Bit of electronics for a change, circuits, chips! yummy jummy!...

[Ed Lee]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:55:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.

The motor uses extra energy to go up the hill, then regen back the extra energy. But it\'s the same 52kWh, not an additional 35kWh.

> What are you trying to figure out???

Where that extra 35kWh is coming from.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 8. september 2022 kl. 00.55.16 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.

more like three times, battery to motor, then motor to battery, and finally battery to motor

they spend all the energy allowed, you can on the last lap they are all close to zero percent left of the 52kWh net allowance
https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM?t=276

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 8. september 2022 kl. 01.07.49 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:55:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.
The motor uses extra energy to go up the hill, then regen back the extra energy. But it\'s the same 52kWh, not an additional 35kWh.
What are you trying to figure out???
Where that extra 35kWh is coming from.

it isn\'t \"extra\" it is saved by not heating the brakes. So you do 87kWh worth of acceleration using 52kWh of energy

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:07:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:55:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang....@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.
The motor uses extra energy to go up the hill, then regen back the extra energy. But it\'s the same 52kWh, not an additional 35kWh.
What are you trying to figure out???
Where that extra 35kWh is coming from.

But you know where it comes from, the regen. If you simply reject the idea that regen gives you an extra 35 kW, then you can\'t understand, by definition.

I saw a review of a BMW BEV which claimed more than 100% efficiency because they were adding some percentage for the regeneration. They obviously were not trying to say the car generated energy from nowhere. It was simply a fall out of accounting for the fact that energy which would have been wasted in a car without regeneration, would have used a lot more energy. Figuring it the way they did as \"efficiency\" is bogus. However, counting it as 35 kW of \"free energy\" is totally accurate. It\'s no different than if you had an extra 35 kW battery and no regen.

This is just a comparison to a car without regen. That car wastes the 35 kW by making heat somewhere, in the brakes usually, or in the engine if using engine braking.

This is not the Monty Hall problem. It\'s not impossible to understand unless you simply refuse to understand.

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:10:11 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

torsdag den 8. september 2022 kl. 00.55.16 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.
more like three times, battery to motor, then motor to battery, and finally battery to motor

Yes, that\'s what I said. You have to spend the energy once, then the regeneration runs it through the motor and battery twice more.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:23:42 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

torsdag den 8. september 2022 kl. 01.07.49 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:55:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:08:32 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 21.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 17.13.11 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, lang....@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 7. september 2022 kl. 15.48.45 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:27:38 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.
FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen
That would be hard on the battery. I wonder how good the warranty is.
Depends on what the actual current is. My 80 kW motor typically draw around 70A (28kW) on local driving. Anyone got data on other EVs?
Formula E is racing, there\'s a 52kWh net energy allowance for a 45 minute race and afair they claim regen adds about 40%
What\'s the typical power/current draws? 52kWh/0.75 = 70 kW average?
it is racing so pretty much constantly switching from max power to max regen

they claim ~40% of the energy used is regen, so 52kWh battery + ~35kWh regen = 87kWh , so ~116kW average

https://youtu.be/0Kk8PyPSdaM
That\'s pulling regen energy out of nowhere. I think it just mean more distance out of the 52kW battery.
it is not energy out of nowhere, it is reusing the energy rather turning it into heat in the brakes
But total energy is still 52kWh, with average of 70 kW.
The motor sees the energy from the battery, then the energy from regeneration, twice, once in each direction.
The motor uses extra energy to go up the hill, then regen back the extra energy. But it\'s the same 52kWh, not an additional 35kWh.
What are you trying to figure out???
Where that extra 35kWh is coming from.
it isn\'t \"extra\" it is saved by not heating the brakes. So you do 87kWh worth of acceleration using 52kWh of energy

Ed is probably mind locked into thinking by using energy to accelerate the car, the energy is \"spent\". But the momentum is simply stored energy, same as in the battery. Like a pendulum, the car moves the energy between potential (in the battery) and kinetic (in the velocity of the car), and can do so very efficiently and repeatedly. The energy that is spent on overcoming friction, is just the original 52 kWh of energy. But you spend very little of that energy in acceleration and regen losses, leaving much more for actually moving the car against friction.

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.

400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 14:20:18 UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.

I agree, it\'s all about the trade-offs.

The higher voltage is also useful to keep the conductor size and weight down for wiring both in the vehicle and especially the charging cable. Human ability to handle the cable can be a limiting factor on charging rate.

At these higher charging currents of several hundred amps liquid cooling for the cable and connector may be required:

https://www.omgevcable.com/ev-charging-cables/393.html

kw

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 23.20.18 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:32:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
High voltage needs thick insulation on the wire, and skinny wire
windings lose window area to insulation more than fat wires. And
insulation doesn\'t conduct heat as well as copper. Triple whammy.
400 Vdc is sufficient to drive a 120/208 V three phase motor with a
sine wave. 800 Vdc is sufficient for 230/400V motors. The insulation
thickness is not an issue for normal 230/400 V motors in kW size
motors.

The preference for 800 Vdc battery voltage is in the inverter. 1200 V
semiconductors are cheaply available and they should survive in a well
designed 800 Vdc system.

Using a higher voltage will reduce the current. The cost of a
transistor is usually proportional to the chip area which depends on
the current rating. Reducing the current (by using higher voltage)
requires smaller chips and may reduce total cost, if the higher
voltage doesn\'t significantly increase costs. Now that 1200 V devices
are cheaply available, why not go for 800 Vdc ?.

Going for 1500 Vdc would require 2 kV devices, which today is
expensive.

FIA Formula E all use a nominal 750V battery, so ~525V to ~880V

350kW rear wheel drive, 600kW four wheel regen

 

[Tabby]

On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 05:46:19 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 1 Sep 2022 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
da72c08f-1d06-46e1...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:28:12 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 1 Sep 2022 04:24:43 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricky

gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
e0350540-99d8-4ebc...@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:51:03 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Inductive chargers that you just park above? May melt things too at high power.

way too lossy

> There is still work on hydrogen cars gong on, but Hindenburg comes to mind.

If there\'s one fuel idea for cars & homes that\'s truly insane, it\'s hydrogen.

My idea of every car an RTG would work, but DIY tinkerers would drill holes in those
not even mentioning collisions.

too much of a security problem to even consider, let alone other problems

That leaves wind powered cars !!!
After all Columbus went all the way to \'merrica with wind power!

yes, eventually. Imagine US roads filled with land yachts!

What the greens refuse to admit is that fossils are really the only sensible option for most drivers.

 

[none]

In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in

Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their \'trickety on nuclear.
Allows them to make their own nukes too.. advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe
out of fear for competition.

Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to me.
All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in France,
possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program.
The cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

Groetjes Albert
--
\"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol\" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

fredag den 30. september 2022 kl. 14.06.53 UTC+2 skrev none albert:

In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their \'trickety on nuclear.
Allows them to make their own nukes too.. advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe
out of fear for competition.
Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to me.
All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in France,
possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program.
The cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

long and risky investment

https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw

 

[Mike Monett VE3BTI]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

fredag den 30. september 2022 kl. 14.06.53 UTC+2 skrev none albert:
In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their
\'trickety on nuclear. Allows them to make their own nukes too..
advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe out of fear for
competition.
Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to
me. All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in
France, possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program. The
cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

long and risky investment

https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw

Molten Salt Reactors. Invented in America, taken over by China. Can power
the world for thousand of years, very little short-lived radioactive waste,
cannot blow up, walkaway safe, doesn\'t need vast amounts of water for
cooling.

China will own all the patents, will sell the technology to the rest of the
world, including America. A catastrophe in the making.

Molten Salt Reactor Experiment—Alvin Weinberg’s magnum opus
https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/history



--
MRM

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:06:44 +0200) it happened
albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote in
<nnd$0c7260ec$1fdb06c2@739bfca3030c89b0>:

In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in

Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their \'trickety on nuclear.
Allows them to make their own nukes too.. advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe
out of fear for competition.

Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to me.
All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in France,
possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program.
The cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

US has done its best to prevent nuclear energy in Europe taking of,
their agent Merkel used Fuckupshima fear to close the German nuclear reactors so they cannot
make a bomb.

Now that US had destroyed all gas pipes to Europe so it can sell there own low quality stuff,
killing their own people with fracking to do it,
the importance or EU energy independence becomes more and more clear
and at least for now some German nuclear power plants stay open.
The absurd push for all transport electric [1] requires even more electric power generation.
as we have no real storage means for that amount of electricity, wind and sun come and go,
nuclear (or water power where there can be dams) is about the only option left.

The US is a bunch of dirty savages and a weapon producing industry that sells mass destruction
and destabilizes countries that do not dance to its tunes and even those that do!!!
They were the first to use the bomb..
However as the IQ there is dropping, population is mostly import from countries where standard of living in nill
and crime the normal, large part of US is drug addicted, its future is dim to say the least.
Where Russia will hit back I do not know, but a bit of iodine salt may help them poor \'merricans
to live longer in their below normal standard of living where kids shoot each other at school every day now it seems.
Good riddance!
People of the US REVOLT, you are being sacrificed for a destruction industry

We in Europe need to replace all CIA controlled leaders and kick NATO out and replace it by our own super powerful
(hopefully) army and make peace with Russia
We should confiscate all funds and money from \'merricans to pay for the repair of those pipelines
and for the housing cost of the refugees.
To make it short, kryptonite we need
Nature will do the rest, hurricanes, Andreas fault, what\'s the name of that other thing,
and climate change of course US will go the way of the Aztecs, those left pyramids
US left skyscrapers...

Here some links to Russian floating nuclear power plants to power coastal areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
and for seawater desalination:
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_0940_scr.pdf

nuclear is expensive as regulations by freaked out green idiots make building
a nuclear power plant expensive, while those greens should actually be more afraid of their own
incompetence to make reliable power .

I have spoken!

[1] all electric means no power for emergency services you will need a LOT of those in WW3.
even now in Florida...

There is more you just got me started
REVOLT!

Groetjes Albert
--
\"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol\" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:17:57 PM UTC+10, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
fredag den 30. september 2022 kl. 14.06.53 UTC+2 skrev none albert:
In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote

<snip>

Molten Salt Reactors. Invented in America, taken over by China. Can power
the world for thousand of years, very little short-lived radioactive waste,

Absolute rubbish. Thorium-232 gets converted to U-233 by neutron capture and then fissions to the usual mix of uranium fission products with atomic weights spread widely around 117. Some of them are very radioactive, which is to say short -lived and others stay dangerous for much longer.

Breeder reactors that just make U-233 out of Thorium-232 are much less active and produce much less radioactive waste, but also much less power.

> cannot blow up, walkaway safe, doesn\'t need vast amounts of water for cooling.

They can still \"blow up\" but because they produce much less power, which is to say much less heat, it\'s easier to avoid, but they aren\'t remotely \"walk-away safe\".

And they are safer because they aren\'t designed to produce useful - which is to say potentially dangerous - amounts of power.

> China will own all the patents, will sell the technology to the rest of the world, including America. A catastrophe in the making.

The same old nuclear catastrophe that fission reactors have always threatened.

Molten Salt Reactor Experiment輸lvin Weinberg痴 magnum opus
https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/history

And a whole lot of enthusiasts who don\'t known what they are talking about confuse an experimental breeder reactor designed to generate U-233 in large enough volumes for small scale experiments (and very little power) with the kind of reactor you\'d use for generating electricity at an industrial scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Walliker]

On Friday, 30 September 2022 at 14:36:52 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Now that US had destroyed all gas pipes to Europe so it can sell there own low quality stuff,
killing their own people with fracking to do it,

I\'m just curious - but why would US methane be of lower quality than
Russian methane? ( I know there will be some other alkanes present
but they are not going to make much difference to its quality as a fuel.)

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened John
Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote in
<9a2ca3a1-8f85-466f-9b03-47ae9ba0586en@googlegroups.com>:

On Friday, 30 September 2022 at 14:36:52 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Now that US had destroyed all gas pipes to Europe so it can sell there own low quality stuff,
killing their own people with fracking to do it,

I\'m just curious - but why would US methane be of lower quality than
Russian methane? ( I know there will be some other alkanes present
but they are not going to make much difference to its quality as a fuel.)

John

US natural gas:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/natural-gas-used-in-homes/
US oil:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/15/523778.htm

 

[John Walliker]

On Friday, 30 September 2022 at 17:27:01 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened John
Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote in
9a2ca3a1-8f85-466f...@googlegroups.com>:
On Friday, 30 September 2022 at 14:36:52 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Now that US had destroyed all gas pipes to Europe so it can sell there own low quality stuff,
killing their own people with fracking to do it,

I\'m just curious - but why would US methane be of lower quality than
Russian methane? ( I know there will be some other alkanes present
but they are not going to make much difference to its quality as a fuel.)

John
US natural gas:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/natural-gas-used-in-homes/
US oil:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/15/523778.htm

I don\'t see how either of those links relate to the question I asked. The first one
discusses whether the added odorants are present in sufficient concentrations
in gas supplied in one particular area to allow gas leaks to be detected and
mentions harmful contaminants, again in one particular area.
The second discusses oil, not gas.

There is no comparison between bulk supplies from either country.

John

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 30/9/22 23:35, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:06:44 +0200) it happened
albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote in
nnd$0c7260ec$1fdb06c2@739bfca3030c89b0>:

In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in

Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their \'trickety on nuclear.
Allows them to make their own nukes too.. advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe
out of fear for competition.

Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to me.
All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in France,
possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program.
The cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

US has done its best to prevent nuclear energy in Europe taking off

The biggest opposition to nuclear power (though not the most visible) is
the fossil fuel lobby. Backdoor funding to the \"green\" anti-nuclear
movement for decades, who don\'t even realise they\'ve been manipulated.

CH

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 8:06:53 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:

In article <tfevrk$10m3u$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
Not really, nuclear can be relatively cheap: France run 75 % of their \'trickety on nuclear.
Allows them to make their own nukes too.. advantage with US threatening to destroy Europe
out of fear for competition.
Where are the private investors? A friend of mine has explained this to me.
All research and then some were paid for by the defence budget in France,
possibly to get sympathy for the nuclear weapons program.
The cheap electricity is a fallacy. If that were true, private investors
flock to nuclear.

In the US they won\'t take the risk unless the government guarantees the loans. Nuclear is just not a viable solution ignoring all the health and safety issues.

--

Rick C.

+-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209