First I apologise for posting the long previous posts below, but it is a long time since I should have responded, but life got in the way (I occasionally HAVE a life!)- so I have put them there as refreshers.
I really should have given it more thought before bringing up chlorine as a probability, as most boats have batteries, and I have never heard it mentioned. There is also the liklihood that any chemical reaction would create gassing, thus preventing further entry of seawater into the battery after the intial small amount. In any case, by installing any batteries into sealed plastic containers, (to control acid spills/mess), a good venting system would be simple to rig up.
As a non-sailor (yet) the boat control while docking (near other more expensive boats!) is a big concern, and I agree that electric might allow the dumping of the whole ICE transmission - after all, presumably if caution is used, which it should be anyway, then speeds are very low, so the ability of even a marginal electric system should allow the 'brakes' to be applied.
I am beginning to understand why in the past, when I mention eliminating controllers, there is little discussion here. Seems from what you say that contacts etc are also problematic.
An advantage that might work in my favour is the fact that once moving, a boat will tend to carry on, even with no power applied. This is very scary to someone used to having good vehicle brakes. But, it might allow for those (non continuous duty) starter solenoids to be used as 'inch' buttons for the intermediate speeds, and perhaps close quarters 'squirts' of power. In others words, when docking, there might be no need for a switch that stays in the 'on' position.
Although I understand that discussion on ICE's are taboo here, I am still looking at a combination of drive methods as a final goal, and that includes sails as the primary means, very small ICE for when longer distance engine power is needed, as well as maybe recharging batteries, and hot water, and the electric for closer quarters control, and later regen. The ultimate would be enough windmill and solar power to never actually NEED the ICE for charging, or for anything else for that matter. The great thing with electric is it forces the need for larger batteries, and this makes more electrical power available for anything, the limitation being the recharging capability.
Perhaps I might be able to have parallel circuits, a starter solenoid for the intial switching, then a blade or rotary switch to make the contact on the same circuit, thus eliminating loading/arcing on the blade switch. I like the drum and (carbon) brushes idea though - I could use stock parts for the brushes and holders, and all I might need for the drum is like a copper cylinder, with some curved insulation mounted into a cutaway part.
I suspect that it is highly likely that I will end up in actual practice using only 2 speeds, full power, and one favoured (by experimentation) low speed.
As far as the outboard goes, one owner of the same model boat that I have found them to be a bit unuseable when stern bracket mounting was used, as you say, dipping in and out of the water, but I would have an inboard well, and, being a short shaft, could make up a means to control any water attempting to cover the engine head. The outboard would be fixed as far as steering goes. Again, my gut feeling is that I would end up with 2 props, one for ICE, the other for electric, and either/or for regen charging maybe, although a windmill (or 2) seems to be a better bet.
I think I now have a good handle on things, bearing in mind that my needs are a bit different that the main group, and that it is probable that a few inefficiencies will be of little concern to me.
Thanks again for the info.
John
1b. Re: Automotive style generators as motors?
Posted by: "James Massey" jcmassey@netspace.net.au technikjames
Date: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:56 pm ((PST))
At 11:12 PM 26/12/2010, John wrote:
> Hi, James,
> Thanks for the reponse.
You are welcome, the point of these discussion lists is to assist
each other as far as we are all able, just contributing where I can.
> First of all, I don't have any intention of making my own
> batteries, I am far too lazy and old, and it was just an idea!
Good.
> Having said that, I do have a concern re having batteries mounted
> low in a boat, and it comes from watching some old U-Boat movies,
> where the sea water inundates the batteries, creating chlorine gas.
> I have experienced chlorine gas, so I take this seriously.
> I was thinking of totally enclosing the batteries, and venting up
> the hydrogen, probably by using modified plastic tote boxes or
> large tupperware, something with a sealable lid. Some of these are
> vented under the handles, so I would block those vents off and add
> a piped vent.
I've worked with chlorine in the past, and it probably wouldn't be
your biggest concern. Sea water is amazingly good as a conductor, and
copper immersed when connected to a battery electroplates off
incredibly fast. My father had a trawler sink under him years ago, he
called for help via the radio as soon as he realized the boat was
flooding, and just in time since the radio went dead as soon as the
batteries went under water. I don't know if it was simply pulling the
voltage down, or if the radio had a smaller feed wire to the
batteries that plated off in seconds, but loss of power soon after
the batteries went under was the result. In an emergency situation,
it may make all the difference to keep power available for as long as
possible.
I worked on a project a few years ago for a boat that would have been
operated in a world-heritage area (the project was canned due to
increased competition in another area of the clients' operations).
The boat was to have been foam-filled (unsinkable) but to keep it the
right way up (so keep the tourists above water) the batteries had to
be low - below the flooding line. We knew that we wouldn't be able to
completely prevent water ingress to the battery compartments in a
flooded condition, so the batteries were going to be in semi-sealed
compartments, vented to well above the water line. The lids were to
be partially sealed - think a refrigerator laid on its' back. The
compartments were to have been a row of these, with each lid over a
low-voltage group, with isolators each side of the lid that had to be
out before the lid would open, but that was only due to the
high-voltage of the system. The compartment bases were to have been
continuous (one in each hull), with bilge pumps in wells each end, so
the battery tops should have stayed nicely dry in a worst-case
flooding. The boat would actually have been able to be driven with
the hulls fully flooded, as the motors were to have been IP68 rated
(wash-down, so short-term submersible) and the control gear in the
superstructure.
> As I don't yet sail, I have no idea what I need as far as speed
> goes. I presume that I will need a slow speed, so I don't hit
> things, and I will need high(er) speeds, to use as brakes and to go
> against wind and currents.
Don't forget that sailboats have a lot of wind-age with all the sails
furled, due to all the rigging, size of the mast, etc., but as long
as you are careful, and plan to stay out of trouble, then lack of
horsepower shouldn't be a problem - people sail with nothing other
than sails for propulsion and stay out of trouble.
> Seems to me that loads of sailboats seem to do a lot of moving
> around with no sails up, and I don't know if that is because they
> have insufficient room to tack, or are just driven lazily.
In my opinion mostly: 1) Lazily, 2) time-poor, fuel rich, 3)
inexperienced, would sail but being over-cautious.
> I do have an outboard, short shaft, unfortunately, but currently no
> (ugly) mounting for it, and am considering an outboard well, and I
> have an inboard that I regret starting spending on, and if I get
> any snags with the inboard as I try to get it running, then I will
> pull it out and start the electric fiddling sooner than otherwise
> planned.
The mention of short-shaft gives me a twinge of concern, I have in
the past experienced long-shaft in conditions where we were lifting
the prop out of the water and worried about dipping the power head
under the water, on a 21' sail boat in inshore waters when things got
nasty unexpectedly.
> From what you say, and show, it seems that I have more than the
> options I thought I had. Obviously, if I buy batteries in 6 volt
> 'lots', then I can go half speed easily by switching. Then you are
> showing 3 speeds, so that makes 6 in total. So I should get maybe 4
> that are all different. But can start with the 3 you mention.
With 6-volt batteries you have another option, a type of controller
called a 'rectactor' controller, using big diodes (rectifier diodes,
hence REC-) and contactors (-TACTOR) to get various steps. In your
case, this would be useable with your generators set up as shunt
motors, and later with a bit of rewiring to be usable as a series
motor controller, if your generators prove unsuitable. The rectactor
set-up discharges the batteries evenly, so you get maximum available
energy in any step.
You will need a 12V bank as the power source for the contactor coils,
unless you can find/make a suitable switch. You probably need 12V for
nav and the field power anyway.
This would give the following speeds, lowest to highest:
1) 12V fields, 3V armatures (two armatures in series, supplied from
6V), may be too slow to be useful.
2) 12V fields, 6V armatures (two armatures in series, supplied from 12V)
3) 12V fields, 12V armatures (two armatures in series, supplied from 24V)
4) 12V fields, 24V armatures (two armatures in parallel, supplied from 24V)
5) 6V fields (two fields in series), 24V armatures.
Reversing the polarity of the armatures to the fields will reverse
the motors, so give the same speeds in reverse.
With a single series motor (typical of forklift/etc motors) your
speeds become:
6V
12V
24V
Then you can bypass some of the field current, called field
weakening, for a 4th (faster) speed.
If you use a permanent-magnet motor, you loose the 4th speed.
> But the main thing is, I already have the initial parts to start
> getting things together, as pension flow allows!
> So, I can now do some 'hand-held' tests on the generators, and if
> they seem to give a good kick, and running speed, I can get going
> on making a mounting plate. This can then be either used as an
> inboard, or as the top part of an outboard.
That's right. Will probably be under-powered, but if you can use that
to get started, you can get going sooner than you could otherwise
afford. Also by building the controls yourself you get a much better
understanding of the system and can fix it if something goes wrong.
> I am not trying to set up electric as a sole means of power. I
> believe that low HP ICE has some uses that cannot be currently
> competed with, that include long distance motor use and energy
> storage, and supplying hot water. By retaining at least partial
> ICE, I also eliminate the need for total prop efficiency. Also the
> need to be totally paranoid about saving amps. Politically, I
> believe it is generally a mistake to try to have electric compete
> with ICE on every level, and this is possibly cultural to the
> automotive applications that are currently driving the technology.
I firmly believe that today we no longer need the traditional marine
gearbox for many smaller vessels. All that we need is a propshaft
disconnect, a dog clutch or single-disconnect gearbox, with the
necessary reduction. Use electric for reverse, manoevering and
starting the diesel (put it into gear and drive forward with the
electric once forward cruising is needed, diesel starts and the
electric is shut down).
> I seem to remember that generator fields need to be 'sparked' to
> create residual magnetivity and set the polarity.
As a generator, they needed to start generating before the regulator
would 'cut in' so needed to be "flashed". Not an issue when using
them as a motor.
> Your observation regarding the speed INCREASING with less field
> power is an eye-opener. This maybe opens up a possibility of speed
> control of PM motors using sliding magnets that can be physically
> moved away from the armature to increase the speed.
Probably not, since if you weaken the magnetic path of a permag motor
too much, the magnets will weaken. It would be possible to build a
new type motor from "scratch" that has an alternative magnetic field
path away from the armature, and shunt out a percentage of the
magnetic fiels, but would be a lot of work.
High-torque servo motors are magnetised once fully assembled, since
taking them apart ONCE is enough to weaken them beyond use. More
typical permag motors if you leave the armature out overnight may be
enough to weaken them too much - I have seen this done with a MIG
welder wire-feed motor, one of my techs took it apart, left it apart
overnight, put new brushes in it the next day and once put back
together it was drawing too many amps and not driving even a quarter
of the power that it should.
> Seems that I can keep away from flywheels, clutches etc. That's
> good. This raises the issue of maybe the shaft stopping/slowing as
> I change the switching,
Certainly it won't stop, unless you are stopped in the water. Shaft
speed will drop to a little below prop pitch speed (the movement
through the water will turn the shaft by the prop). You'll get a bit
extra surge of current when changing up, but shouldn't be a big worry
as long as you design your switching to handle it.
The bigger worry is the arc flash from voltage on disconnect
(electrical equivalent of water hammer), you need diodes or snubbers
to protect the contacts against that.
> so my switching might have to be designed a bit slicker, to take
> place faster - I will probably use Ford style remote starter
> solenoids (as opposed to the ones that are mounted upon the
> starter) to start with, as they seem reasonably weatherproof. I
> don't know if they are continuous duty.
Starter motor ones are NOT rated continuously, but you can get the
same type of thing in continuous duty with no problem, you just might
have to go to an automotive wholesaler to get them at a good price.
> This might not be an issue, as it might turn out that the electric
> drive is only ever used on a single speed, or maybe just 2, in
> which case blade switches can be used,
You can get solenoid-contactors with 4 power terminals, two are a
normally closed contact, two are normally open, it would be possible
to use them so you have a big mechanical switch to power the motor,
and turn contactors on for 6V and 24V but coils off are the 12V setting.
> or possibly the rotary big switch that seems to be the main switch
> currently on the boat, and that I haven't really ever looked at as
> far as configuration goes.
Battery isolator switches are not designed to switch under load, and
will have a short life if you try to.
> And I still want to look at just simply switching the motors on,
> and allowing a large load that will be for a few moments only,
> particularly if the gearing of the pulley drive is low.
If you are mechanically inclined, and have access to a machine shop,
it is possible to make a drum controller (a set of combined switching
contacts using fixed (motor type) brushes and moving contact groups,
used in the 1900's to 1930's for cars) that would take the place of
the contactors and switches. I could provide you with some ideas if
you feel you want to explore this further.
> Or variable gearing, and set low when starting. For what I am
> trying to do, staying with everything electrically controlled might
> not be as good as something with a mechanical (reliable in salt
> water) element as well, such as cone pulleys, or tapered wall
> variable width pulleys such as are used on snowmobile drives, and I
> believe used to be used on little Dutch made cars called DAF's,
> that were taken over by Volvo years ago. My thinking here is to
> have nothing sucking up electricity once the drive is actually set
> to whatever speed is needed, other than the actual motor.
Unfortunately all those mechanical arrangements are likely to be far
less reliable in salt air, unless you are right on top of the
maintenance, and more importantly will suck a lot of energy out of
the drive system when you compare it to the amount of energy a
contactor coil requires.
Hope this helps
Regards
[Technik] James
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
electricboats-digest@yahoogroups.com
electricboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
electricboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment