# [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

That's EV 101... controllers are rated at their output, duh!



> Jeffrey Jenkins wrote:
> 
> > Jack Rickard is upset that he couldn't get to 1000 BATTERY amps
> > during a dyno
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Roger Heuckeroth wrote:
> >
> > That's EV 101... controllers are rated at their output, duh!
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

If you see the Zilla Specifications at:

http://cafeelectric.com/products/zilla/index.html

It states on Page 2 of 4 Zilla Specifications for a 1000 amp controller:

Maximum MOTOR AMPERE at 50 C heatsink temperature is 1000 Amps for Z1K

Maximum Battery Current at 200V is 950 amps
Maximum Battery Current at 400V is 800 amps

Continuous motor current @ 50 C coolent temperature & 100% Duty Cycle is 350 
Amps for Z1k

According to these specifications, I program my Z1k motor controller for 300 
motor amps and 800 battery amps.

Battery amps is fuse at 400 amps with a Limitron Busman fuse that will allow 
a higher ampere interrupting ampere for a short amount of time.

The CableForm main contactor is rated for 400 ampere continuous and has a 
2000 interrupting ampere.

The NetGain WarP-9 and 11 motor is rated at 199 ampere continuous which the 
battery ampere is about 66 amperes is where I keep it no matter if I am 
going up hill or on a level.

Note: Electrical devices are rated at a maximum volt/amps. For example a 
standard thermo circuit breaker may be rated at 120/240 VAC at 20 amps that 
is design to use on a circuit at 16 ampere at a continuous rating or 125% 
design factor.

To test out this theory in a electrical class I was teaching, we apply a 
load starting at 16 amperes and increase the load until we reach 19 amps 
which is when a new 20 amp breaker trip. Using a old thermo-trip breaker, 
we may reach about 18 amps before it trip.

It is prefer to design a electrical device to at least have a 125% amp/volt 
rating of the circuit requirements.

Roland




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Jenkins" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:16 AM
Subject: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?


> Jack Rickard is upset that he couldn't get to 1000 BATTERY amps during a 
> dyno
> test. I have tried to explain to him some 6 ways to Sunday that battery
> current is always less than or equal to motor current and that the
> controller will only ask for 1000A from the batteries if it needs 1000A 
> from
> them.
>
> However, Jack doesn't believe me - he thinks I am trying to pull a fast 
> one
> over the whole world - and he goes on to say that both Ryan Bohm (NetGain
> Controls) and Otmar Ebenhoech (Cafe Electric) rate their controllers on
> battery current alone. In fact I quote from his latest blog comments:
>
>
> The point was raised that there is a valid industry concensus on how
> controllers are advertised and that the Soliton1 1000A claim was to comply
> with that "industry standard".
> >
> > After consulting with Ryan Bohm of Netgain Drives and Otmar of Cafe
> > Electric, it is clear that this is nonsense.
>
> I doubt very seriously that either Ryan or Otmar would make such a stupid
> statement so unless you two gentlemen don't mind being associated with 
> such
> wildly inaccurate claims you might want to put your two cents in on the
> March 27th blog entry at:
>
> http://jackrickard.blogspot.com/ http://jackrickard.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Ryan-Bohm-AND-Otmar-Ebenhoech-misquoted-by-Jack-Rickard-tp3411510p3411510.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at 
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> | REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
> | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
> | UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> | OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
> | OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
> 

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I've been designing motor controls for the past 22 years, including
series, sepex and compound wound DC,
AC induction, BLDC trapezoidal and sine.
These controls were used on forklifts, golfcarts, NEV's, on-road EV's, 
industrial equipment, healthcare, medical etc.
ALL of these controls are rated with motor current, not battery!
Not sure where Jack got his information, but it's wrong.


----- Original Message ----
From: Jeffrey Jenkins <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 9:54:06 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?




> Roger Heuckeroth wrote:
> >
> > That's EV 101... controllers are rated at their output, duh!
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.

DAC

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Jeffrey Jenkins


> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Jack Rickard is upset that he couldn't get to 1000 BATTERY amps during a dyno
> > test. I have tried to explain to him some 6 ways to Sunday that battery
> > current is always less than or equal to motor current and that the
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> dave cover <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The issue as I see it with Jack is that most of us know and admit to our
being imperfect.

Sincerely,
Mark Grasser


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:03 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?



> dave cover <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

People still pay attention to this guy?

He even ADMITS his lack of understanding of motors and controllers, yet
still can't wrap his head around how a buck converter works.

The only problem I have with this guy, is that some of the newer EV people
actually listen to him.



> dave cover <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

If we make life a bit simpler by ignoring the ~5% losses in the 
controller, there is a relatively straightforward way to explain how 
the input and output of a controller _must_ behave.

Watts in _must_ equal Watts out. That is, Amps x Volts input must 
equal Amps X Volts output.

If we "floor" the controller at motor stall, we get the rated output 
amperage. The motor voltage is roughly proportional to the RPM, so 
the output is, say, 1000 amps x 20 volts. For a 100 volt pack, the 
input current will be 200 amps. As we accelerate the car, and the 
motor RPM goes up, the motor amps stay at the current limit, and the 
motor voltage goes up in proportion to the motor RPM. The motor amps 
x volts will determine the pack amps x volts. Thus, the pack amps 
will climb, and the pack volts will sag slightly as you draw more amps.

If your dyno can suck up the HP developed, and the tires keep their 
grip so the output amps stay at 1000, there will be a "sweet spot" 
during the acceleration where the motor volts will equal the pack 
volts. At this point, the pack amps are also equal to the motor amps 
(because they _must_ be.) This is the _only_ point at which the 
controller will pass the maximum wattage. As you let the car speed up 
more, the motor amps will drop but the motor voltage will still 
equal the pack voltage. (The pack voltage will go up slightly as the 
pack current drops.) The input current will also drop. The controller 
is full on and the motor is simply connected to the battery pack. The 
motor curve is what will dictate (limit) amps (both input and output) 
as you go faster.

There is just one single operating point where you will be at maximum 
input amps. (You can shift gears and go though it again, however.)

We can add one more twist to this. The freewheel diodes on the output 
share the current-carrying burden of the switch transistors. The 
switch transistors take _all_ the input current burden, however. This 
lets the output current maximum continuous current rating be larger 
than the input current maximum continuous rating. Since the standard 
DC controller layout allows the extra output current, it would be 
silly not to program the controller to take advantage of this when it 
can. Thus, the typical DC controller has a higher output current 
rating than the input current rating.

This "twist" makes it all a bit more complicated. It tends to widen 
the sweet spot which is what you want. It also gives you more motor 
torque before you reach the input current limit, which is good also. 
When you are accelerating and you reach the input current limit, the 
output current will begin to drop to meet it as the motor voltage 
rises to meet the pack voltage. From that point on, again, the motor 
curve sets the system current.

A lot of folks just can't grasp how battery amps can be low while 
motor amps can be high. They just can't quite wrap their head around 
how a controller does this. They often don't understand the freewheel 
current concept either. The difference with this situation is that 
Jack is belligerent and angry that he doesn't understand. Rather than 
trying a bit harder to understand, Jack accuses the person trying to 
educate him of deception. Not good.

Bill D.



At 09:02 AM 3/28/2011, you wrote:
>


> dave cover <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.
> > >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Bill, you did an excellent job of summarizing/explaining both issues.

-- 
David D. Nelson
http://evalbum.com/1328

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I can see this motor/battery data you just described with my array of =

indicators I have in my 6860 lb EV. My first EV from the EFP Co. came only =

with a battery amp and volt meter which had 180v 300 ah cells which the EV =

at that time weigh 7850 lbs.

I travel every day for 5 miles for 10 years on the interstate up very steep =

grades with speeds up to 79 mph on the level at a 180 battery amp with a =

voltage drop to 165 battery volts.

I pull the GE-11 motor for general maintenance and notice that the field =

windings had a dark burnt look to them. These windings are a heavy flat =

copper bars that are space apart on insulator rods, so even if these =

windings were bare, there would be no shorts between the windings.

Took the motor to a motor shop for a cleaning and immersed the whole motor =

in motor enamel and bake. I then added a motor amp meter between the motor =

controller and motor which show that I was pulling 600 motor amps while the =

battery was about 200 amps during a 2 mile hill climb at 65 mph.

Twenty eight years later, I built another EV with the Caf=E9 Electric 1k =

controller that I use the AMP on TACH mode to read the motor ampere on my =

large Stewart Warner tach that is right in front of me.
There is another industrial motor amp meter place between the controller an=
d =

motor to verified this reading.

There is also a GE EV amp meter that takes it reading from a shunt at the =

main battery positive and a E-meter off a shunt on the negative.

The Z1k indicates a 200 motor amps at a 75 battery amps at 180 volts (which =

drops from about 185 volts) at 25 mph accelerating to the sweet spot of 180=
0 =

rpm in a overall gear ratio of 9.9:1 in 2nd gear.

When I get to the max road speed of 25 mph at 1800 rpm which is the motor =

sweet spot and holding this speed, the motor ampere drops to 150 motor amps =

at 60 battery ampere.

I find if I keep pressing the accelerator at a constant position while =

acceleration, the motor ampere will stay 200 amps. When I am up to 25 mph =

and still holding the accelerator at that same position while the EV goes n=
o =

faster, I can let off a bit and still maintain the same speed while the =

motor ampere drops to 150 amps which indicates the sweet spot is a little =

below 1800 motor rpm.

Roland





----- Original Message ----- =

From: "Bill Dube" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?


> If we make life a bit simpler by ignoring the ~5% losses in the
> controller, there is a relatively straightforward way to explain how
> the input and output of a controller _must_ behave.
>
> Watts in _must_ equal Watts out. That is, Amps x Volts input must
> equal Amps X Volts output.
>
> If we "floor" the controller at motor stall, we get the rated output
> amperage. The motor voltage is roughly proportional to the RPM, so
> the output is, say, 1000 amps x 20 volts. For a 100 volt pack, the
> input current will be 200 amps. As we accelerate the car, and the
> motor RPM goes up, the motor amps stay at the current limit, and the
> motor voltage goes up in proportion to the motor RPM. The motor amps
> x volts will determine the pack amps x volts. Thus, the pack amps
> will climb, and the pack volts will sag slightly as you draw more amps.
>
> If your dyno can suck up the HP developed, and the tires keep their
> grip so the output amps stay at 1000, there will be a "sweet spot"
> during the acceleration where the motor volts will equal the pack
> volts. At this point, the pack amps are also equal to the motor amps
> (because they _must_ be.) This is the _only_ point at which the
> controller will pass the maximum wattage. As you let the car speed up
> more, the motor amps will drop but the motor voltage will still
> equal the pack voltage. (The pack voltage will go up slightly as the
> pack current drops.) The input current will also drop. The controller
> is full on and the motor is simply connected to the battery pack. The
> motor curve is what will dictate (limit) amps (both input and output)
> as you go faster.
>
> There is just one single operating point where you will be at maximum
> input amps. (You can shift gears and go though it again, however.)
>
> We can add one more twist to this. The freewheel diodes on the output
> share the current-carrying burden of the switch transistors. The
> switch transistors take _all_ the input current burden, however. This
> lets the output current maximum continuous current rating be larger
> than the input current maximum continuous rating. Since the standard
> DC controller layout allows the extra output current, it would be
> silly not to program the controller to take advantage of this when it
> can. Thus, the typical DC controller has a higher output current
> rating than the input current rating.
>
> This "twist" makes it all a bit more complicated. It tends to widen
> the sweet spot which is what you want. It also gives you more motor
> torque before you reach the input current limit, which is good also.
> When you are accelerating and you reach the input current limit, the
> output current will begin to drop to meet it as the motor voltage
> rises to meet the pack voltage. From that point on, again, the motor
> curve sets the system current.
>
> A lot of folks just can't grasp how battery amps can be low while
> motor amps can be high. They just can't quite wrap their head around
> how a controller does this. They often don't understand the freewheel
> current concept either. The difference with this situation is that
> Jack is belligerent and angry that he doesn't understand. Rather than
> trying a bit harder to understand, Jack accuses the person trying to
> educate him of deception. Not good.
>
> Bill D.
>
>
>
> At 09:02 AM 3/28/2011, you wrote:
> >


> dave cover <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One more reason why I don't pay attention to him anymore.
> > > >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks for all the replies, guys, but especially to Bill D. for an excellent
explanation that was a lot like my explanation, only much better 

Here's my explanation to him from one of the many e-mails exchanged between
us over the last week:



I'm struggling a little bit here. You have a MAXIMUM MOTOR CURRENT I think
in your setup. I set it to 1000. Can it be set higher?

No, it can't be set higher. Output (motor) current is the fundamental
limiting factor in a buck converter and is proportional to Input (battery)
Current / Duty Cycle.

E.g. - Battery Current = 100A; Duty Cycle = 0.10 (10%); Motor Current = 100
/ 0.1 = 1000A

This means that motor current is always higher than, or equal to, battery
current, and is why buck converters are sometimes called "current
multipliers". No free lunch here, though, so motor voltage is reduced by the
same proportion that motor current is increased by the chopping action of
the buck converter.

E.g. - Battery Voltage = 200V; Duty Cycle = 0.10 (10%); Motor Voltage = 20V

Thus power is conserved, and the laws of thermodynamics prevail once again.
Note that battery and motor current are only equal when duty cycle is 0.00
(0%, or fully off) or 1.00 (100%, or fully on).

--
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Ryan-Bohm-AND-Otmar-Ebenhoech-misquoted-by-Jack-Rickard-tp3411510p3412882.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Oh boy.

I haven't even read the post yet, but I thought it was pretty clear how I
explained it (which was probably just a combination of any of your six
explanations).

Battery amps will equal motor amps at 100% duty cycle. If you're seeing 1000
motor amps, but not 1000 battery amps, you're not at 100% duty cycle (which
is the case much more often than not). At 100% duty cycle, battery amps will
equal motor amps, and battery voltage will equal motor voltage. Of course,
to maximize power to the motor, you want to be at the highest amps the
controller can produce, at the highest voltage the motor can take. Good
electric racers certainly know how to do this! Gearing matters. With dual
motors, series/parallel shifting can help.

I've e-mailed Jack to see if he would clarify his blog post referring to
things I said.

-Ryan

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Jeffrey Jenkins


> <[email protected]>wrote:
> 
> > Jack Rickard is upset that he couldn't get to 1000 BATTERY amps during a
> > dyno
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Can a CALB 180 Ahr battery even deliver 1000 Amps for enough seconds to dyno 4th 
gear?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110328/620ba9c4/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

If I understand what you are saying, Bill, then even if a battery
could have a resistive load which could pull the rated input amperage
of the controller at above the minimum battery voltage setting but the
nature of controllers is that it still couldn't get the input current?
I'm thinking, "just lower the resistance some more" or "increase the
load some more" but I guess it isn't that simple.

This is clearly a case of the more answers I get the more questions I
come up with or the more I know the more I discover I don't know.



> Bill Dube <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Another limitation that I thought about, but did not mention, is the
> > maximum amps the battery can put out. With a powerful controller, it
> > is quite possible that the battery pack will not be able to put out
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Do you guys even have a concept of the user who spends the money and expects
to see 1000 amps? If it claims 1000 by god it better show it. I the end user
expect it and demand it. After all I just spent $2800 bucks on one that says
it will. In the end it is the end user and not Jack that counts. So a non EE
person who wants the best I actually almost spent my money on one because I
believed the claim. Now if someone shows other wise I will set back until
all the issues are worked out and if it in fact does what is claimed I may
just be back in the market. I have held out only because I already have a
decent controller that will do what I need and want for now. But I know
later down the road I will want one that will belt out a whopping 1000 amps
or more. It will actually be needed but I need to know it will actually do
it. I am the END user. I expect to see 1000 amps and nothing short of that
will do. If it won't then it's not what I need. I need to know. So far only
one has actually done testing and made it public with his own money and
time. I trust that more than any thing else. It is real tangible
information. Sure some configuration may be incorrect as stated in the
video. Ok. Lets see what comes of this information. More arguing and
slamming or some real honest dig in and figure it out. Remember it is your
product that is on the line and I'd expect you all to be ready and willing
to jump in with both feet and figure it out before you all get pissed at
someones work. I'd love to see more folks doing the same thing. So far no
one is doing that. Manufacturer aside it must be done. How many of you who
are bitching will step up to the plate and put it on the dyno and prove this
wrong? I would if I had the money. I have the money to buy one but not to
exclusively test one. I expect all that testing to actually have been done.
What matters it what it does when in a car and not on the bench or on paper. 

Pete 

Ignore it you loose. Learn from it and you win. So what if some have made
some mistakes. We all do. 

-----
If you don't understand, be patient, you will. Now I understand. 
--
View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Ryan-Bohm-AND-Otmar-Ebenhoech-misquoted-by-Jack-Rickard-tp3411510p3413842.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 28 Mar 2011 at 23:06, gottdi wrote:
> 
> > Do you guys even have a concept of the user who spends the money and
> > expects to see 1000 amps? If it claims 1000 by god it better show it.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> gottdi wrote:
> > ...I actually almost spent my money on one because I believed the claim.
> > Now if someone shows other wise I will set back until all the issues are
> > worked out and if it in fact does what is claimed I may just be back in
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Pete,
The controller is exactly that, the controller. If it is rated at 1000 amps
that means it will control 1000 amps. If you want to "SEE" 1000 amps then
you must feed it will batteries capable of 1000 amps and you must load it
with a load that will pull 1000 amps. It will not be the fault of the
controller that you didn't see 1000 amps. Geeess!

Ona parallel note, to stay below the 1000 amp spec on the controller means
to stay away from the possible destruction of the controller. I would think
that if my controller never reached the limit means that I built a good
"package"

Sincerely,
Mark Grasser


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of gottdi
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?

Do you guys even have a concept of the user who spends the money and expects
to see 1000 amps? If it claims 1000 by god it better show it. I the end user
expect it and demand it. After all I just spent $2800 bucks on one that says
it will. In the end it is the end user and not Jack that counts. So a non EE
person who wants the best I actually almost spent my money on one because I
believed the claim. Now if someone shows other wise I will set back until
all the issues are worked out and if it in fact does what is claimed I may
just be back in the market. I have held out only because I already have a
decent controller that will do what I need and want for now. But I know
later down the road I will want one that will belt out a whopping 1000 amps
or more. It will actually be needed but I need to know it will actually do
it. I am the END user. I expect to see 1000 amps and nothing short of that
will do. If it won't then it's not what I need. I need to know. So far only
one has actually done testing and made it public with his own money and
time. I trust that more than any thing else. It is real tangible
information. Sure some configuration may be incorrect as stated in the
video. Ok. Lets see what comes of this information. More arguing and
slamming or some real honest dig in and figure it out. Remember it is your
product that is on the line and I'd expect you all to be ready and willing
to jump in with both feet and figure it out before you all get pissed at
someones work. I'd love to see more folks doing the same thing. So far no
one is doing that. Manufacturer aside it must be done. How many of you who
are bitching will step up to the plate and put it on the dyno and prove this
wrong? I would if I had the money. I have the money to buy one but not to
exclusively test one. I expect all that testing to actually have been done.
What matters it what it does when in a car and not on the bench or on paper.


Pete 

Ignore it you loose. Learn from it and you win. So what if some have made
some mistakes. We all do. 

-----
If you don't understand, be patient, you will. Now I understand. 
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Ryan-Bohm-AND-O
tmar-Ebenhoech-misquoted-by-Jack-Rickard-tp3411510p3413842.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

In a message dated 3/29/2011 5:35:50 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes: 
> :Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard? 
> Date:3/29/2011 5:35:50 AM US Mountain Standard Time
> From:[email protected]
> Reply-to:[email protected]
> To:[email protected]
> Received from Internet: 
> 

Pete,
My Zilla controllers (Z2Ks)have put out as many as 2007 amps on the 
dragstrip thousands of times. Measurements are taken with certified meters.
Dennis Berube

> 
> 
> Pete,
> The controller is exactly that, the controller. If it is rated at 1000 
> amps
> that means it will control 1000 amps. If you want to "SEE" 1000 amps then
> you must feed it will batteries capable of 1000 amps and you must load it
> with a load that will pull 1000 amps. It will not be the fault of the
> controller that you didn't see 1000 amps. Geeess!
> 
> Ona parallel note, to stay below the 1000 amp spec on the controller means
> to stay away from the possible destruction of the controller. I would 
> think
> that if my controller never reached the limit means that I built a good
> "package"
> 
> Sincerely,
> Mark Grasser
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf
> Of gottdi
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack 
> Rickard?
> 
> Do you guys even have a concept of the user who spends the money and 
> expects
> to see 1000 amps? If it claims 1000 by god it better show it. I the end 
> user
> expect it and demand it. After all I just spent $2800 bucks on one that 
> says
> it will. In the end it is the end user and not Jack that counts. So a non 
> EE
> person who wants the best I actually almost spent my money on one because 
> I
> believed the claim. Now if someone shows other wise I will set back until
> all the issues are worked out and if it in fact does what is claimed I may
> just be back in the market. I have held out only because I already have a
> decent controller that will do what I need and want for now. But I know
> later down the road I will want one that will belt out a whopping 1000 
> amps
> or more. It will actually be needed but I need to know it will actually do
> it. I am the END user. I expect to see 1000 amps and nothing short of that
> will do. If it won't then it's not what I need. I need to know. So far 
> only
> one has actually done testing and made it public with his own money and
> time. I trust that more than any thing else. It is real tangible
> information. Sure some configuration may be incorrect as stated in the
> video. Ok. Lets see what comes of this information. More arguing and
> slamming or some real honest dig in and figure it out. Remember it is your
> product that is on the line and I'd expect you all to be ready and willing
> to jump in with both feet and figure it out before you all get pissed at
> someones work. I'd love to see more folks doing the same thing. So far no
> one is doing that. Manufacturer aside it must be done. How many of you who
> are bitching will step up to the plate and put it on the dyno and prove 
> this
> wrong? I would if I had the money. I have the money to buy one but not to
> exclusively test one. I expect all that testing to actually have been 
> done.
> What matters it what it does when in a car and not on the bench or on 
> paper.
> 
> 
> Pete 
> 
> Ignore it you loose. Learn from it and you win. So what if some have made
> some mistakes. We all do. 
> 
> -----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110329/a18fdf47/attachment.html 
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I am aware of that now. I will have a motor question when I get home from work. 

Sent from my iPhone



> Jeffrey Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > gottdi wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I watched Jack Rickards EVTV episode on the Soliton 1 Controller Dyno 
test last night. I think Jack has been denigrated a bit unfairly by 
some on this list. I found it hard to believe that he did not 
understand the concept of a simple PWM motor controller, as was 
portrayed by some comments on the EVDL. Now at the same time, I think 
he unfairly claimed the Soliton 1 controller is miss rated, or does 
not perform to its specs. His test failed to measure motor current, 
and his analysis of the data took some assumptions and went down the 
wrong path to an erroneous conclusion.

Now for those who have not watched the episode and don't want to sit 
through a 2 hour web show, here's the reader digest version:

Jack ran a dyno test on his Beck Porsche Speedster that was upgraded 
recently to 192V(nominal) 180 AH Lithium pack, a Soliton 1 Controller 
and running a WARP 9 motor. The test showed a peak mechanical HP of 
118, at a battery current of 544 A and 162 V, and 3,800 motor RPM. 
Jack's complaint was that he feels his batteries are capable of 1000 A 
and the Controller says its capable of 1000 amps, so why did he not 
see 1000 amps with the throttle floored. After all, isn't the 
controller just about a short circuit at 100% duty cycle. He states 
that he knows the batteries will do 3000 amps when shorted, and also 
says that the motor should have easy taken 1000 amps at that voltage.

Now after thinking about it for a while I want to throw this idea out 
there for you all to tear apart. The faster a motor spins the higher 
the back EMF. Could it be simply that at 3800 RPM, the back EMF is 
such that it takes more than 162V to get 1000 motor amps through a 
WARP 9. Perhaps his batteries are capable of more and the controller 
is capable of more, its just the motor that needs more voltage to 
overcome the EMF? Is his assumption that the WARP 9 should draw 1000 
amps at 3800 RPM with about 155V (have to allow for some voltage drop 
across the controller and cables) at the motor terminals just a false 
assumption?




> Jeff Major wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rod,
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Roger,
After watching the video, I agree with you that Jack understands PWM. I
haven't read through the blog entries yet, but from the video alone, it
seems that the slight error in his thinking is when he says, "with the pedal
to the floor, I should be getting near 100% PWM duty cycle." When the
controller hits 1000 motor amps, though, won't it reduce the PWM duty cycle
below 100% to keep the motor from exceeding 1000 amps, even though the pedal
is all the way down?

Bill 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Roger Heuckeroth
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:56 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?

I watched Jack Rickards EVTV episode on the Soliton 1 Controller Dyno test
last night. I think Jack has been denigrated a bit unfairly by some on this
list. I found it hard to believe that he did not understand the concept of
a simple PWM motor controller, as was portrayed by some comments on the
EVDL. Now at the same time, I think he unfairly claimed the Soliton 1
controller is miss rated, or does not perform to its specs. His test failed
to measure motor current, and his analysis of the data took some assumptions
and went down the wrong path to an erroneous conclusion.

Now for those who have not watched the episode and don't want to sit through
a 2 hour web show, here's the reader digest version:

Jack ran a dyno test on his Beck Porsche Speedster that was upgraded
recently to 192V(nominal) 180 AH Lithium pack, a Soliton 1 Controller and
running a WARP 9 motor. The test showed a peak mechanical HP of 
118, at a battery current of 544 A and 162 V, and 3,800 motor RPM. 
Jack's complaint was that he feels his batteries are capable of 1000 A and
the Controller says its capable of 1000 amps, so why did he not see 1000
amps with the throttle floored. After all, isn't the controller just about
a short circuit at 100% duty cycle. He states that he knows the batteries
will do 3000 amps when shorted, and also says that the motor should have
easy taken 1000 amps at that voltage.

Now after thinking about it for a while I want to throw this idea out there
for you all to tear apart. The faster a motor spins the higher the back
EMF. Could it be simply that at 3800 RPM, the back EMF is such that it
takes more than 162V to get 1000 motor amps through a WARP 9. Perhaps his
batteries are capable of more and the controller is capable of more, its
just the motor that needs more voltage to overcome the EMF? Is his
assumption that the WARP 9 should draw 1000 amps at 3800 RPM with about 155V
(have to allow for some voltage drop across the controller and cables) at
the motor terminals just a false assumption?




> Jeff Major wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rod,
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Actually Jack did read motor side amps and no, the problem was not
back EMF. Seb from EVnetics found that that particular Soliton1 had a
calibration issue for the current so when it was at ~700A the Soliton1
thought is was putting out 1000A. A calibration correction now gives
excellent results and actually burned up the clutch in his speedster.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Roger Heuckeroth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I watched Jack Rickards EVTV episode on the Soliton 1 Controller Dyno
> test last night. I think Jack has been denigrated a bit unfairly by
> some on this list. I found it hard to believe that he did not
> understand the concept of a simple PWM motor controller, as was
> portrayed by some comments on the EVDL. Now at the same time, I think
> he unfairly claimed the Soliton 1 controller is miss rated, or does
> not perform to its specs. His test failed to measure motor current,
> and his analysis of the data took some assumptions and went down the
> wrong path to an erroneous conclusion.
>
> Now for those who have not watched the episode and don't want to sit
> through a 2 hour web show, here's the reader digest version:
>
> Jack ran a dyno test on his Beck Porsche Speedster that was upgraded
> recently to 192V(nominal) 180 AH Lithium pack, a Soliton 1 Controller
> and running a WARP 9 motor. The test showed a peak mechanical HP of
> 118, at a battery current of 544 A and 162 V, and 3,800 motor RPM.
> Jack's complaint was that he feels his batteries are capable of 1000 A
> and the Controller says its capable of 1000 amps, so why did he not
> see 1000 amps with the throttle floored. After all, isn't the
> controller just about a short circuit at 100% duty cycle. He states
> that he knows the batteries will do 3000 amps when shorted, and also
> says that the motor should have easy taken 1000 amps at that voltage.
>
> Now after thinking about it for a while I want to throw this idea out
> there for you all to tear apart. The faster a motor spins the higher
> the back EMF. Could it be simply that at 3800 RPM, the back EMF is
> such that it takes more than 162V to get 1000 motor amps through a
> WARP 9. Perhaps his batteries are capable of more and the controller
> is capable of more, its just the motor that needs more voltage to
> overcome the EMF? Is his assumption that the WARP 9 should draw 1000
> amps at 3800 RPM with about 155V (have to allow for some voltage drop
> across the controller and cables) at the motor terminals just a false
> assumption?
>
>
>


> Jeff Major wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Rod,
> >>
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

OK. Glad to here they figured it out. Got some inside info, or is 
this posted on his site somewhere?



> David Nelson wrote:
> 
> > Actually Jack did read motor side amps and no, the problem was not
> > back EMF. Seb from EVnetics found that that particular Soliton1 had a
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks for the update, David. Jack's a pretty smart cookie, so I'm glad
this all got straightened out. =


Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of David Nelson
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?

Actually Jack did read motor side amps and no, the problem was not back EMF.
Seb from EVnetics found that that particular Soliton1 had a calibration
issue for the current so when it was at ~700A the Soliton1 thought is was
putting out 1000A. A calibration correction now gives excellent results and
actually burned up the clutch in his speedster.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Roger Heuckeroth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I watched Jack Rickards EVTV episode on the Soliton 1 Controller Dyno =

> test last night. I think Jack has been denigrated a bit unfairly by =

> some on this list. I found it hard to believe that he did not =

> understand the concept of a simple PWM motor controller, as was =

> portrayed by some comments on the EVDL. Now at the same time, I think =

> he unfairly claimed the Soliton 1 controller is miss rated, or does =

> not perform to its specs. His test failed to measure motor current, =

> and his analysis of the data took some assumptions and went down the =

> wrong path to an erroneous conclusion.
>
> Now for those who have not watched the episode and don't want to sit =

> through a 2 hour web show, here's the reader digest version:
>
> Jack ran a dyno test on his Beck Porsche Speedster that was upgraded =

> recently to 192V(nominal) 180 AH Lithium pack, a Soliton 1 Controller =

> and running a WARP 9 motor. The test showed a peak mechanical HP of =

> 118, at a battery current of 544 A and 162 V, and 3,800 motor RPM.
> Jack's complaint was that he feels his batteries are capable of 1000 A =

> and the Controller says its capable of 1000 amps, so why did he not =

> see 1000 amps with the throttle floored. After all, isn't the =

> controller just about a short circuit at 100% duty cycle. He states =

> that he knows the batteries will do 3000 amps when shorted, and also =

> says that the motor should have easy taken 1000 amps at that voltage.
>
> Now after thinking about it for a while I want to throw this idea out =

> there for you all to tear apart. The faster a motor spins the higher =

> the back EMF. Could it be simply that at 3800 RPM, the back EMF is =

> such that it takes more than 162V to get 1000 motor amps through a =

> WARP 9. Perhaps his batteries are capable of more and the controller =

> is capable of more, its just the motor that needs more voltage to =

> overcome the EMF? Is his assumption that the WARP 9 should draw 1000 =

> amps at 3800 RPM with about 155V (have to allow for some voltage drop =

> across the controller and cables) at the motor terminals just a false =

> assumption?
>
>
>


> Jeff Major wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Rod,
> >>
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> David Nelson-5 wrote:
> >
> > Actually Jack did read motor side amps and no, the problem was not
> > back EMF.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I commend you guys on responding the way you did. Every manufacturer has problems. It's how you respond that is key!

Sent from my iPad



> Jeffrey Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Seb had to fly up there to find that out. We're glad Jack's
> > problem was solved, but it clearly could have been done with a lot less
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jeffrey Jenkins


> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > David Nelson-5 wrote:
> >>
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Roger Heuckeroth


> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > OK. Glad to here they figured it out. Got some inside info, or is
> > this posted on his site somewhere?
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

You need to re-read my post on how a controller works.

Amps times volts in equals amps times volts out. (Repeat it like a mantra.)

The pack voltage stays _roughly_ constant, but the current changes.
When you "floor" the throttle, the motor _current_ stays constant (at 
the limit,) but the voltage changes as it speeds up. (More back EMF.)

To get the input current to rise, the motor _voltage_ must go _up_ 
(while the current stays at the output limit.)

I know that it is counter-intuitive to get an increase in input 
current, by increasing the output voltage, but that is the way a 
controller works. When the throttle is floored, the input current 
mimics the output voltage.

Flooring the throttle does _not_ command the controller to go to 100% 
duty cycle. It commands it to run the motor current to the limit (as 
best as it can.) The duty cycle is just what it needs to be to hold 
that motor current at the limit. If the motor voltage is small, then 
the duty cycle is small.

The folks on this list that understand EV technology really well, and 
have been EVers for many years are the ones that typically disagree 
with Jack. They know that he is trying hard, but he often expresses 
opinions that are not based on sound knowledge, but inexperienced 
intuition. He is sometimes very very very wrong. New folks, trying to 
learn, listen to him and believe him because they just don't have the 
background to judge the difference. One "expert" sounds just as good 
as another to them, and it becomes political, rather than scientific. 
The _real_ issue with Jack once he makes up his mind, he does not 
want to hear the facts and learn anything different.

I am wrong all the time. Someone points out my error in logic, I roll 
my eyes and say, "You're absolutely right!" In science, you _try_ to 
prove yourself wrong continuously. You want to make sure, as best as 
you can, that you get the facts right. Your goal is to find the 
truth, not to be "right."

Bill D.

> The faster a motor spins the higher
>the back EMF. Could it be simply that at 3800 RPM, the back EMF is
>such that it takes more than 162V to get 1000 motor amps through a
>WARP 9. Perhaps his batteries are capable of more and the controller
>is capable of more, its just the motor that needs more voltage to
>overcome the EMF? Is his assumption that the WARP 9 should draw 1000
>amps at 3800 RPM with about 155V (have to allow for some voltage drop
>across the controller and cables) at the motor terminals just a false
>assumption?
>
>
>


> Jeff Major wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rod,
> > >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Well said Bill. Especially the last line, one that many people should
reread and take to heart.

"Your goal is to find the truth, not be 'right'."

Dave Cover



> Bill Dube <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You need to re-read my post on how a controller works.
> >
> > Amps times volts in equals amps times volts out. (Repeat it like a mantra=
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> David Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jeffrey Jenkins
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I applaud him for his service and efforts, but does that make him 100% correct 
in all that he states on his broadcasts?
I think the best quote I've seen in quite awhile is this,
"In science, you _try_ to prove yourself wrong continuously. You want to make 
sure, as best as 
you can, that you get the facts right. Your goal is to find the 
truth, not to be "right."

Bill D."

Amen Bill!



----- Original Message ----
From: John Scrivner <[email protected]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, April 2, 2011 11:35:33 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Ryan Bohm AND Otmar Ebenhoech misquoted by Jack Rickard?



> David Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jeffrey Jenkins
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Rod Hower <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I applaud him for his service and efforts, but does that make him 100%
> > correct
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Easy, folks. Let's use the EVDL to talk about EVs, not about other EV 
hobbyists, please.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not 
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my 
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Jack has put himself out there as the host of a rather highly watched DIY EV
show, and a somewhat controversial one at that, I'd think he's fair game. 
That said, he did seem to be correct on this one since once the faulty
controller was replaced he got his 1000 amps on both motor and battery side,
or at least pretty darn close to it. As I mentioned on his blog most of
this speculation could have been completely avoided if he had simply
mentioned that he actually did measure the motor amps as well as battery
amps. He did seem more interested in proving how right he was about the
relationship between motor and battery amps than providing all possible
information to solve his problem.




> EVDL Administrator wrote:
> >
> > Easy, folks. Let's use the EVDL to talk about EVs, not about other EV
> > hobbyists, please.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Did you miss the memo?

>From EVDL Administrator:

Easy, folks. Let's use the EVDL to talk about EVs, not about other EV
hobbyists, please.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator





> AMPhibian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Jack has put himself out there as the host of a rather highly watched DIY
> > EV
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Folks, please, let's end this thread. I think it's run its course.

Thanks,

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not 
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my 
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------

