Jukka J=E4rvinen wrote:
>I wonder how the Ni-MH systems will be competing later on with =
>LiFe-cells.... Energy density is about the same. Efficiency is better =
>for the Lions but the simplicity of Ni-MH packs...We'll see.
>
>I think there will be several different chemistries that will "survive" =
>They all (Li-Co, Li-Mn, Li-Fe, Ni-MH...) have certain advantages =
>compared to each other.
> =
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>Jukka J=E4rvinen wrote:
>
>>I wonder how the Ni-MH systems will be competing later on with =
>>LiFe-cells.... Energy density is about the same. Efficiency is =
better =
>>for the Lions but the simplicity of Ni-MH packs...We'll see.
>>
>>I think there will be several different chemistries that will =
"survive" =
>>They all (Li-Co, Li-Mn, Li-Fe, Ni-MH...) have certain advantages =
>>compared to each other.
>> =
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>For subscription options, see
>http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Seppo Lindborg wrote:
> What comes to the battery technologies, I think we could draw a
> parallel with the development of mobile telephone batteries.
>
> The first mobile phones were lead-acid driven...
> Mobile phones became really portable only when they got NiCd batteries
> Then came NiMh which had better usage characteristics and capacity...
> The real kick for the mobile telephony came when the Li-Ion batteries
> arrived...
The batteries weren't driving these changes; it was the electronics. The
early mobile phones used vacuum tubes! This is why they were so large,
and required so much power. They also needed quite powerful
transmitters, as the distance to the nearest repeater was very large (up
to 100 miles).
The later phones used discrete transistors, which took much less power.
This made it practical to use nicads. But they still needed powerful
transmitters, because the distance to the repeaters was so large (30
miles or more).
Nimh cells didn't get used until after the cell-phone technology hit.
Transmitter power is far lower, since there are vastly more repeaters;
rarely do they have to transmit more than 5-6 miles.
Lithium cells are basically just allowing smaller phones. It has become
fashionable to have very tiny phones; so small that they are harder to
use and more easily damaged.
Throughout all this time, the trend has been for the phone to use less
and less power. This has allowed the battery size to keep going down.
All that the more advanced battery technologies are doing is allowing
smaller phones, and more non-phone features to be crowded in.
This evolution is less likely to happen with automobiles, because they
require a substantial amount of power, proportional to the weight of the
vehicle. There are no technological ways to reduce the power
requirements substantially -- just small evolutionary improvements.
What fundamentally matters for EV batteries is their cost per mile. To
ever be successful in the market, EVs will have to compete on a economic
basis with ICEs. This can't happen with "bleeding edge" high-tech
proprietary batteries. It will have to be done with batteries that are
inexpensive, easy to produce, and low enough tech to be produced by
dozens of companies around the world.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Zeke Yewdall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, there's always the hyper car... why should a vehicle glider
> weigh 2,000 lbs. Why not use carbon fiber and let it weigh 400lbs for
> the same thing. I'm sure you've all ready Amory Lovin's writings on
> this... but this is what could be the equivalent of the new
> electronics in cell phones. Hey, I'm sure that some people freaked
> out when they switched from wood to steel for cars... might be time to
> stop using steel now...
> ...
That's what the solar car project does. The only metal in the frame is
the suspension and the roll bar; the rest is all carbon honeycomb. The
entire car, including motor and 30kg of batteries, is only 400
pounds. The downside is that the carbon honeycomb is really expensive;
thousands of dollars for just the sheets of raw material.
-Morgan
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Zeke Yewdall <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, there's always the hyper car... why should a vehicle glider
>> weigh 2,000 lbs? Why not use carbon fiber and let it weigh 400lbs
>> for the same thing.
Morgan LaMoore wrote:
> That's what the solar car project does. The only metal in the frame is
> the suspension and the roll bar; the rest is all carbon honeycomb. The
> entire car, including motor and 30kg of batteries, is only 400
> pounds. The downside is that the carbon honeycomb is really expensive;
> thousands of dollars for just the sheets of raw material.
Yes, price is the killer with carbon fiber. Both labor and materials are
far more expensive than stamped steel.
But it certainly works! Our Sunrise chassis and body only weigh about
400 lbs, and that's for a full-sized 4-seat car! We're making it a kit
car, so if the builder wants to put in the effort, he can get this kind
of weight savings, too.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
[email protected] wrote:
> Economy only gives you so much. You have to still have a certain
> minimum performance, something lead-acid strains to do (with
> conversions at least).
Yes; exactly. With a conversion, lead-acid can give you great
performance (White Zombie, Current Eliminator, etc.) but the tradeoff is
poor range. Or, you can get great range (Red Beastie, Sundancer, etc.)
but trade off performance to get it. If you try to get both at once, you
wind up with an EV with mediocre range and performance.
The key is *not* to build conversions, but instead build it as an EV
from the ground up. Then it *can* offer both range and performance, even
with lowly lead-acid batteries.
If you take 1000 lbs out of the weight of a car, and put it back as more
batteries, you now have a vehicle that weighs the same but has 3 times
the battery capacity, and thus 3 times the range. For performance,
you've got 3 times the peak power that you would have had with an EV
conversion.
Put another way, you can go from an EV conversion that has a range of 50
miles and does 0-60 mph in 18 seconds, to an EV with a range of 150
miles and 0-60 mph in 6 seconds. Sure; you can beat it with advanced
batteries for 10 times the cost. But for the average Joe, cost is more
important. This EV will do everything he does with his present car; and
cheaper too! Now you're talking his language!
Can we pull it off? I don't know... but I'm certainly going to try!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
--- Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Economy only gives you so much. You have to still
> have a certain
> > minimum performance, something lead-acid strains
> to do (with
> > conversions at least).
>
> Yes; exactly. With a conversion, lead-acid can give
> you great
> performance (White Zombie, Current Eliminator, etc.)
> but the tradeoff is
> poor range. Or, you can get great range (Red
> Beastie, Sundancer, etc.)
> but trade off performance to get it. If you try to
> get both at once, you
> wind up with an EV with mediocre range and
> performance.
>
> The key is *not* to build conversions, but instead
> build it as an EV
> from the ground up. Then it *can* offer both range
> and performance, even
> with lowly lead-acid batteries.
>
> If you take 1000 lbs out of the weight of a car, and
> put it back as more
> batteries, you now have a vehicle that weighs the
> same but has 3 times
> the battery capacity, and thus 3 times the range.
> For performance,
> you've got 3 times the peak power that you would
> have had with an EV
> conversion.
>
> Put another way, you can go from an EV conversion
> that has a range of 50
> miles and does 0-60 mph in 18 seconds, to an EV with
> a range of 150
> miles and 0-60 mph in 6 seconds. Sure; you can beat
> it with advanced
> batteries for 10 times the cost. But for the average
> Joe, cost is more
> important. This EV will do everything he does with
> his present car; and
> cheaper too! Now you're talking his language!
>
> Can we pull it off? I don't know... but I'm
> certainly going to try!
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377,
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Lee Hart wrote:
>The key is *not* to build conversions, but instead build it as an EV
>from the ground up. Then it *can* offer both range and performance, even
>with lowly lead-acid batteries.
>
>If you take 1000 lbs out of the weight of a car, and put it back as more
>batteries, you now have a vehicle that weighs the same but has 3 times
>the battery capacity, and thus 3 times the range.
>Sure; you can beat it with advanced
>batteries for 10 times the cost. But for the average Joe, cost is more
>important. This EV will do everything he does with his present car; and
>cheaper too! Now you're talking his language!
>
>Can we pull it off? I don't know... but I'm certainly going to try!
>
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
keith vansickle wrote:
> Lee and list
> You know you are right Lee. Keep working on the
> sunrise.
> Everybody else on the list send Lee money and
> encouragement he is doing good work for us all and he
> is the best chance we have of getting over the
> problems inherent in the EV as real world
> transportation.
>
> kEVs
You can even donate via PayPal, as many of us on this
list do!
John in Sylmar, CA
PV EV
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Michaela Merz wrote:
> Fact is - that NIMH is a proven technology that could be made
> available tomorrow [...]
> But - since that is all just marketing babble - all we CAN do
> is discuss the differences between unobtainium and, well,
> unobtainium.
Do note that large format NiMH is available right now from Cobasys. It
is costly, but not unobtainium.
Cheers,
Roger
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>Michaela Merz wrote:
>
>> Fact is - that NIMH is a proven technology that could be made
>> available tomorrow [...]
>
>> But - since that is all just marketing babble - all we CAN do
>> is discuss the differences between unobtainium and, well,
>> unobtainium.
>
>Do note that large format NiMH is available right now from Cobasys. It
>is costly, but not unobtainium.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Roger
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev