Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter VanDerWal <
evdl@...> wrote:
> >> FWIW, top speed on my pickup is slightly over 70
> >> mph. Max power out of my
> >> batteries (120V worth of 8V GC) is just under 30
> kw.
> >> All power figures
> >> measured with an E-meter.
> >
> > I'd bet if you used a good aero camper type
> shell
> > like I've described before you could cut that 20%
> > easily, maybe more.
>
> Actually I tried a camper shell for a couple weeks a
> few years ago, power
> requirements went UP 10-15% so I removed it.
> Granted the shell was not all that aerodynamic, as
> Irecall iteven
> increased frontal area slightly.
It has to be the right shape and why I said a good
aero camper shell.
Also by completely replacing the bed saves weight
and can cover the rear wheel wells to decrease drag
even farther.
The guy did get a 28% increase in mileage with a
rather crude shelel plus other aero mods on the side
and front.
>
>
> >> while driving. Granted rapid charging them will
> >> create some heat, but in
> >
> > If lead and charged at under 80% state of
> charge,
> > almost no heat is made from charging, discharging,
> > especially if you have a gen making most of the
> power
> > needed and recharging quickly. Eff approaches
> 98%!!!
>
> I'm going to dissagree here; less heat Yes, but
You disagree !! I'm shocked ;-))
Some tests have even seen a cooling of the batts
under fast charging under 80% charged.
> almost none?
> The heat build up from discharge will be slower,but
> accure over a longer
With the gen running, the batts will need to be
used little and mostly surface charges which will heat
little coupled to the slight cooling from charging and
add an active battery cooling I'll have blowing air
throught the batt compartment between the batts,
heating of them is not going to be a problem.
Now other batt chemistries?
> period of time. Even if you keep the charging to
> below 80% SOC, the rapid
> charging requirement will cause battery heating.
>
> >>
> >> Still his other concerns are valid (engine and
> >> controller heating).
> >> This is one of the reasons that I'm a proponent
> for
> >> parallel hybrid schemes.
> >
> > But you don't reconize as Lee does the part
> load
> > ineff of a parallel system.
>
> I recognize this, however it has nothing to do with
> my concept since the
> engine will only be used at or near it's maximum
> efficieny point. That's
> why you have the Emotor, to suplement the ICE when
> the load goes up and
> (in regen mode) to addload to it when it drops.
>
> This is exactly what you are planning with the
> series hybrid, only the
> parallel hybrid doesn't loose efficiency due to
> double conversion looses,
> nore does your EV portion need to run full out
> continuously. Finally,
> since you're not loosing power due to double
> conversion, youcan use a
> smaller ICE which means lower weight,
> lessfuelconsumption and therefor
> lower emissions.
Not in real life unless you get a very intergated
set up costing big bucks. Even then it will be
maginally more eff with transmission losses, full time
weight added. Also much harder to design, impliment,
fit in a small space. And harder to remove when not
needed. And if permentantly installed then subject to
EPA laws which even if it's got great emissions
numbers, will take many $ to do legally. No thanks!! I
have enough headaches getting this going witout that.
>
> > There is a reason ICE cars
> > only get 7% of their fuel to the road where EV's
> get
>
> Where did you pull that number from? It's two to
> three times that much in
> all of the figures I've seen.
EPA amoung many other sources.
Engine eff 30% generous x trans eff 90%x final
drive 95% x idling 0% eff- 20hp at all times internal
friction just to turn a engine over before any power
is needed, made.
Most cars use more power in internal engine
friction than it takes to go 60mph!!! And that's where
part load ineff comes from.
YMMV depending on engine size but acceleration
demands means it must be much larger than what it
needs for steady state cruising.
>
>
> >> I prefer having the ICE mounted in/on the vehicle
> >> though for convienence.
> > And why I want to make my gens under 100lbs
> or
> > less than 2 batteries!!
>
> Well let's see...if the generator weighs 100 lbs,
> then the generator head
> probably weighs 30 lbs or so, that means the ICE
> weighs about 70.
> Loose the generator head and you can connect the ICE
> to the wheels through
> a transmission that problably weighs LESS than 30
> lbs. You can then also
> save weight by using lighter Emotors and
> controllers, since they won't
> have to run continuously at full power. Plus you
Not true as you need more power to push the motor
around when not needed as an EV and much more
complicated install. The clutch/drive alone will
probably weigh more than the powerhead.
With my range, 100miles, the gen will not even be
in the EV most of the time.
And if you don't have the gen head, you can't
charge during idling, slow traffic, parked so must
have a larger ICE to make up for that or more
complication, cost, weight.
> don't have double
> conversion losses so you gain efficiency.
The double conversion losses are 20% vs 5-10
transmission losses in the ICE so just not that much.
You save enough from the increased EV range when the
gen is not onboard.
> Finally, if you're really clever, you can design
> your transmission to
> allow the ICE to drive the Emotor without turning
> the wheels and now you
> have a generator to use while stationary.
Costly, complicated. Maybe when I'm a millionaire
to afford the EPA regulation costs ;-))
But as I've shown, Parallel is marginally more eff
but only when used. As it will rarely be used, it just
doesn't make sense to lug it around all the time.
Feel free to lug one around yourself, but for me,
no thanks. It's plug in EVing 95%+ of the time for
me!! I'll take simplisity, flexability. And 100mpg is
good enough for me!!!
Jerry Dycus
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html