EV Digest 2892
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Gasless on Greenwood AV.
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Fuel Cell Laptop/What type of fuel will fool cells need to become fuel cells.
by "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) concorde lifeline batteries
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: concorde lifeline batteries
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Fuel Cell Laptop/What type of fuel will fool cells need to
become fuel cells.
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Electric boat, more EV projects
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by "Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by Sam Thurber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Fuel Cell Laptop/What type of fuel will fool cells need to become fuel cells.
by Sam Thurber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) What GM says about the "lessons learned from the EV1"
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) RE: Electric boat, more EV projects
by "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: concorde lifeline batteries
by "Mike Pengelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) 20 Fuel cell myths paper - Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Battricide
by fred whitridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) CA EV Parking Decal REG 4048
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Battricide - PHoenic Motors
by Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by "Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by "Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) RE: Electric boat, more EV projects
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: 20 Fuel cell myths paper - Re: fuel cells - fuel source
by "Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Supercap liquidation at Solectria
by "Jorg Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) RE: Orbital YT Wannabes (was Long trip)
by "Edward Ang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) RE: Orbital YT Wannabes (was Long trip)
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) RE: 20 Fuel cell myths paper
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28) Re: K&W BC-20 Charger Failure?
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Ryan,
I would assume we have never met. I'm Roderick Wilde and if the Rodric you
were referring to is me I'm sorry to say that I was unable to attend the
show. I believe it may have been Tom True you were referring to who is
Father Time's son and a major owner of EV Parts Inc. Thanks for the great
post though and I loved your analogy! I was amazed that the gas guys voted
the electric street rod Best of Show. I guess it still has some spark. Pun
intended. When we first built it in 1995 we entered it in the 6th annual
Spring Nationals in Pomona California and it was voted one of the top ten by
Street Rodder Magazine and was also featured in their Sept. '95 issue. It
was also on the front cover of Street Rod Action in the Sept. '95 issue and
a featured car in two international auto shows. It's been shown in several
shows since including The Concurs de Elegance show in Palm Springs and in
2000 it took a first place in The Portland Roadster Show. I feel it has been
a great tool to open peoples minds to the idea of electric propulsion. I see
a new company has been formed to build and sell electric street rods,
Phoenix Motorcars Inc. <http://PhoenixMotorcars.com> I wish them luck. I
don't agree with their drive train layout though from purely an esthetic
point of view. Ryan, I look forward to meeting you in person at Woodburn. I
still may have a few surprises left hidden up my sleeve.
Roderick
Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
Your Online EV Superstore
www.evparts.com
1-888-EV Parts (387-2787)
Phone: 360-385-7966 Fax: 360-385-7922
PO Box 221, 107 Louisa Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Fulcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Gasless on Greenwood AV.
> I and perhaps U did not see this part of the message...
>
> >Just a SMALL correction. The trophy was for BEST IN SHOW as voted
> >by the participants.-Tom True
>
> Cause I only saw this...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
> >
> >
>
> Anyway, "Best-of-Kind" kinna sounds like out of the 6 EV's...
> oO(GEM, Roadster, VW Pickup, Porsche, Sparrow, Pair of Drag Bikes) 7
> oO(Not including the scooters, bikes, and Bar Stool that were there)
> Out of 7 EV's it was the best? (I picked the Bar Stool ;)
>
> Steven S. Lough wrote:
> > We had a GEM N.E.V. thanks to Tom True of EV Parts. And we also had
> > Rodric Wildes Ford Roadster, which by the way WON a Trophy ! A big
> > trophy! for I guess Best-of-Kind. Many thanks to Rodric of EV Parts,
> > and Tom for bringing the car, and all the work that went into that.
>
> It was actually "Best of Show"!
> Out of the ~400 Customs, Classics, and exotic cars there;
> the Yellow Electric Roadster was voted best of show!
> .oO(Thats like Eminem(Rapper) winning a Country Music Award.)
>
> I was thrilled, though strangely not all that surprised....
>
> Rodric was there at the roadster with Don "Father Time" Crabtree
> and his drag bikes just in front of it (they ran out of room for us).
> Some motor head strolled up and began grilling Don on what kind of
> tranny the roadster had, thinking it was his. As Don struggled for
> the answer the grease monkey continued, I believe asking about the
> rear end. I was gettin a little miffed when Rodric stepped in with,
> It's got a something-such differential and watcha-who-wapper tranny.
> It appeared that the smart mouth recognized these particular parts
> and was a little taken back. So as he stood there baffled Rodric
> hit him with the "Ya, and it does a 16 second 1/4 miles.". Over
> the course of the next 60 seconds the Neanderthal struggled to
> integrate this apparently unbelievable information. Searching both
> Rodric and Don for the slightest smile or twinge of sarcasm. "NOooo."
> he proclaimed, but Rodric reassured him that it would infact, and that
> it wasn't even all that fast compaired to other more "specialized"
> projects. I think a wheelie pulling mazda was mentioned. After a
> few more minutes of trying to get to the bottom of this EV stuff
> he left seeming rather convinced. Though I don't think we have a
> new EV enthusiast, I know that there is one more Joe Hot Rodder
> out there that now knows the truth. I wouldn't be surprised to see
> him at a NEDRA EVent, Of course probably not till fuel gets a little
> harder to find.
>
> Anyway, I wanted to congratulate Rodric once again. And
> thank Don for letting me ride the little yellow drag bike.
> It was a blast and now I'm itchin to get an EV Commuter Bike,
> maybe I can convert my ex500 or something.
>
> L8r
> Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a chemical engineering friend who worked in the navy methanol fuel
cell program. He says they were up to 38% efficiency when he left the navy
a few years ago. I've seen similar numbers in other sources
(http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf). Using some commonly published
energy density figures:
LiIon 350 Wh/Kg
Methanol 5,519 Wh/Kg
for comparison purposes:
Ethanol 7,850 Wh/Kg
Gasoline 13,500 Wh/Kg
Lead Acid 25 Wh/Kg
For methanol: 5,519 x 38% = 2097 Wh/Kg as electricity
This is six times the energy density of LiIon. The potential here is for
either greatly reduced weight for the same energy capacity, or greatly
increased energy for the same weight. Being a liquid, methanol is much
easier to handle than Hydrogen. Methanol may be produced using
fermentation, or chemical processing of biomass, so it is not necessarily
tied to the petrochemical industry. The byproducts of the methanol fuel
cell are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and heat. On the downside, methanol
is very toxic to your liver and is easily absorbed through the skin.
Mark T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel Cell Laptop/What type of fuel will fool cells need to
become fuel cells.
> That is Methanol. A much better source of energy than hydrogen. Has
anyone
> done the efficiency of a methanol fuel cell. Seems that it will be better
> than hydrogen. Lawrence Rhodes......
>
> Subject: Fuel Cell Laptop
>
>
> > Available next year...
> >
> >
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030
> 630/ap_on_hi_te/fuel_cell_laptop
> >
> > It claims 40 hours on a single fuel cartridge. Much better than that
> silly ICE idea, huh?
> >
> > .Steve Coallier
> > "Attack life, it's going to kill you anyway!"
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All,
I know we've had this discussion before, but the list archive search
sucks and I can't seem to find the info hiding in my saved emails.
What do we think of the concorde lifeline batteries? they are AGM
VRLAs with rectangular plates (as opposed to spiralwound) although they
claim that they plates are packed very tightly. They also claim low
internal resistance and high power output.
http://www.lifelinebatteries.com/
Any thoughts?
Seth
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
...and some of their larger marine batteries boast CCA ratings as high
as 1975 amps! now that's a lot!
Seth
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/01/03
at 08:24 AM, "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Yes all fuel cells operate on hydrogen but can have a reformer that
converts something else to hydrogen.
Exactly.
Not quite true. All hydrocarbon fuel cells (Methanol, etc.) are just
hydrogen fuel cells with an attached reformer.
You can make a fuel cell out of anything that will readily oxidize.
There are several metallic fuel cells currently on the market using
zinc or aluminum.
Due to the elaborate process and expensive materials, fool cells will
not be cost effective for the average consumer or realistically compete
with other forms of transportation.
For now. But fuel cells are being developed for other uses. Down the
street from me, a hospital is using a fuel cell to provide energy, and
other commercial uses are in development and close to becoming comercially
viable.
hydrogen fuel cells will never be effective power supplies for
personal transportation unless someone comes up with a safe way to
easily and cheaply store liquid hydrogen. Metallic fuel cells show
some promise, but who knows?
>Corporations are just following federal dollars.
I'm not sure that's true. A lot of companies have put lots of money into
development of fuel cells on their own.
Indeed. H2 fuel cells are used extensively in aerospace,
telecommunications, and the health industry. However, the companies
who are trying to shoehorn the damned things into a car are largely
just soaking up federal money.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in
sort of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand
naked women screaming and throwing little pickles
at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
- Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For methanol: 5,519 x 38% = 2097 Wh/Kg as electricity
This is six times the energy density of LiIon.
Only for the fuel itself. What about the weight of the reformer, fuel
cell, cooling systems, control electronics, fuel tank and pumping
hardware, etc.? I think once you factor in all the extra weight of
those components you'll have a much lower overall energy density.
Also, once you factor in the toxic nature of the fuel, the emissions
from the reformer, and the cost of the fuel, you wind up exactly
where you were with gasoline.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in
sort of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand
naked women screaming and throwing little pickles
at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
- Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Myles,
> Facinating post on the wetter side of EVing. I got to
> wondering if using a
> speed reducer would help solve your and other waterborne electric
> enthusiasts?
It might, but I only have about 13 inches from motor mount to inside top of
outdrive engine lid. The AC4-4002 Tropica motor with shaft hacked off to
only about 1-inch and using a 2inch 7/8inch coupler with homemade
splineshaft coupling made of cast Loctite "Cold-Weld" just barely fits under
the lid. Making a new motor mount and sliding the motor over to accomodate
pulley, gear or belt gearing is doable, but the only way to accomodate the
coupler you describe would be to invert my motor, then belt, chain or pulley
drive the output shaft to one end of one of those reducer units you describe
with the output shaft coupling to the outboard drive splineshaft. The more
I think about it, it could work, but flipping the electric motor and thereby
raising the motor mount up 12 inches or so isn't very appealing from a
rigidity or mass standpoint.
Anyone have belt drive suggestions? Suppliers? Max HP ratings? Belt types?
Part#s?
That option looks appealing to me.
-Myles Twete, Portland, Or.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/01/03
at 11:19 AM, Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Not quite true. All hydrocarbon fuel cells (Methanol, etc.) are just
>hydrogen fuel cells with an attached reformer.
Maybe we're just picking nits here, but it's possible to have a fuel cell
without a reformer - though that's not what's being done, for a number of
reasons.
>However, the companies
>who are trying to shoehorn the damned things into a car are largely
>just soaking up federal money.
I guess the same could have been said for the development of EVs, but in
this case, things look VERY different. Never have I seen auto
manufacturers say that EVs are the car of the future, and that the ICE
would go away. Or that they're putting much of their own money into
technology investments. That's the case with fuel cells.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I guess the same could have been said for the
> development of EVs, but in
> this case, things look VERY different. Never have I
> seen auto
> manufacturers say that EVs are the car of the
> future, and that the ICE
> would go away. Or that they're putting much of
> their own money into
> technology investments. That's the case with fuel
> cells.
You must have missed out on GM statments over the past
thirty years. They vacilate between battery EV's being
the "car of the future" (their words about the EV1
when it first came out, not mine), and fuel cell's
being the future (1965 ElectroVan
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/products/fuel_cells/history.html
). That way the future can always be 20 years awawy.
Do a google search, nothing's different it's just
history repeating itself ... again.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> LiIon 350 Wh/Kg
> Methanol 5,519 Wh/Kg
A classic mistake made about fuel cells. A rechargable
battery can be thought of as a "closed system" fuel
cell, i.e. it has all the other parts included needed
to convert the chemical energy of it's reactive
elements to electricity. So, if you're going to
compare energy densities, you have to include all of
the other fuel cell componants needed to get the
electricity from the methanol like the fuel cell, fuel
storage system, hoses, guages, etc. Otherwise, you're
not comparing the same things. Another way to look at
it would be to compare methanol's energy density to
that of pure metalic lithium.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"EV1 owners are a proud, loyal group. Unfortunately, there were not enough
of them. GM was able to lease only about 800 EV1s in four years-- not enough
to establish commercial viability. And that came only after GM invested more
than $1 billion to reduce EV1 lease payments, develop a charging
infrastructure, dedicate a sales team entirely to the EV1, and to create and
place award-winning advertising."
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/hyb_ev1.html
Of course, they fail to see the thousands of consumers left high-and-dry on
GM's *non-existant* waiting lists. Well, we all know the marketing spin -
the answer is always somewhere in the future rather than today.
-Ed T
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you said what king of motor you were using I missed it.
It may be possible to rewind the motor so that it runs at a slower speed.
If it is a series wound motor you could possible just add a few turns to the
field windings or if it is a 4 pole motor all 4 field coils could be put in
series. I believe that shimming the field poles so that they are a bit
closer to the armature can also slow the motor down.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Myles Twete
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Electric boat, more EV projects
It might, but I only have about 13 inches from motor mount to inside top of
outdrive engine lid. The AC4-4002 Tropica motor with shaft hacked off to
only about 1-inch and using a 2inch 7/8inch coupler with homemade
splineshaft coupling made of cast Loctite "Cold-Weld" just barely fits under
the lid. Making a new motor mount and sliding the motor over to accomodate
pulley, gear or belt gearing is doable, but the only way to accomodate the
coupler you describe would be to invert my motor, then belt, chain or pulley
drive the output shaft to one end of one of those reducer units you describe
with the output shaft coupling to the outboard drive splineshaft. The more
I think about it, it could work, but flipping the electric motor and thereby
raising the motor mount up 12 inches or so isn't very appealing from a
rigidity or mass standpoint.
Anyone have belt drive suggestions? Suppliers? Max HP ratings? Belt types?
Part#s?
That option looks appealing to me.
-Myles Twete, Portland, Or.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> I guess the same could have been said for the development of EVs, but in
> this case, things look VERY different. Never have I seen auto
> manufacturers say that EVs are the car of the future, and that the ICE
> would go away. Or that they're putting much of their own money into
> technology investments. That's the case with fuel cells.
Actually, at one point or another, most of the automakers that introduced EVs to
market stated precisely that they would be the car of the future - otherwise how
could they have justified the R&D expenditure they had put into the EVs they were
producing?
What I find is different this time is that the automakers are using the promise of
hydrogen vehicles 15 years or more in the future as a pretext for stopping
development (let alone manufacture and sale) of EVs today that could be making a
positive contribution to air and water quality. They also conveniently ignore the
fact that FC vehicles are simply EVs with an alleged "better battery". One of my
points remains - if the automakers really believe in FC vehicles as a short term
solution, then why not start building BEVs now that can be retrofitted with FCs in
the future, thus guaranteeing a larger market (economies of scale) for the FCs when
they and the refueling infrastructure are ready? (I have some answers, but they
tend to the cynical side.)
Some larger companies are putting money into FC vehicles, but not huge amounts in
the context of their overall budgets. Smaller companies chasing the FC dream do
appear to be surviving on government funding and to some extent, funding from some
of the large companies.
I'm not a fan of hydrogen. There are real issues regarding storage and handling
that have not been resolved. There are no hydrogen wells, so some other primary
energy source has to be used to produce the hydrogen, and my research indicates the
cycle efficiency from any sustainable energy source is horrible, especially
compared to BEVs. The cycle efficiency does look better if you assume the primary
energy source is a fossil fuel (natural gas, coal), but that leaves back with the
same environmental and climate change issues we were supposedly leaving behind with
the FreedomCar initiative (and the hydrogen FC in general).
I submit that if we provided US$1,200,000,000 for advanced battery R&D, that would
provide some pretty desireable results with 20 years, too.
My underyling suspicion is that the U.S. administration's real objective in
supporting hydrogen FC research is to consolidate the power (profits) of the fossil
fuels and nuclear industries by furnishing an energy infrastructure that will
remain in the control of the current power-holders.
Darryl McMahon
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> "Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Hi All,
>
> I know we've had this discussion before, but the list archive search
> sucks and I can't seem to find the info hiding in my saved emails.
>
> What do we think of the concorde lifeline batteries? they are AGM
> VRLAs with rectangular plates (as opposed to spiralwound) although they
> claim that they plates are packed very tightly. They also claim low
> internal resistance and high power output.
> http://www.lifelinebatteries.com/
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Seth
Seth,
I switched my Mustang over to Lifeline GPL-4C batteries. These are the
220AHr 6 volt replacement for standard flooded golf car batteries. I
certainly don't miss the acid everywhere from the flooded batteries, but
they did cost about 2.5 time the price of floodeds. They appear to perform
well in my car, although I probably only have 20 cycles on the batteries. I
don't think they will provide the high currents of the Optima type
batteries, but they seems to be able to provide 2C without significant
voltage sag. Life on them is a bit of a question, they claim 500 cycle to
80% but who knows.
Mike Pengelly
Phoenix, AZ
'90 Mustang EV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I strongly recommend reading this paper, it should
help 'clear the air'.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
It's still an electric car, it just has a different
source of energy.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well I've done it now...I've bundled up a poor whimpering MB80 and have
sent it off to the Pacific Northwest for a little R&R with Mssrs. Rudman
and Smalley. I told it this would be a broadening experience..that when
they were done it would no doubt be an MB90.
I spoke with Elio at Evercel today who said they really don't have much
experience with high rate charge. He says the 8 and 11 amp charge
regimes were those which gave the highest cycle life.
Hopefully I will get the first of two PC boards in my cycler, today. I
seem to be successfully logging all the emeter data, one temp at present
(soon shall add one or two more), and start and stop times. This first
board will allow automatic discharge to a preset level (9.6volts at my
discharge current), and then fire up the Sorensen for a timed 11 amp
bulk charge. The second board will automatically throttle back the
Sorensen to a finish charge rate. Am eager to try both the
Rudman/Smalley-4amps-till-the-voltage-drops and Evercels timed finish
charges.
Rich: Let us all know how your new MB80 student likes its hydroelectric
powered PFC spa treatment. This battery has 8 cycles on it pretty much
by the company's reccomendation and should be coming to you fully
charged.
FW
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[ref
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/think_ev/message/2422 ]
The direct link to the pdf form
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg4048.pdf
You need this decal to be authorized to use public EV
charging. Print this form off off, fill it out, attach
your check, and postal mail it in.
-
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg4048.htm
Department of Motor Vehicles
Application for Parking Decal for Electric Powered Vehicle (REG 4048)
This form is used to apply for a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Parking
Decal. A ZEV decal, when affixed to the rear driver side window or
back bumper of an electric vehicle, authorizes the owner to park and
recharge the vehicle in designated parking spaces.
-
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://66.218.37.153/
Phoenix Motorcars claims they will use the Evercell
NiZn battery in their roadsters.
What are they using for battery equalization?
Or do they plan on using something developed
by John Lussamer, Fred Whitridge or Lee Hart?
Has anybody contacted them about your work?
Rod
--- fred whitridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I've done it now...I've bundled up a poor
> whimpering MB80 and have
> sent it off to the Pacific Northwest for a little
> R&R with Mssrs. Rudman
>
> and Smalley. I told it this would be a broadening
> experience..that when
>
> they were done it would no doubt be an MB90.
>
> I spoke with Elio at Evercel today who said they
> really don't have much
> experience with high rate charge. He says the 8 and
> 11 amp charge
> regimes were those which gave the highest cycle
> life.
>
> Hopefully I will get the first of two PC boards in
> my cycler, today. I
> seem to be successfully logging all the emeter data,
> one temp at present
>
> (soon shall add one or two more), and start and stop
> times. This first
> board will allow automatic discharge to a preset
> level (9.6volts at my
> discharge current), and then fire up the Sorensen
> for a timed 11 amp
> bulk charge. The second board will automatically
> throttle back the
> Sorensen to a finish charge rate. Am eager to try
> both the
> Rudman/Smalley-4amps-till-the-voltage-drops and
> Evercels timed finish
> charges.
>
> Rich: Let us all know how your new MB80 student
> likes its hydroelectric
>
> powered PFC spa treatment. This battery has 8
> cycles on it pretty much
> by the company's reccomendation and should be coming
> to you fully
> charged.
>
> FW
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>Not quite true. All hydrocarbon fuel cells (Methanol, etc.) are just
hydrogen fuel cells with an attached reformer.
Maybe we're just picking nits here, but it's possible to have a fuel cell
without a reformer - though that's not what's being done, for a number of
reasons.
Yes, then it's a hydrogen fuel cell. I was trying to say that fuel
cells which run off methanol or gasoline or such are just hydrogen
fuel cells with a reformer attached to process the hydrocarbon fuel
and produce the hydrogen that's actually needed by the fuel cell. If
you run off pure hydrogen then you have no need of a reformer in the
car,but you instead have to carry around a tank of liquid hydrogen.
BTW, the Honda FCV (The only fuel cell road vehicle in production)
does this very thing. It has a tank (40 liter, I believe) of pure
hydrogen stored at 5000 PSI under the seats. To my knowledge, no-one
has yet built a hydrocarbon reformation fuel cell for vehicular use.
I think they'd have a real hard time cracking the hydrogen out fast
enough.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in
sort of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand
naked women screaming and throwing little pickles
at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
- Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/01/03
at 10:26 AM, Sam Thurber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You must have missed out on GM statments over the past
>thirty years.
Nah, I've got newspaper headlines from '82, '92 and since that have those
same statements. But those are public PR statements. From a bit deeper
in the trenches, those working on emission reductions saw a very different
GM.
>That way the future can always be 20 years awawy.
>Do a google search, nothing's different it's just
>history repeating itself ... again.
There's certainly some truth in that - but things appear a bit different.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/01/03
at 02:01 PM, "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Actually, at one point or another, most of the automakers that introduced
>EVs to market stated precisely that they would be the car of the future
>- otherwise how could they have justified the R&D expenditure they had
>put into the EVs they were producing?
But they stated that mainly for PR benefit. This time they seem to be
putting real money, and voluntarily, into fuel cells, including major
amounts of business investments into the basic technology.
>What I find is different this time is that the automakers are using the
>promise of hydrogen vehicles 15 years or more in the future as a
>pretext for stopping development (let alone manufacture and sale) of
>EVs today that could be making a positive contribution to air and water
>quality.
That's certainly true. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe in
fuel cells. I think they do, in a way that they never believed in EVs.
>One of my
>points remains - if the automakers really believe in FC vehicles as a
>short term solution, then why not start building BEVs now that can be
>retrofitted with FCs in the future, thus guaranteeing a larger market
>(economies of scale) for the FCs when they and the refueling
>infrastructure are ready? (I have some answers, but they tend to the
>cynical side.)
I agree that they should do this.
>I submit that if we provided US$1,200,000,000 for advanced battery R&D,
>that would provide some pretty desireable results with 20 years, too.
Probably.
>My underyling suspicion is that the U.S. administration's real objective
>in supporting hydrogen FC research is to consolidate the power
>(profits) of the fossil fuels and nuclear industries by furnishing an
>energy infrastructure that will remain in the control of the current
>power-holders.
Maybe, but there's lots of work going on in hydrogen that goes in the
other direction, towards distributed solutions. I can't wait for a fuel
cell for my back yard. Better yet, one in my car that I can plug in when
I get home to power my house.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> If you said what king of motor you were using I missed it.
You must have missed the second sentence of my email.
Here it is again:
>> The AC4-4002 Tropica motor with shaft hacked off....
It's a series-wound Advanced DC motor if that was what you were looking
for.
I welcome any detailed performance information anyone has on these motors.
I've created curves from my testing but would like independent confirmation
from boat, car or motorbike use.
>It may be possible to rewind the motor so that it runs at a slower
speed....
I'm not into doing motor surgery, magnet relocation or stator/armature
rewiring for a solution...I'd rather just use my current setup which reaches
5knots and leave it at that.
-Myles Twete, Portland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/01/03
at 11:20 AM, Rod Hower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I strongly recommend reading this paper, it should
>help 'clear the air'.
>http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Thanks! Amory Lovins is a giant among giants. I'm sure this will be
worth the read.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Mark Abramowitz"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in Solectria or Maxwell. I
just happen to think this is a good deal.]
For those interested in SuperCaps, I just noticed a posting on the EV
Trading post where solectria is liquidating some old stock of PC2500s,
for $35 each, down to $25 each, depending on quantity. The manufacturer
isn't visible in the pictures of the supercaps for sale, but the picture
matches the picture of the PC2500 in every other way, and the PC2500 is
what solectria used to use in their supercapacitor modules.
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/geobook.html says:
For a limited time, Solectria is offering 2700 f Ultracapacitors for
sale. Ideal for solidstate energy storage in hybrid vehicle and
stationary applications, these modules are the same ones used in the
Solectria UCB42 Ultracapacitor Bank.
SPECIFICATIONS -
Charge Time 0.3 to 30 Seconds
Discharge Time 0.3 to 30 Seconds
Energy 1 to 10 Wh/kg
Cycle Life >500,000
Specific Power <10,000 w/kg
Charge / discharge efficiency 0.85 to 0.98
Size 62 X62 X 158 mm
Capacitance 2,700 Farads
Voltage 2.5 V Continuous, 2.7 Peak
(contact Solectria Corporation for additional specifications)
PRICING - Shipping is not included.
Quantity Price (each)
1-24 $35.00
25-199 $30.00
200-499 $25.00
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Sales Department Tel 781-932-9009
Solectria Corporation Fax 781-932-9219
9 Forbes Road [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Woburn, MA 01801 USA www.solectria.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorg Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Supercaps
[...]
They were available in 6 different containers:
PC2500, 2.5V each, 2500F, $65 each (Q 180) 725g 1.0mOhm 625A 8400J
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/BCAP0010.html
NOTE! The PC2500 is cheap because they don't make them anymore!!
NOTE2 "cheap" is relative.
BCAP0010, 2.5V each, 2600F, $134 each (Q 180) 525g 0.7mOhm 625A 8400J
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/BCAP0010.html
[...]
For my purposes as a drag racer, I'd probably go with the cheapy PC2500s
or the Yellow Tops. That means either $3,080 for the YTs or $11,700 for
the PC2500s. Either would be capable of delivering the power I want for
about 10 seconds. 28 Yellow Tops would weigh about 1200 pounds, and the
supercaps would weigh only 274 pounds. If I got the newer model
supercap, they would weigh only 198 pounds, but that's not worth
doubling their price.
I mentioned these to Otmar, and he pointed out the internal resistance
difference. At full power, the supercaps are losing 1/8 to 1/4 of their
voltage to internal resistance. You can get around this by using twice
as many supercaps, which would cut the internal resistance to lead-acid
range.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have been using these on my Sparrow (installed by Corbin) for almost 2
years now. I built my own regulators for them. I have put more than 13,700
miles on them and they are still holding up very well.
Because of this, I decided to buy these Exide Orbital Deep Cycle batteries
for my PaseoEV conversion in Feb. (I had BB600 flooded NiCads on it. But,
I was getting very tired adding water to 158 cells very week.) I got them
for $105 a piece. My PaseoEV has 16 of these (192V). I finally had a
change to install them in April. We have since put about 2000 miles. I am
using a PFC-20 with my own regulators.
I love these batteries. They have an individual rubber cap type valve for
each cell. So, it is possible to add water to them if it comes to that. I
believe these are goog alternative to the Optimas. They are a little
smaller than the YT though, both in weight (5 lb less) and capacity (5 Ah
less). They carry a 2-year warranty.
Ed Ang
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have been using these on my Sparrow (installed by Corbin) for almost 2
years now. I built my own regulators for them. I have put more than 13,700
miles on them and they are still holding up very well.
Because of this, I decided to buy these Exide Orbital Deep Cycle batteries
for my PaseoEV conversion in Feb. (I had BB600 flooded NiCads on it. But,
I was getting very tired adding water to 158 cells very week.) I got them
for $105 a piece. My PaseoEV has 16 of these (192V). I finally had a
change to install them in April. We have since put about 2000 miles. I am
using a PFC-20 with my own regulators.
I love these batteries. They have an individual rubber cap type valve for
each cell. So, it is possible to add water to them if it comes to that. I
believe these are goog alternative to the Optimas. They are a little
smaller than the YT though, both in weight (5 lb less) and capacity (5 Ah
less). They carry a 2-year warranty.
Ed Ang
Hi Ed,
It is wonderful to hear that you are having good experience with them.
13,700 miles sounds like very good life for such a small number of
batteries. (13 right?) And they are still going strong.
I'm curious,
How many amp hours can you get from them when you are pushing your range?
How many do you usually use between charging?
What sort of regulation and charging are you doing? Are they shunt
regulators? What voltage?
Do you know your average wh/mile figures?
What temperature do they usually run at?
I have been advised by Peter Senkowski that adding water to Optimas
is a good thing. As an experiment I've added 40cc of distilled water
per cell. On the Optima you have to drill holes and then plug them.
Time will tell if it helps....
--
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This report appears to be pro-hydrogen. Notice that all of the "myths" are
considering misunderstanding of a hydrogen economy. The author doesn't seem
to support battery electrics, but accepts the political verdict of the CARB
process (myth 15.c.):
"c. We should improve batteries and increase the required electricity
storage capacity (battery-electric driving range) of hybrid cars.
California has largely abandoned its mandate to introduce battery-electric
cars because battery technology, as RMI predicted, was overtaken by hybrid
technology, which will in turn be trumped by fuel cells. Battery-electric
cars are a valid concept for niche markets, but (as Professor P.D. van der
Koogh of the Delft University of Technology remarked) are "cars for carrying
mainly batteries - but not very far and not very fast, or else they would
have to carry even more batteries." It is also probably easier to make a
good fuel cell than a good battery. Regulators that, like the California Air
Resources Board, have rewarded automakers for increasing the "zeroemission
range" (battery capacity) of their hybrids are distorting car design in an
undesirable direction, increasing the car's weight and cost in a way that
doesn't well serve their strategic policy goals. However, such recent CARB
concepts as requiring hybrids to have at least 8 kW of electric drive
capacity and at least 60-volt traction motors are helpful, because they'll
force real hybrid technology, rather than rewarding just a routine shift to
42-volt electrical systems that permit the starter/alternator to provide a
minor torque supplement."
The author fails to define what "far" and "fast" limitations are required
for passenger vehicles, and the value of the battery EVs which were created
over the past 5 years.
Basically this paper tries to refute the arguments that H2 costs too much,
is too inefficient a process for extracting energy, that it poses
environmental problems and will take too long to adopt and incorporate in
our existing automobile environment. Bear in mind that this company also is
developing the hypercar, which is an H2-powered 5-passenger, 330 mile range
car.
Still takes the route of dismissing the battery electrics while trumpeting
the hydrogen economy as the solution. Still, I don't buy their arguments.
-Ed T
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Hower [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 20 Fuel cell myths paper - Re: fuel cells - fuel source
I strongly recommend reading this paper, it should
help 'clear the air'.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
It's still an electric car, it just has a different
source of energy.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Hastings wrote:
> Last night I plugged in my rabbit's BC-20 into the timer and
went to sleep.
> Only when I was coming home tonight did I notice I was down way
more then I
> should have been. Since the car was doing well I figured the
timer was off
> since I had driven further on Sunday then ever before. Down
about 58 amphr
> where I would normally be down 22 from going to the station and
back.
>
> So I got home and plugged it directly into the wall since i'd
be back out to
> go to the grocery shortly. When I came out I still had two
orange bars on
> the emeter and the charger was outputting 0 amps..
> The fan was still going the GFCI hadn't tripped. Tested it and
it switched
> the charger off fine and it still works as it did Saturday when
I tried it.
> Turned the current and voltage nobs and no change.
> Shut everything down and checked the DC fuse and it was good.
> With the cars circuit breaker on I got voltage at the charger
but once I
> switched it off it was gone.
>
> So did I just lose the charger on the rabbit? Anythign more I
can check I
> never got a manual. I'm going to hunt during daylight for K&W
contact info
> but has anyone had this happen before and might it be fixable?
Tommorow i'll
> start charging the batteries two by two to keep them happy but
hopefully
> soon i'll be back on the road...
As I recall, one can run the K&W without being hooked up to the
batteries. You can hook up a voltmeter to the DC side and see if
it is producing voltage.
Brian Klosterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at K&W Engineering
repaired my charger in July 2000 when the rectifier blew, which
is quite possibly what happened in your case. Fast service,
courteous, and only $38. Much less painful than I thought it
would be.
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
www.geocities.com/chursch/bizcard.bmp
--- End Message ---
