D
Dbowey
Guest
They are figments of my imagination, and strangely, so are you. When I am gone
you will be out of luck. How's fishing today?
Don
you will be out of luck. How's fishing today?
Don
W
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
"ed" <edsin222@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:afcb4472.0410180727.10151b6e@posting.google.com...
http://www.angliac.co.uk/infosearch/xreftable.asp?offset=3672
http://www.angliac.co.uk/st/data_from_st/5356.pdf
so you can sort thru it for a replacement.
news:afcb4472.0410180727.10151b6e@posting.google.com...
Well, Google tells me this:
http://www.angliac.co.uk/infosearch/xreftable.asp?offset=3672
http://www.angliac.co.uk/st/data_from_st/5356.pdf
so you can sort thru it for a replacement.
D
Damn Dan
Guest
"mike" <spamme0@juno.com> wrote in message news:4173A82D.20902@juno.com...
your expertise, you've done nothing but make an ass of yourself. Since all
of your conclusions are based on incomplete evidence and a thorough lack of
understanding of the subject matter, allow me to explain.
I live in Arizona. If you do a little research, you'll find that the
Southwest receives some of the highest solar energy per square foot in the
country. The change of seasons and weather do not change the ambient solar
energy all that much around here.
My hybrid battery has a mere 6.4Ah capacity. The internal circuitry limits
the available capacity to the middle 60%, thus there is a realistic capacity
of 3.84Ah. On my drive to work, I use between 5-10% of that capacity.
That's .384Ah. By keeping my battery charged, I prevent the electric
generator from sipping energy off of my forward momentum to recharge the
battery. I have calculated through observation that I get about 10mpg less
when the battery is charging itself while I drive. So yes, acheiving .384Ah
a day will save a lot of gas.
By implying that the extra weight of a solar panel will have a non-trivial
affect on my gas mileage, you are only proving your lack of understanding of
inertial physics. The car weighs 1800 pounds. With me in it, it weighs
1955 pounds. The panel weighs 17 pounds. You do the math.
An 80W panel, once stepped up to 200V, will only deliver at most 0.4A. This
will trickle charge the battery. Rechargable batteries are able to handle
trickle charging for a very long period of time (on the order of weeks or
months). As you have already proven you know nothing about the subject, I
did not expect you to know that.
Finally, I do not expect to mount the panel on the outside of my car, so
there is no reason to introduce an extra security system. The panel will
rest on the dashboard of my car, with the nose of the car facing the daily
path of the sun. The energy lost to my front windshield is minimal (I have
already tested it), so that is what I will do.
In conclusion, Mike, bugger off.
Mike. Your credulousness is embarassing you. In an attempt to demonstrate
your expertise, you've done nothing but make an ass of yourself. Since all
of your conclusions are based on incomplete evidence and a thorough lack of
understanding of the subject matter, allow me to explain.
I live in Arizona. If you do a little research, you'll find that the
Southwest receives some of the highest solar energy per square foot in the
country. The change of seasons and weather do not change the ambient solar
energy all that much around here.
My hybrid battery has a mere 6.4Ah capacity. The internal circuitry limits
the available capacity to the middle 60%, thus there is a realistic capacity
of 3.84Ah. On my drive to work, I use between 5-10% of that capacity.
That's .384Ah. By keeping my battery charged, I prevent the electric
generator from sipping energy off of my forward momentum to recharge the
battery. I have calculated through observation that I get about 10mpg less
when the battery is charging itself while I drive. So yes, acheiving .384Ah
a day will save a lot of gas.
By implying that the extra weight of a solar panel will have a non-trivial
affect on my gas mileage, you are only proving your lack of understanding of
inertial physics. The car weighs 1800 pounds. With me in it, it weighs
1955 pounds. The panel weighs 17 pounds. You do the math.
An 80W panel, once stepped up to 200V, will only deliver at most 0.4A. This
will trickle charge the battery. Rechargable batteries are able to handle
trickle charging for a very long period of time (on the order of weeks or
months). As you have already proven you know nothing about the subject, I
did not expect you to know that.
Finally, I do not expect to mount the panel on the outside of my car, so
there is no reason to introduce an extra security system. The panel will
rest on the dashboard of my car, with the nose of the car facing the daily
path of the sun. The energy lost to my front windshield is minimal (I have
already tested it), so that is what I will do.
In conclusion, Mike, bugger off.
R
Ross Herbert
Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:56:40 -0700, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:
|
|"Ross Herbert" <rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
|news
tr6n0hbnfpbro61itov63eqrupmuc6nnr@4ax.com...
|> You are starting from the wrong end...
|>
|> You need to determine the charging requirements of the 165V battery
|> itself before anything else. Only then can you determine what is
|> required of your charging circuitry and design it accordingly. The
|> fact that you want to use a 12V (nominal), 80W solar panel as the
|> charging source simply because that is what you have on hand is not
|> the way to go about the problem. Once you know what the charging
|> requirements of the battery are you can then determine how many solar
|> panels you will require in order to charge a 12V,24V or 48V battery to
|> power a suitable dc - ac inverter/rectifier/charging arrangement.
|
|I don't buy that at all. Firs off, he doesn't need to know the charging
|requuirements of the 165V battery because it can charge at anywhere up
|to hundreds of amps for short periods. And he will never be able to buy
|enough solar cells to do that, let alone the next problem.
A logical approach would need to balance the time it takes to charge
the 165V battery in the time space determined by the OP's time frame,
so he does need to know the charging requirements. He might require
the battery to be charged in 4 hrs or less, since he is talking about
solar charging, and the weather conditions would have some bearing on
whether that is possible. The fact that he may need more than one
panel is therefore dependant upon this time frame.
|
|And the next problem is that the solar cells will put out anywhere from
|max to min to zero depending on the time of day, and the weather,
|cloudy, overcast, etc. So he needs a converter that can handle a large
|variation in input power. Why should he need an intermediate battery,
|12V, etc. to charge? That's just a waste of efficiecny.
Exactly.... However, a nominal 12V, 80W panel can deliver a max of
around 6.8A peak and that will vary up and down depending on weather
conditions. One thing you can be sure of is that for 60 - 70% of the
year the maximum output of the panel will never be achieved, therefore
some consideration will be necessary to increase input capacity to
whatever converter is used in order to raise the actual output above
the theoretical maximum.
|
|What he needs is a converter that monitors the input voltage to see if
|it drops below a threshold, as long as it stays at about 12V, pull as
|much current from the solar cells as it can. Then monitor the output
|voltage to make sure it doesn't go much above 200V, so that if the
|converter is not plugged into the battery, it shuts down.
I agree. It would be wonderful to design a 12V > 165V converter to run
directly off solar panels such that it could accurately control the
charging in the required time frame while at the same time taking into
account the variable input voltage. I think this is not the best
method since the panel might not be able to get started on cloudy
days. If a battery is used it can be storing charge at all times when
charging of the 165V battery is not being undertaken so that when
required it will start charging immediately and it will also smooth
out the peaks and troughs in the panel output. The very same converter
you suggest is just what you would need even with a battery although
the input voltage monitoring might not be so important depending on
the battery capacity.
|
|What I would do is start with a standard Dc-Dc converter like those used
|for running tube equipment off 12V. Add an overvoltage monitor to the
|output, and under voltage to the input. And fuses, of course.
|
|And he can put a large capacitor across the solar cell, to hold enough
|charge to run the converter for a second or two. If the converter
|charges in spurts, that's okay, too.
Yep, this would work. However, what do you do when you desperately
must have the 165V battery charged right now and the weather is such
that only brief periods of sunshine were available during the daytime?
At least with a panel storage battery already fully charged you could
dump most of the stored capacity into the 165V battery via the
charging converter.
I know who's system would work best and it wouldn't be yours.
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:
|
|"Ross Herbert" <rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
|news
tr6n0hbnfpbro61itov63eqrupmuc6nnr@4ax.com...|> You are starting from the wrong end...
|>
|> You need to determine the charging requirements of the 165V battery
|> itself before anything else. Only then can you determine what is
|> required of your charging circuitry and design it accordingly. The
|> fact that you want to use a 12V (nominal), 80W solar panel as the
|> charging source simply because that is what you have on hand is not
|> the way to go about the problem. Once you know what the charging
|> requirements of the battery are you can then determine how many solar
|> panels you will require in order to charge a 12V,24V or 48V battery to
|> power a suitable dc - ac inverter/rectifier/charging arrangement.
|
|I don't buy that at all. Firs off, he doesn't need to know the charging
|requuirements of the 165V battery because it can charge at anywhere up
|to hundreds of amps for short periods. And he will never be able to buy
|enough solar cells to do that, let alone the next problem.
A logical approach would need to balance the time it takes to charge
the 165V battery in the time space determined by the OP's time frame,
so he does need to know the charging requirements. He might require
the battery to be charged in 4 hrs or less, since he is talking about
solar charging, and the weather conditions would have some bearing on
whether that is possible. The fact that he may need more than one
panel is therefore dependant upon this time frame.
|
|And the next problem is that the solar cells will put out anywhere from
|max to min to zero depending on the time of day, and the weather,
|cloudy, overcast, etc. So he needs a converter that can handle a large
|variation in input power. Why should he need an intermediate battery,
|12V, etc. to charge? That's just a waste of efficiecny.
Exactly.... However, a nominal 12V, 80W panel can deliver a max of
around 6.8A peak and that will vary up and down depending on weather
conditions. One thing you can be sure of is that for 60 - 70% of the
year the maximum output of the panel will never be achieved, therefore
some consideration will be necessary to increase input capacity to
whatever converter is used in order to raise the actual output above
the theoretical maximum.
|
|What he needs is a converter that monitors the input voltage to see if
|it drops below a threshold, as long as it stays at about 12V, pull as
|much current from the solar cells as it can. Then monitor the output
|voltage to make sure it doesn't go much above 200V, so that if the
|converter is not plugged into the battery, it shuts down.
I agree. It would be wonderful to design a 12V > 165V converter to run
directly off solar panels such that it could accurately control the
charging in the required time frame while at the same time taking into
account the variable input voltage. I think this is not the best
method since the panel might not be able to get started on cloudy
days. If a battery is used it can be storing charge at all times when
charging of the 165V battery is not being undertaken so that when
required it will start charging immediately and it will also smooth
out the peaks and troughs in the panel output. The very same converter
you suggest is just what you would need even with a battery although
the input voltage monitoring might not be so important depending on
the battery capacity.
|
|What I would do is start with a standard Dc-Dc converter like those used
|for running tube equipment off 12V. Add an overvoltage monitor to the
|output, and under voltage to the input. And fuses, of course.
|
|And he can put a large capacitor across the solar cell, to hold enough
|charge to run the converter for a second or two. If the converter
|charges in spurts, that's okay, too.
Yep, this would work. However, what do you do when you desperately
must have the 165V battery charged right now and the weather is such
that only brief periods of sunshine were available during the daytime?
At least with a panel storage battery already fully charged you could
dump most of the stored capacity into the 165V battery via the
charging converter.
I know who's system would work best and it wouldn't be yours.
W
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:Qx_cd.88356$Lo6.68704@fed1read03...
[snip]
thing they do is convert the 12V to 320VDC, then chop it up into AC with
some power FETs. So if you have a cheap inverter, check it out
internally, without power of course.
The trick is to get it to put out lower than 320V or so. I guess you
could remove windings off the transformer. Or else if it uses a v
doubler circuit, then change it to be a half wave rectifier. In any
case, for 30 bucks or even less on sale, you may be able to get yourself
a system that skips over all that multi conversion and gets straight to
the point. Anyway, be careful of high voltages, and caps that might
stay charged even when off. High voltage Dc can be very nasty.
news:Qx_cd.88356$Lo6.68704@fed1read03...
[snip]
Just about every inverter nowadays is a DC-Dc converter. The first
thing they do is convert the 12V to 320VDC, then chop it up into AC with
some power FETs. So if you have a cheap inverter, check it out
internally, without power of course.
The trick is to get it to put out lower than 320V or so. I guess you
could remove windings off the transformer. Or else if it uses a v
doubler circuit, then change it to be a half wave rectifier. In any
case, for 30 bucks or even less on sale, you may be able to get yourself
a system that skips over all that multi conversion and gets straight to
the point. Anyway, be careful of high voltages, and caps that might
stay charged even when off. High voltage Dc can be very nasty.
Well, hear, hear!
W
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
"Ross Herbert" <rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:nu19n0hkadrrcm56omeave8g1rqp5jkavu@4ax.com...
[snip]
out.
news:nu19n0hkadrrcm56omeave8g1rqp5jkavu@4ax.com...
[snip]
You start the engine. THis is a h-y-b-r-i-d vehicle!
An intermediate battery would be just a waste of efficiency. Leave it
out.
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote:
directly from your panel thru an appropriate step-up charge
controller, your proposal of
panel->chargecontroller->battery->inverter->voltagedoubler->dcconverter->chargelimiter->battery
is really inefficient in terms of time, money, mass, efficiency, etc.
A solar panel is (to a first approximation) a current source, where
the output current depends on the instantaneous insolation, FWIW. At
the very least, your "chargelimiter" has to measure or infer solar
panel output in order to match input and output power...
Also, make sure the charge controller you use is appropriate for your
Insight battery pack, both in terms of chemistry, construction, and
float voltage levels, or you might risk significant damage to your
battery pack, which is probably a very expensive replacement, and
adding your own charger will certainly void the warranty.
[Does Honda sell a line voltage charger for the car? Analysis of
Honda's charge systems might be instructive.]
You might ask in alt.solar.photovoltaic for some ideas about charging
directly from your panel thru an appropriate step-up charge
controller, your proposal of
panel->chargecontroller->battery->inverter->voltagedoubler->dcconverter->chargelimiter->battery
is really inefficient in terms of time, money, mass, efficiency, etc.
A solar panel is (to a first approximation) a current source, where
the output current depends on the instantaneous insolation, FWIW. At
the very least, your "chargelimiter" has to measure or infer solar
panel output in order to match input and output power...
Also, make sure the charge controller you use is appropriate for your
Insight battery pack, both in terms of chemistry, construction, and
float voltage levels, or you might risk significant damage to your
battery pack, which is probably a very expensive replacement, and
adding your own charger will certainly void the warranty.
[Does Honda sell a line voltage charger for the car? Analysis of
Honda's charge systems might be instructive.]
D
Dieter Wiedmann
Guest
ed schrieb:
Regards,
Dieter
Get BD809/810 or BD909/910, they are fine replacements.
Regards,
Dieter
D
Damn Dan
Guest
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:i6p9n013s76qrrj99scnpm6k8os9ndmmmm@4ax.com...
Please, explain.
energy for gallons of gas. If I were trying to do that, I'd need a head
check. My intent (as I stated in another post of this thread) is to prevent
the electric generator from sipping power from my forward momentum. From
observation, I take a 10mpg deduction whenever that occurs. If I keep the
state of charge of the battery above the 50% mark, it does not sip power and
thus I acheive maximum mileage (about 70mpg).
On an ordinary drive to work, I have a net loss of about 10% of the capacity
of my battery. The usable capacity is 3.8Ah (60% of the total capacity).
Ten percent of that is .38Ah. Since you like to measure things in Joules,
that's 197kJ. My 80W panel, assuming 6 hours of good sun, will give me
1.73MJ. That's almost 10 times the amount I need. Work in some efficiency
loses and I'm probably still well above 197kJ.
If I am successful, I will average about 10mpg higher for a large percentage
of my driving. So yes, that equates to a lot of financial and environmental
savings.
news:i6p9n013s76qrrj99scnpm6k8os9ndmmmm@4ax.com...
Are you implying that having a fuel efficient car is not advantageous?
Please, explain.
You have misinterpreted my strategy. My intent is not to substitute solar
energy for gallons of gas. If I were trying to do that, I'd need a head
check. My intent (as I stated in another post of this thread) is to prevent
the electric generator from sipping power from my forward momentum. From
observation, I take a 10mpg deduction whenever that occurs. If I keep the
state of charge of the battery above the 50% mark, it does not sip power and
thus I acheive maximum mileage (about 70mpg).
On an ordinary drive to work, I have a net loss of about 10% of the capacity
of my battery. The usable capacity is 3.8Ah (60% of the total capacity).
Ten percent of that is .38Ah. Since you like to measure things in Joules,
that's 197kJ. My 80W panel, assuming 6 hours of good sun, will give me
1.73MJ. That's almost 10 times the amount I need. Work in some efficiency
loses and I'm probably still well above 197kJ.
If I am successful, I will average about 10mpg higher for a large percentage
of my driving. So yes, that equates to a lot of financial and environmental
savings.
D
Damn Dan
Guest
<William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
news:dt6an09nejnlobpjro2kd3aqr0t3flqu2p@4ax.com...
them before.
I completely agree with you that my setup is wrought with inefficiency. I
think what I'm going to do, though, is use this setup for now just as a
proof of principle. Basically because it's the simpliest and it doesn't
need an intelligent current controller to compensate for a varying solar
panel. The battery will provide a constant current for as long as it has
charge to give. Once I have this system working, I'll try to start
eliminating components from it and making it more efficient. I am
optimistic, though, because based on some elementary calculations, my system
only needs to be about 11% efficient to recharge the 10% battery capacity I
use during my daily commute. I'll see how things go when I actually
implement it.
controller in the usual sense of the word. A computer monitors the state of
the battery using temperature sensors and voltmeters. It also actively
keeps track of all current going in and out of the battery. Using that
data, it makes an estimation about the state of the battery and informs the
electric engine about its condition. The electric engine then sends power
to the battery (to recharge it, if it is ok to charge) or receives power
from the battery (during assist mode, if it is ok to load) based on the
state of the battery. So really its the electric motor that acts as the
"charge controller".
news:dt6an09nejnlobpjro2kd3aqr0t3flqu2p@4ax.com...
rgelimiter->battery
Thanks for pointing me to the photovoltaic newsgroup. Didn't know about
them before.
I completely agree with you that my setup is wrought with inefficiency. I
think what I'm going to do, though, is use this setup for now just as a
proof of principle. Basically because it's the simpliest and it doesn't
need an intelligent current controller to compensate for a varying solar
panel. The battery will provide a constant current for as long as it has
charge to give. Once I have this system working, I'll try to start
eliminating components from it and making it more efficient. I am
optimistic, though, because based on some elementary calculations, my system
only needs to be about 11% efficient to recharge the 10% battery capacity I
use during my daily commute. I'll see how things go when I actually
implement it.
Honda's "charge controller" for the Insight battery is not a typical
controller in the usual sense of the word. A computer monitors the state of
the battery using temperature sensors and voltmeters. It also actively
keeps track of all current going in and out of the battery. Using that
data, it makes an estimation about the state of the battery and informs the
electric engine about its condition. The electric engine then sends power
to the battery (to recharge it, if it is ok to charge) or receives power
from the battery (during assist mode, if it is ok to load) based on the
state of the battery. So really its the electric motor that acts as the
"charge controller".
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote:
own charger without an equivalently smart charge controller (we'll
skip the details of how you inform the computer that you've added
amp-hours for now) risks improperly charging the battery pack, and
potentially damaging it.
[Dunno why Honda doesn't just make a flexible amorphous panel built
into the roof a (say) $3000 option...]
Umm, no, it's the computer that's the charge controller. Adding your
own charger without an equivalently smart charge controller (we'll
skip the details of how you inform the computer that you've added
amp-hours for now) risks improperly charging the battery pack, and
potentially damaging it.
[Dunno why Honda doesn't just make a flexible amorphous panel built
into the roof a (say) $3000 option...]
D
Damn Dan
Guest
<William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
news:ngcdn0dvsfl59qacjdjle3hopa820eo4ur@4ax.com...
reading my post, I guess I skewed what I was trying to say. The eletric
motor is not actually the charge controller, but it is the final player
between the motor and the battery. There's no more circuitry that limits
the current into the battery once it's left the electric motor. The Battery
Control Module along with the Motor Control Module are actually the brains
behind the charge controller. They decide what condition the battery is in
and then control the electric motor to send power in of the battery or
receive power out.
You've raised a good point about informing the computer about the change of
state of the battery during the recharge. I purchased the Electric Repair
Manual for my car to tackle exactly that problem. Luckily, the BCM has a
full I/O description in the manual, so it shouldn't be too hard to use a
little bit of power to turn it on during the charge. But I'm not entirely
convinced it's necessary yet. I'll probably try charging the battery once
without waking up the BCM and see what happens. The worst it'll do is
recalibrate the battery (drain the capacity to 20% and then recharge back to
80%), and that's not a big deal.
I'd be nice if Honda did provide some kind of solar device or at least an
external charger... that'd make my life a lot easier. But to be honest, I'm
having more fun and learning more about my car this way then if I could just
go to the store and buy it.
news:ngcdn0dvsfl59qacjdjle3hopa820eo4ur@4ax.com...
Heh, sorry, in my attempt to simplify the system so I wouldn't bore anyone
reading my post, I guess I skewed what I was trying to say. The eletric
motor is not actually the charge controller, but it is the final player
between the motor and the battery. There's no more circuitry that limits
the current into the battery once it's left the electric motor. The Battery
Control Module along with the Motor Control Module are actually the brains
behind the charge controller. They decide what condition the battery is in
and then control the electric motor to send power in of the battery or
receive power out.
You've raised a good point about informing the computer about the change of
state of the battery during the recharge. I purchased the Electric Repair
Manual for my car to tackle exactly that problem. Luckily, the BCM has a
full I/O description in the manual, so it shouldn't be too hard to use a
little bit of power to turn it on during the charge. But I'm not entirely
convinced it's necessary yet. I'll probably try charging the battery once
without waking up the BCM and see what happens. The worst it'll do is
recalibrate the battery (drain the capacity to 20% and then recharge back to
80%), and that's not a big deal.
I'd be nice if Honda did provide some kind of solar device or at least an
external charger... that'd make my life a lot easier. But to be honest, I'm
having more fun and learning more about my car this way then if I could just
go to the store and buy it.
F
Florian
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> writes:
(snip)
posts you've mentioned that 1) driving to work consumes 10% of the
battery charge, and 2) when the battery goes below 50%, the car starts
recharging it, reducing your gas mileage. From this, it seems the solar
panel is an unnecessary complication -- if you can make a round trip
commute to work with only 80% loss, you're not triggering the recharge
cycle, so why not just top off the battery at home every night from a
wall socket and forget about fickle and expensive solar panel?
(snip)
--
fecit quoque Dominus Deus Adam et uxori eius tunicas pellicias et
induit eos
(snip)
Wouldn't an external charger be the way to go in any case? In other
posts you've mentioned that 1) driving to work consumes 10% of the
battery charge, and 2) when the battery goes below 50%, the car starts
recharging it, reducing your gas mileage. From this, it seems the solar
panel is an unnecessary complication -- if you can make a round trip
commute to work with only 80% loss, you're not triggering the recharge
cycle, so why not just top off the battery at home every night from a
wall socket and forget about fickle and expensive solar panel?
(snip)
--
fecit quoque Dominus Deus Adam et uxori eius tunicas pellicias et
induit eos
W
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in message
news:sVKdd.33194$QJ3.14513@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
his car fully charged, it will have to be higher capacity than that.
And we're discussing about battery voltages closer to 200VDC.
Remember that we're talking about all electric vehicles. I.E. a 5 or6
kVA charger. http://www.autoworld.com/news/Toyota/RAV4_EV.htm
news:sVKdd.33194$QJ3.14513@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Well, for one thing, if one expects to get up in the morning and find
his car fully charged, it will have to be higher capacity than that.
And we're discussing about battery voltages closer to 200VDC.
Remember that we're talking about all electric vehicles. I.E. a 5 or6
kVA charger. http://www.autoworld.com/news/Toyota/RAV4_EV.htm
Guest
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:
gas station to dump some uncontrolled charge into the battery?
Really, where? Or are we talking about a battery booster at the local
gas station to dump some uncontrolled charge into the battery?
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote:
battery and cause it to overcharge it significantly, reducing it's
lifetime while voiding the warranty. 8*|
.... confuse the onboard computer as to the state of charge of the
battery and cause it to overcharge it significantly, reducing it's
lifetime while voiding the warranty. 8*|
Guest
"Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote:
NiMH batteries have a very flat SOC/Voltage curve...
W
Winfield Hill
Guest
LOC wrote...
--
Thanks,
- Win
(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)
What are you going to drive with the resulting "TTL" signal?
--
Thanks,
- Win
(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)
R
Ross Herbert
Guest
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:31:23 -0700, "Damn Dan" <a@a.com> wrote:
|
|I live in Arizona. If you do a little research, you'll find that the
|Southwest receives some of the highest solar energy per square foot in the
|country. The change of seasons and weather do not change the ambient solar
|energy all that much around here.
|
|My hybrid battery has a mere 6.4Ah capacity. The internal circuitry limits
|the available capacity to the middle 60%, thus there is a realistic capacity
|of 3.84Ah. On my drive to work, I use between 5-10% of that capacity.
|That's .384Ah. By keeping my battery charged, I prevent the electric
|generator from sipping energy off of my forward momentum to recharge the
|battery. I have calculated through observation that I get about 10mpg less
|when the battery is charging itself while I drive. So yes, acheiving .384Ah
|a day will save a lot of gas.
It would perhaps have saved some misunderstanding all around if the
above information had been included in the first post... It is
difficult to make suggestions with none of the important information
being provided.
|
|I live in Arizona. If you do a little research, you'll find that the
|Southwest receives some of the highest solar energy per square foot in the
|country. The change of seasons and weather do not change the ambient solar
|energy all that much around here.
|
|My hybrid battery has a mere 6.4Ah capacity. The internal circuitry limits
|the available capacity to the middle 60%, thus there is a realistic capacity
|of 3.84Ah. On my drive to work, I use between 5-10% of that capacity.
|That's .384Ah. By keeping my battery charged, I prevent the electric
|generator from sipping energy off of my forward momentum to recharge the
|battery. I have calculated through observation that I get about 10mpg less
|when the battery is charging itself while I drive. So yes, acheiving .384Ah
|a day will save a lot of gas.
It would perhaps have saved some misunderstanding all around if the
above information had been included in the first post... It is
difficult to make suggestions with none of the important information
being provided.
D
Damn Dan
Guest
"Ross Herbert" <rherber1SPAMEX@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:u5vgn0h46dcjh8v9rguji1kq05b4qtlpp2@4ax.com...
the intention of my original post. I gave a very broad description in the
beginning just to familiarize the reader with the general concept of what I
was doing. Then I asked one specific question at the end (about two sources
interacting in the same circuit), which was the whole purpose of the post.
If people want to discuss other aspects of the system, that's wonderful and
I look forward to reading their replies. But I feel Mike quickly and
harshly judged my post without bothering to gather the facts he was missing.
His sarcasm was directly aimed at making me look like an idiot, and I didn't
appreciate that, especially since the majority of his points were based on
assumptions. I feel my response to him was an appropriate response based on
the tone of his post.
news:u5vgn0h46dcjh8v9rguji1kq05b4qtlpp2@4ax.com...
In general, I fully agree, but a complete description of my project wasn't
the intention of my original post. I gave a very broad description in the
beginning just to familiarize the reader with the general concept of what I
was doing. Then I asked one specific question at the end (about two sources
interacting in the same circuit), which was the whole purpose of the post.
If people want to discuss other aspects of the system, that's wonderful and
I look forward to reading their replies. But I feel Mike quickly and
harshly judged my post without bothering to gather the facts he was missing.
His sarcasm was directly aimed at making me look like an idiot, and I didn't
appreciate that, especially since the majority of his points were based on
assumptions. I feel my response to him was an appropriate response based on
the tone of his post.