Send EV mailing list submissions to
        ev@lists.sjsu.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of EV digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: I could build it (Lee Hart)
   2. Re: Pulse Charging (Lee Hart)
   3. Re: Think BIG! was : how to charge 12 volt deep cycle
      batteries from the static electricity in the air in 2 or 3 days
      for $20   worth of parts. (Lee Hart)
   4. Re: I could build it (Lee Hart)
   5. Re: "still need a good affordable motor" AC (Lee Hart)
   6. Re: Trying to decide (Dominant)
   7. Re: Mixing and matching AC Components. (Dominant)
   8. Re: Wheel Alignment (Andrew Letton)
   9. Re: how to charge 12 volt deep cycle batteries from the
      static electricity in the air in 2 or 3 days for $20 worth of
      parts. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  10. Re: Pulse Charging (George Swartz)
  11. Re: Brusa NLG5 charging profile for Deka 8G24M (Lee Hart)
  12. Re: economy ac controller (Lee Hart)
  13. Re: K2, yet another unresponsive battery company - NOT
      (Peter Oliver)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:52:33 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] I could build it
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

storm connors wrote:
> Or realize that a lot of the money you spend would come under the 
> Hobby classification rather than transportation. This is not a 
> negative statement, just a statement of fact.

Agreed! Many people's transportation decisions *are* based on hobby /
entertainment value. They don't buy the cheapest to run car; they buy
big luxurious fashionable heavily advertised vehicles that cost many
times more to operate, but do exactly the same job.

> Would any of us seriously recommend converting a vehicle in order to
> save money? $6000 conversion cost will buy a lot of gas, even at
> $3/gallon.

Specifically, that's 2000 gallons; enough to drive about 50,000 miles in 
a car that gets 25 mpg. Electricity is so much cheaper than gasoline 
that you really can get a paypack, though it takes a while.

The real problem is to clearly state your goals, and then design your 
vehicle to actually meet them. If you truly want economy, you can truly 
achieve it. I bought a 16 year old retired electric postal jeep (1980 
ComutaVan), put in $1000 worth of golf cart batteries and miscellaneous 
repairs, and drove it daily for 7 years. Operating cost was under 2 
cents per mile. When I was done, I sold it for the same $1000.

But for most people, economy is just talk. What they *really* want is 
style, performance, and luxury.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:09:31 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Pulse Charging
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could someone explain pulse charging please. Does it have any advantage
> in lead acid deep cycle batteries?

Pulse charging is mostly an ill-defined marketing term, used to sell you 
something of dubious value. For normal batteries being charged under 
normal circumstances, the benefits of pulse charging are so small that 
it is difficult to prove that they even exist.

The name originated from research where the charging current was 
switched on and off in some pattern. In certain special cases, it 
improved charging. For example, if the charging power source was pure 
DC, or was very low compared to the battery's capacity, or if the 
battery had been damaged from abuse, or if you are charging at such high 
rates that the battery would be destroyed if you didn't give it time to 
rest.

Pure DC: By nature, almost all battery chargers are pulse chargers. A 
battery acts as a pretty good filter capacitors, so most chargers have 
little or no output filter capacitor. If the charging power is coming 
from the 60 Hz AC power line, this causes the charging current to 
pulsate from 0 to some peak value 120 times a second. Batteries 
apparently don't mind, and even like this as long as it's not taken to 
extremes (such as 1 amp average currents consisting of 100 amp pulses 
for 1% of the time).

When people started using pure DC sources for charging (switchmode power 
supplies, solar power, etc.) they noticed that the batteries didn't 
charge quite as well. So, designers made them pulse on/off in some manner.

Very low currents: If you charge a lead-acid battery at very low 
currents (under 1% of its amphour capacity), it takes an unexpectedly 
long time, charge efficiency is low, and the battery may never reach 
full charge. It's better to charge it at higher currents for short 
lengths of time. For example, 1 amp for 1 hour a day works better than 
40 ma (1/24th of an amp) 24 hours a day.

Some batteries (notably AGMs) benefit from a fairly high initial 
charging current. If high current isn't available continuously, the 
charger can pulse it on/off, or distribute its high current to one group 
of batteries at a time.

Abuse: Finally, if a battery has been left dead for some time, or has 
reversed cells from over-discharge, or excessive internal resistance 
from grid corrosion, it will be hard to charge with normal charging 
algorithms. By pulsing, sometimes you can force charging current to flow 
to recover at least some capacity from the damaged battery. This might 
get you by for an ICE starting battery that only has to supply a few 
seconds of power. But damaged batteries aren't of much use for EVs.

High rates: Lead acid batteries can accept very high charging currents; 
as high as their discharge current rates. However, you can't keep up a 
high rate for very long. At high currents, the voltage rises very 
quickly. When it gets above the gassing threshold, you get violent 
gassing and overheating. So, high rate chargers need to frequently 
pause, check the voltage without the high current, and give the battery 
time to rest if it's too high before continuing.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:19:50 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Think BIG! was : how to charge 12 volt deep cycle
        batteries from the static electricity in the air in 2 or 3 days for
        $20     worth of parts.
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Bob Rice wrote:
> Wasn't there a diss-cussion about IF you could run a wire from the 
> ground to something in space, like the Space Shuttle, the wire moving
> at the ridiculous speed the shuttle has to go to stay up? It would
> generate power?

There are endless ways to generate power. But most of them are small 
scale; only good for generating tiny amounts (unless you built gigantic 
versions).

Spin a loop of wire over your head, and it generates electricity. The 
wire is cutting the earth's magnetic field, and you have an AC 
generator. But the field is weak, it's a one-turn coil, the RPM is low 
-- the power you get is insignificant.

Build a giant version, with 100-mile long wires, moving at 17,000 mph, 
and you can get significant amounts of power -- but it's nothing 
compared to the effort it took to get it.

Likewise, this whole thread on using sky current to power something 
works; but generates insignificant amounts of power. The same static 
charge that causes lightning during a thunderstorm is still present even 
on a clear day -- though the current is orders of magnitude lower.

Ideas like these are interesting for micropower device, like a watch or 
calculator. There is a whole field of study called "harvesters". But 
they are not worth discussing for EVs.
-- 
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:05:58 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] I could build it
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Ryan Stotts wrote:
> I'm always thinking about EV's and the costs.  I could compromise and
> convert my car.  Buy a used smallish motor(9"?) for ~$1,000 or less 
> potentially.  Buy a small Zilla for ~$1,000 or less possibly?  Run a 
> small lead pack.  Twelve 12V batteries?
> 
> It would run and drive and be an EV.  Slow and no performance or
> range though.
> 
> Would it be worth it?
> 
> Or I could build something that would have some real pep to it. 
> Custom motor setup from Jim.  Biggest Zilla.  60 pack like the Zombie
> has.  About $20,000 would you say?
> 
> Worth it?

There are many things in life more important than money. Kids cost a 
fortune -- you think they'll ever pay back every dollar you invested? 
Churches, schools, hospitals, etc. all routinely lose money -- but we 
have them anyway.

You have to decide what is important to *you*. You may compromise to 
please your family or impress your friends. But you certainly don't have 
to impress your neighbors! Who cares if they think your car is ugly or 
expensive or stupid! (Heck, you probably think most of *their* cars are 
ugly, expensive, and stupid! :-)

Start by making a list of what you want in a car. What does it *have* to 
do as a minimum? What are some things you'd *like* it to do? How much 
can it cost (time and money)? After you've covered the "must do" list, 
if there's surplus left in your budget, you can start adding things from 
the "like to do" (most important to you first).

I think the most important thing is not to be paralyzed by indecision. 
Don't plan forever, or wait for someone to solve all the problems for 
you (it won't happen). Nothing important ever works right the first 
time. There will be mistakes; that's the cost of tuition for self 
education. Expect for changes in course.
--
"You can't please everyone; so you have to please yourself."
        --      Rick Nelson
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:30:14 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] "still need a good affordable motor" AC
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Lee Hart wrote:
>> your home, your car, and everything else is really the same old
>> technology that your grandparents had; just painted and styled to
>> look new.

From: Kaido Kert
> Uh. .. that's not really true, by any stretch of imagination.

Work with me a bit, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Look at a typical house today, and one in your grandfather's time. Both 
are made of wood, primarily 2x4s, nailed together. Both use plasterboard 
for almost all the interior walls. Both have wood floors, with woven 
carpets over them. Both have asphalt shingled roofs, glass windows, 
metal water pipes, copper wiring, etc. The houses are styled completely 
differently, and there are lots of small changes in construction 
techniques; but the similarities are *far* greater than the differences.

Consider a car today, and one in your grandfather's time. Both are steel 
bodies, with piston engines to propel them. They have the same basic 
features; same size, weight, seating capacity. They both have automatic 
transmissions, radios, air conditioning, emission controls, etc. The 
gas, oil, antifreeze, belts, hoses, tires, exhaust pipes, lights, 
batteries, and a vast number of other parts are virtually identical and 
even interchangeable. Sure, there are lots of changes in *how* the 
various functions are accomplished; your car has a complex electronic 
computer controlled fuel injection; grandpa's had a mechanically complex 
carburetor -- but they accomplish the very same function, and to the 
driver, they are equivalent.

Most of the design effort that goes into our houses and cars (and 
everything else we own) goes into *styling*. People are trained to 
believe that if it looks different, it *is* different. Of course, people 
"must have" the newest and greatest version, even if they can't detect 
any improvement in its actual performance at all. The styling changes 
radically from year to year, because that's what makes people buy new 
ones even though their old one is fine.

Technology usually makes small, incremental improvements that may make 
the device work a little better or cost a little less. Advertising will 
drastically over-state the benefits. The average consumer accepts them 
on faith, and rarely checks to see if these benefits are real or imagined.

As this relates to EVs: The auto companies hold EVs to a higher standard 
than anything else in their ICE cars. They demand the perfect battery; 
but use lead-acids themselves. They require expensive AC motors; but use 
brushed motors throughout their own cars. They expect perfect 
reliability, but their ICEs need servicing every few thousand miles.
They insist on exotic chargers, but use the most primitive systems 
imaginable in ICEs.

The reason they demand technological perfection is because they know it 
is impossible to achieve. Even trying to come close leads to a car so 
complex and expensive that it won't sell.

Low tech works. If you want to actually get something on the market, at 
an affordable price, and have it used by millions, you'd better stay 
well away from the "bleeding edge" of technology.

-- 
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:50:19 +1000
From: Dominant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Trying to decide
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>I hate to be a nag, but please keep your units straight.  kW != kWh.

I was sitting here when I composed that email, trying to remember 
whether to include the 'h' or not. :D

>Second, as I understand it, two 100W PVs are unlikely provide that much
>energy when mounted on the roof of a vehicle unless you mount the entire
>vehicle on a solar tracker.  Maybe not even then.

I doubt they would either, but it's an option to consider if he's got 
no chance of being able to plug in at work (probably better value to 
just buy more batteries anyway).



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:51:22 +1000
From: Dominant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Mixing and matching AC Components.
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>With an AC, however, it's a lot more complicated. You have the most
>important factor, the rotor time constant; using the wrong value here
>will hurt the efficiency/power of the motor. You also have multiple PI
>control loops that will probably need to be calibrated for that motor.
>Also, you need a scheme to decide how much field weakening to use
>(probably a function of torque and RPMs would work well enough.)

Whoosh! Right over my head! :D 



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:46:52 -0800
From: Andrew Letton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Wheel Alignment
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Roland Wiench wrote:
> The toe out of the tires will increase in speed.  If one tire is toeing out 
> more than the other, then the vehicle will tend to pull in that direction, 
> so that is why we toe in the tires at rest.

I believe that the statement above from Roland holds true only for REAR 
wheel drive cars, as I'm pretty sure his is.  For FRONT wheel drive 
cars, the wheels will tend to toe IN further when driving, so the 
opposite of the statement above would hold true.

Right folks?  Correct me if I'm wrong.

cheers,

Andrew



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:47:29 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] how to charge 12 volt deep cycle batteries from
        the     static electricity in the air in 2 or 3 days for $20 worth of
        parts.
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

But it's not that great.
High electric fields can cause a ship's mast to glow (St Elmo's Fire) or
a steeple to glow under the right conditions.  It can have quite a high
voltage at times, but the current is very very low under most
conditions.  The conditions required to make it glow generate much more
intense currents but it's pretty rare.  Well at least for say a
home-sized HAM radio antenna, already an absurdly large device to only
capture a few mW here.

Moving the antenna doesn't really make much for additional static
charge, but even if it did, all the static charge and its energy comes
from air friction- it's a drag on the vehicle.

Danny

----- Original Message -----
From: Geopilot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> no. this isn't tunig radio waves like some devices do. Those ARE 
> only 
> microvolts.
> 
>  This is capturing ionization and static charged dust and the 
> natural 
> variation in the field in the atmosphere vertically. It is much 
> more 
> powerful.
> 



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:51:41 -0800
From: "George Swartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Pulse Charging
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=iso-8859-1


There is a technique called pulse discharge charging, where batteries are 
discharged periodically while being charged.  The theory is that is stirs up 
the electrolyte in the pores of the battery plates and makes charging more 
efficient.  Discharge energy can be stored and returned so that charger 
efficiency is not greatly affected.  I think it is a marginal technique.

However, there is a corrolary for pulse charge, discharging that really 
works.  It works like this.  Regen, even if it involves only small amounts 
of returned energy, causes cell voltage to be higher on subsequent 
discharge, by replenishing starved electrolyte in plate pores.  The bottom 
line is that regen is more efficient than you would calculate just by 
looking at motor voltage and current.  Regen is a good thing.  

















On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:09:31 -0600, Lee Hart wrote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Could someone explain pulse charging please. Does it have any advantage
> > in lead acid deep cycle batteries?
> 
> Pulse charging is mostly an ill-defined marketing term, used to sell 
> you something of dubious value. For normal batteries being charged 
> under normal circumstances, the benefits of pulse charging are so 
> small that it is difficult to prove that they even exist.
> 
> The name originated from research where the charging current was 
> switched on and off in some pattern. In certain special cases, it 
> improved charging. For example, if the charging power source was 
> pure DC, or was very low compared to the battery's capacity, or if 
> the battery had been damaged from abuse, or if you are charging at 
> such high rates that the battery would be destroyed if you didn't 
> give it time to rest.
> 
> Pure DC: By nature, almost all battery chargers are pulse chargers. 
> A battery acts as a pretty good filter capacitors, so most chargers 
> have little or no output filter capacitor. If the charging power is 
> coming from the 60 Hz AC power line, this causes the charging 
> current to pulsate from 0 to some peak value 120 times a second. 
> Batteries apparently don't mind, and even like this as long as it's 
> not taken to extremes (such as 1 amp average currents consisting of 
> 100 amp pulses for 1% of the time).
> 
> When people started using pure DC sources for charging (switchmode 
> power supplies, solar power, etc.) they noticed that the batteries 
> didn't charge quite as well. So, designers made them pulse on/off in 
> some manner.
> 
> Very low currents: If you charge a lead-acid battery at very low 
> currents (under 1% of its amphour capacity), it takes an 
> unexpectedly long time, charge efficiency is low, and the battery 
> may never reach full charge. It's better to charge it at higher 
> currents for short lengths of time. For example, 1 amp for 1 hour a 
> day works better than 40 ma (1/24th of an amp) 24 hours a day.
> 
> Some batteries (notably AGMs) benefit from a fairly high initial 
> charging current. If high current isn't available continuously, the 
> charger can pulse it on/off, or distribute its high current to one 
> group of batteries at a time.
> 
> Abuse: Finally, if a battery has been left dead for some time, or 
> has reversed cells from over-discharge, or excessive internal 
> resistance from grid corrosion, it will be hard to charge with 
> normal charging algorithms. By pulsing, sometimes you can force 
> charging current to flow to recover at least some capacity from the 
> damaged battery. This might get you by for an ICE starting battery 
> that only has to supply a few seconds of power. But damaged 
> batteries aren't of much use for EVs.
> 
> High rates: Lead acid batteries can accept very high charging 
> currents; as high as their discharge current rates. However, you 
> can't keep up a high rate for very long. At high currents, the 
> voltage rises very quickly. When it gets above the gassing threshold,
>  you get violent gassing and overheating. So, high rate chargers 
> need to frequently pause, check the voltage without the high current,
>  and give the battery time to rest if it's too high before continuing.
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:42:40 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Brusa NLG5 charging profile for Deka 8G24M
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

storm connors wrote:
> But the ICE battery has to deal with drawdown from the starter. My
> dc/dc only has to recover from whatever self discharge takes place
> while the vehicle is not being driven.

Starting an ICE takes a negligible number of amphours out of the 
battery. 360 amps for 1 second is 0.1 amphour. In contrast, a car's 
clock that draws 0.005 amps continuously uses 0.12 amphours per day.

A battery can be almost completely shot (less than 1% of its original 
amphour capacity) and still start an ICE.

> I've got a $200 charging system, not a $0.50 one.

Your ICE's alternator (with its built-in regulator) will cost you $200 
at the retail level, too. I still say they only spent $1 on its charging 
algorithm.

You DC/DC likewise has no charging algorithm. It is just a fixed voltage 
power supply.

> I'm thinking that float charge only while the vehicle is being driven
> should do the trick. Am I missing anything important?

Yes. You will discover that the battery will be chronically 
under-charged. It will seem to last for years, but if you measure it 
when it is a few years old, you'll find it has essentially no amphour 
capacity.

The fewer hours you drive per day, the higher your DC/DC's voltage needs 
to be set to adequately charge the battery. The DC/DC itself has no 
charging algorithm to handle this for you.
-- 
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:52:24 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] economy ac controller
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Arak Leatham wrote:
> Is anyone building a kit like that now, or capable of it?

I'm sure people are working on it. However, they won't be doing so at 
any big company, because they will favor the higher-tech (and higher 
profit) approaches.

The problem is, when a "little guy" does it, he may get one for his own 
use, but he's unlikely to sell it to anyone else. He won't have many 
customers -- very few people buy kits.

He's also unlikely to publish it "open source". It's a lot of extra work 
to do so. He probably use parts that were expedient (in his junkbox) but 
not readily available to others. There may be ego problems (doesn't want 
people to "steal his idea", or is afraid of being criticised).

-- 
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:56:38 -0800
From: "Peter Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] K2, yet another unresponsive battery company - NOT
To: "'Electric Vehicle Discussion List'" <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

The PHET range from 1.15 to 1.6 Ah...the K2's are 2 for the P model 3.2 for
the EV model....The PHET Price included the Prismatic case with individual
fuses on each cell which translates to about $1.00 per cell

As far as responsiveness goes both companies are responding quickly and
properly to my requests

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Morgan LaMoore
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:09 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] K2, yet another unresponsive battery company

On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 PM, Peter Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The EV cell was quoted at $6.50 - in units of 3,000
>
> Around the corner PHET quoted between $4.40 and $4.80 for their cells
> BUNDLED in the Prismatic Battery pack....

Don't the K2 cells have about 3 times the Ah of the PHET's? This seems
like amazingly good pricing.

The pricing they quoted me wasn't as good as this, but it was much
closer to this than to individual cell pricing.

-Morgan

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
EV@lists.sjsu.edu
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

End of EV Digest, Vol 5, Issue 25
*********************************

Reply via email to