EV Digest 5443
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Electric Race Car Article
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) NiCD's to be banned in Europe
by "Shawn Rutledge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Xebra
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Xebra
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: High Voltage Nationals
by mreish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Gun Engine?
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: EV Charging station - invention disclosure
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Fort Pierce rally part 1
by "steve clunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Gun Engine?
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Gun Engine?
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Gun Engine?
by "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Article 625
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Gun Engine?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Series and Parallel
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Sources of Energy
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Cliff,
Your letter was excellent - it was well written and brought up some great
issues to consider. I'm glad Racecar Engineering chose to print it.
Back in the early 90's I had one of the few "modern" electric vehicles in the
Southeast. Since there was a lot of media attention at that time regarding
electric vehicles I was often asked to display a vehicle at various auto shows,
the Charlotte Motor Speedway, and other such venues. I was very pleased to see
that race car drivers and builders were always eager to see and examine
whatever vehicle we had on display. I imagine your Electric Imp gets similar
attention.
Hopefully Racecar Engineering will do a followup article with Martin
Ogilvie's new racecar when it is finished and running. He is certainly a
talented
designer.
Lawson Huntley
Charlotte, NC
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4969544.stm
There are exceptions for power tools, emergency & alarm systems,
medical equipment but not EV's.
The other provisions of this bill sound pretty good though.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sounds like a very good motor for a genset. LR..........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:57 AM
Subject: Gun Engine?
Not EV, but high efficiency vehicle related news... I am not qualified
to tell if this is bunk or not, but I thought I'd let you all take a
crack:
http://pesn.com/2006/05/02/9500266_Gun_Engine/
excerpt:
Q: How does the Gun-engine differ from standard automotive engines
that are on the market? What makes your design better?
My gun-engine has many things in common with a traditional engine,
(induction and exhaust evacuation valves, crankshaft, etc.) yet it is
different since it explodes fuel; traditional engines cannot withstand
the explosions. The key point of difference is that the explosions of
fuel vapor pre-mixed with air (homogeneous fuel) do not act on the
primary piston that produces work, but rather on an additional piston
that floats on a compressible air pocket. This arrangement introduces
certain delaying of pressure building over the primary piston that
produces work. This provides the important opportunity to improve
torque up to 70 to 90 times without fuel consumption increase.
Also, the arrangement changed torque vs. Speed, and power vs. speed
characteristics. The torque is independent of speed, and power is in
proportion to speed, which eliminates the need to use transmission or
reduction gears. In addition, this new arrangement eliminates the need
for advancing the ignition, which is responsible for related parasitic
torque in every traditional engine. Therefore the arrangement also
allows development of transmission-free gadgetry such as cars and
trucks.
Every traditional engine is infested with causes of inefficiency;
therefore, it is bad by design. I've eliminated most of the causes, so
I believe my gun-engine is better by design. One of the most important
causes of the inefficiency is the waste of heat by cooling through a
radiator. Another not less important cause of the inefficiency is the
release of hot, incompletely-expanded exhaust. I've replaced the
radiator -- the major cause of the inefficiency in every traditional
engine -- with an internal cooling that preserves heat, which could be
converted into extra work.
I've integrated a gun with this engine, therefore the expansion of
exhaust is to, or even below, the atmospheric pressure.
Traditional engines work in a four stroke cycle, (some in a two stroke
cycle) yet my gun-engine uses a four-stroke cycle during starting and
to reach the destined speed, upon which it switches automatically to a
twelve-stroke cycle that converts all the energy released from fuel
into work.
The twelve-stroke cycle comprises:
- an induction stroke to supply fuel vapor with air into explosion
chamber;
- a compression stroke to initiate explosions trough the compression heat;
- primary power stroke similar to that in traditional engines and;
- up to four compression and four extra power strokes that convert
this energy that is wasted in traditional engines into extra work.
The conversion does quadruple the efficiency over that of traditional
engines, and in combination with elimination of transmission, allows
construction of a vehicle capable of exceeding 220 mpg in mileage.
Q: How do you see your Gun-engine competing with the best of today's
engines in the market place? When do you see your engine entering the
market?
To begin with, this engine is cheaper to produce due to elimination of
some production processes and complexities. As the gun-engine can
accept any fuel, including hydrogen, the owner of the vehicle could
select the most economic fuel on the market. With the greatly-improved
mileage of a transmission-free vehicle exceeding 220 mpg would
naturally eliminate traditional engines from the market altogether.
In addition, if properly financed, the gun-engine should prevent the
highly-advertised fuel cell from entering into market as its
efficiency is much below that of my gun-engine. I do believe that
Hydrogen should not be wasted as oil resources have been, so my advice
is to rethink the fuel cell technology. It should be perfected prior
to entering into mass production stage.
I also believe that the gun-engine which could use existing and
futuristic fuel infrastructure is a much better alternative to highly
financed, pretty expensive, yet not very reliable technology, the mass
production of which does not exist. However, the existing production
facilities and methods for traditional engines could easily be adapted
to mass-produce the gun-engine.
I also think that a device that could accept many fuels or fuel blends
is much better alternative to one which runs only on very pure
Hydrogen.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thank you. LR.......Get a test drive if possible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Xebra
That place is only about 3 miles out of my way coming back from a Portland
run, so I'll have to stop by some day and see what motor their running
8^ )
Thanks for the link
Cya
Jim Husted
Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be
perfect
for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices this car
is a no brainer.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
Vegetable Oil Car.
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just
2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Or the source:
http://www.zapworld.com/cars/xebra.asp
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:02 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zappylist; SFEVA
Subject: Xebra
http://www.electricwheelsinc.com/xebra.htm This would certainly be perfect
for San Francisco. At 10k for the vehicle and 3 dollar gas prices this car
is a no brainer.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
Vegetable Oil Car.
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just wondering who else is bringing EV's.
I'll be there and a couple of other motorcycle guys too from Michigan.
A quick question/favor to ask: Does anyone have a spot in a trailer
where I can park my bike Friday night? I have a little pickup truck
and don't want the bike tampered with during the night.
Mike
--
The Electric Motorcycle Portal
http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
Electric Motorcycle Listserv
http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/listserv
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:21:34PM -0400, Neon John wrote:
> What is this crap doing on an EV list?
Well, the common sense explanation would be that this engine might
work well in a hybrid.
Similar to the engine you posted just 6 days ago.
;-)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Since we are talking about the AC side of the connection, we could use
an x10 like protocol transmitting instructions accros the line. This
continous loop of instructions is initiated when the start button is
pressed and is superimposed on the AC waveform. When the responses stop,
power is cut.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A: Well I'm glad you asked. A standard automotive engine runs on
gasoline and produces shaft horsepower. My new Gun engine runs on bunk
with a 12-phase cycle due to its internal Fairy Dust coating on all
combustion chamber surfaces. It literally breaks all known physical and
thermodynamic laws simply by not bothering to learn about them.
Of course he's bunk. The flaws in his technical reasoning are many,
spackled over with conclusive-sounding wording of a motivational
speaker. It's really not worth getting into.
Generally any claims featured on a site with "Lightning Power", "Zero
Point Energy", and "Magnet-Powered Motors" (not electric motors using
magnets, we're talking motors powered by a permanent magnet alone)
should be taken with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Danny
Q: How does the Gun-engine differ from standard automotive engines
that are on the market? What makes your design better?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/4/06, Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:21:34PM -0400, Neon John wrote:
> What is this crap doing on an EV list?
Well, the common sense explanation would be that this engine might
work well in a hybrid.
Similar to the engine you posted just 6 days ago.
OOooo! Snap!
Actually my reasons were that if his claims are true (big if) then it
would take the wind out if all the recent interest in hybrids, PHEVs,
and EVs; and frankly I thought the community might find it
interesting.
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all
I'm starting to recover from one intense EV weekend . I think I just
had my vacation , as having so much fun couldn't be anything else.
The 3 hour "long distance competition " had two heavy weights , Charles
Whalen's Rave 4 with 288 v 90 ah Nickel hydrate batteries vs. my Mazda pu
with 40 very healthy golfers ( 120v 2 strings of 6v 220 ah ) . Charles knew
a few tricks to get the most power out of his pack and had the charger set
to finish just before the race started , which we decided would be 4am
Saturday morning . We picked this time so that at 7 am when the race was
over we'd have time to re charge some before the rally and be able to give
rides at the rally . I'm playing keyboard in a group that will not let me
have a night off :-) and didn't finish till almost 12 , after the gig I did
some stuff at my house and then dropped by the " green shed " to see that
the 2 heavy weights where OK . Their at the shed was Larry the bass player
who is now driving my Toyota terrecell ev ( clunn car 15) painting up signs
for the rally and at almost 1am seems very excited about the rally and
racing in the 1 hour class. I really think the lack of sleep adds something
to the whole ev rally think. After 2 hours sleep At 3.15 am Charles and I
meet for breakfast at the local waffle house , Charles in my ev race truck
and me in the EV 1934 gazelle kit car that I had picked up from the own to
be in the show. Yes 2 ev's in the parking lot did get a few people talking ,
even at 3 am. Well back at the shop , the rave 4 charger had tripped the
barker and was sitting uncharged , . This was a lucky brake for me as there
was half a dozen things I hadn't done , and could now do while his rave 4
charged . At 6:30 the Rave was ready , and even though I wasn't :-) we
took off. I'd left my cell phone at home and told Charles to head on and I'd
catch up as my house was only one block off the main road . That was my
first mistake .
Part 2 " where is this guy"
Steve clunn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Electric Race Car Article
Excellent letter, Cliff! Great points you make! Your thoughts on these
challenges and opportunities for motor racing seem quite similar to those
of
your fellow professional race car driver, the late Paul Dana, who,
tragically, as you probably know, was recently killed in a high speed
crash
at the track. Paul gained a lot of prominence and publicity in his
outspoken promotion and use of biofuels such as ethanol to address the
challenges you refer to for the racing world. You, on the other hand,
have
taken it much further than Paul by going all the way to electric and
proving
it, yourself, and your electric Imp to be equally competitive with the
oily
gassers. As such, I think you deserve at least as much -- and really much
more -- credit, publicity, and attention as Paul for what you are doing
and
proving in the racing world. It is quite true, noteworthy, and
commendable
that you guys in electric racing, SCCA/autocross, NEDRA/drag racing, are
leading the way in innovation, addressing the challenges and solving the
problems of petroleum-dependent propulsion, pushing the envelope, and
setting the performance standards that the automotive industry will one
day
adopt and follow.
I'm wondering if you ever met Paul Dana and discussed your ideas with him
and compared notes? Maybe we can continue this conversation tomorrow at
Las
Olas.
See you then.
Charles
----- Original Message -----
From: "ProEV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Electric Race Car Article
Lawson,
There is an interesting electric race car article in Race Car
Engineering
magazine.
They published my 'Letter to the Editor' in Race Car Engineering two
issues before (Vol 16 No 3). I copy it below for those who might not
happen to have subscribed to this obscure (but excellent) English
Engineering magazine.
<While most active list members would find a lot of the info redundant,>
There was some good research done by the writer. NEDRA, Current
Eliminator, Kill-a-cycle and Formula Lightning were all mentioned. Even
EAA!
The car designer, Martin Ogilvie, former chief designer for Team Lotus
has
converter a nice composite roadster (Wisper-Westfield In Structural
Plastics Electric Roadster) but is still planning his racecar. The Specs
say he plans to run 60 Volts which seems odd. The roadster runs Hawkers.
It looks like 20 of them but it is not clear if he is running them as
240
volts or two 120 volt packs.
<the twin DC motor and drive setup appeared very unique and well
engineered.>
Yes, those motors are nice looking and it seems he is running two sets of
twin motors for AWD. The two motors sit side by side but pointed opposite
directions. They share an integrated bell housing / gear / half shaft
connection on each end so that you can mount the motors in place of a
diff. There does not seem to be a website. Anyone know more?
My letter is below:
Dear Sir,
In your 'Write Line' editorial in Vol 15 No 12, you worry that in a world
threatened by global warming, motorsports emissions will make motorsports
as socially unacceptable as smoking. What you rightly see as a problem,
might also be looked at as an opportunity.
It is through the challenges of racing that the world has developed
quicker, stronger and more reliable cars. Today, the rules keep changing
but race teams continue to find ways to make cars even better.
The racing industry should approach global warming as just another rule
change: The race vehicle can not be powered by an internal combustion
engine. It is still racing. Suspensions, aero, tires. The powertrain guys
are going to have to learn some new tricks, but it is still about
converting stored energy into motion.
Our race team has a head start. ProEV's Electric Imp powered by Kokam's
lithium polymer batteries is already competing. The 235 horsepower, 370
ft-lbs torque (at 0 RPM) AWD Impreza chassis is undefeated in SCCA D
modified autocross. Our best finish in sprint (around 30 miles) road
racing is a rather lucky 2nd place but we expect an honest victory
(against gas powered competition) in 2006.
Walk around a typical racing paddock. Look at all that intelligence and
creativity focused on dropping that extra 10th of a second. Are not these
the people who can take the electric car and make it as fast as today's
gas powered car? Is not this the challenge that can make racing relevant
again?
Sincerely:
Clifford Rassweiler
www.ProEV.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 3 May 2006 22:01:17 -0700, Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:21:34PM -0400, Neon John wrote:
>> What is this crap doing on an EV list?
>
>Well, the common sense explanation would be that this engine might
>work well in a hybrid.
Yaaa, along with all the other over-unity crap floating around out
there.
>
>Similar to the engine you posted just 6 days ago.
Que? What engine?
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/4/06, Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yaaa, along with all the other over-unity crap floating around out
there.
Now, this guy is weird, and if I had not read misread anti-gravity as
gravity I would have called him a quack by association and never
posted the interview; but he isn't claiming to make energy from
nothing.
>Similar to the engine you posted just 6 days ago.
Que? What engine?
I think he means this post:
"Neon John to ev
More options Apr 27 (7 days ago)
Here is a nice engine for range extenders. It's high speed so it
could be coupled directly to 3600 RPM generators. And it's water
cooled for lower noise.
https://surpluscenter.com/item.asp?UID=2006042718102623&item=28-1604&catname=engines
John"
-Mike
PS- I do want to appologize. Either I totally missed some of the more
crackpot stuff and political commentary in the article, or it was
added after I first saw it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are a host of impossible quack motors/generators out there. There
always have been, starting with perpetual motion machines from way back
when. Nobody here's interested in impossible claims. In fact
potentially possible claims of cold fusion and such, while potentially
incredibly useful to EV builders as well as every single person in the
world, are not on topic.
EVs may or may not be practical for everyone yet, but nonetheless is a
real working device and nobody's trying to rewrite the laws of physics
to make them work. Note that working on things not generally accepted
or not wholly practical for everyone is very different than "quack"
science and scammers.
Actually I don't think anybody would mind an article about a small
generator with a genuinely functional steam regen to increase the
efficiency or whatever. The issue is this particular story is obvious
bunk, one of 1000's out there (there are scores of them on that site
alone). How to tell the difference? Well, that's a long story. I
don't mean to be arrogant or rude, but the simplest answer actually is
"go to school". That's the best and most reliable way to be able to
separate a well-architected bunk article from a real one.
Danny
Mike Ellis wrote:
OOooo! Snap!
Actually my reasons were that if his claims are true (big if) then it
would take the wind out if all the recent interest in hybrids, PHEVs,
and EVs; and frankly I thought the community might find it
interesting.
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It literally breaks all known physical and
thermodynamic laws simply by not bothering to learn about them.
Generally any claims featured on a site with "Lightning Power", "Zero
Point Energy", and "Magnet-Powered Motors" (not electric motors using
magnets, we're talking motors powered by a permanent magnet alone)
should be taken with a healthy degree of skepticism.
And smack me down if I ever post about something that claims to do any
of those things.
-Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
it will be nice to hear comments on the device here :
http://www.tewari.org/Test_Results/test_results.html
check out the other pages of the website too
tony grotz is a qulified professional .. and others who
commented on the 'engine' are not non-entities either
..peekay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Gun Engine?
> A: Well I'm glad you asked. A standard automotive engine runs on
> gasoline and produces shaft horsepower. My new Gun engine runs on bunk
> with a 12-phase cycle due to its internal Fairy Dust coating on all
> combustion chamber surfaces. It literally breaks all known physical and
> thermodynamic laws simply by not bothering to learn about them.
>
> Of course he's bunk. The flaws in his technical reasoning are many,
> spackled over with conclusive-sounding wording of a motivational
> speaker. It's really not worth getting into.
>
> Generally any claims featured on a site with "Lightning Power", "Zero
> Point Energy", and "Magnet-Powered Motors" (not electric motors using
> magnets, we're talking motors powered by a permanent magnet alone)
> should be taken with a healthy degree of skepticism.
>
> Danny
>
> >> Q: How does the Gun-engine differ from standard automotive engines
> >> that are on the market? What makes your design better?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.3/331 - Release Date: 03/05/2006
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Introducing the new Yahoo! Answers Beta A new place to get answers to your
questions Try it http://uk.answers.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/4/06, Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are a host of impossible quack motors/generators out there. There
always have been, starting with perpetual motion machines from way back
when. Nobody here's interested in impossible claims. In fact
potentially possible claims of cold fusion and such, while potentially
incredibly useful to EV builders as well as every single person in the
world, are not on topic.
I have moved this story into my crackpot pile as well, as I said
either I gave it a too cursory read or they edited after I first read
it (sadly, more likely the former). However this person down not claim
to have invented perpetual motion. Has he made an "impossible claim"?
Is 220 MPG impossible? I have heard people on this list say that they
can eek almost 90 MPG out of their Insights. Are Insights already at
40% of the theoretical maximum?
EVs may or may not be practical for everyone yet, but nonetheless is a
real working device and nobody's trying to rewrite the laws of physics
to make them work.
Once again, what in the article violates the laws of physics? Did I
miss something else?
The issue is this particular story is obvious
bunk,
I think it likely is bunk, but why is it obvious? Be specific!
How to tell the difference? Well, that's a long story. I
don't mean to be arrogant or rude, but the simplest answer actually is
"go to school". That's the best and most reliable way to be able to
separate a well-architected bunk article from a real one.
Actually, I have a bachelor's degree in physics. But I am not so vain
as to think that that qualifies me to decide whether some one's claim
about a highly complicated engine is valid or not. Just because I did
a handful of assignment questions on the maximum efficiency of a
simple heat engine does not make me an expert on combustion engines.
Please indulge me, what specifically have you learned in school that
can invalidate this person's claims? So far you have suggested that
this person claims to have violated the laws of physics. You claim
that the flaws in his arguments are obvious. But you haven't offered
one single example of either of these claims. One of the reasons I
posted this was in the hope that someone more knowledgeble than I
could explain why this was likely bunk. Not so someone could say "this
is obviously bunk" and "it's not worth going into."
That being said, this is probably the wrong forum for this discussion
and I appologize for the original post.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> The whole point of art.625 is to prevent you from wiring your charger
>> into the house and then using a standard AC receptacle as the output.
>
> No; I don't think that's the point at all. I think the auto
> manufacturers (GM in particular) did some fearmongering, and created a
> bogeyman that says electric vehicle charging is somehow vastly more
> dangerous than plugging in any other kind of electrical device.
Perhaps there is something to what you say, however, they wrote the
article with enough loopholes that it doesn't really matter.
The parts about using non-standard connectors ARE there to prevent you
from plugging something else in that might not handle the voltages.
Anyway, let's look at some of the points in Art 625 to see how easy they
are to get around.
Note: these points mostly apply to individuals and not public charging
stations. However, public charging stations that aren't installed by
individuals are a dying breed and won't likely be resurrected anytime
soon.
625-2. Definitions
"Electric Vehicle. An automotive-type vehicle for highway use"
So before we go any further, if you have a E-cycle or NEV then Art 625
simply does NOT apply in any way shape or form.
" Electric Vehicle Inlet. The device on the electric vehicle
... For the purposes of this Code the electric vehicle inlet is considered
to be part of the electric vehicle and not part of the electric vehicle
supply equipment."
Ok if it's part of the electric vehicle then NEC has NO jurisdiction.
Even though they are clearly attempting to exceed their authority, NEC
can't say jack about what I put on my car.
" Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. The conductors, including the
ungrounded, grounded, and equipment grounding conductors and the electric
vehicle connectors. attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices,
power outlets, or apparatuses installed specifically for the purpose of
delivering energy from the premises wiring to the electric vehicle."
Ok first of all it has to be installed. If it's not "installed" then it's
not Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE).
Secondly it has to be "installed specifically" for charging EVs. The 220V
outlet in my garage was installed by the previous owner for use with
woodworking equipment. So it's not EVSE. If I was to install a new 220V
outlet, it would be for use with my welder, aircompressor, battery charger
etc. It would not be "Specific" to my EV.
We can see this also in:
"625-13. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. Electric vehicle supply
equipment rated at 125 volt, single phase, 15 or 20 amperes or part of a
system identified and listed as suitable for the purpose and meeting the
requirements of Sections 625-18. 625-19. and 625-29 shall be permitted to
be cord and plug connected. All other electric vehicle supply equipment
shall be permanently connected and fastened in place. This equipment shall
have no exposed live parts."
Ok so we have an itentional exclusion of 120V chargers. Further, look at
the second to last sentence. If it's not permanently connected and
fastened in place, it's not EVSE.
Now it's apparent they are trying to say that you MUST permanently wire in
your charger. But they are only saying this so they can have jurisdiction
over it. If it's not permanently wired in, then it's an appliance and NEC
has no say over it.
NOWHERE in NEC Art 625 does it say that we are not allowed to treat our
EVs are appliances and plug them into standard appliance outlets.
So looking consideringt all of this, your LEGAL options are:
1. Use an onboard 125V 20A or less charger. Art 625 makes specific
exemptions for this.
2. Use a mobile off board charger. It's then an appliance and doesn't
fall under any of Art 625. The outlet it's plugged into is a standard
appliance outlet designed and intended for plugging appliances into.
3. Use a high power onboard charger. The inlet for the charger is part of
the EV and doesn't fall under NEC's jurisdition. Use an extension cord to
plug your EV into a standard appliance outlet.
4. Use a high power onboard charger with a permanently connected cord.
This makes your EV an appliance :) Anyway Art 625 doesn't even mention
this arrangement so obviously it doesn't fall under Art 625. Plug your
appliance (EV) into a standard appliance outlet.
>> The outlet it plugs into is a standard appliance outlet and as long
>> as you use a standard outlet, it's already covered by NEC elsewhere.
>
> That's where it gets fuzzy. Article 90-2b (Scope: Not Covered) says the
> NEC doesn't cover automobiles; but then 625 says it does, for the
> special case of anything used to charge an electric vehicle. Which
> article has precedence?
Well Art 625 says that it takes precendence. However, Art 625 states that
the EV inlet is part of the EV and NOT part of the EVSE. It looks to me
like they are trying to be a little sneaky here. They recognize that the
inlet is part of the vehicle and not part of what they are trying to
mandate, but make it look like they have some control over it.
Basically they have autority over the permanently wired charger and cable
coming out of it. This means they have autority over the connector on
this cord, but that is where their authority ends. If you don't make the
inlet match the plug then it doesn't do you much good.
Simple solution, don't permanently wire your charger in and you don't fall
under all of this junk.
>> Now for the charger to vehicle interface... as long as the charger
>> is a separate appliance, then NEC doesn't have jurisdiction and
>> Art 625 doesn't matter.
>
> No. As it is presently written, electric vehicles can only plug into
> special connectors, not used for anything else. Article 625 defines all
> the special restrictions on the interface between the AC mains and the
> EV.
ONLY if the AC outlet is "installed specifically" for charging EVs.
Simple solution, don't install the outlet "specifically" for charging your
EV.
Art 625 doesn't say anything about plugging EVs into existing outlets.
Nowhere in Art 625 does it say that this is forbidden.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well if it has numbers with it, it MUST be true.
"Over unity" is physically impossible. Energy does not come from
nowhere which is a very well established (and VERY well verified, at
every level) principle.
Many have made similar, if not identical, claims for the past 100 years
or so. Without exception they are all due to shoddy laboratory
procedure or more commonly outright fraud. Not hard at all to write up
that you put in 100W of power and got 200W out. In fact, look, I just
did. Wasn't hard. Not hard to get a few other entities to "verify"
it. Or just make up some other entities. This exact same scam has been
going on for ages.
The central problem is the physical impossibility of their claim. They
do not even provide an interesting explanation of how they circumvented
it, "certain specific configurations of magnetic fields from rotating
electromagnets and electrical conductors" which just says more or less a
garden variety motor. It is a gross understatement to say that the
interaction of electrical conductors and magnetic fields is "well
understood" and it cannot do this.
Danny
peekay wrote:
it will be nice to hear comments on the device here :
http://www.tewari.org/Test_Results/test_results.html
check out the other pages of the website too
tony grotz is a qulified professional .. and others who
commented on the 'engine' are not non-entities either
..peekay
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mike Ellis wrote:
However this person down not claim to have invented perpetual motion.
Has he made an "impossible claim"?
Is 220 MPG impossible? I have heard people on this list say that they
can eek almost 90 MPG out of their Insights. Are Insights already at
40% of the theoretical maximum?
The skillfull scammer stays away from directly claiming perpetual motion.
But, as it stands, a gasoline engine can only get so efficient.
Extremely high gains in the engine itself are not plausible because
there are serious real-world limitations to burning fuel in terms of
thermal efficiency. Combustion heats the gas and it expands. The
pressure, not the heat, makes the piston move and the loss is primarily
due to the fact that it takes so much energy to heat gas to this temp.
There are not many practical ways to recover a great deal of energy out
of the hot gases which are now only at a fairly minimal pressure. They
try to design 4-stroke engines so that there's no useful pressure left
at the end of the power stroke and it only leaves the cylinder because
the piston pushes it out on the exhaust stroke.
How's he plan to do it? No useful explanation provided at all. "12
stroke cycle" and "air cushioned explosion" is simply babbling, he does
not illustrate his principle in any meaningful way which pretty much
shoots down his credibility. Not that there's much credibility to begin
with, this is a very well explored field and an amateur coming up with
radical improvements is somewhat unlikely (though not impossible).
And of course he's asking for funding... in a world where there are
thousands of extremely qualified automotive engineers, with billions in
corporate funding, who could calculate the exact potential value of his
plans in days if not moments. Why would he be writing in a quack
magazine that he just needs funding to make it work?
Mercedes-Benz invented a neat steam system to recover waste heat from
the exhaust, apparently just by using it to boil water and using the
steam pressure to drive a turbine. See, they illustrated a solution.
They say it gets around 15% more mpg which is expected for a waste heat
recovery solution.
Danny
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I'd like to explore this topic a bit more. Let's take a real world
> example.
> A single Etek can not handle much more than 330 amps for very long before
> high
> heat melts solder and bad things happen. Yet common controllers such as
> the
> Curtis 1201 (400 amps) and the Alrax (450 amps) can deliver a bad result.
> Several folks with EV motorcycles have produced these bad results.
>
> First question....can the rotation of an Etek be reversed so that two can
> be
> mounted with the shafts facing each other? Any example conversions
> appreciated.
Sure, easily. If you then wire them in parallel, then each motor will
only see a maximum of 1/2 the controller rating. However, even 200 amps
will melt an Etek if it lasts too long.
> If this configuration was built would the heat in each motor be less of an
> issue? They still see the same amount of current don't they? However they
> would
> share the load (assuming the vehicle weight is relatively unchanged).
The amount of current the motor draws is a function of the load on it.
Less load, less current, so yes the motors will obviously run cooler if
you use two of them instead of one. Or you could use one larger motor
with the same effect.
>
> What is the seat of the pants affect of the additional torque of the
> series
> parallel configuration? Is it roughly double or just a slight increase?
Ok, ignoring reqiring the motor or doing something wierd inside, the
torque a given motor produces will always be the same at a given current.
I.e. if 100 amps produces 25 ft-lbs of torque, then you will always get 25
ft-lbs of torque when the motor is drawing 100 amps.
If you have two of these motors each drawing 100 amps, then the combined
output torque will be 50 ft-lbs. It doesn't matter if the motors are
wired in parallel or series, 100 amps through the motor produces 25 ft-lbs
x two motors = 50 ft-lbs.
You don't get anything extra here. If you ran one motor at twice the
voltage and 100 amps, then you'd get twice the RPM @ 25 ft-lbs. Run this
motor through a 2:1 reduction and you'll get 50 ft-lbs of torque @ x rpm,
just like you'd get with two motors in series.
Adding another motor doesn't give you any extra power, it just changes how
the power comes out. I.e. you can trade RPM for torque.
Obviously having two motors reduces the work that each motor is
contributing and therefor reduces the stress on the motor, but you can get
exactly the same effect by using one larger motor.
THe end result is that your controller (or battery pack) is the limiting
factor in how much power you can get out of the system.
>
> Mike Bachand
> DEVC
>
>
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
look at it this way .. we live in air .. need air
whales live in water .. need air
fish live in water .. need water
so for us, living underwater is not possible
for whales living without air is not possible
for whatles living wihout water is not possible
for fish living without water is not possibl
we understand these .. and so agree to them
if that generator has been tested..the results are out..
and presuming that it IS verified, the question would
be - how does it work ?
sun gives out light .. all know that
sun gives out radio waves too .. sunspots etc disturb radio .. NOW we know
that for a fact
sun gives out other energies too .. we don't KNOW that as we don't feel it
this is not an over unity device ..
this taps the 'energy' where it exists
just like the sails tap energy from air and move ships
just like magnifying glass concentrates sunlight and burn
this generator MAY be doing just a 'conversion'
third logic ..
while sitting in a slower train, we feel going backwards when
we are seeing a faster train out of one window .. but when
we look at the other window and see the trees going 'backwards'
then we are sure that we too are going forward .. it LOOKs like
we were going backwards
so, what we don't know, we doubt, question, refuse to believe,
even oppose, condemn, ridicule and object to
the church took 400 years to accept in 1996 what galileo said
this website explains in detail the concepts of energy in ether,
space, vacuum (which is what we usually think of as NOTHING)
from astronauts in space we now KNOW that the vacuum
contains energy .. heat .. intense heat
so the trick will be .. to try to understand, find out, enquire,
study, get things proved, or proved wrong
either way, we'll know .. but accepting older physics and
chemistry and electromagnetism and thermodynamics ..
well any scientist will tell you that these laws keep getting
modified .. the only thing permanent is the change
..peekay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Gun Engine?
> Well if it has numbers with it, it MUST be true.
> "Over unity" is physically impossible. Energy does not come from
> nowhere which is a very well established (and VERY well verified, at
> every level) principle.
> Many have made similar, if not identical, claims for the past 100 years
> or so. Without exception they are all due to shoddy laboratory
> procedure or more commonly outright fraud. Not hard at all to write up
> that you put in 100W of power and got 200W out. In fact, look, I just
> did. Wasn't hard. Not hard to get a few other entities to "verify"
> it. Or just make up some other entities. This exact same scam has been
> going on for ages.
>
> The central problem is the physical impossibility of their claim. They
> do not even provide an interesting explanation of how they circumvented
> it, "certain specific configurations of magnetic fields from rotating
> electromagnets and electrical conductors" which just says more or less a
> garden variety motor. It is a gross understatement to say that the
> interaction of electrical conductors and magnetic fields is "well
> understood" and it cannot do this.
>
> Danny
>
> peekay wrote:
>
> >it will be nice to hear comments on the device here :
> >
> >http://www.tewari.org/Test_Results/test_results.html
> >
> >check out the other pages of the website too
> >
> >tony grotz is a qulified professional .. and others who
> >commented on the 'engine' are not non-entities either
> >
> >..peekay
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.3/331 - Release Date: 03/05/2006
>
___________________________________________________________
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
