Driver to drive?

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:ipaRF.171598$Ux2.54240@fx43.iad:

How would the batteries that weigh hundreds of kg be hot-swapped
on the regular, physically?

Instead of a huge singular module, they would have to be designed
with a CELL / BATTERY paradigm in mind and a car would have say ten
units in it.

But you also screwed up by saying "hot swap". Nobody is going to
build a hot swap battery truck so you can swap out while you are
driving down the roads. THAT is "hot swap". Being parked at the
refuel station and having your module(s) swapped out is NOT "hot swap".

 

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:ipaRF.171598$Ux2.54240@fx43.iad:

> I'm assuming not manual labor.

No. If the modules were standardized, it could be a quick three
minute affair.

Some fashion of
battery-swapping robot?

More like a drive through, like a car wash is. Swapping robots for
a standardized system would have exactly ZERO problem doing it.

Ugh, one more thing to go wrong. That
thing is going to be breaking down constantly.

Maybe you should go back to the cave you apparently want to live
in, CroMagnon boy.

> Cables and plugs work good.

So, you have never seen a modern blade computer chassis then?

Modules and slots work better. WAY BETTER. Even for big stuff.

>Better is the enemy of good.

In your wee wittle bwain. Huhuhuhuhuhu!

We are not hunting wabbits here, Elmer.

 

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:18:42 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:ipaRF.171598$Ux2.54240@fx43.iad:

I'm assuming not manual labor.

No. If the modules were standardized, it could be a quick three
minute affai

Talking about standard size module. Possibilities are endless.

Starting with cells: 18650 21650 32650 21700 ...

Let's say we standardize on 18650, then matrix of 2x3 3x4 4x6 ... YYYxZZZ

Let's say we standardize on 18650 18x9, then pitch gap of 0.8mm, 1.0mm, 1.2mm

Then we consider serial, parallel or combinations of such.

....

So, i standardize on 18x9 1.0mm cell gap in all parallel modules of 3.7V. That will give around 800Wh in 18 pounds.

Three of these modules in series give a suitcase of 12V 2500Wh 50 pounds unit of around 40"x20"x10" in size. I can probable fix 10 to 20 of them in my cargo space of 3'x4'x6'

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 5:32:59 AM UTC-5, piglet wrote:

On 30/12/2019 16:52, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
AFAIR the step down cap supplies is not that bad

7 stages or more sounds like a nightmare, but since individual voltage is low, the process can be low voltage and thus cheap

That said, I am yet to see one that can compete with inductor step down

Cheers

Klaus


The advantage is at low power. I built a 6 stage capacitive divider 48V
to 5V at max 10 microamperes input (on-hook POTS 48V). Microamp inductor
based buck converters do not appear to be easy.

piglet

Huh? If it's not to late to ask, (being next year and all*)
What was the 48 V 10 uA source?
George H.


*Happy New Year :^)

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 4:49:02 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

On 1/5/20 5:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

The battery exchange is a way to avoid all those problems.

The packs are built into the structure of the car, you can't "hot
swap" 'em, they weigh like 1500 lbs.

Bozo, you are so clueless. The poster is talking about a likely
alternative, not the status quo. What a moron...

The reason that alternative has never been done is because it's
unnecessary and a dumb idea.

If you want to run a long-haul truck, or train, the battery-charge-while-stationary
phase is an annoyance, and the mechanisms to hoist a spent battery out
and lower a fresh one in are easy to build. So, it's not necessary, so what?
Convenient and expeditious are enough. Much battery-charge efficiency can
be obtained if a more elaborate charge mechanism (with pumps and
refrigeration) were employed, but that requires extraordinary access
to the battery, not just a 'charge socket'.

 

edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote in
news:346a7aa4-dbd2-4a30-93cb-cde305fca4af@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:18:42 PM UTC-8,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:ipaRF.171598$Ux2.54240@fx43.iad:

I'm assuming not manual labor.

No. If the modules were standardized, it could be a quick
three
minute affai

Talking about standard size module. Possibilities are endless.

Whatever. It was an easy read. I was referring to not yet
existing tech. Sheesh.

Starting with cells: 18650 21650 32650 21700 ...

No... Let's not. Little itty bitty cells are NOT going to power
cars and trucks.

Let's say we standardize on 18650, then matrix of 2x3 3x4 4x6 ...
YYYxZZZ

Let's say we don't.

Let's say we standardize on 18650 18x9, then pitch gap of 0.8mm,
1.0mm, 1.2mm

I was talking about 100Lb cells, that add up to a BATTERY.

You guys got lost when you grew up calling a D cell a battery. A
single cell is a single cell. A battery is a compilation of single
cells.

Drills get powered with little itty bitty batteries, not cars.

> Then we consider serial, parallel or combinations of such.

No, we don't.

So, i standardize on 18x9 1.0mm cell gap in all parallel modules
of 3.7V. That will give around 800Wh in 18 pounds.

Yeah but these need to change out quickly and with as few
iterations as possible.

100 or 80 Lb CELL PACKS in a single module and maybe 5 or 6 per
side of the car for a 10 or 12 cell car. They get slid out and
replaced as the car goes through a car wash style changeout machine.

Three of these modules in series give a suitcase of 12V 2500Wh 50
pounds unit of around 40"x20"x10" in size. I can probable fix 10
to 20 of them in my cargo space of 3'x4'x6'

Put one or two in your trunk with a converter to charge up your car
with. But as a system for entire cars? Nope. WAY too many nodes.
Way too many failure points.

 

>https://www.siig.com/serial-ata-4-channel-raid.html#siigspec

That shows a PCIe card.

 

[piglet]

On 07/01/2020 22:12, Piotr Wyderski wrote:

Piglet wro

The advantage is at low power. I built a 6 stage capacitive divider
48V to 5V at max 10 microamperes input (on-hook POTS 48V). Microamp
inductor based buck converters do not appear to be easy.

If I wanted 500V->2V step-down at 2uA and reasonable efficiency (say,
50+%), how would you approach that requirements? The Oxford bell?

I am thinking about a ~5uW supercap replacement for backup purposes,
which can't dry out -- a 10uF polypropylene cap at 1kV is equivalent to
10F@1V in 1/2*C*V^2 terms. According to the specs, supercaps are
expected to last some mediocre thousands of hours, e.g. 4kHr is just 166
days at the max ratings.

Why there are no glass-embedded supercaps, or 'lytics in general,
looking like vacuum tubes? What did they use in Voyager?

    Best regards, Piotr

I think 500V to 2V at 2uA is a very tough challenge, John Larkin said to
use a regular inductive converter in burst mode, but I am unconvinced.

Voyager used off-the-shelf capacitors e.g. ceramic, mica, film-foil at
smaller values and wet tantalum at higher values. Wet tantalum used
within ratings has no known wearout mechanism but the prices will amaze.

piglet

 

[piglet]

On 08/01/2020 05:54, George Herold wrote:

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 5:32:59 AM UTC-5, piglet wrote:
On 30/12/2019 16:52, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
AFAIR the step down cap supplies is not that bad

7 stages or more sounds like a nightmare, but since individual voltage is low, the process can be low voltage and thus cheap

That said, I am yet to see one that can compete with inductor step down

Cheers

Klaus


The advantage is at low power. I built a 6 stage capacitive divider 48V
to 5V at max 10 microamperes input (on-hook POTS 48V). Microamp inductor
based buck converters do not appear to be easy.

piglet

Huh? If it's not to late to ask, (being next year and all*)
What was the 48 V 10 uA source?
George H.


*Happy New Year :^)

Happy New Year George.

Power source was plain old telephone system, in the on-hook idle state
telcos had limits on loop current that could be drawn in some cases 50
or 100uA and multiple units of my item could have been present hence the
low allowance.

piglet

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:448daaa9-0d1e-4a3c-b7c3-bdf312dc69f6@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 4:49:02 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
On 1/5/20 5:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

The battery exchange is a way to avoid all those problems.

The packs are built into the structure of the car, you can't
"hot swap" 'em, they weigh like 1500 lbs.

Bozo, you are so clueless. The poster is talking about a likely
alternative, not the status quo. What a moron...

The reason that alternative has never been done is because it's
unnecessary and a dumb idea.

If you want to run a long-haul truck, or train, the
battery-charge-while-stationary phase is an annoyance, and the
mechanisms to hoist a spent battery out and lower a fresh one in
are easy to build. So, it's not necessary, so what? Convenient
and expeditious are enough. Much battery-charge efficiency can
be obtained if a more elaborate charge mechanism (with pumps and
refrigeration) were employed, but that requires extraordinary
access to the battery, not just a 'charge socket'.

It is the right way. Always getting premium topped off batteries
that are cool. Not just finishing a dubious charge cycle and taking
off with already hot batteries, degrading them even faster.

Modular is the future. It could even be way cheaper if the car
owners pay into a system that covers the stations and even some of
the charging. It could end up way cheaper than ICE commutes.

Cell phones are a multi-billion dollar industry and some of the
idiots even get new units every year or every other year. The
industry cater to demand. If you can buy a cell phone that cheap,
you could have a car that has mudular battery systems that
incorporate change out centers. You could also keep a fresh pack
charged up and cool at home, then change out just before departing in
the morning with the old pack now on the day charger, done by the
time you get back from work.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:6142d151-10ad-4944-87d0-
a2dddbd176de@googlegroups.com:

https://www.siig.com/serial-ata-4-channel-raid.html#siigspec

That shows a PCIe card.

This is easy. Go to google. Select google images. Then enter SATA
CACHING CONTROLLER (not all caps) in the search box.

You get images, but links are attached to them.

Some of them are RAID enabled.

 

>no need to shout...

I quoted that, it is not easy to uncap something

><https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000480958135.html>

They want a membership. I will melt this thing down before I generate another membership. Or shoot it with buck a round Hydra-Shoks.

Why don't they just want to sell shit ?

I am not in a good mood, not to take it out here but to describe it, if I get another membership they are going to have a password protocol so frigged up I can't remember it so I'll have to write it down. What kind of security is that ?

Has to have this and that and be so many characters and then you finally get to "givemeaccessrightnoworiasmcomingdowtheretosdhootyou" and they say "Sorry, that one had been taken".

As such, the best password is probably 111111. Nobody would think anyone would use it. A hacker would kick himself finding that one out.

Reminds me of the olman's 1957 Chevy. (nice, one seat, wheelies in second gear) he lost the keys so instead of getting a new ignition he just pulled all but one tumbler out and many many keys would work it. BUT NOBODY KNEW.

Like door locks. Leave them unlocked. Someone comes along and finds it unlocked they will say "Shit, they're here and probably still up".

You can walk in here and read my mail, get on here as well as many forums out there transparently. What is anyone going to do to me ? Tell my boss I like kinky sex, he knows. I work for myself. My card has ZERO liability, so that is not a problem, the bank will go to Nigeria and take care of it or just eat it, not me. Nothing is in my name and unless you got the combo to my safe you get nothing.

No, no more passwords.

 

>You get images, but links are attached to them.

Interesting approach. I will try that. Thanks.

 

[piglet]

On 08/01/2020 09:12, piglet wrote:

On 07/01/2020 22:12, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Piglet wro

The advantage is at low power. I built a 6 stage capacitive divider
48V to 5V at max 10 microamperes input (on-hook POTS 48V). Microamp
inductor based buck converters do not appear to be easy.

If I wanted 500V->2V step-down at 2uA and reasonable efficiency (say,
50+%), how would you approach that requirements? The Oxford bell?

I am thinking about a ~5uW supercap replacement for backup purposes,
which can't dry out -- a 10uF polypropylene cap at 1kV is equivalent
to 10F@1V in 1/2*C*V^2 terms. According to the specs, supercaps are
expected to last some mediocre thousands of hours, e.g. 4kHr is just
166 days at the max ratings.

Why there are no glass-embedded supercaps, or 'lytics in general,
looking like vacuum tubes? What did they use in Voyager?

     Best regards, Piotr

I think 500V to 2V at 2uA is a very tough challenge, John Larkin said to
use a regular inductive converter in burst mode, but I am unconvinced.

Voyager used off-the-shelf capacitors e.g. ceramic, mica, film-foil at
smaller values and wet tantalum at higher values. Wet tantalum used
within ratings has no known wearout mechanism but the prices will amaze.

piglet

By "off-the-shelf" I did not mean commercial grade. Clearly
aerospace/military spec parts were subject to extra screening and
qualification processes. Voyager used capacitors of similar technology
that we can still access.

piglet

 

[Tim Williams]

"Winfield Hill" <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qv25040u3l@drn.newsguy.com...

Tim Williams wrote...

One quirk that comes to mind, a testability report that
doesn't detect SMT pads, only vias of adequate size and
thru pads. I assign testpoints in my design, but no one
reads the outputs, go figure.

What's this "testability report", generated by what?

This thing, I think:
http://acuityelectronics.com/solutions/test-engineering/

Another verification step, though maybe it integrates with flying-probe
machines or something, dunno.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[Tim Williams]

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
newsm5RF.161678$AF2.150210@fx34.iad...

Hmm..guess a single-sided PCB with 50 SMT zeners in series and no vias
is untestable by most FAB houses...

The basic tests don't have any visibility into component type, so they want
for example, test access on both sides of series termination resistors.
Which would basically double the layout area and negate the value of those
resistors, and makes me less inclined to put them in... what a strange
incentive.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 9:43:20 AM UTC-5, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Why I need this, whatever, just forget it, got a source or not ? If I got a source for you I will tell.

PCI FOUR PORT SATA ADAPTER.

It must be THAT. It cannot be PCIe, it cannot e less than four ports. The type of SATA interface does not concern me, it can be from 1957 if it works. It is all files. Well a few programs but not the OS but I am going to move the swapfile to the biggest drive and give it lots of room. So that will be rust, not SSD.

Help me get the right thing to my door for like $20-25 ad I will buy you beer and ship it anywhere in the world, except Islamic countries, I had enough enemies. Or like weed, not unless it is legal there. Or just a fucking 10 and you buy what you want.

I have already looked and there are some that are misrepresented, they are PCIe, not PCI even though they say it specifically. Like on Amazon. Companies lie all the time and I'll be damned if they are going to collect interest on my money for six months before sending the refund.

Yes, you might see that I am in a frightfully good mood today, Bottom line though is I trust even my worst nemesis here more than any big company. Some of you run older PCs for different reasons so I figure maybe someone knows where to get this stuff, otherwise I would not bother you with it.

Thanks in advance.

https://www.ebay.com/c/134217376 used $10.00 + 9.30 shipping

https://www.ebay.com/itm/124015993842 New $11.74 + free shipping

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 01/01/2020 23:30, omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

The battery exchange is a way to avoid all those problems. Each electric
car has 4 batteries that are extracted at the fuel depot. Delivery trucks
and drones deliver fresh batteries. Identification of batteries tracks
wearing out status, and debits. Only 1 batter is used at a time, so 3 are
fresh until exchanged at the gas station.
cells.

Slot-car tracks where appropriate.

Cheers
--
Clive

 

Thank you all for accepting the battery exchange idea
for cars and trucks. Next, electric airplanes can use
lithium batteries and refueling a 747-E will take one minute.

A Boeing 747-E will have an automatic battery extraction robot.
Ph D electronics design engineers will put a fresh battery in
manually, with inspectors and live videos to ensure the
safety of the crew.

 

On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 11:40:02 PM UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Run any old Borland Turbo Pascal program and it will immediately
terminate with divide-by-zero (actually overflow) in the init >routine on too fast processors (Pentium II and later).

You mean when they fixed the 1=.99999999999999 error ?

No, there is some kind of error in the crt unit, some kind of loop or division that on fast systems leads to divide by zero, eventually it produces runtime error 200, even in virtual machines.

The patch is called tppatch.zip and there are others on that site when you google it. However scammers might use a similiar zip to infect people, so beware, meanwhile I have copied these zips onto my own webdrive, have not tested them recently,but did in the past and solves it for exe's will use them soon again:

Link to Folder:
http://www.skybuck.org/tppatch/

Link to Files:
http://www.skybuck.org/tppatch/tppatch.zip
http://www.skybuck.org/tppatch/bp7patc1.zip
http://www.skybuck.org/tppatch/bp7patc2.zip

> You can do better than that. Once I get my state of the art PC totally together I can send you a program that will not run on anything with a math coprocessor, that means nothing better than a 486SX. Also didn't they make math coprocessors for the 386 ? They were separate and maybe could be turned off in BIOS. If not you cod probably just remove them because what I was was in a separate socket. Or were those to take a 486SX to a DX ?

Challenge excepted Send me the program via e-mail: skybuck2000@hotmail.com or

skybuck2000
@
hotmail
..
com

Hmmmm... using turbo pascal 7 and slow computers would kind of be a nice way to throw off faster computers.

Might have to examine it lol.

Though these programs will probably work fine in Turbo Pascal 7.

Kinda funny idea, here is some code/pseudo code;

Counter := 10000000;
Math := 0;
Tick1 := QueryPerformanceCounter;
Frequency := QueryPeformanceFrequency;
while Counter > 0 do
begin
Math := Math + 1;
Counter := Counter - 1;
Math := Math div Counter;
Tick2 := QueryPerformanceCounter;
Seconds := (Tick2 - Tick1) / Frequency; // needs to be floating point type
if Seconds > 1 then break;
end;

Now the funny thing about this code is, if the counter reaches 0 before 1 second it will crash with a division by zero =D produce an exception and might halt the program if no exception handler.

Kinda funny, so it would crash on faster computers =D

Bye for now,
Skybuck =D