Slashdot Mirror


Ben Harris Shows off the Electric Vehicle Challenge Simulator (Video)

EVChallenge is a high school student project that converts gas cars to electric. This isn't a "someday" thing. It's already happening, and Ben has worked hard to make it so in N. Carolina. There are other people around the world doing EVChallenge, and Ben does a number of things besides EVChallenge. His Kickstarter project, for instance, was called Help Bring Back Quality Science Kits (STEM Education). It closed on October 17 after 119 backers came through with $6523, which was a lot more than Ben's modest $3500 goal. This takes us to Ben's EVChallenge simulator itself, which is a simple "breadboard" simulation of the circuitry that drives an electric car so students can learn EV (electric vehicle) principles before they work on the real thing.

This is all part of the Harris Educational effort to make science teaching fun and interesting, not just with electric cars and simulations of their circuitry, but with other kits and even training services. As Ben's Training Services page says, "Harris Educational can provide face-to-face or online training for individuals, small groups, or companies. We can also help you design and implement your own training programs." So besides the video interview here, please look at Ben's pages, this article about his work, and check some of the videos on his assorted pages. It's good stuff, especially if you have (or plan to have) kids in high school. (Alternate Video Link)

37 comments

  1. Converts gas cars to electric? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    EVChallenge is a high school student project that converts gas cars to electric.

    Does it work on any type of cars? Would it work on my rust bucket on wheels ?

    1. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any car can be converted... Some require more custom parts than others.

    2. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by GlennC · · Score: 1

      From looking at the pictures on the site, one of the cars appears to be an early 1990 vintage Ford Mustang, and another older small pickup is shown. Therefore, I'd say if your "rust bucket on wheels" isn't too large, it may work.

      There's another company near me that is working on making electric and hybrid delivery trucks. They also convert Mercedes ML series SUV's to electric, and have a program to retrofit diesel trucks and vans.

      http://ampelectricvehicles.com/
      http://ampelectricvehicles.com/repower-program

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    3. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I like the look of this 1HP biofuel conversion

    4. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Electric vehicle range is very dependent on weight and drag. So you can certainly convert heavy, boxy cars. And a larger vehicle will give you more room for batteries. But the performance will not be good.

      A common conversion is using a small pickup truck, which is cheap and light, and then filling the bed with batteries. Obviously you need a cap over the back.

    5. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend converted an old truck to electric in high school in the 1990's. It's not difficult.

      And as far as a "simulation of the circuitry that drives an electric car so students can learn EV (electric vehicle) principles", do they mean like the Radio Shack kit I got in the first grade. Not only that but it had a solar cell. Not big enough to move anything other than the needle on the voltmeter, but demonstrated the principle.

    6. Re:Converts gas cars to electric? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Filling the bed of a light truck with batteries will actually improve traction. It's common practice to put a bunch of bags of sand or gravel in the bed when winter hits. I use gravel and each spring supplement the driveway with a few more sacks of rock.

  2. Deathtrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've seen amateur battery conversions on a couple vehicles. The results look like deathtraps to me. Filling some compartment with inappropriate batteries (the type always determined exclusively by cost) that behave in unanalyzed ways in a collision is a recipe for horrible failure.

    Sorry. That's what I see. This is cool for education and demonstration purposes, but amateur conversions are not roadworthy and no one should be misled about that.

    But they will be. Because if it's "green" and "for the environment" you can crucify puppies and nobody will blink.

    1. Re:Deathtrap by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      I've seen amateur battery conversions on a couple vehicles. The results look like deathtraps to me.

      The conversions are as good as the people doing it. Yes, some folks will trust their lives to duct tape and fishing line, and others will do a better job then the pros... It is not about DIY, but about who the Y is.

    2. Re:Deathtrap by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I've had the idea of converting my truck to some sort of hybrid. I'd put the batteries in under the bed(there's room there). But yes, I've seen plenty of people who don't pay any mind to what would happen in an accident. Nearly a ton of lead-acid batteries in the passenger compartment? Stupid. Even if they avoid there, most cars aren't designed around having nearly a ton of batteries adding mass to the vehicle in an accident. IE it wouldn't be stiff enough to account for the extra momentum and energy of the extra mass.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Deathtrap by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The conversions are as good as the people doing it. Yes, some folks will trust their lives to duct tape and fishing line, and others will do a better job then the pros... It is not about DIY, but about who the Y is.

      The problem being that that "Y" shares the road with you.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Deathtrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That has been true of DIY car maintenance and maintenance in general since the invention of cars.

    5. Re:Deathtrap by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Because if it's "green" and "for the environment" you can crucify puppies and nobody will blink.

      I've been to a few dozen electric vehicle club meetings in two cities. Maybe one or two people are big environmentalists. Three or four people are hardcore "off grid" guys that don't want to be dependent on refined gasoline. The vast majority are nerds who like building cool stuff.

    6. Re:Deathtrap by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      I've seen amateur battery conversions on a couple vehicles. The results look like deathtraps to me...This is cool for education and demonstration purposes, but amateur conversions are not roadworthy and no one should be misled about that.

      The added weight causing extra wear and tear on brakes and suspension, which will increase maintenance costs but are also critical for avoiding accidents. It's safety issue for everyone else sharing a public road with a DIY EV. We are so accustomed to manuevering our individual ton of steel on wheels at high speeds that we tend to forget about the inherent danger.

      That said, I'm not against EVs at all, and I'm honestly looking at an EV for my next car, but I completely agree that these retro-fitted DIY EVs should be saved for education and demonstration purposes only.

    7. Re:Deathtrap by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      The conversions are as good as the people doing it. Yes, some folks will trust their lives to duct tape and fishing line, and others will do a better job then the pros... It is not about DIY, but about who the Y is.

      Yes, anyone is welcome to risk their own lives, but when they are manuevering a ton of steel and batteries held together by duct tape and prayers at high speeds on public roads the danger is increased for everyone else too.

    8. Re:Deathtrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am converting a truck now, and am having difficultly in putting the battery pack @ 400 lbs underneath the truck bed and securing it easily. I should have bought some boxes for the bed and put them in there...

      Although in the end, having them under the bed will work out better. It is just more work.

    9. Re:Deathtrap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am converting a truck now, and am having difficultly in putting the battery pack @ 400 lbs underneath the truck bed and securing it easily.

      What have you come up with? It seems like a yoke which lays across the frame rails and which Us down to encompass the battery boxes would do the job, and be easy enough to weld up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Deathtrap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The added weight causing extra wear and tear on brakes and suspension,

      So replace the bushings with polyurethane, install fancy brake pads and/or upgrade to bigger brakes, put in the HD shocks... it's not rocket surgery. A lot of cars also have a lot of crap you can rip out.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Deathtrap by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That's true of car maintenance in general, ever since price-competition became part of the equation (essentially since forever)

    12. Re:Deathtrap by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, the danger is increased for #random_someone# not #everyone#. Which sucks if you're the random someone. But let's not turn it into a fullscale social disaster.

    13. Re:Deathtrap by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The problem being that that "Y" shares the road with you.

      And I would say their cell phone is much more of a risk to me than whatever crappy maintenance they have done or not done.

    14. Re:Deathtrap by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Yes, anyone is welcome to risk their own lives, but when they are manuevering a ton of steel and batteries held together by duct tape and prayers at high speeds on public roads the danger is increased for everyone else too.

      But only a small amount of increase. Cell Phones, tablets, complex stereos, and in car "systems" cause many more wrecks then a handful of electric cars.

    15. Re:Deathtrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The agendas and desires of certain subcultures coincidentally align with the prevailing world view of our elites. What's your point?

      The GP's point that these activities are immune from scrutiny is still 100% valid. And it works from the bottom to the top; shade-tree amateurs building electric deathtraps to golden-boy car manufactures, soaking up subsidies on both ends of every sale while side-stepping century-old franchise laws nationwide.

      If it's greentard approved it is not questioned.

  3. It's not a someday thing... by kuzb · · Score: 1

    ...it's a fuck-no thing. I've seen the "conversions" people are doing. You're likely to wind up dead driving one of those things.

    EVs aren't going mainstream until auto manufacturers make them both affordable and able to travel the same range as a gas vehicle in the same sentence. It's nice that there are $60k+ vehicles out there that can go the distance, but it winds up just being a novelty for people with a lot of money.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:It's not a someday thing... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      What sort of percentage would you consider "mainstream"? Tesla is looking to build a $30k car, and there's actually more leafs on the road.

      I'll make an assertion: it's not the range so much as it's the cost. People will seriously consider it so long as it's range is enough to cover over 95% of their driving needs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:It's not a someday thing... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      No, it's definitely both. Cost is of course the larger of the two, but range anxiety is a real thing. Not to mention, the infrastructure to gas up and go in just about any direction exists, but the ability to charge up in any given direction is fairly limited.

      Now, you say it's enough range to cover 95% of a person's driving needs - but it's that 5% that becomes massively inconvenient. So what are people supposed to do? Buy an electric car and a gas car? That's just as expensive as buying the $60k tesla in the first place. Before the EV really takes root, it can't just supplement our personal transport needs, it needs to be able to step in and do it all.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    3. Re:It's not a someday thing... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, the infrastructure to gas up and go in just about any direction exists, but the ability to charge up in any given direction is fairly limited.

      Not if you're a creative Model-S owner. Every RV park in the country has an outlet that can provide a full speed home charge. Not supercharger rate, but still around 8 times as fast as a cripple charge.

      So what are people supposed to do? Buy an electric car and a gas car?

      At least initially. You have to remember that 'most' families own at least 2 cars. Especially those buying new ones. If you're going to have two vehicles in the family, so to speak, you can really optimize - even if you need a truck every weekend, you can still use a compact for whichever parent works the furthest away.

      95% = 18 days they need a different vehicle a year. At $50 to rent a more capable vehicle - that's $900. Though I misremembered, I should have said 98% instead - that's 8 days of getting a rental. That covers the thanksgiving/christmas trip*, the occasional home project, bringing home a sofa, etc... Though now that I think about it, many who take 2 weeks of vacation elsewhere a year fly and rent a car for ~12 days or so anyways.

      *Why NOT save the mileage on your primary vehicle. While you're at it you can get a bigger vehicle capable of hauling your luggage.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:It's not a someday thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are people supposed to do? Buy an electric car and a gas car?

      Or not buy one. They're not mandatory, just drive whatever you're driving now.

  4. Bane of education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    The huge progressive education push of the early 20th century has been the bane of education. The roots of making education "fun" come from John Dewey's attempt to make education "child-centric" by converting it to "experience". This has destroyed education as an institution and as a functional concept.

    Education used to be about learning, about remembering, about memorizing. It was based on a broken theory: the mind is a muscle, and exercising it makes it strong. Upon learning this was, in fact, complete crap, progressive educators moved to eschew the hard labor of learning in favor of teaching through relateable experiences. They threw out actual education in the process.

    The mind actually learns by association. In John Dewey's new vision, a student doesn't study meaningless biology textbooks; he grows plants from seeds, and then is able to tell us that plants grow from seeds with sunlight and water. It would be much more effective and efficient to carry out these such processes while also drilling the textbook knowledge as before: more knowledge was absorbed in the past, and these experiences give a way to more quickly and effectively grasp such knowledge.

    The progressives failed to realize the brain makes such associations, and can more effectively process new information with a great wealth of old to work from: Latin and Greek provide a basis of comparison for English and European languages, rather than the raw strength of the brain's language centers. To make education fun and meaningful should have been an effort in making the raw facts being taught more meaningful, not excising them from the mind of the student and leaving them uneducated but also unperturbed by the labors of study.

    I fear the same will happen here: cars will be converted by rote mechanical exercise, and students will learn little of engineering. They will believe they know about electric cars because they have bolted together some parts which they do not understand in ways which they do not comprehend. Rather than convey comprehension and understanding, we will convey a hollow sense of accomplishment and experience.

    1. Re:Bane of education by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I support your sig, by the way.

      But I think education should strive to let each student learn in the way they think is best, for them. Education should be all things to all people.

      MOOCs are a start, but they still retain holdovers from an obsolete, archaic educational method that focuses too much attention on cheating and censors students from voluntarily helping each other and sharing information.

      As an example, I recently completed a Solar Energy MOOC. It was great because it introduced a lot of theory which required calculus. But they left the deadlines long enough that I could go back and review calculus, and pursue other investigations into the theoretical concepts that were built upon in the class. So even if I had no strong background in calculus, I was able to do enough research into it on my own to get how and why it was being used in the class (to measure the area under the solar spectrum curve, for example). Then I could go to wolfram alpha or somewhere to plug in numbers and let a program do the integrals for me. I got a real sense of how calculus is useful for engineering problems.

      That's my vision for education: let each student follow their own interests, learning what they want, exploring into more fundamental concepts as they wish. And asking questions, which others are free to help them with, without fear of being censored because of some antiquated "honor code".

      Education today is more about control than knowledge transmission. Eliminate grades, and stop worrying about cheating. Focus on the knowledge and try to facilitate each student's individual approach to knowledge acquisition.

    2. Re:Bane of education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      But I think education should strive to let each student learn in the way they think is best, for them. Education should be all things to all people.

      This is the most vacant thing I've ever heard repeated by just about everyone.

      The only opinion of students that actually matters in education is if the material is interesting. If it's interesting to the student, it's easier to learn: it's more meaningful, and attention is more focused. The kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learning thing is largely bunk, aside from people with crossed wires--synesthetes--whom memory techniques seek to emulate. Invariably, when some students learn something better with a different teaching method, it's because they have a repeatable internal approach that all students can apply.

      Take foreign languages, for example. Some people learn best by studying grammar structures and sentence fragments; others learn best by spoken language immersion; and I suggest introduction by literature and arts. Those who learn best by technical study are interested in grammar, and are using it to supply meaning to the language structure, making it easier to understand and learn; those who learn by spoken language have more focus on pronunciation, and are putting in less effort and engaging themselves more in artificial conversation; and the technique I prescribe presents meaningful material (poetry, coherent story excerpts, etc.) to engage broad cognitive functions, triggering visualization and semantic processing to interpret a story. Each of these people are using a particular technique which any other person can employ, and so every student can enhance their learning by incorporating all of these--but it only helps if the student is taught how to use that learning method.

      We can standardize education on a platform of teaching students how to think, rather than what to think. We can use that to teach them immense amounts of textbook knowledge. It's completely doable, and fairly universal. People aren't as individual as you want to believe.

    3. Re:Bane of education by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I know that I'm individual. I've learned foreign languages. I use my methods, which included grammar, pronunciation, and literature. But I don't generalize from myself to assume that anyone else should learn my way. Why do teachers? For control.

      I think Alfie Kohn says it best in The Case Against Grades:

      although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, thereâ(TM)s no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, itâ(TM)s probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever theyâ(TM)re told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal (âoeItâ(TM)s unrealistic!â) point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.

      So, first, get rid of grades. Teach like Socrates, without tuition or tests. Just knowledge exploration, where Socrates is often just as confused at the end of the dialog as his interlocutor.

    4. Re:Bane of education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I know that I'm individual. I've learned foreign languages. I use my methods, which included grammar, pronunciation, and literature. But I don't generalize from myself to assume that anyone else should learn my way. Why do teachers? For control.

      You are making a fundamental assumption that your mind is somehow different from all other minds in some fundamental way, and that the methods that work best for you won't work for other people.

      That assumption is incorrect.

      Within your mind, you have knowledge, from memories. Experiences are remembered, recalled, and applied to new experiences. You have behaviors that are built this way: when you study, your think about the information in the way you've learned.

      If we present you with information in a manner you are unaccustomed to, you won't learn it as well. Your brain can't carry out the same processes, and doesn't know how to address the information as structured, so it won't handle it efficiently. We can, however, teach you how to regard the information as presented: how to organize it, how to interpret it, how to think about it, and thus how to learn it.

      Two people taught in such a way will face two large factors: their experience with a learning method (i.e. how comfortable they are thinking about the presented information in the way prescribed) and the effectiveness of the method itself. The experience is the part that you call "individual", that you believe makes you special; but, like any skill, we can train anyone else to use any learning method effectively, albeit with some upfront investment. The effectiveness, on the other hand, is universal: a given learning method will be more or less effective in general than any other learning method.

      The conclusion is simple: you may not be as comfortable with a more effective learning method, and so it may not work as well for you; however, by understanding the internal processes attached to that learning method, we can teach you to use that method effectively, and thus replace your current method with something that actually does work better for you. In short: learning itself is a skill, and can be taught and learned.

      The whole concept that everyone is so individual as to not be capable of learning in the same way is nonsense. If that were true, people would not be able to learn at all: society would be dysfunctional because the human species would not have a standardized brain, and would not learn by experiences. Intentional learning is, itself, learned: the only thing that makes you different in that regard is you didn't go to class to learn how to learn. This is a flaw in our education system: we teach people what to think, but not how to think; we need to teach them how to think, but then we would have a dangerous society of people who think for themselves.