technically it's >got way more than 2 wheels, but still shows it's possible. > >Seems like synch of the 2 motors would get easier at higher speeds as >inertia and aero forces would want to keep the vehicle straight. > >-Phil >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu> >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:32 AM >Subject: Re: the eVette > > >> You guys have missed some essential points about Tom's car, IMO. In >> treating it as some sort of challenge to be debunked, you haven't noticed >> what he has achieved, assuming the small pix and video are fair >> representations. >> >> Technically its a "di-wheel" : a concept that goes almost all the way back >> to the safety bicycle. I have mused over similar chassis configurations >> for a couple of years now, and done some dilettante-level research. ( if >> anyone has links or SAE papers or pix, I am always grateful). To my >> knowledge no one has actually built a road-legal di-wheel before with >> differential steering ( unless you count the Segway- I didn't because it >> has some pretty fancy software controls and is slow). Now, given that in >> the auto world, *everything* has been done before, I expect somebody to >> come up with a counter-example, indeed thats a part of my motivation. I >> was thinking of trying a di-wheel myself with RC model truck and tank >> parts, so I wouldn't kill myself in a prototype, but if Tom has done what >> he says he has, then that is unnecessary - it *is* possible to steer with >> differential power/braking without massive instability. I was worried it >> would take traction-control + ABS using software ( like a Segway) to make >> it stable. >> >> This doesn't mean *anything* about the commercial viability or ultimate >> street-worthiness of the concept, not to mention marketability, and that >> brings up my second point: its a *prototype* Its not supposed to be a >> finished product, its a proof of concept. It's not good engineering to >> challenge it on the same grounds you would a production car - those >> problems you bring up, like controller failure, are future issues for the >> millions-of-dollars phase. They are fun to discuss, sure. but they aren't >> properly treated as a failure of design, they are simply work to be done. >> >> Since many people on this list drive lead-sleds at or near over-weight >> without improving the suspension or brakes, and/or contemplate >> pusher-trailers, it seems to me you should cut the guy some slack. >> >> Tom, your project would be more credible and indeed more interesting, if >> you simply took some good pictures and posted them on your site. Any $150 >> digital camera will do well enough. >> >> Thats about my 2 cents worth for the week >> cheers >> John >> >> >>>> tom sines replied: >>>> >>>>> Thought you would never ask, go to electricevette.com >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.comMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:44:03 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: "Tom S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu Subject: Re: Electric Evette Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I`ve got the front wheel set up to track the car, it works well. Tom Sines -----Original Message----- >From: GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jul 14, 2007 11:11 AM >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Electric Evette > >Tom does the front passively caster at all? >If not does it scrub in tighter slower turns? > >And how and when did you make the car body? Nice video of it on >kickinggas.org > >On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 5:25 am, Tom S. wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I know quite a few bikers, some of them drive 3 wheelers, one wheel in >> front, two in the back. When you steer the bike into a turn with the >> front wheel,it can roll over.Thats the problem! The Evette doesn`t >> steer with the front wheel,the front wheel is not really even a load >> bearing wheel. The car steers by the rear tires, electronically. I >> can make turns better and faster than a 4wheel car. >> >> Tom Sines >> >> > >www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming >and the melting poles. > >www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images. > ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
--- End Message ---
