# [EVDL] What connector is this?



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Ryan Stotts wrote:
> > Ever seen one like it? Proprietary?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcbx57Azisw
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Ian Hooper wrote:
> > Yeah I was just going to say it's an Anderson, you beat me to it. (I
> > hadn't realised they come that large though!)
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Evs will not take over until the cost of filling up is more painful than
dealing with charge times.

-----Original Message-----
As I imagine that scenario, I'm late for work and cursing through those 10
minutes, wondering why it has to take so long, instead of the 2 minutes or
less that I'm used to with a gas pump. 10 minutes may not seem like a long
time, but the assumption that the wait will be "relaxing" and "you can get a
bite to eat" is one I hear way too often. It simply does not reflect reality
in the vast majority of cases (we're talking mainstream, non-EV-zealots
here), unless it's a Sunday and you're out for a pleasant recreational
drive. Most people who are driving their cars are doing so because they
have some place they need to be. Telling them to "slow down and smell the
roses" is inappropriate in that context.

Of course, there are no good answers to this problem now or on the visible
horizon, except better planning (e.g. I would be sure not to have to stop
for recharging on my way to work). The pie-in-the-sky ideas like vanadium
redox (replacing electrolyte recharges the battery), inductive powered
roadways, or a standardized swappable battery pack infrastructure are nice
to dream about, but are unlikely to happen in my lifetime. So in a
dwindling-petroleum world the only realistic fast-refuel scenario that would
satisfy the demand to quickly get back on the road, seems to be ...
(gulp) hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrids. As someone who thinks hydrogen
fuel cell development is a huge farce, that's pretty hard for me to admit.



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I also think it's wildly optimistic that any production EV cheap enough for
the masses will have a 200 mile range.

If it's really expensive, it destroys the value proposition. So it's a
catch-22.

I think BEVs are going to remain an acquired taste for some time to come.
Plugin hybrids are going to be the mainstream product.

-----Original Message-----
Honestly, when people say things like this they are forgetting the greatest
convenience of an EV. Home Based Fueling! Sub 10 minute charge times would
be quite useful on a car with 200+ mile range because by the time you've
exhausted your pack you're likely ready for a leg-stretch yourself!


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> EVs will not take over until the cost of filling up is more painful
> than dealing with charge times.

It's easy to say things like this. We also hear, "EVs won't take over until their range is more than X miles per charge" (where X is always more than whatever they presently do). Or that "EVs won't sell until their price is less than Y", and similar things.

The truth is, nobody knows what it will take to make EV sales take off. In his book "The Tipping Point", Malcolm Gladwell gives example after example of how deeply entrenched habits of people have suddenly changed.

Most people copy what their neighbors do. If your neighbors all complain about gas prices but drive SUVs, then it is very likely that YOU will do exactly the same thing. Nobody wants to stand out, to be different, to go first. So, *everybody* complains about gas prices but drives SUVs. Nothing changes, no matter how high gas prices go, or how big SUVs get!

But eventually, the pressure of change becomes too great. Just as you can start an avalanche with a small amount of force in just the right place; you can tip the balance, to cause the situation to change. Once it starts to go, it releases a huge response, far larger and faster than anyone thought possible.

I think this is where we are with EVs -- right at the tipping point. People are ready to change (though they might not admit it, and may not even be aware of it themselves). The right EV, and just a few early adopters, will start an avalanche of change. It won't be some movie star buying a $100,000 EV sports car; it will be your next door neighbor buying an EV conversion that he drives to work every day.


--
"Excellence does not require perfection." -- Henry James
--
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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Evs will not take over until the cost of filling up is more painful
> > than dealing with charge times.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I find it funny that most people want Electric vehicles to be 100% in
the first year. They even want conversions to be better that ICE or at
least cheaper. Lets wait another 20 years....

We need reliable, reasonable EV transportation in large numbers, the
increases in range and polish will come.

But I have noticed quiet a few people have turned their head when the
see me drive the electric day after day. It comes when the see me daily
for a while (usually in my rear view mirror) and then days later find
out it is electric. 

On an off-topic subject, it reminds me of a software engineer at work
who is an almost evangelistic windows user who happened to be in my
cubical when another engineer asked me a question. I run Linux and use
the 3d desktop. I rolled the dual screened cube over to the other
3200x1200 surface and could hear the exclamation under his breath. He
knows it exists, he is next to 20 engineers using it every day. But when
he saw it, he was taken back. That is how ice drivers will remember an
EV. when it surprises them.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I walk a different path, sir" Captain Nemo The league of
extraordinary gentleman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

This isn't about what's pratical or logical. It's what the public will
embrace. They will want to change how they drive as little as possible.
Just getting into the plugin routine is a big change for them. That's why
Toyota has been anti-plugin. They are obviously very cynical about american
driving habits.

-----Original Message-----
Alternatively, "commuter" EVs which can handle reasonably sized daily 
trips and be recharged overnight have a good chance of taking over,



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

for the life of me I can't understand why anyone wouldn't embrace the idea =
of plugging in your car at home overnight and as a result not having to sto=
p at the gas station weekly and deal the time and hassle =


> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:36:15 -0700
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] What connector is this?
> =

> This isn't about what's pratical or logical. It's what the public will
> embrace. They will want to change how they drive as little as possible.
> Just getting into the plugin routine is a big change for them. That's why
> Toyota has been anti-plugin. They are obviously very cynical about ameri=
can
> driving habits.
> =

> -----Original Message-----
> Alternatively, "commuter" EVs which can handle reasonably sized daily =

> trips and be recharged overnight have a good chance of taking over,
> =

> =

> =

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

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook =96 together at last. =
Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=3DCL10062=
6971033
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Because driving is equated with freedom, and freedom relies on the ubiquity
of gas stations. People love the idea of being able to jump in the car at a
moment's notice and go wherever they want to go--whenever they feel the
urge. If they wake up in a cold sweat at 2AM and want to wear a diaper like
that astronaut and drive nonstop for 24 hours straight, they damn well want
to be able to do that. It's not that they exercise this very often. They
like the feeling of being able to do it.

BTW, most people fill up much more often than once a week.

-----Original Message-----
for the life of me I can't understand why anyone wouldn't embrace the idea
of plugging in your car at home overnight and as a result not having to stop
at the gas station weekly and deal the time and hassle 


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Of course, there are no good answers to this problem now or on the visible
> horizon, except better planning (e.g. I would be sure not to have to stop
> for recharging on my way to work). The pie-in-the-sky ideas like vanadium
> redox (replacing electrolyte recharges the battery), inductive powered
> roadways, or a standardized swappable battery pack infrastructure are nice
> to dream about, but are unlikely to happen in my lifetime. So in a
> dwindling-petroleum world the only realistic fast-refuel scenario that
> would satisfy the demand to quickly get back on the road, seems to be ...
> (gulp) hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrids. As someone who thinks hydrogen
> fuel cell development is a huge farce, that's pretty hard for me to admit.

Not to run OT here (sorry David...) but this whole paragraph seems
totally cognitively dissonant. First, isn't there at least as much
standardization work to be done on hydrogen fueling as there would be in
swappable batteries? I don't think either is a great idea, but I don't
see this as any kind of win for H2. But at a more basic level, why is
fast charging so hard to believe relative to these other options? Yes,
it will take a lot of watts at the filling point. And it will take
batteries at least as good as A123/Altair style cells. So? Compare those
two hurdles (considering our preexisting electrical grid) to the
construction of thousands of H2 stations (with all the pump and delivery
standardization this entails) the development of halfway efficient H2
production, safe H2 transport, and the basic drawbacks of fuel cells
(lose efficiency over time, horrendously expensive, lose H2 while parked
in the garage), and the fast-charging problem looks very conquerable.

In short, I wouldn't go around "admitting" that H2==future just yet.

Hunter

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Hunter Cook wrote:
> >
> > Not to run OT here (sorry David...) but this whole paragraph seems
> > totally cognitively dissonant. First, isn't there at least as much
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

From: David Nelson
> I've had people say they would convert my Gizmo to gas if they owned
> it! They don't want the hassle of having to plug it in. I like to
> then ask if they have converted their cell phone to gasoline so they
> don't have to plug it in. It is a new concept to them. It is the "my
> mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" syndrome, I think.

Indeed! I keep thinking it would be fun to make a gasoline-powered flashlight, cellphone, laptop, etc. just as a joke. They would have a little gasoline engine driving a generator to power the device.

It shouldn't take people long to realize that the idea of having a roaring, stinking, vibrating gasoline engine is a far inferior solution to batteries! So why do we put up with them in cars? 

--
"Excellence does not require perfection." -- Henry James
--
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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Seems like at the size you're talking it'd be easier to get one of those
little demo sterlings. Not that the big ol' gas generator wouldn't have
its own absurdity value...



> Lee Hart wrote:
> > From: David Nelson
> > > I've had people say they would convert my Gizmo to gas if they owned
> > > it! They don't want the hassle of having to plug it in. I like to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lee Hart wrote:
> > From: David Nelson
> >> I've had people say they would convert my Gizmo to gas if they owned
> >> it! They don't want the hassle of having to plug it in. I like to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> 10 minutes is *not* quickly. "Time enough to
> relax and get a bite to eat" is *not* an acceptable compromise to anyone
> but us out here on the fringe. 10 minutes is at least 4-5 *times* as long
> as it takes to refuel my car at most pumps around here. 

Have you actually timed this? I don't think I'm fueling in 2 minutes.
Maybe your tank is smaller. But whatever. Is 5min (altair's claim) fast
enough? Are the masses in America really all freaking out and staring at
their watches at the gas pump? Is this really crisis territory? I
certainly haven't noticed these anxious multitudes. I notice that
sometimes in my ICE car (even before I got EV religion) I pull up to an
older gas station and the pumps are slower...maybe takes twice as long.
Funny, I never get angry and/or drive on to the next service station
that has faster pumps. I really think you are making way too much out of
this, particularly considering the rate of advancement we've been
seeing...and particularly comparing that rate to H2 development.

> Hydrogen is indeed a fool's dream; it's like a battery that's more leaky
> and far less efficient. But people will be convinced to use it, at the
> high environmental and economic costs of fossil fuel reformation and/or
> the terrible "charge efficiency" of electrolysis, simply because it's more
> convenient. 

Just what on earth about a fuel-cell vehicle strikes you as
"convenient"!? A $750,000 car with moderate performance that uses an
incredibly expensive (in manufacturing cost terms as well as price) fuel
available at a few dozen locations (which are also extremely expensive
to build) is convenient? Oh, I forgot to mention that it leaks the fuel
when it's off, and uses more total energy than any other mode of
propulsion including ICE. You think Americans are going to overlook the
car not going as far or fast after the first year more readily than they
will tolerate a 10 minute charge time in those very rare instances (~5%
of the time perhaps?) when they haven't fully charged at home or need to
go farther than their range? You think they'll tolerate the fuel being
*more* expensive than gas? I just don't see how you can miss the fact
that H2 isn't even in the same league of possibility with BEVs, fast
charging or otherwise.

> I don't have the confidence in human nature or our western culture to
> think that we can be saved from that mediocre future by anything less than
> a battery that can be charged from "empty" for at least 150-200 miles of
> driving, in 2-3 minutes. And that, I believe, is also not likely to happen
> before the US and the automotive industry blindly push fuel cell
> automobiles into mass production.

First, spare me the blindly cynical "human nature/western culture"
stuff. Second, I disagree with both those propositions. Much more
strongly on which happens first; I look at the recent precipitous drop
in charging times and the steadily-stratospheric costs of H2 technology,
and to consider that the latter might beat the former to market seems
pretty much laughable. How long did it take to charge a Li battery 5
years ago? Did H2 fuel-cells get remarkably better or cheaper in that
time? No contest. But also I don't think 2-3 minutes is a necessity at
all. You don't need absolute parity with ICE fueling when you only have
to fuel 5% of the time. The other 95% of the time it was just charged
when you stepped into the car. It would be nice to be able to charge in
a few minutes when out on the road, but it's a consideration that most
of us only deal with occasionally.

Your argument about superpower backing is basically that a good salesman
can sell anything to the public. It would be more convincing if the
people you are trying to call the salesman were doing more than the
embryonic research. And for what it's worth, I think that while salesman
can do a lot, the product still matters...and until a massive
breakthrough on many levels, there is simply no fuel-cell vehicle
product that's even remotely saleable, to masses or even to most
millionaires. Show me a fuel-cell model that presells 600 units
(matching Tesla's slow-charging model) in the next 5 years and I'll eat
my hat. And I don't even wear a hat.

Hunter

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Hunter Cook wrote:
> >> 10 minutes is *not* quickly. "Time enough to
> >> relax and get a bite to eat" is *not* an acceptable compromise to anyone
> >> but us out here on the fringe. 10 minutes is at least 4-5 *times* as
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> You can't have it both ways. You can't cite unproven future claims from
> one technology, while having a tantrum about the current state of another.
Sure I can. I always agreed that neither is *here now*. We're talking
about what's *closer* to reality/production, and on one hand (battery
performance) we're quite close, while on the other (H2) we are
incredibly far away. That's the whole point here. You're talking about
"unproven" BEV tech in terms of rather small degrees of performance; all
I'm trying to say is that those differences are minute beside the
hurdles standing in the way of H2 tech, and no one is even claiming
(unproven or otherwise) solutions to these hurdles.

> Show me some numbers to back this up. I maintain that internal combustion
> is among the most wasteful possible methods of providing motive force, but
> I'd like to be proven wrong. Feel free to include the energy inefficiency
> of electrolysis in your figures. I believe it will still be far more
> efficient than internal combustion, when considering the total energy
> value of a gallon of gasoline or diesel, and how much of that is wasted
> creating heat.

You "believe" this? Have you looked into it? This is a dangerous
mindset.

> If you can prove it to me, it would be a fantastic argument
> against those promoting hydrogen as a solution to all our problems, and
> I'd be happy to use it.

Well, here it is:

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

The Honda FCX is the fuel-cell car in the lineup. Note the Honda Civc VX
(regular old ICE), Jetta diesel, and Prius numbers. The production ICE
Honda comes out 49% more efficient than the prototype fuel-cell Honda,
though the FCX presumably has much fancier aerodynamics and weight
reduction. (Naturally the Tesla roadster comes out way on top, but
that's a different story...)

BTW this does not include the energy of electrolysis, but rather H2
creation from natural gas, which Tesla claims is 61% efficient. I don't
know, but I would anticipate that electrolysis is even worse. But
perhaps most interestingly, even if you only look at pump-to-wheels
efficiency (thus ignoring how much less efficient H2 production is vs.
gasoline production) the FCX *still* loses, albeit by a much closer
margin (the Civc comes out 10.5% more efficient). 

So, if I'm doing the math right, any ICE car that gets 46mpg or better
beats the FCX in pump-to-wheels efficiency (on year one of the fuel
cell, assuming no parking leakage); any car getting 34.5mpg or better
beats the FCX in well-to-wheels.

Of course I'll be the first to agree that efficiency numbers are not
going to be the determining factor in the future of cars. I never
suggested they would be; I've focused on the conjecture that the public
isn't likely to tolerate dramatic efficiency reduction (and thus
driving-cost increase) year-on-year, fuel leaking out of the tank while
parked, and (most importantly) expensive fuel. Each of these things
taken alone is worse than a bit of a wait in rare opportunity charging
situations. Together they make a product that no amount of marketing
could sell, even if they got the prices down to less absurd levels.

> This is generally false and history has proven it so, repeatedly. The
> quality and functionality of products is not really that meaningful;
> marketing sells products, not quality or customer benefit. 

Sorry, but the American automakers figured out that was a bunk theory
when the Japanese manufacturers came over in the 70's and '80s. The idea
that product quality doesn't matter is old and bad. Sure, some bad
products are brilliantly marketed to success, but to suggest that having
a good or better product doesn't get you anything is to deny the
usefulness and functionality of all the great stuff we all use all the
time. It's to deny the very possibility of any disruptive technology
ever succeeding. And we know that's not the case.

Hunter

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Hunter Cook wrote:
> >> Show me some numbers to back this up. I maintain that internal
> >> combustion
> >> is among the most wasteful possible methods of providing motive force,
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Christopher Robison wrote:
> > We're arguing two different points. I was referring (perhaps
> > inappropriately in the context of the conversation) to the process of
> > internal combustion, and its use of the total energy available from a
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> We're arguing two different points. I was referring (perhaps
> inappropriately in the context of the conversation) to the process of
> internal combustion, and its use of the total energy available from a
> given quantity of gasoline. 

Then why did you invite me to include the efficiency of electrolysis? In
any case, if that's what you're referring to, it's the second number I
quoted...I called it the "pump-to-wheels" efficiency, Tesla calls it
"vehicle efficiency," and the Civic VX is still 10.5% more efficient by
that yardstick.

> You are referring to the well-to-wheels energy
> efficiency, which does not take this into account; it only considers the
> energy required to produce the gasoline (pump it, ship it, refine,
> transport, etc).

That's not right either; well-to-wheels does consider the vehicle
efficiency. What you have described is what Tesla is calling
"well-to-station" efficiency. Well-to-wheels is the product of the
well-to-station and vehicle efficiencies...it's the "whole" efficiency.
Of course, in this case the FCX has lower numbers in all three
categories, so it doesn't really matter. Plain and simple, no matter
what yardstick you try to use, the FCX is less efficient than the Civic
VX.

Hunter

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Hunter Cook wrote:
> >> We're arguing two different points. I was referring (perhaps
> >> inappropriately in the context of the conversation) to the process of
> >> internal combustion, and its use of the total energy available from a
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I think you are missing the point.

A trip to a specific refueling station is what is creating the quick
charging requirement. It is a pointless trip.

Instead think about the last 5 trips you took in your car, you went
someplace, the point was to go to the movies or the mall/store or work
or school.
Plenty of time to charge while your car is just sitting. Put the
charging stations at the malls,schools and places of employment.

This doesn't have to be every stall as the most common refueling spot is
still your own driveway.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Well it varies a lot depending on the system, there is no system in 
place to call THE system.

If it's compressed, then a substantial amount of energy is used to do 
that per lb of H2 but the mass density is still low. Liquifying it is 
far, far more energy still because it requires cryogenic cooling.

If it's H2 made from natural gas or some algae farm or whatever, 
something not done on-site at a gas station run by minimum wager yahoos, 
it needs to be transported. That could be done by pipes but considering 
the distances and scattering of gas stations trucking it may be the only 
way. This would generally require crygenic liquification or the density 
is not gonna be cost-effective to ship.

Now metal-hydride adsorption storage can store H2 without as high a 
pressure. If it's made on-site with electrolysis, then that has some 
efficiency benefits.

Danny



> Cory Cross wrote:
> 
> >Christopher Robison wrote:
> >
> ...


----------

