Notices

Series II ESC (Supercharger)

Old 08-20-2014, 03:21 PM
  #76  
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 18,297
Liked 219 Times in 169 Posts
Originally Posted by badinfluence View Post
Plus at 5K RPM you are are on the back straight of your power curve, so the engine doesn't need any help there.

.
funny

So you are going to spend all this time and effort to produce a car that will perform worse under full accceleration than a stock rx8 ? (because of the extra weight)
Brettus is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 07:32 AM
  #77  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brettus View Post
funny

So you are going to spend all this time and effort to produce a car that will perform worse under full accceleration than a stock rx8 ? (because of the extra weight)
I think your overestimating the weight of the power devices.

I am removing the main battery for a Supercap + Lipo combo which saves about 75 pounds itself. Removing the intake and changing it out for the AEM+Supercharger Hybrid, that adds about 20 pounds in the end, and the caps at power bank (lipos) at 24-72 volts is about another 20 at best.

If I was using Lead Acid it would suck, but I could still pull it off with more weight than having another person in the car, or a subwoofer.

Getting 100 foot pounds of torque for less than 100 pounds of weight is pretty nice in itself. I just see no point is pushing past where the car is already great (5k RPM)

I think I can go as far as saying it will cost about the same as the BRZ ones and have more power with about the same weight.

In the end, once it works I will prob get board and just move over to a turbo setup, but it is more of a project for fun and to prove it can be done and people greatly underestimate how good nonlinear power can be.

Last edited by badinfluence; 08-21-2014 at 07:37 AM.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 08-31-2014, 06:07 PM
  #78  
Scrappy
iTrader: (1)
 
Legot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,181
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I'm watching this. Ignore the others, they're pretty much useless when it comes to new things that are done for no particular serious reason. I think it's some kind of mild, persistent, inferiority complex that comes up when different ideas get shown off.

Good luck, and pictures please!

Edit: While people on this forum are like that, I have to admit that they're right most of the time. See below for details!

Last edited by Legot; 10-08-2014 at 11:22 AM.
Legot is offline  
Old 08-31-2014, 08:04 PM
  #79  
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 18,297
Liked 219 Times in 169 Posts
Originally Posted by badinfluence View Post
I think your overestimating the weight of the power devices.

I am removing the main battery for a Supercap + Lipo combo which saves about 75 pounds itself. Removing the intake and changing it out for the AEM+Supercharger Hybrid, that adds about 20 pounds in the end, and the caps at power bank (lipos) at 24-72 volts is about another 20 at best.

If I was using Lead Acid it would suck, but I could still pull it off with more weight than having another person in the car, or a subwoofer.

Getting 100 foot pounds of torque for less than 100 pounds of weight is pretty nice in itself. I just see no point is pushing past where the car is already great (5k RPM)

I think I can go as far as saying it will cost about the same as the BRZ ones and have more power with about the same weight.

In the end, once it works I will prob get board and just move over to a turbo setup, but it is more of a project for fun and to prove it can be done and people greatly underestimate how good nonlinear power can be.
sure ... it will be 'nice' to have all that extra toque down low . But to say you are happy with the acceleration of a stock 8 and not utilise your system to it's full potential is ............ well .................. it's not what you are going to do .... i'd put money on that
Brettus is offline  
Old 08-31-2014, 11:33 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brettus View Post
sure ... it will be 'nice' to have all that extra toque down low . But to say you are happy with the acceleration of a stock 8 and not utilise your system to it's full potential is ............ well .................. it's not what you are going to do .... i'd put money on that
Right now my biggest problem is heatsoaking with Texas heat. We are moving into Fall/Winter so it will really get a workout this winter for it's stock potential.


I am really hoping to make this design modular and easy to swap back and forth, so it would take less than 20 minutes to put on or off. The "powerAdder" computer I am designing would be flash able so it would also help stock power, and help the driver get notification of certain things like MAP pressure, and maybe WMI status/tuning.

I am trying to see what I can crack into and change without pissing off the ECU/PCM. I am thinking maybe 3rd and 4rd injector control will be all I need to really give it the beans.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 09-04-2014, 07:19 PM
  #81  
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 363
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
This is what I want!!!
https://www.mhi-global.com/company/t...33/e433036.pdf

Drool.....
AAaF is offline  
Old 09-05-2014, 07:27 AM
  #82  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AAaF View Post
I see at least 2 major problems with a hybrid setup. The boost in linear, so when you assist the turbo, your are also assisting the turbine. Adding a simple clutch in between the Turbine Shaft and Compressor shaft, but sharing the same coils on both sides. would go a stupid long way for what they are trying to achieve, and give them reason to truly call it a hybrid setup.

If you read the whole thing, they reference how much heat was really a problem for the cooling system. If they really want to make a go at this, they need to get away from Centrifugal compressors. Spinning an electric motor at 120,000 RPM is just not the way to do it. Motors are great at building torque, but not high speed. You can get high speed with a precision motor controller like they built, and some crazy invert-er technology like they built, but that was were they probably ran out of time. Trying to evolve a way to reference boost to engine speed without a linear graph is where I got stuck at right now. It is also where they are stuck. The truth is, that Turbocharging is a very precise science and it started out with the worlds smartest engineers and it needs to stay that way.

In order to do this kind of project, you have to have a knowledge of the engine you are using, it's fuel control strategy, turbocharging, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, cooling, thermodynamics, electrical theory, turbine theory, and have crazy funding.

I think the best way for anyone to move forward on this, is to find an engine with a lot of room to grow, and wasted energy. That is why I picked the RX8 because it is both a perfect display of great engineering and it has room to get even better with some work. The RX8 series 2 is just a work of art when it comes to how well it works, and the sheer time they put into fixing issues with the S1 and mostly the years of doing the 13B they used as a backbone. However, without the turbocharger of the 13B it is much harder to get the efficiency from normal gasoline in the way the EPA is demanding, and Mazda made the right move by taking the car off sale. I seriously hope they just took it off sale to improve the 13B or redesign it.

If you look at Mazda's Rotary engine history, it is definitely the thing they have done best for years. Just the sheer amount of engineering between each year and series is amazing. They are really devoted to their work, and I hope it stays like that forever.

It would be easy compared to what I am trying to do to just throw a turbo on and be done with it. Cheaper too. That isn't what I am trying to do, and that is why it is a project, not a cake walk. I need tools, I can't ever imagine having, and my goal is to get this whole thing working with nothing more than I can spare on a working man's budget. If I had a machine shop, I would have started with building my own motor, but I don't have the time or the warehouse full of equipment to do so.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 09-16-2014, 10:47 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
After I get the ESC functional, I will be switching over to a Haltech. I may be doing this setup on an FB for starters just because I am laying groundwork most people have never tried tuning for.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-02-2014, 04:26 PM
  #84  
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 363
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I think its great that you think out of the box. But I still not understand why you wont ramp down pressure over a certain RPM. Should keep motor within legal area, pressure drops keeping power demand constant. Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying?

Edit: required power from ELECTRICAL motor
Attached Thumbnails Series II ESC (Supercharger)-what-i-try-say.png  

Last edited by AAaF; 10-02-2014 at 04:28 PM.
AAaF is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 12:04 AM
  #85  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AAaF View Post
I think its great that you think out of the box. But I still not understand why you wont ramp down pressure over a certain RPM. Should keep motor within legal area, pressure drops keeping power demand constant. Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying?

Edit: required power from ELECTRICAL motor
Your diagram confuses me a bit.

The motor is controlled by a PWM controller from a Golf cart motor, that is interfaced with a Bluetooth Arduino controller. It monitors Motor RPM, MAF, Engine RPM & MAP Pressure. Basically the once the engine reaches a certain threshold it opens a bypass valve which allows the Electric supercharger to spool down and stop using power.

There is an intersecting point if you reference Engine RPM vs Torque, like on a dyno chart, where torque rises suddenly and continues till HP overtakes it and torque drops down. Basically under 5,000 RPM the engine doesn't have much to give, so I am trying to augment that lower threshold as to reach the torque quicker, then when the engine reaches it's natural stride or a bit after, let the engine take over.

You could continue the boost cycle, but remember you are talking about Kilowatts of power here to run that motor with constant large hits on the battery packs, and possible the alternator depending on how I interface it. You could add bigger batteries, but that spoils the weight like has been mentioned before.

Right now the idea is 22.2v battery backs with adjacent supercaps, with a custom dual charging system for LIPO batteries that uses Constant Volt, and Constant amp with a PWM pulse so it does not shock the alternator or ECU. With the right adjustment the car could run optimally without massive drains on the alternator or a restriction on the intake.

I need to get a MIG welder to design the intake system because I can't find a plenum that will work for what I need for that M90. Basically I am going to take a wastegate and use as a compressor bypass like the turbine side of a turbocharger.

The computer part is well past the design stage, and I am mocking up a test cell to try and simulate the software running on the car. The bluetooth bit is the really good part of the whole setup because it is iPhone controlled.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 01:12 AM
  #86  
Can I change my username?
 
maybeashinka?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: san francisco
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Electric supercharger already for sale, installed in brz/frs, miata, and others:

New site - HOME

Full throttle Electric Supercharger Build Thread - Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB

latest dyno charts:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...39719&page=347

no big deal, easy to fit, proven.


Other companies selling various hybrid tech as well:
http://www.cpowert.com/
Aeristech, mentioned already


Videos:


I'm looking forward to your successful demonstration and commercialization.

Good luck.

Last edited by maybeashinka?; 10-05-2014 at 01:32 AM.
maybeashinka? is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 05:34 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by badinfluence View Post
I am not sure how many people have heard of the Phantom Electric supercharger, but it is been tested on the FRS. It is basically a Turbocharger with the exducer cut off and a R/C type ESC driven motor replaced in it's place. I think they are being a little generous with the efficiency.

FTS-TQ25024V - New site

This setup is basically 4KW to produce 2.5psi of boost. That is a real world adjacency I can use to see how mine will go. I applaud them for making it a kit, but for <70% Efficiency, that is kind of a waste. They would get a much better number if they changed the motor to a higher voltage, and switched compressor styles.

I already posted why those aren't worth the extreme amount of money Phantom wants for them. Before they took the pricing off it was 2300 dollars for 2 12v lead acid (heavy) batteries, an RC battery pack driver, an RC Motor and a Impeller from a GT 3' turbo and couldn't make more than a few pounds of boost. The RX8 would tear it a new one at open flow. I got some specs from the owner a while back, and I was impressed, but I was sad he didn't have any interest in taking my improvement ideas I tried to give him for free. I would have much rather bought something that was ready and modified it than start from scratch.

Don't get me wrong, I like that research is being done, but they aren't working on improving the idea because they have 6 months of orders backed up constantly. Thomas Knight Turbos have essentially been doing the same thing since the 90s with the same tech, Phantom was just smart enough to find the GT86 platform and get in at the right time.

With a simple transmission, switching to LIPO batteries and a smart charger, and making a better motor controller the phantom platform would be the end all for any low displacement car. I have no idea why they aren't trying to expand their market.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 05:39 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kind of shocked no one has looked in our own backyard for this one.
https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-discuss...-esc-rx-89613/
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-05-2014, 07:43 PM
  #89  
Registered
iTrader: (46)
 
9krpmrx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 33,739
Liked 335 Times in 270 Posts
Why are you shocked? A traditional supercharger or turbo setup makes more sense.
9krpmrx8 is offline  
Old 10-07-2014, 01:20 AM
  #90  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9krpmrx8 View Post
Why are you shocked? A traditional supercharger or turbo setup makes more sense.
I meant I was shocked someone brought up the GT86 supercharger twice before someone found the thread about the same thing I am running basically. Mine is about 3 times larger, but also made by Geoff.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...er-info-17303/

I can say mine works just fine and it is in my possession. Not a myth or idea. The problem is what any modder's problem is.....Money, and don't say a turbo setup is cheaper, because so far I have invested a lot less than you think. This was an expensive summer with a fucked up A/C and a piece of fucklandlord. No joke 4 digits.....

I am going to prob pull the whole thing off for under 3-4k which is about on par with a turbo setup, since there is no supercharger setup for the SeriesII....yet. Pettit also is rumored to be going electric like the GT86, but I have yet to see anything about it yet. Tuning solutions are just not easy to get on the series II, turbo, supercharged, or other. Mazda Edit works, but they all are making something that was not made to work, work in a specific way.

I am game for making a piggyback harness since soldering is nothing new to me and I usually and tinkering makeing robots anyway. Just need to find a platform that lets me write my own tables, and Haltech doesn't appear to let you do that. A local tuning shop said Motec has a ECU that lets you build your own logic, so I might be doing that instead.

Last edited by badinfluence; 10-07-2014 at 01:31 AM.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-07-2014, 01:33 AM
  #91  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here is some maths others questioned from my eariler posts....

We have added a 2nd generation design using a centrifugal unit that has a maximum 5-6 psi and more compact size. To make things simple I will share with you my formula for power requirements to turn a supercharger. This will allow those who wish to know to calculate the power loss from their engine powered units as well.
Visteon's 'Torque Enhancement System' used a 2KW 50,000 rpm brushless design with a turbo comp wheel for a max 4-5 psi. If you follow the formula you will see that unit would not support a 2 liter engine, and Visteon admitted the unit would produce no boost at all at 5000 rpm on a 2.0 liter. It only supported a 1.1 liter engine to 6K rpm.
To determine boost, CFM, and the electrical power needed, we developed*several formulas:
1--1HP = 746 watts at 100% efficiency. Electric motors are on average 70% efficient, so 1000 watts = 1 hp is a great starting point.
2--CFM X PSI divided by 175* = hp required to make boost.
3--CID X RPM X .5 divided by 1780= CFM
4--boost pressure + 14.7 divided by 14.7 = pressure ratio X .85*= density ratio
5--density ratio X CFM = boosted CFM
*note: centrifugal units have a higher efficiency resulting in a 200-210 divisor. Standard roots units have a 150 value. Seriously ported units are 175. Screw-type are 190-200.

*
First lets look at a 2.5 V6--150 CID X 7000 RPM X .5 divided by 1780 = 294 CFM
*
(7 psi + 14.7*/ 14.7) X .85 = 1.25 X 294 CFM = 368.9 CFM
*
(368 X 7 psi)/ 175= 14.72 hp Roots
(368 X 7 psi)/ 200= 12.88 hp Centrifugal
*
14.72 HP X 1000 watts = 14,720 watts (@ 24V = 613 AMPS)
12.88 HP X 1000 watts = 12,880 watts (@ 24V = 536 AMPS)

Just for kicks lets reverse that for the Visteon unit:

2000 watts= 2.5hp (this is being generous, but brushless/slotless motors are 90% efficient)
2.5hp X 210 (efficiency number) = 525
525 = 5 psi X 105 CFM. 105 cfm divided by 1.2 density ratio is 87.5 CFM
(87.5 X 3560)/6000 rpm = 52 CID engine (850cc)
Mine is a little different since it is a different motor and root setup, but the math is on par.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-07-2014, 09:38 AM
  #92  
Scrappy
iTrader: (1)
 
Legot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,181
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Even if your calculations made sense, or worked in any way like you seem to think they do, this would be completely unfeasible due to the power requirements alone. Where do you expect to get 500A+ @ 24v for any amount of time? Because a car battery won't cut it. A dedicated range extender unit maybe, but there's no way you're going to do something as sensible as that. I know that you didn't type that mass of incorrect theory that you call math, but if it's anything remotely like yours you should stop thinking about this kind of thing, you're not going to succeed.

Have you ever actually done anything with brushless motors (or with air, or appropriate rounding)? Because they don't come anywhere near 90% efficiency. Those worthless LiFe cells that you posted earlier won't come close to cutting it. I've been paying attention for long enough now that I know for a fact that none of you know what the hell you're talking about.
Legot is offline  
Old 10-07-2014, 11:13 AM
  #93  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legot View Post
Even if your calculations made sense, or worked in any way like you seem to think they do, this would be completely unfeasible due to the power requirements alone. Where do you expect to get 500A+ @ 24v for any amount of time? Because a car battery won't cut it. A dedicated range extender unit maybe, but there's no way you're going to do something as sensible as that. I know that you didn't type that mass of incorrect theory that you call math, but if it's anything remotely like yours you should stop thinking about this kind of thing, you're not going to succeed.

Have you ever actually done anything with brushless motors (or with air, or appropriate rounding)? Because they don't come anywhere near 90% efficiency. Those worthless LiFe cells that you posted earlier won't come close to cutting it. I've been paying attention for long enough now that I know for a fact that none of you know what the hell you're talking about.
Reads last post......decides to comment thinking he understands whole thread.

Read thread before trashing it. It is a quote from the other thread, not my math.

Last edited by badinfluence; 10-07-2014 at 11:44 AM.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-07-2014, 11:57 AM
  #94  
Scrappy
iTrader: (1)
 
Legot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,181
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by badinfluence View Post
Reads last post......decides to comment thinking he understands whole thread.

Read thread before trashing it. It is a quote from the other thread, not my math.
I feel like people don't read my posts, I actually referenced posts from earlier in the thread, and acknowledged that it wasn't your math. That kind of hurts. Also, don't meme me. Especially not without a picture, it makes me think less of you and makes me more biased than I should be.

You said your math was similar, this math is pretty far off in terms of being anywhere near the correct theory. Air is compressible, and effects on it are to some exponential. These calculations are all linear and therefore not scalable.
Legot is offline  
Old 10-08-2014, 07:54 AM
  #95  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legot View Post
I feel like people don't read my posts, I actually referenced posts from earlier in the thread, and acknowledged that it wasn't your math. That kind of hurts. Also, don't meme me. Especially not without a picture, it makes me think less of you and makes me more biased than I should be.

You said your math was similar, this math is pretty far off in terms of being anywhere near the correct theory. Air is compressible, and effects on it are to some exponential. These calculations are all linear and therefore not scalable.
Mod Edit: Not Necessary, keep it clean

If you would have read the thread, not just the last page you would know that my decide doesn't run on 24 volts because durrr W = A * V, and that 14 seconds doesn't make 1 amp PER HOUR, reliant because the batteries in use need AMPS per SECOND, not per hour, so I am using SUPERCAPS with a massive discharge rate and isolated PWM controllers to transfer the current from power sources A B and C.

Calculations are irrelevant till the exact friction point of the compressor map is known based on the amps at X voltage. 24 volts at 500 amps would cook brushes where as 66.6 volts will lower the thickness of the wire required, and PWM will lower the heat/friction/onderdonk even further.

http://www.litz-wire.com/New%20PDFs/..._R2.011609.pdf
Again read the ******* thread, you want a picture here is one....



This isn't a debate because there is no theory behind something that is already built and functional, there is only the science of how it works. If you think I am doing it wrong, I would love to see someone else build one with me and provide real data on how it works. Better yet, wait 6 months and pay 2k for the 86 one and start a revolution instead of burning someone's idea because you don't have one yourself.

my math is on Page 1 Post 1, and it came from the guy who designed the supercharger and compressor mapping. You want to prove him wrong, show pics of your PHDs.

Last edited by badinfluence; 10-08-2014 at 08:04 AM.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-08-2014, 11:13 AM
  #96  
Scrappy
iTrader: (1)
 
Legot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,181
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Mod Edit: Not Necessary, keep it clean

Good luck anyway, be sure to post prices and weights. Round properly, don't divide by zero, and pray for goodwill to all men.
Legot is offline  
Old 10-08-2014, 11:37 AM
  #97  
Maude Rater
iTrader: (15)
 
paimon.soror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Between Cones
Posts: 7,562
Liked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Gentlemen lets keep the insults at bay. I have edited your posts accordingly.
paimon.soror is offline  
Old 10-14-2014, 10:05 AM
  #98  
Registered
 
jasonrxeight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,487
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by badinfluence View Post
Mod Edit: Not Necessary, keep it clean

If you would have read the thread, not just the last page you would know that my decide doesn't run on 24 volts because durrr W = A * V, and that 14 seconds doesn't make 1 amp PER HOUR, reliant because the batteries in use need AMPS per SECOND, not per hour, so I am using SUPERCAPS with a massive discharge rate and isolated PWM controllers to transfer the current from power sources A B and C.

Calculations are irrelevant till the exact friction point of the compressor map is known based on the amps at X voltage. 24 volts at 500 amps would cook brushes where as 66.6 volts will lower the thickness of the wire required, and PWM will lower the heat/friction/onderdonk even further.

http://www.litz-wire.com/New%20PDFs/..._R2.011609.pdf
Again read the ******* thread, you want a picture here is one....



This isn't a debate because there is no theory behind something that is already built and functional, there is only the science of how it works. If you think I am doing it wrong, I would love to see someone else build one with me and provide real data on how it works. Better yet, wait 6 months and pay 2k for the 86 one and start a revolution instead of burning someone's idea because you don't have one yourself.

my math is on Page 1 Post 1, and it came from the guy who designed the supercharger and compressor mapping. You want to prove him wrong, show pics of your PHDs.
how big are these so called super caps you talking about? capacitors are very space/power inefficient devices and to store that much energy you need massive capacitors.
jasonrxeight is offline  
Old 10-15-2014, 12:07 PM
  #99  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 376
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasonrxeight View Post
how big are these so called super caps you talking about? capacitors are very space/power inefficient devices and to store that much energy you need massive capacitors.
The caps are the assisting device for the smaller batteries. So they are wired in parallel (kind of) with a diode blocking from the caps back to the batteries.

Motor
Motor Controller
Voltage & Amp monitor
Supercaps
PWM Hybrid Charger/device (50A) and/or Diode
Batteries

So wiring wise you have your 60or 72 volt batteries in parallel with your supercaps. The Supercaps cannot charge the 60 or 72 volt volt batteries because of the diode blocking the return current. This is so it doesn't blow up those Lithium batteries. The Supercaps have either a 200 or 3,000 amp draw rate without being damaged. For cost wise I think I am going to use the Maxwell 58 Farad preambled cap package with 5 in series. That drops it down to 11.6 Farads at 60 volts and it doesn't stay at 11 with voltage drop, but the point is, it will allow the voltage of the caps to stay higher than the batteries, preventing the batteries from getting overdrawn and literally blowing up or ruturing.

IF I can get the 3,000 or 3,500 Farad version of the Supercaps from Maxwell, then it will be a much better system, but due to their demand, they have gone up in the last 3 years. I would use 27 3,000 farad caps to make 72.9 volts and use a 66.6 volt battery or just 6 AGM 12v batteries with 10ah each. That gives me 111.1 Farads with the 3,000 farad batteries. The idea is that you can make the batteries much more small and still draw crazy power instantly without damaging them. Voltage draws from the highest source.

The problem is price vs weight. You could just use 12v AGM or Sealed lead acid batteries and keep it simple, but that is quite a bit of weight and they have to be close to the motor controller because of the power required. To long of a cable and it would lose power, plus the cables have to be huge. I am going to use 3x4AWG cables for my current idea, which should give me about 300amps but keep the cable manageable so it could pass through the firewall if I have to.

RC batteries are already designed for high loads, and have very smart charging systems available for very little money. Each Cell can be charged individually, reducing the chance of an issue and prolonging the life of the system.

Supercaps are kind of a newer invention and they are really taking off. Check out my link to Laserhacker. The only thing I will say is the 350 Farad caps have a very stupid terminal design, and I blew up the only available eBay kit for the board because a diode failed due to a bad trace. I would get the official Maxwell 58F kit since it is the OEM version made to take the pressure, not a homebrew thing.
http://laserhacker.com/

I can be a bit dense, so if you need me to clarify anything, please just let me know.

Last edited by badinfluence; 10-15-2014 at 12:10 PM.
badinfluence is offline  
Old 10-15-2014, 12:30 PM
  #100  
Scrappy
iTrader: (1)
 
Legot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,181
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
What's the final cost?
Legot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Quick Reply: Series II ESC (Supercharger)


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.