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: 11 inch motor direct drive to diff. (Doug Weathers)
2. Re: BATTERY BEACH (EVDL Administrator)
3. Re: Jokes (was: my first post to this EVDL) (Lee Hart)
4. Re: Increasing pole count for DC motors (Lee Hart)
5. Re: charge in parallel, dischargein series
(Gilbert, Brian D (GE Infra, Energy))
6. Re: Calling all 48 Volters (Richard Acuti)
7. Field Resistance (gottdi)
8. Re: Faster shifting a clutchless EV (Roger Stockton)
9. ceramic made of barium-titanate. EEStor has nothing new bu
tsomehow it's better. (Lawrence Rhodes)
10. Re: DC to DC ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
11. Re: Siamese EV Motors (Dan Frederiksen)
12. Re: Firefly has posted specs on their website. (Frank Schmitt)
13. Stanford researchers improve lithium ion batteries.
(Lawrence Rhodes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:54:40 -0700
From: Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] 11 inch motor direct drive to diff.
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> A single 11 allows more amps but is still limited by max commutator
> volts. In order to function at higher rpm it is wound such that you need
> the higher amp controller at launch to get reasonable performance.
Jim Husted rewired Jay Donnaway's ADC 9incher to have two sets of field
coils, brought out to terminals. The motor has six terminals total.
The idea is to allow series/parallel shifting in a single motor by
arranging the field coils in series or parallel.
More info here:
<http://karmanneclectric.blogspot.com/2005/11/gamera-9-is-born.html>
You can search Jay's blog for "gamera" and find more info. A great blog.
Now, if Jim pulled that trick on an 11 incher.... how would that compare
to a Siamese 9?
--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://www.gdunge.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:54:19 -0500
From: "EVDL Administrator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] BATTERY BEACH
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 25 Jan 2008 at 17:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, I'm Audrey, Steve Clunn's Secretary
Wow, Steve has enough EV work that he's added some help. That's really good
news. And a great improvement in the typing and spelling. ;-)
That's not meant as an insult in any way. Those who remember Steve's posts
will recall that he just didn't take time to check his typing or spelling.
Steve obviously ran flat out all the time, kind of like a controller stuck
full on. ;-) We were fortunate that he was able to find ANY time to write to
the EVDL.
Audrey, will he give up the lawncare business now and go full-time into EV
conversion? If so, what will happen to his amazing vorpal electric ZTR
mower?
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:28:05 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Jokes (was: my first post to this EVDL)
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> Did you hear about the EV converter that won the Lottery?
> He was being interviewed on TV and the reporter asked him what he was
> going to do with all that money. He replied, "I'll probably keep building
> and selling EV's until it's all gone"
Rodney Dangerfield said, "No respect; I get no respect at all. When I
rented an EV1, they charged me $50 bucks I returned it 'cause there
wasn't any gas in it."
--
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, 25 Jan 2008 12:37:57 -0600
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Increasing pole count for DC motors
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:
> In AC motors, higher pole count can be made to increase torque and
> reduce rpm, can the same be done for DC series motors? I know that
> series motors do not have a set max rpm, but what is the effect of
> more poles? Thanks
I don't think it works quite that way. The torque a motor produces is
proportional to the surface area of its rotor times the radius of the
rotor. It doesn't matter whether it's AC or DC.
They usually get higher torque and lower speed by increasing the
diameter of the rotor. Doubling the diameter doubles the surface area,
and thus doubles the torque (assuming everything else stays the same).
--
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: 5
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:07:44 -0500
From: "Gilbert, Brian D (GE Infra, Energy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] charge in parallel, dischargein series
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The statement that Dan is referring to wasn't directly from an engineer.
It was from a salesperson. Here's the quote:
"I understand. Instead, could you get a loose guiding statement from one
of your engineers as to how sensitive LiFePO4 cells are to trickle
overcharge. For instance would 1 hour 0.1C overcharge for every charge
cycle:
A) have virtually no effect on the cycle life of the cell
B) have 20% reduction of cycle life
C) halve the life
D) destroy it in a few cycles"
he answered:
"Choice A would be the most accurate"
/quote
Take that for what you will. Hopefully he actually asked an engineer
who knew what they were talking about. Since Dan was thinking about
only overcharging 1 minute at 0.1C every charge cycle, it seems fair to
assume that his cycle life won't be too badly affected if he can manage
that. I'm curious, though, how one would determine that the cells are
fully charged and they should start their overcharge unless they had a
system to measure the voltage for each cell. Ideas?
Regards,
Brian
Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> Lee Hart wrote:
>
>> In lithiums, the electrolyte is *not* water -- it is typically a
>> complex hydrocarbon. Overcharging decomposes this electrolyte. This
>> process produces heat, and byproducts which ruin the cell, and is not
>> reversible. I think you inevitably damage and eventually destroy a
>> lithium-based cell by overcharging. This is why overcharging *must*
>> be avoided at all costs.
>>
>>
>
> that's quite a bold claim. how does that fit with Valence's statement?
> do you believe he was completely in error?
>
Dan, you are treating that one-off statement from an anonymous engineer
at Valence as if it were the word of God. Valence modules have internal
electronics that do internal cell balancing, and since they're designed
to be charged with lead-acid chargers, probably also can bypass small
amounts of current internally. You have the word of a Valence engineer
that slightly overcharging a Valence battery will be harmless, and
you're generalizing to all lithium-based cells? That's nuts. In fact,
all lithium battery manufacturers recommend BMS, some require it to
honor their warranty. Valence modules have cell protection electronics
built-in, prewired for BMS. They certainly think it's important. Why
post to this list repeatedly claiming that BMS is not necessary? I know
you dearly want it to be true, but I don't think it's true. I fear
someone will believe you and destroy $10,000 worth of cells. Others
have challenged you to buy some cells, and do some testing. I agree.
I'd like to see a batch of cells cycled using the manufacturer's
recommended voltage and current limits, and another batch topped-off
with overcharge for each cycle, and see how they fare. I suspect the
manufacturers provide the charging guidelines for a reason.
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:14:54 -0500
From: Richard Acuti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Calling all 48 Volters
To: <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Mike,
Before I bought my current VW Beetle, I called Wilderness and I was told by the
actual man in the shop that their motor isn't really suitable for highway
driving. The advantage of the Jack 'N Heintz is that it's easier to use regen
with vs. a series wound motor.
When you get into field weakening though, you're going beyond my current level
of knowledge.------------------------------------------ Rich A.
Maryland
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/371.html
Message: 28
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:42:11 -0800
From: mike russcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EVDL] Calling all 48 Volters
To: ev@lists.sjsu.edu
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
I am working on a VW conversion, but I think I need a reality check : )
Is anyone running the 48 Volt Jack and Heintz "Wilderness EV" kit in a VW?What
kind of range and speed are you getting? Are you using
field weakening to improve the top end? Thanks,Mike : )
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:17:24 -0800 (PST)
From: gottdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EVDL] Field Resistance
To: ev@lists.sjsu.edu
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I have the GE Starter/Generator Motor and was asked about the field voltage
and resistance. How does one figure the resistance of the field? I was told
that this should handle 25 volts for the field voltage but was told it could
take up to 50 volts. I do not know how to figure the resistance of the field
windings? Can that be figured out with those little hand held volt/omh meter
thingies? Does anyone here know what the field can handle with out having to
go to great lengths to figure it out? From all the info I have gleaned these
motors can handle up to 96 volts armature voltage and 25 to 50 volts field
windings. I mostly see 25 volts as a safe bet. This motor used originally an
contactor speed control from Kaylor. Ouch. I read a good article from EAA
about Zapi and their SepEx controller for these aircraft motors. They say it
offers a better control for these shunt motors.
Does anyone have a copy of the EAA Newsletter PDF from Sept/Oct 98? This has
a continuing article from the previous Newsletter. I have the previous one
but not the Sept/Oct 98 News Letter.
I have told Kelly that 25 volts should be safe.
They are helping me set this up for an initial starting point. From there I
can change parameters if needed. Any and all help would be great.
Pete
: )
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Field-Resistance-tp15094922p15094922.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:26:15 -0800
From: Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Faster shifting a clutchless EV
To: "'Electric Vehicle Discussion List'" <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> EVs put out more torque than the original ICE. You will burn
> out the stock clutch fast. So really you need a special
> racing clutch to handle the electric motor.. just so you can
> shift from 2nd to 3rd once in a while?
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Electric motors develop more torque than an
ICE at very low RPM, and if you have a sufficiently beefy controller your
electric motor may develop more torque than the original ICE.
However, this is really only going to be an issue if you have a Z1K or bigger
controller, or if your donor vehicle had a really wimpy ICE (and so a wimpy
clutch). For instance, an ADC 8" fed 550A develops about 93ft-lbs. An ADC 9"
fed 550A develops about 120ft-lb. A 2008 Honda Civic 4-banger develops a peak
of 128ft-lbs of torque. It seems that if your donor vehicle had a 4, 6 or
8-cylinder ICE, then the stock clutch is probably going to hold up just fine
with a single motor and even the biggest Curtis controller.
My own conversion is essentially based on an '87 Sprint that came with about
the wimpiest ICE adround (48HP, 57ft-lbs peak); I was warned to replace the
stock clutch with one from a Turbo model, but the stock clutch was in good
shape so I decided to use it up first. My ADC 8" routinely sees 450A+, and is
spec'ed to develop about 72ft-lbs at that current, yet I haven't managed to
burn my clutch out yet. ;^>
> I'm not understanding why some people claim that using the
> engine/motor to slow the vehicle is safer than using the
> brakes.
In a RWD vehicle, it can be advantageous to use engine braking since that
affects *only* the rear wheels. In slippery conditions even a light touch on
the brake can result in the front wheels locking and thus a complete loss of
steering.
Another possible reason for engine braking increasing safety is that it reduces
the heat load on the brakes and so on a long descent can allow brake fade to be
avoided.
> Anyway.. I'm leaning toward going clutchless to simplify
> joining the motor to the tranny.
I think clutchless is actually more complicated than retaining the clutch.
You need the same adapter plate and spacer ring to attache the motor to the
bell housing, and you still need some sort of coupler to connect the motor
shaft to the tranny input shaft. The motor side is straightforward since our
motor usually have a simple keyed shaft, but the tranny input shaft is always
splined. If you retain the clutch, the required splined portion of the coupler
is simply the stock clutch disk.
> I suppose
> for some slipping a clutch is necessary to hold on a hill.
Only for those who never learned to drive properly ;^>
Anyone whose driving style relies on slipping the clutch to hold on a hill had
better invest in a rev limiter for their EV.
Cheers,
Roger.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:46:12 -0800
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EVDL] ceramic made of barium-titanate. EEStor has nothing
new bu tsomehow it's better.
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
http://my.execpc.com/~endlr/ceramic.html This site explains some different
capacitor chemistries. EEStor is using nothing new. There are a lot of
skeptics but if EEStor is right this may be what we need for our EVs.
Lawrence Rhodes.....
EEStor in the news - Tech Review
Posted by: "Remy Chevalier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cleannewworld
Date: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:22 pm ((PST))
From:
Paul Scott
paul@ pluginamerica.org
Thursday, January 24, 2008
EEStor in the news
Hi Everyone,
For those of you who are new to this list, we learn about things having to
do with electric vehicles. The reason this particular news is interesting is
that, if this ultracapacitor that EEStor claims to have works as described,
it will fundamentally change the type of energy we use for transportation.
Overnight, electricity will become the energy of choice. All internal
combustion will be obsolete and all batteries will become obsolete. It will
happen as fast as the OEMs can retool.
In short, these devices will allow near infinite recharging cycles, will
weigh a small fraction of even Lithium ion batteries, will be significantly
less expensive as any battery and can take fast charging equal to any
current available. Consider how much untapped wind power goes wasted at
night. Converting that to clean electricity to offset filthy gasoline and
diesel would literally transform our country.
On the other hand, it could be wishful thinking.
I'm of the mind it works.
I encourage you to read this regardless so you'll be up to speed on the
concept.
Paul
*******
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A New Deal for EEStor
A delayed battery technology may indeed be on the way.
By Tyler Hamilton
Earlier this month, a stealthy startup that says its
ultracapacitor-based energy storage system could make conventional batteries
obsolete took a small step toward proving its many skeptics wrong.
The company, EEStor, based in Cedar Park, TX, has made bold claims
about its technology but has so far failed to deliver a working commercial
product. However, an agreement announced this month with Lockheed Martin,
based in Bethesda, MD, suggests that the company could be making
progress--at least enough to convince a major defense contractor that the
technology has merit. The agreement gives Lockheed an exclusive
international license to use EEStor's power system for military and
homeland-security applications--everything from advanced remote sensors and
missile systems to mobile power packs and electric vehicles. The technology,
Lockheed said in a statement, "could lead to energy independence for the
Warfighter."
Lockheed has not seen a working prototype but said that qualification
testing and mass production of EEStor's system is planned for late 2008.
Lockheed would not disclose the terms of the partnership. "We fully intend
to work with EEStor this year to prototype and demonstrate this technology
for the soldier," says Lionel Liebman, Lockheed's manager of program
development in its applied research division. "We're looking at a lot of
applications where the EEStor application can help."
EEStor says that its patented system is a nontoxic, safe, and
lower-cost alternative to conventional electrochemical battery technologies,
offering ten times the energy density of lead-acid batteries at one-tenth
the weight and volume. The company also claims that its system allows rapid
and virtually unlimited charging and discharging without significant
degradation of the unit. (See "Battery Breakthrough?") But many experts have
been skeptical, citing the difficulty of working with the material at the
core of the company's system: a ceramic made of barium-titanate.
A lack of news from the company has only fed the skepticism. The last
public announcement from EEStor came last January, when it revealed that it
had made high purity barium-titanate powders on its first automated
production line. But the company has so far failed to deliver units of its
storage product to minority investor ZENN Motor, a company based in Toronto
that plans to use it in electric vehicles. Originally, the devices were to
have shipped in the first half of last year.
EEStor chief executive Richard Weir declined to comment on the
development of the technology and the agreement with Lockheed. But he told
Technology Review in an e-mail message that he's anticipating another
"technical news release in the near future," at which time he would be open
to discussing EEStor's progress in more detail.
ZENN chief executive Ian Clifford remains optimistic. "Every
restatement of delivery time has been for good reasons," he says, suggesting
that the Lockheed announcement and the due diligence that led to it "add
credibility to the technology." He's now expecting delivery of the
energy-storage unit in mid-2008. And it won't be a prototype, he emphasizes:
it will be a mass-produced commercial product. "This is about
commercialization, not hitting technology roadblocks. We're in constant
contact with EEStor, with regular visits to their site. We always come away
from every meeting much more excited that this is going to happen."
ZENN has already switched to a different motor in its current
low-speed electric vehicle, partly in anticipation of the new energy storage
technology. "We're first in line," says Clifford. "We understand we'll be
taking the first product off the production facility being built right now."
Liebman, who says that he has visited EEStor's facility in Cedar Park
and was impressed, also expressed confidence in the company. He notes that
EEStor's approach so far allows for a rapid ramp-up in production. "I think
it's very real," he says.
Copyright Technology Review 2008.
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=20090
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:50:41 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] DC to DC
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Thanks guys for all that information.
That should help and I will search again for the voltage doubler info.
: )
On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:54 PM, gottdi wrote:
>
> I am going to go with a DC to DC for my accessories as suggested. I
> will be
> running a 72 volt system. How do I go about choosing a proper DC to
> DC for
> my rig? Aren't main contacts powered by 24 volts to open and close the
> contacts? That is the other question, what is a proper main contact
> for my
> setup?
>
> One person suggested the allbright but I have no clue. I would
> think you'd
> want one rated at a high amperage like 500 or so rather than 200? The
> Allbright does have magnetic blowouts to help prevent arcing. Do I
> need more
> than one? I will be using my vehicles reverse and will not be
> reversing the
> motor.
>
> Kelly SepEx 72 volt 600 amp.
> 72 Volt lead acid batteries for now.
>
>
> : )
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DC-to-DC-
> tp15081013p15081013.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive
> at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:30:29 +0100
From: Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Siamese EV Motors
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I really haven't thought it through, but I'm guessing neither have you.
the claim that smaller motors have higher rpm seems dubious to me.
netgain for instance lists all their motors as 5500rpm. from 8 to 13".
also that the number of brushes should matter since the brushes for the
larger motor is hopefully made for its size
what I could imagine though is that two smaller ones in parallel could
have higher current capability if the wires of the larger one was not
significantly bigger. that is to say what voltage it's made for. if all
of them are of same voltage I figure the big guy should have suitably
higher current capability too.
all things being equal I would reallty avoid building a new custom motor
out of two rather than using one larger. I trust you would not combine 8
3" motors rather than use one larger either.
in other words you should really know why you combine two rather than
use one larger.
maybe ask Wayland why he did. maybe because bigger wasn't available at
the time.
I heard a story about a woman who cut off both ends of a roast before
putting it in a pot, she didn't know why, just that her mother did it
like that. she then called her mother and she said it was because she
didn't have a pot big enough to fit it whole..
Dan
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:33:51 -0800
From: Frank Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Firefly has posted specs on their website.
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> I also don't believe their battery has no Peukert factor. If it's
> lead-acid, it will be there. It may be very close to 1.0; but then,
> even
> our normal Hawker and Optima AGMs are less than 1.1.
If you look closely, their C/20 (or C/21.4) rate is 107Ah, C/10 is
100Ah.
If my (an Uve's) calculations are correct, that's a Peukert of 1.098,
or about the same as other good AGMs.
-Frank
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:50:39 -0800
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EVDL] Stanford researchers improve lithium ion batteries.
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
http://www.news.com/A-tenfold-improvement-in-battery-life/2100-1041_3-6226196.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
EV@lists.sjsu.edu
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
End of EV Digest, Vol 6, Issue 82
*********************************
