% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ENERQ.PK Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • ecd_anonymous ecd_anonymous May 23, 2005 12:02 AM Flag

    UC Davis Andy Frank response to

    Hi Ray,

    I would like to hear your take on Andy Franks comments.

    As you say these are incredibly complex tradeoffs and analysis.

    Thanks in advance!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • (11th posting try, already: �The web site you have requested may be experiencing technical difficulties due to a busy or broken server�. Yahoo! is seriously broken, folks, and we may not see it fixed for a long time.)

      >>Hi Ray,

      I would like to hear your take on Andy Franks comments.

      As you say these are incredibly complex tradeoffs and analysis.

      Thanks in advance!<<

      I�m happy to see him comment, though I find what he said somewhat mystifying � particularly since there have been at least two independent auto-industry comments that apparently disagree (fully satisfactory Lithium-based propulsion batteries were expected to be at least 5 to 10 years away.)

      I�ve already posted some obvious discrepancies in the Lithium-based battery claims, and these have not really been addressed in the subject Calcars thread. So, I immediately decided to work up a reply and ask for his input re some serious discrepancies in claims re Lithium-based rechargeables vs NiMH � mainly the ones I�ve already posted here. I think his entry into the discussions reasonably guarantees further input from him, which will no doubt be of interest to us.

      It will take a while to retrieve the necessary quotes and data and to write a cogent response. And, even more time trying to get anything posted here.

      • 1 Reply to Ray_Bowman
      • Closer reading of Dr. Frank�s �Calcars� comments suggests he is just trying to be supportive. It sounds like a kindly professor cautioning an amateur effort and giving as much praise as can be honestly muster.

        >>This is a good summary of the state of the practical battery options as they exist today. I'm glad that you have done this work, but as I said in the beginning that the path to batteries is not easy unless a battery manufacturer is behind you. D cells are not too practical!!

        Thus the conclusion I have come to is that the Valence battery is the most cost effective and practical at this time.

        What do you think??<<

        I think he is just recommending the Valence battery as a default choice � since no other company is willing to support what is evidently a very small and rather naive effort (with possibly some liabilities in the offing). I�m not deprecating small efforts, however � just noting that this is one and I see some lack of professional savvy. And, even automakers are cautious about taking on battery-system engineering � as evidenced by Cobasys being asked to develop whole systems, not just the packs.

        Whatever, Frank�s comments provide an entry for getting more information from him, and I intend to make use of the opportunity. I tried to visit both he and Dr. Burke about 3 years ago, when I was in Davis, CA; but only Dr. Burke was available. So, I�m happy to have another opportunity to ply him with some questions.