EV Digest 2703
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by Matthew Muelver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by "Tore Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by "Tore Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Solectria Force - any impressions?
by "Seth Dallob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by Adam Kuehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Tango (was: Corbin Motors)
by "Bruce Tucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) electrical fields and health concerns
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: New Hydrogen Production System?
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: electrical fields and health concerns
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: electrical fields and health concerns
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: electrical fields and health concerns
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: electrical fields and health concerns
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Insurance
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16) Re: 2 controllers to 1 motor, or 0 controllers to 1 motor?
by "The Levine Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) James Jarret's Henny Kilowatt
by michael bearden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by "Doug Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: James Jarret's Henny Kilowatt
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20) Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
by "Doug Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Universal Posts
by "Richard Millhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) It Spins!
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Oakland's proposed Segway ban
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Henny Electric
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday, April 4, 2003, at 11:30 AM, Daniel J Rivest wrote:
http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/technology.htm
Daniel
Beyond Oil
Didn't we discuss this organization a few months ago? I thought the
consensus was that their claims are about as provable as that DeLorean
was, since they aren't actually releasing the hardware that they claim
to have.
Matt
--
Honda Insight '01 Monte Carlo Blue
Honda Valkyrie Interstate '99 Forest Green
Honda CR-V '98 Jet Black
Apple Dual 1GHz PowerMac G4
Apple iBook 12.1" 800MHz
Kyocera 7135 Smartphone on Verizon
Custom Audio Adapters! Use standard stereo headphones on your 7135!
<http://www.geocities.com/nokmout/adapter.html>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A machine capable of producing Hydrogen and generating electrical power with "a
fraction of the normal power required in old fashion electrolysis?" i.e. the device is
generating it's own power?
Must be those darn aliens again trying to get a foot into the utility market
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There have been some attempts to crack warter by "exciting" the molecules with HF
energy, and it also worked in the sense that less DC power was used for the same
amount of gas produced. The point was ofcause that even more energy was spent by the
HF transmitter.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What is this groups opinions on the performance and reliability of
Solectria Force sedans? I've gone to the yahoo group, and there seem to
be a lot less problems then with the Sparrow - unfortunately, those
problems seem to be expensive to fix.
Any Force owners on this list - please email me off-list with your
impressions.
Seth
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday, April 4, 2003, at 11:30 AM, Daniel J Rivest wrote:
http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/technology.htm
Daniel
Beyond Oil
Didn't we discuss this organization a few months ago? I thought the
consensus was that their claims are about as provable as that
DeLorean was, since they aren't actually releasing the hardware that
they claim to have.
The key phrase on their site is this:
" Genesis World Energy charges a substantial one-time licensing fee
at the time a license is awarded. This helps assure that a licensee
will not acquire a license with the intention of keeping the
technology off the market."
This is simply not a concern for a legitimate business, nor does the
second statement have anything at all to do with the first. In fact,
a licensee intending to suppress a technology would likely be willing
to pay more up front than someone who is anticipating turning a
profit.
And that's without even examining the technology that they claim,
which on further examination claims an over-unity process: Start with
water, separate it, then burn the components for more energy than you
put in. TANSTAAFL. Can't be done, no matter how they claim to do it.
This is a scam without a shadow of a doubt.
--
-Adam Kuehn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Do I envision a natural gas powered electric vehicle. A sort of super clean
hybrid. Best of both worlds. Lawrence Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J Rivest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
> http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/technology.htm
>
> Daniel
> Beyond Oil
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Or how about a 'stretch' 3 seat version? It still keeps the same narrow
profile, but allows two adults and one child to ride.
Bruce Tucker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Muelver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: Tango (was: Corbin Motors)
> I like the Sparrow, but as a single seat vehicle it just wouldn't work
> for me. It may have in the past, but most of my commuting these days
> requires a passenger's seat for my daughter. It did have a "neat-o"
> factor to it, but that wasn't enough to get me to choose it over my
> Insight. Its too bad Corbin shut down, I was planning on paying them a
> visit when I'll be in Daytona this June.
>
> The two seat capacity and extreme performance of the Tango make it much
> more appealing and applicable to my situation. The ability to carry my
> little passenger is absolutely essential, and the Tango can do that.
>
> I know the guys at Commuter Cars won't want to hear this, but what
> would be absolutely perfect would be a double-wide 4 seat Tango. Some
> performance would be lost in the added weight, but the added battery
> capacity could increase the range as well. I know that's not likely to
> happen any time soon, if at all given Commuter Car's philosophy on
> traffic reduction, but it would be the 'perfect' production EV in my
> opinion.
>
> If the Tango ever gets into some kind of production, even as a kit, at
> a reasonable price I'll seriously consider it. The current $80k price
> tag is obviously well out of the average person's budget, but I'd
> gladly finance $15k-$18k to get one. I would have only paid $8k-$9k
> for the single seat Sparrow. A 4 seat Tango could get me to drop up to
> $23k.
>
> Just my thoughts/wishes for the Tango.
>
> Later,
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 02:01 PM, David Roden (Akron OH USA)
> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Apr 2003 at 11:25, Rich Rudman wrote:
> >
> >> WRONG!!! The concept was a single seater commuter car.
> >> it's still as valid as it was.
> >
> > I'm well aware of the advantages of a single-passenger vehicle. I'm
> > jsut
> > saying that there are significant DISadvantages. It's not suitable
> > for my
> > needs, and probably not for lots of people.
> >
> > The Tango, with tandem seating for two, is a better concept overall,
> > much
> > more flexible and useful. So was Luciole, but that seems to have
> > vanished
> > without a trace. A pity.
> --
> Honda Insight '01 Monte Carlo Blue
> Honda Valkyrie Interstate '99 Forest Green
> Honda CR-V '98 Jet Black
> Apple Dual 1GHz PowerMac G4
> Apple iBook 12.1" 800MHz
> Kyocera 7135 Smartphone on Verizon
> Custom Audio Adapters! Use standard stereo headphones on your 7135!
> <http://www.geocities.com/nokmout/adapter.html>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for a well written response, with something intelligent to say rather than just
an insult.
>>
>> If using keyphrase
>omain names is the last method to use in your opinion, tell
>> me a better way to get EV marketed so that they are embraced by the
>> masses?
>
>Well, since you asked so nicely for a clue, I'll chime in with a few:
>
>1) Start by negotiating a deal with the auto labor unions to get them to
>stop opposing the necessary parts reductions inherent in EV
>manufacture. It is in their best long term interests, if not their short
>term, but understanding this isn't easy for them.
>2) Develop an appropriate tax structure so that the road use taxes paid
>through the gasoline tax are not lost to governments. This will move the
>tremendous force of the revenue side of government in the direction of
>supporting the electric vehicle production process. Currently only the
>expense side (which has to pay for pollution mitigation etc.) supports it.
>3) Breathe deeply, if that makes you cough, you can easily sell EVs where
>you stand. Set up a distributorship.
>4) Educate your consumers. Education is more than 50% of sales of "new"
>technology (or even technology that is over a century old like EVs).
>5) Maintain scrupulous honesty. There have been so many EV charlatans
>over the years that trust in the EV industry is tremendously low. If you
>make any promise, keep it. If you are unsure about something, say so and
>why.
>6) If you are trying to make a fast buck, good luck to you. I hope you
>succeed. An attractive internet domain won't change the world, and it is
>far from being the largenst problem facing EV marketing. Believe me, I've
>been on 'the internet' since it was run by the military, and made my share
>of money by making it a better tool. The sex industry didn't make it what
>it is, but it sure has brought more than its fair share of problems to be
>overcome. Overcoming those (and other) problems is what make the internet
>a useful tool.
>
>--
> ____
> __/o|__\~ ~ ~
> `@ [EMAIL PROTECTED](=
>http://www.SoCalEV.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone know much about the long term effects of being exposed to electrical
fields while driving? I know someone wanting to buy and EV, but that is what is
holding him back.
I'm sure this is a concern of the manufacturers but it probably hard to predict long
term effects.
Thanks
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon "Sheer" Pullen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: April 4, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
>
>
> I'm naturally suspicious of anything that claims to give
> something for nothing - which is in essence what this device
> is claiming to do.
>
> My guess is this is another scam of the 'free energy' kind.
Yep. I notice that while they provide the example of electrolysis
consuming "1000W of energy" to produce gas representing "900W of
energy", they do not provide any numbers quantifying how much better
their process is.
Furthermore, they claim that using their device 30gal of water would
provide sufficient energy for an average home for the 20yr typical
lifetime of their product. With a bit of digging, I come up with the
following:
- 1kg of H2 is approximately the energy equivalent of 1gal gasoline
(Stuart Energy website)
- H20 is 11.19% H2 by weight (based on relative atomic weights of H2 and
H2O)
- 30gal H20 weighs about 250lb, and so contains about 12.7kg H2
- 1gal gasoline = 1kg H2 = approx. 144000 BTU = 13.33kWh
Thus, these people would have us believe that using their device an
average [electric] home's energy needs could be satisfied by
approximately 169kWh of energy over a 20yr period. (And this neglects
the fact that they do state that some of the H2 produced by their device
is consumed by the device, and so is not available to satisfy the home's
energy needs.)
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nobody knows what the exposure to electrical fields in an EV might cause.
Nobody can prove that there is or isn't a risk. For the lack of any
evidence
of danger I do not fear exposure to electric cars, microwave ovens,
electric blankets, power transformers and transmission lines, etc.
But your friend who is concerned about electric fields should avoid
or at least minimize his exposure to all things electrical. He should
also avoid sunlight, auto exhaust and cigarette smoke which are all
proven carcinogens .
Tom Shay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Wysotski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: electrical fields and health concerns
> Does anyone know much about the long term effects of being exposed to
electrical fields while driving? I know someone wanting to buy and EV, but
that is what is holding him back.
>
> I'm sure this is a concern of the manufacturers but it probably hard to
predict long term effects.
> Thanks
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I know there is concern about high voltage lines around the world,but there
doesn't seem to be any cross over into concern for power in your house.
As most ev's run on similar voltages to your house, which contains many
sources of similar electrical and magnetic fields, such as fans, fridges,
freezers, microwaves, computers, TV's, radio's, etc , I suspect the answer
is unless you are living in a cave to avoid all these trappings of modern
society then you would likely be safe driving an EV.
Normal cars already have these same fields too in the coil the starter and
the alternator, but no one worries about them if the car wont start they
just keep on cranking till the battery is dead.
The TV microwave and computers are known to give off radiation that is
harmful, but I bet he didn't ask the guy in the TV shop about radiation
levels when he got his TV.
Its a funny world we live in.
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks, that's the general response from another person who privately emailed me.
It's a big concern to many. Although we are exposed to many electrical fields like
you mentioned, I guess it's like radiation, where the accumulative effect is the
concern. The less exposure, the less your body has to deal with. I know in Toronto
there is a street with a high degree of power lines and street cars wires and people
who live on that street are amongst the sickest in the city. Cancer is unusually high
and all people can put it down to is the power lines. On the other hand gas burning
cars are posing a bigger health threat to all of us.
Thanks
Andrew
At 01:09 PM 4/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Nobody knows what the exposure to electrical fields in an EV might cause.
>Nobody can prove that there is or isn't a risk. For the lack of any
>evidence
>of danger I do not fear exposure to electric cars, microwave ovens,
>electric blankets, power transformers and transmission lines, etc.
>
>But your friend who is concerned about electric fields should avoid
>or at least minimize his exposure to all things electrical. He should
>also avoid sunlight, auto exhaust and cigarette smoke which are all
>proven carcinogens .
>
>Tom Shay
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Wysotski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 11:29 AM
>Subject: electrical fields and health concerns
>
>
>> Does anyone know much about the long term effects of being exposed to
>electrical fields while driving? I know someone wanting to buy and EV, but
>that is what is holding him back.
>>
>> I'm sure this is a concern of the manufacturers but it probably hard to
>predict long term effects.
>> Thanks
>>
>>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would like to know more about this street in Toronto and I think others
on this list would to. Give us references if you can such as books,
government reports, newspaper stories, web sites, etc. What's the
name of the street?
Tom Shay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Wysotski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: electrical fields and health concerns
> Thanks, that's the general response from another person who privately
emailed me. It's a big concern to many. Although we are exposed to many
electrical fields like you mentioned, I guess it's like radiation, where the
accumulative effect is the concern. The less exposure, the less your body
has to deal with. I know in Toronto there is a street with a high degree of
power lines and street cars wires and people who live on that street are
amongst the sickest in the city. Cancer is unusually high and all people
can put it down to is the power lines. On the other hand gas burning cars
are posing a bigger health threat to all of us.
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Here's another consideration for operating the bypass contactor with
> 2 comparators and an AND gate.
> The first comparator looks at battery voltage and averaged motor voltage.
> When they are within 85% of each other the comparator switches state.
>
> The second comparator looks at the accelerator input voltage and compares
> this
> to some voltage that represents bypass (like 4 volts on a 0-5V accel
> input).
>
> These two comparators go into an AND gate so that both conditions must be
> true before
> the contactor is engaged.
> If you want more details I can draw a schematic.
>
> Rod
>
That's already more details than I can comprehend! I'm lucky if I can bolt
down power cables without creating sparks, let alone solder anything more
than a thick wire. I leave this kind of construction and wiring to more
capable hands. I'm pretty sure I *can* bolt up the 12V Hawker, the bypass
contactor and momentary switch without damage, but the question is, will
everything survive its use?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Congratulations to James on acquiring a working (we hope) piece of EV
history!
I remember a list member named (?) Jack Gretta who had (I think) one or
more of these.
Anybody know what they used for a controller?
What was their presumed or actual range?
Thanks-
Michael B.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
so i've noticed that the EV owners of the world seem to be allowing a bit of
a double standard here... inescapably, new technologies will be subjected to
higher levels of scrutiny than the "tried and true" items that are currently
in daily use, and rightly so - but collision safety? take a look at the BMW
mini or the good ol' Yugo, and then ask yourself what you're really
comparing the Sparrow or the Tango to... a small car is a small car. crash
tests show how well a car fares against a wall (where it is dealing mainly
with its own momentum), but i think the consensus is that about anything
small is dogfood in the face of an oncoming SUV or a Semi. accepting such
concerns as being any more valid with an EV than with any other small car is
pointless. this is not an EV issue. how well the batteries handle a
collision, and how safe your electrical system is in the event of such a
catastrophe... that's an issue we could do well to address here.
just a thought - since i have so few of them, i thought it would be nice to
share it.
-Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Except the SUV might decapitate the Sparrow driver.
> >
> More likely a Deer. The Suv/Vs Sparrow, is a quick argument, Done...
> Game over.
>
>
> --
> Rich Rudman
> Manzanita Micro
> www.manzanitamicro.com
> 1-360-297-7383,Cell 1-360-620-6266
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't know about the controller, but the range, according to everyone whom I
have spoken with and what I have read is in the 35-50 mile range.
Depends on speed and hills. Based on my commute, I expect to get about 40+- out
of her once I replace the batts.
James
Quoting michael bearden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Congratulations to James on acquiring a working (we hope) piece of EV
> history!
> I remember a list member named (?) Jack Gretta who had (I think) one or
> more of these.
> Anybody know what they used for a controller?
> What was their presumed or actual range?
> Thanks-
> Michael B.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
they're obviously not too up-front about what their device does, but they do
at least manage to say it by the end of their little BS session.
"Installing the gas generation feature of the Edison Device simply
requires connecting the device's gas feed line directly into the existing
natural gas line".
they're just burning a fossil fuel to reform their hydrogen. a simple
energy conversion method that is already in use. they just like to make it
seem mysterious and high-tech with all of the technobabble and gCell-eCell
crap. if they have improved efficiency with their process, it would be worth
hearing more about, but instead of pointing to it directly, they take the
course of trying to make it sound like some sort of cold-fusion - perpetual
motion machine. the use of this approach should tell anyone that the
customers they want have fewer IQ points than my car has batteries. nothing
here that anyone on this list should be excited about.
-doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: New Hydrogen Production System?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon "Sheer" Pullen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: April 4, 2003 10:59 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: New Hydrogen Production System?
> >
> >
> > I'm naturally suspicious of anything that claims to give
> > something for nothing - which is in essence what this device
> > is claiming to do.
> >
> > My guess is this is another scam of the 'free energy' kind.
>
> Yep. I notice that while they provide the example of electrolysis
> consuming "1000W of energy" to produce gas representing "900W of
> energy", they do not provide any numbers quantifying how much better
> their process is.
>
> Furthermore, they claim that using their device 30gal of water would
> provide sufficient energy for an average home for the 20yr typical
> lifetime of their product. With a bit of digging, I come up with the
> following:
>
> - 1kg of H2 is approximately the energy equivalent of 1gal gasoline
> (Stuart Energy website)
> - H20 is 11.19% H2 by weight (based on relative atomic weights of H2 and
> H2O)
> - 30gal H20 weighs about 250lb, and so contains about 12.7kg H2
> - 1gal gasoline = 1kg H2 = approx. 144000 BTU = 13.33kWh
>
> Thus, these people would have us believe that using their device an
> average [electric] home's energy needs could be satisfied by
> approximately 169kWh of energy over a 20yr period. (And this neglects
> the fact that they do state that some of the H2 produced by their device
> is consumed by the device, and so is not available to satisfy the home's
> energy needs.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It spins!
It has been a big hurdle for me, ordering that first major EV
component. I decided to get a motor first. I figure this is the
technology that is changing most slowly, and has a long shelf life.
No sense having batteries just sitting there sulfating, or getting a
controller that gets upstaged a year later.
Even so, it was a bit tough to get the motor, because that sets the
tone for the rest of the conversion. I really wanted to go AC. You
know, nothing demanding, just 200+kW for $4k. I finally decided for
speed, DC is the cost effective way to go.
Thanks to excellent inputs from the EV list and NEDRA racers, I
decided to get my motor from Canadian EV (Randy Holmquist). I was
very happy how he promptly answered my questions honestly, and has
applied his real life EV experiences to improving the motors. My
motor is a Sepex Kostov, with improved bearings, brushes, and
banding.
The motor arrived today � my best birthday present! It came in a
stout wooden crate. In no time I had the lid off, and gazed happily
at my new baby. I was about to cross the threshold from theoretical
EV number cruncher to applied, real-world EVer!
There are four electrical posts. I used the ohm meter to determine
across the motor had low resistance, and along the motor was infinite
resistance. OK, now I knew which way to hook up the voltage. I
decided to used my battery charger to try to spin the motor (I know
some of you are smelling smoke already, but not to worry it has a
good breaker in it). I hooked the + to the end of the field, and the
� to the end of the armature. By putting a screw driver across the
remaining terminals I now had a series motor with a really strong
field. Nothing happened. I thought for a moment, and could almost
feel a Lee Hart style message typing on the inside of my head � �The
field is taking up most of the voltage, there is too much resistance,
and not enough current to spin the motor.�
The Ghost of Lee Hart present was right. I then connected the motor
as a shunt arrangement, and it would spin maybe 3 revolutions before
the battery charger breaker would break. Only a small spark occurred.
Hurray!
While this was progress, this was not going to win any races! Just
then a Waylandesque message typed through my brain: �A battery will
provide much more current and less sag than a wimpy battery charger!�
So out came the jumper cables and a car battery. I hooked up the red
to one end of the field, and the black to one end of the armature. I
used two screwdrivers as crude knife switches to power the opposite
ends of the coils. Wow, sparks! I wasn�t expecting that with just 12
volts. But it spins! Yay! Quietly, and no vibration!
Now just the details of installing the motor, throwing in some
batteries and a charger and a controller, and I�ll be racing
electrically! I don�t think I�ll be ready in time for the Las Vegas
race on the 26th!
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:53:42 -0800 (GMT)
From: Bruce Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Segways to be banned in Oakland
I am a Segway owner and electrical vehicle proponent in Los
Angeles. I use my Segway to commute to work 6 miles a day!
I'm writing you because I know that Segways are very likely
to be banned in Oakland in the next three weeks. The
proposed legislation has already been unanimously approved,
and the final vote is upcoming.
The reason I'm writing you is that the legislation will
likely affect members of your organization.
Unlike the San Fransisco sidewalk ban, which mandates that
Segway riders instead ride in Bicycle lanes and follow
traffic rules, the Oakland ban completely bans any use
within city limits. It is an all-out ban on a particular
type of electric transportation.
This is the only type of transportation that is outright
banned within city limits that I know of. Seeing how
alternative forms of transportation are your mission, I
think you see the fear that this causes. I can easily see
similar moves to outlaw other ZEV's, NEV'S, Zappys, Xooters,
Sparrows, etc.
If they ban a 12 mile per hour Segway, I must think that a
17MPH Xooter is next.
Please let your friends and supporters know about this
threat to electric transportation.
My phone number is 818 400-6083 if you have any questions.
Other discussions on this subject can be found on the user
forums at www.segwaychat.com
Thanks again.
-Bruce Wright
Sherman Oaks, CA
The banning of Segway on both the sidewalks and streets of
Oakland is on the agenda for the Oakland City Council
meeting on Tuesday 8th April.
Coucil Meeting Agenda for Tues 8th April :
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/council/agenda_4-8.html
Report from Oakland Police Department:
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/council/reports/04-08-03/Council/9brpt.pdf
Resolution from Public Safety Committee:
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/council/reports/04-08-03/Council/9b1reso.pdf
Here's the text of the proposed law:
"No person shall operate an Electric Personal Assistive
Mobility Device (EPAMD) upon any sidewalk, crosswalk,
pathway, trail, bike lane, bike path, street, road, or
highway in the City of Oakland
"Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device" means a
self-balancing, non-tandem, two-wheeled device, that can
turn in place and is designed to transport only one person,
with an electric propulsion system averaging less that 750
watts (one horsepower), as defined in California Vehicle
Code Section 313.
Any person who violates Section 10.16.230 of the Oakland
Municipal Code shall be guilty of an infraction and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished as proscribed in
Oakland Municipal Code Section 1.28.020 - Violations as
Infractions, paragraph B.
-
[ http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/segway_ht/ ]
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
a small car is a small car. crash tests show how well a car fares
against a wall (where it is dealing mainly with its own momentum),
but i think the consensus is that about anything small is dogfood in
the face of an oncoming SUV or a Semi.
Sorry. You are wrong. Dead wrong if you aren't careful. Crash test
after crash test have shown small, well-designed vehicles to be safer
than larger, more-rigid ones (even well-designed ones). The heavier
the vehicle, the more rigid the body must be to keep it's own weight
from flexing the chassis. The more rigid the vehicle, the less energy
it is able to absorb and therefore keep away from the passenger
compartment. This is simple physics, though the design work for good
crumple-protection is very complex. Plain and simple, SUVs are damned
dangerous, both to their own occupants and to occupants in other
vehicles.
The only thing that matters is whether the occupant(s) survive the
wreck. Fuck the vehicle. When you see a small car get smacked by a
big one, it seems like the big one is winning because it usually has
less damage. This is misleading, however. The less damage to the
vehicle, often the more impact is transferred to the occupants. It
doesn't really matter if you're big ole' SUV or Cadillac survives the
wreck if your legs and face are shattered, your brains are in your
lap and your chest cavity is filled with chunky salsa.
Lets look at it mathematically. Say that you have a 4000 Lb SUV and a
2600 Lb car. They front-end each other while each is going 50 MPH.
That's about 24,000 Kilojoules of impact energy total, using the
equation (energy = .5 * 6600Lbs * 73.333F/s^2) posted by Chris
Tromley a few days ago. The SUV will need to absorb about 39% of
that, or 9360 kilojoules. The car, about 61% or 14640 kilojoules. At
first blush, it looks like the smaller vehicle is toast, right?
Wrong. Let's say that the SUV can absorb 85% of the incoming energy
through crumple zones and sheer mass. Remember that inertia is going
to go against you. 85% from 9360 leaves 1404 kilojoules (1035537
Ft-Lbs) that will react into the passenger compartment. Now let's say
that the car can absorb 95% of it's impact energy due to it's less
rigid construction and smaller weight. Remember, if you get pushed
out of the way, that's energy going into the ground, rather than the
vehicle. 95% from 14640 leaves 732 kilojoules (539895 Ft-Lbs) into
the passenger compartment. Guess which driver is more likely to
survive?
Don't believe the hype the car companies spew about how safe big cars
are. Back in 1991, the "Coalition for Vehicle Choice", a PAC formed
by the Big 3, ran a full-page ad in many newspapers nationwide. This
ad showed a 4000 Lb sedan creaming a 2300 Lb small car in a head-on
collision crash-test. This was labeled "Actual DOT crash test photo"
and had the headline "The laws of physics cannot be legislated away."
It went on to say that the proposed fuel standards then in congress
would reduce the safety of American roads and lead to as many as 2000
new deaths a year. Pretty convincing, right? Unfortunately, they left
a few things out.
1) Yes, the test was run by the NHTSA (division of the DOT), but it
was staged to make the most spectacular footage. The largest and
smallest vehicles then available on the market were used, neither of
which was a popular seller. This specific wreck was therefore highly
unlikely.
2) Airbags were disabled in both vehicles during the test so that
crash-test dummy data would be as spectacular as possible, even
though airbags would be mandatory in all vehicles by the time the
proposed efficiency standard were to go into effect.
3) The test was re-done several times before the pictures gotten were
sufficiently scary-looking.
4) Even after all of this, the data from the dummies had to be
suppressed because it showed that the occupant of the small car would
have been likely to survive while the occupant of the large vehicle
would have almost certainly died.
5) The NHTSA spent $200,000 staging these "tests" for the auto
companies, but that was alright, since the whole thing had been
proposed to the Big 3 by Secretary of Transportation Samuel Skinner
in the first place.
As a final note, the NHTSA first tried a side impact (the large car
hitting the driver door of the small one) but those showed the small
car to perform even better than in the frontal collisions, so they
suppressed those results.
I wish I had the vehicle models available, but I don't. I can't tell
you which cars they used.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort
of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked
women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
-Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you are blocked with renault parts availability on your side of the pond,
i will be able to help you.
Philippe
Et si le pot d'�chappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: Henny Electric
> If you go with a ferro-resonant charger, you pick your output voltage at
time of
> purchase. 72 volts now means you don't get 96 volts later. Lester is a
good name.
> I still have a couple of those. They may end up in the parts bin project
this
> spring, but only because the voltages happen to match, by coincidence.
>
> You can use a variac and bridge rectifier arrangement. Cheap, and will do
the job.
> Make sure it is well fused and have a good ammeter in the circuit. Be
prepared to
> adjust the variac at least 3 times in every charging cycle to charge the
batteries
> properly. Very sensitve to changes in input voltage. Great for dealing
with
> different voltage packs and odd requirements. I still have one. It is
not in
> regular use.
>
> Cheap chargers lead to expensive battery packs, due to premature
replacement.
> Spend the money on the charger. You can move it to your next EV.
>
> So, you're going to want to use a switch-mode supply type charger. That
gets you
> some intelligence, less fiddling, and the ability to change the output
voltage when
> you upgrade the battery pack. I have some experience with those, including
a
> Battery Marshal, a homebuilt and 2 K&Ws. One of the K&Ws is still in
regular
> service.
>
> However, with all that experience, take note that I have ordered a PFC-20
from Rich
> Rudman, and it will be going into my next EV.
>
> Darryl McMahon
>
> P.S. contact me offline, and I will see if I can find some old references
for old
> Renault parts. I have owned several, including an electric conversion.
>
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "James Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Henny Electric
> Date sent: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:19:59 -0500
>
> > Yeah, I know, but that is one PRICY bullet. I think if I go that route,
I
> > might have to dodge a few (much less expensive) bullet's from my wife!!
> >
> > James
> >
> > James F. Jarrett
> > Information Systems Associate
> > Charlotte Country Day School
> > (704)943-4562
> >
> > Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever
> > he does to the web, he does to himself.-- Anon.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of Eric Penne Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:03 AM To:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Henny Electric
> >
> >
> > The PFC-20 is a very good choice for this application. It gives you the
> > variable input for wherever you plug in, but it can also handle the 72V
> > pack you have now and the 96V pack you want to put into it later.
Shoots
> > down 2 birds with 1 bullet. Then as your EVGrin gets bigger you'll be
> > able to move it to your next car and it more than likely will be able to
> > handle that vehicle also.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > > Well I did it.
> > >
> > > Much to my wife's chagrin, I purchased the 59 Henny electric on ebay.
> > >
> > > Should be here in about 2-2 1/2 weeks.
> > >
> > > Now, I know the batts need replacing as they only get about 5-10 miles
> > > now, and I'm going to have to do minor brake work and some cosmetic
> > > work.
> > >
> > > BUT!! I want to ask the group what they would recommend to replace
the
> > > stock charger. Yes, it still works and I'll keep it as a curiosity,
but
> > > I feel that even the "worst" charger available today has got to be
> > > better than the best one from 1960!!.
> > >
> > > I would love to put a pfc-20 in it, but with the car only being 72
volts
> > > (and old) that seems a bit overkill. Does anyone have a good 110/220
> > > charger that can handle a 72volt AND a 96 volt system (I hope to
upgrade
> > > the motor and the batts at some point and I intend to go 96 volts).
> > >
> > > Also, any reccommendations on the "best" cost/value 6v golf cart batts
> > > to put in this old girl.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > James F. Jarrett
> > > Information Systems Associate
> > > Charlotte Country Day School
> > > (704)943-4562
> > >
> > > Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever
> > > he does to the web, he does to himself.-- Anon.
> >
>
--- End Message ---
