DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

I will repost with proper spacing so they are easier to read, sorry....


Date/ Time Amps High Volts MPH

10/1/2007 13:27 46 93.1 60
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 58
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 56
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 45 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93.1 54
10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.2 48
10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.4 42




mosesmo wrote:
>
> Hi Cor van de Water, thank you for communicating with me directly.
> I will provide you with performance results taken directly from the
> computer on Monday Oct 1st during our press conference. Although these run
> results are date & time stamped and there were around 50 people there
> witnessing the demonstration and there are bits of it posted on the TV
> coverage video. I am sure you probably won't believe them. But I'll post
> them here anyway for all to see. The reason we chose Ozark International
> Raceway as a place to demonstrate the vehicle was because it is a flat
> track. Although the parking lot and areas around the track aren't. One
> downfall to living in the Ozarks is there is very little level ground.
> Anyway, I copied and will paste here a sample of one of my runs down the
> track, once up to speed and running around 55 MPH:
>
>
> Date/ Time Amps High Volts MPH
>
> 10/1/2007 13:27 46 93.1 60
> 10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 58
> 10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 56
> 10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 43 93.5 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 45 93.5 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 44 93.5 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 45 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 41 93.1 54
> 10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.2 48
> 10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.4 42
>
> I have driven this vehicle enough to get AVERAGE Amperage draws between or
> from as low as 70 Amps to as high as 122 Amps in hilly driving at higway
> speeds (no city driving included). The averages are taken from the first
> zero MPH reading through drive time and back to a zero reading. They do
> not include any idle time when the vehicle is at a stand still more than a
> one second stop before driving and a one second reading when we come to a
> stop again. I also have several other columns (not pasted here) showing
> distance traveled, Low Voltage reading (the computer battery voltage) trip
> odometer. etc.
>
> We are arranging to have a Physics Professor from the University of
> Missouri Rolla, with a PHD in physics come down to ride with us and
> witness the drive and the download of results so that people will know
> that the data was not tampered with. When I have this completed I will
> post that information also. To answer some of the forseeable questions; we
> are using a PLC, transducer, and the software programming for both
> purchased from Automation Direct. There are standard shocks on this
> vehicle with air shocks in the rear, not magnetic shocks (that is just
> another invention of mine that I got called a quack for inventing, thats
> why I put it in my original subject line). The transmission is rated
> nominally at 97% efficiency and has been documented as high as 99%. The
> transmission that I am using in the van is not the variable speed
> transmission that you found the patent application for. The patent
> application for the transmission I am using in the van has NOT been
> published yet. WE all know that amperage draw is tied directly to the
> amount of distance one can travel, the lower the amperage draw, the
> further you can travel and if those high 200 amp+ amperage draws could be
> eliminated on acceleration, the possible distance traveled is increased
> even more.
>
> Regards,
> Daren
>
>
>
>
>
> Cor van de Water wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daren,
>>
>> I agree with others that your claims of 150 miles range
>> on 16 T145's driving 55 MPH are at least 250% of what can
>> be expected from an EV, based on experience and on laws
>> of Physics. (wind- plus rolling resistance)
>> However, we like to get data on your vehicle, which will
>> clearly either support your claim of 150 miles on a single
>> charge, or show that your claims are wildly optimistic.
>>
>> Please provide some data and it would be good to show some
>> evidence in one way or another, like having an independent
>> person travel with you over the 150 miles, or drive that
>> distance from one independent person to the next within a
>> period of 3 hours, so we can see that your vehicle indeed
>> made that trip on a single charge.
>>
>> One way to show us that you dramatically changed the
>> consumption, necessary to achieve the 150 mile range, whould
>> be ot show the battery current consumption while driving
>> constant 55 MPH on a flat road.
>> If you can do that at max 70 Amps from your 96 Volts pack
>> or if you can show an E-meter that you use approx 6.5 kWh
>> to drive an hour at 55 MPH, then we know that you did
>> something exceptional.
>>
>> For now, I remain sceptical however. It seems that you have
>> "spent your entire life" (as some news item put it) to create
>> a new type of transmission that allows the electric motor to
>> behave as ICE - spinning continuously at high RPMs.
>> However, this is not necessary. Every electric motor is very
>> efficient starting right from zero RPM, so I have the feeling
>> that the transmission you created, however unique it may be,
>> is a cludge that does not contribute to the efficiency of the
>> EV, just changes the way it is driven without benefit.
>> Much of what I have seen in the videos and found in
>> descriptions such as "Project Genesis"
>> http://www.planetevs.com/index_files/page0001.htm
>> show that you have the wrong assumption that an electric motor
>> uses less energy when it drives the wheels through a high
>> gear ratio. While it is true that a motor generates more
>> torque (or uses less amps) to drive the wheels at low speed
>> through a high gear reduction, this does not mean that this
>> significantly alters the amount of energy the vehicle
>> consumes. In fact, it explains why your vehicle can be seen
>> driving 10 or 20 MPH with screaming motor, but again this
>> does not mean that it saves energy.
>>
>> Maybe I misunderstood what you did, the press did not report
>> much detail and I could not find much detail on what you have
>> constructed, but from the descriptions I read, I am afraid
>> that you are confused about the laws of Physics and it may
>> help to find someone to correct the errors in your reasoning
>> so you can avoid the incorrect claims that a 20 times higher
>> gear ratio allows you to drive 20 times further.
>>
>> I searched for the patents you are claiming to have on this
>> technology and I could none related to the transmission,
>> only about a regeneration system and a few others.
>> (It may be that the patents are still unpublished, in the
>> period between applying and being granted and publicized)
>> The regeneration system is a description of regen as we have
>> known it for many years, so the general claims 1-7 of that
>> patent are worthless while the later claims take into
>> account the "plurality of alternators" and "plurality of
>> belts", which seem to refer to your transmission system.
>> The only other three coming up when searching for your name
>> (Daren Luedtke) were a vehicle warning system, a door open/
>> close control mechanism with permanent magnets and plain
>> magnetic shock absorbers, which should not be different
>> from gas- or pneumatic absorbers coupled to a spring,
>> with the difference that the drawing shown with the patent
>> indicates the travel of the absorber would be in the order
>> of magnitude of 1 inch before hitting magnet on magnet.
>> I see you are trying to sell the magnetic shock absorbers.
>> FYI: magnets are very bad absorbers, they are magically
>> good at preserving the energy when bringing them closer
>> and releasing the same when they push themselves apart.
>> In other words: unless you create "Eddy currents" in the
>> metal cylinders surrounding the magnets, you have built
>> perfect springs, not absorbers.
>>
>> 20060158323 - Vehicle warning system
>> U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/633,663, filed Dec. 4, 2004
>> 276781 - control mechanism including permanent magnet system
>> filed on 1999-03-25
>> 6,167,589 - Magna-shock January 2nd 2001
>>
>> Finally after long searching, I found your variable speed
>> transmission: 60727958, filed on 18-Oct-2005
>> http://www.patentdebate.com/PATAPP/20070105672
>>
>> I fail to see how this would lower the energy to drive an
>> EV by more than e few percent at best.
>> Please educate me and provide some data that you measured.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 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 mosesmo
>> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:05 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV
>>
>>
>> I'm using 16 T-145's not 105's sorry.
>>
>> Morgan LaMoore wrote:
>>>
>>> Force of air drag times distance equals energy required
>>> .5*Cd*A*rho*v^2*d The lowest Cd I found for a Dodge Caravan was .35,
>>> and the lowest area was 30 square feet.
>>> .5*.35*30ft^2*1.3kg/m^3*(55mph)^2*150miles
>>> 25.7 kWh
>>>
>>> Energy in 16 T-105's (using 6 hour rate even though he's at 3 hour
>>> rate, ignoring Peukert's effect):
>>> 16*6V*205Ah
>>> 19.7 kWh
>>>
>>> He's only 20% short! However, you have to add in rolling resistance
>>> losses, he'll be farther behind. It would take a really deep discharge
>>> to go 150 miles, and you'd be destroying the batteries.
>>>
>>> That said, it was a lot closer than I expected, so if there was even a
>>> downwards slope of a few percent, they might be able to do it.
>>>
>>> And yeah, the magnetic shocks make sense, if you could get big enough
>>> magnets. I don't know how they'd help range, though.
>>>
>>> -Morgan LaMoore
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> For subscription options, see
>>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Magnetic-Shock-Absorber---EV-tf4578896s25542.html#a13079765
>> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Magnetic-Shock-Absorber---EV-tf4578896s25542.html#a13094691
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top