Electrical Components

Li iron phosphate batteries are showing signs of life. I noticed an ad for a 3.3v, 100 AH cell for $259, less than $1 per Wh. That's about half what you'd expect to pay from A123 or Altair Nano.

I suspect that batteries will keep flywheels from becoming widely used. A good battery is a far better deal than storing energy with compressed air or hydraulics, and the EEstor super-duper capacitor doesn't look like it will pan out, so I think batteries will continue to be the storage medium of choice while coming down in price. For cars, hybridizing will likely remain liquid fuel/electric.

"For cars, hybridizing will likely remain liquid fuel/electric."

I believe that you are correct as you have stated above. But there must be a way to keep the vehicle going after the battery power has been depleted. Hence, the dual fuel. And, as the technology is today, a battery that is nearly depleted does not have the full power of the "fresh" battery. A gasoline powered car has its full power and capabilities right down to the last drop of gasoline. Present batteries don't.

I am still of the opinion that the efficient use of batteries to power cars is going to be a long time coming. The major problem that I see is the ability to charge the batteries in a timely manner. When a battery is depleted, it must be replaced or re-charged. The present technology does not allow for a speedy charge of these batteries.

There is the possibility that the industry could create what may be called "battery stations" rather than "filling stations" or some other nomenclature where the owner could pull in, have his nearly depleted battery removed and a full one replaced for a nominal fee. However, this could possibly require a considerable amount of storage space depending on the location of the "battery station" and the volume of business that it does. And, also, depending on the size of the batteries presented to the public by the industry at a given time.

Batteries could be useful if a way to charge them on a continuous basis is found. This, again, is where I envision the dual fuel concept being a pre-requisite to the use of battery power. Perhaps some type of solar panel will be developed for this use; one that puts out the required amount of power, but is more compact than those currently available.

In summary, we have come a long way in the near past, but I believe it will be a long time before we are able to operate our vehicles continuosly and reliably with onboard stored electrical power. I believe in the ingenuity and inventiveness of the world's engineering community, but I also believe that another direction should be scrutinized. Further, I believe it will be. Who said "Where there's a will, there's a way."? Well, we have it!!

Well put.

Given enough capital and motivation, full electric cars could be quite quickly practical for everyday use, without the need to make huge lifestyle changes. The Altair Nano battery story has been disappointing, (likewise the EEstor, although it seemed sketchy from the start) but the intent has been to have a battery that could be recharged fully in ten minutes. That would require 480V 500A recharging stations, but every Starbucks could have three or four in a matter of a few weeks, if the will existed. Ordinarily, you'd recharge your car at home overnight, but occasionally, and on trips, you'd stop in at Starbucks, have a cup of coffee, and charge up, perhaps at a 2.5:1 premium over charging at home, but still, the "fuel" cost would be a small fraction of fueling with gasoline. (30 kWh @ $.25 = $7.50. $4.50 profit for Starbucks, with no labor cost. If 4 charging stations had 50% usage over the course of a 12 hour day, that would be... $648 gross profit per day, $233280 gross profit per year.

The Gaia MC2, the test mule for which is my avatar, will be a plug-in hybrid. For commuting, it runs as an electric car, and would be charged overnight. If a round-trip commute is longer then 40 miles, its engine fires up and recharges the batteries. Although I rarely have anything especially positive to say about GM, one thing they are doing right, I think, is getting the Volt onto the market... assuming they follow through. Such vehicles will drive down the cost of good batteries, and provide an easy transition to full electric vehicles (while making a huge reduction in petroleum usage in the process).

I've been busy on other projects, so haven't had much time to devote to my own, which is still powered by gasoline rather than electricity. In Atlanta, we don't expect gasoline availability to be back to normal until October 13, so many times recently I have wished that the MC2 mule was electric -- gas has been amazingly hard to find. There are several local stations where I have not seen any gas at all for a couple weeks.

The drawbacks are nearly overwhelming when one considers the changes, inadequacies and inconveniences that would be precipitated by the advent of the fully electric car.

Consider the fast pace at which everybody lives and works today. The time it takes to re-charge, even if it is only ten minutes, is enough to dissuade people from using them. Especially in the business (outside sales for instance). Time is a precious commodity for these people. Taking ten minutes out of their busy schedules, especially since it would probably occur several times daily, would hamper their ability to effectively do their job. Now, I know that adaptation is the key here, but it would not be an easy task.

Next, consider the family. As your avatar displays, these electric cars are not going to be suitable for family travel. They are more correctly going to be what some may call PTV's - Personal Travel Vehicles. (You can use that. I just invented it.) A faminly of four would be hard pressed to travel together in a vehicle such as you show. Anything larger would break the back of the battery power that is currently available.

That addresses the inadequacies and inconveniences, but what of the changes? Where will all employees of the oil companies find work? The amount of oil consumed daily in the world for transportation is staggering when one sees the number written out with all its many zeros. I know that there are many users of other oil products that will be more than happy to try to take up the slack, but, alas, they won't be able to do it. The price of crude will drop dramatically (not ALL bad) and many more will be displaced as a result.

The fight will be enormous. Oil vs. battery. Right now, oil probably has the upper hand financially and will be better able to wage the war that will ensue. A lot of things to consider, a lot of money to be spent and made and lost. Where will it take us? I don't know, but I am anxious to find out. How about some kind of nuclear reactor the size of a gallon can of paint that will propell the heaviest of cars for a hundred years. Get on it, Ken!! You can do it.

Consider the fast pace at which everybody lives and works today. The time it takes to re-charge, even if it is only ten minutes...

Here, in Atlanta, the gas lines have been an hour or more long at many stations over the past several weeks. (Granted, an unusual situation.) However, as people become accustomed to vehicles like the Volt, and as batteries improve, and overall vehicle efficiency improves, more and more people will be willing to drive vehicles with 100 mile range and quick charge capability. My family has one car that is used almost exclusively for commuting, and an electric vehicle would work better in every way. We'd virtually never need to quick charge it, but it would be nice to have the option. The 10 minutes I mentioned is limited by the capacity of the recharging outlet, and is based upon a need to do a full recharge, but if all you need is 10kWh (for another 40 miles on a Prius-sized vehicle or 100 miles in an efficient four-seater like the Milner ElectiCar), then 2.5 minutes would do the trick -- about the same as an average gasoline fill-up.

Next, consider the family...

My MC2 is definitely not a family vehicle, and is designed specifically for getting one person (or occasionally 2 people) from point a to b at the lowest possible cost (environmental and dollar) consistent with safety and reasonable comfort. But the Toyota RAV4 EV was a great family vehicle, and works just like an ordinary car, but never needs gas. A friend (who is quite an enthusiast of efficient vehicles) Has one, and several other electric cars, and he cannot pry the keys away from his wife, who uses it all the time. Its 80 mile range (on NiMH batteries, which have been lasting 150,000 miles on many of the RAV4's) is completely adequate for virtually all her travelling. They keep a minivan around for long trips, but otherwise they both drive electric cars all the time.

Where will all employees of the oil companies find work?

Of course one such oil company, Chevron, holds a large stake in Cobasys, the battery company (currently being sued by Mercedes.) The Cobasys batteries in the GM cars have been failing, whereas the Panasonics in the Toyotas work extremely well. (Ironic that Cobasys sued Panasonic for patent issues, and won.) There are many who believe that Cobasys is deliberately bungling things to keep NiMH batteries off the market.* Who knows? Most of the oil companies have stakes in solar power, batteries, wind, etc. and as the transition occurs (at glacial pace, I fear) they will continue to make money. As Seaplane guy points out, (and T Boone Pickens would agree) CNG Makes a lot of sense, and I suspect the smarter oil companies are thinking about ways to make money in that market, too.

And of course, if the oil industry fails to adapt, and goes belly up, then we can bail them out too, along with the financial industry and the car companies.

The fight will be enormous.

It will be interesting to see. There is an historic alliance between greenies (tending to be liberal), "creation care" Christians (tending to be conservative), and those focused on national security (fairly bipartisan) all of whom want to see our reliance on oil cut dramatically. If the oil companies are smart and thinking long-range (a combination that rarely occurs in American Big Business these days, with board rooms focused on short term gains -- witness the collapse of GM) they will get involved in the energy sources of the future: Coal will remain strong, natural gas will be become stronger, solar and wind will grow at slightly faster than the current snail's pace, and one would hope that where the inefficiencies are huge (as in the transportation sector) overall energy usage will become much more efficient. For example, the Milner can legitimately claim 100 mpg (while running as an charge-sustaining hybrid) in the EPA city cycle, while offering nearly the utility of a typical smallish sedan: about a 3:1 improvement over the status quo, and better than 2:1 over the Prius. Companies like mine, Milner, etc are sprouting up daily, and the interest in high efficiency vehicles is phenomenal. Clearly, not all these little companies are going to survive -- although I'd have to say it would be great to see a lot of different people building cars. I remember what a thrill it was, as a kid in the early 60's, to go the the New York Auto show, and see the products of loads of small companies from around the world. I would never have dreamed, then, that Maserati and Ferrari could ever be one company nor that Fiat would own both, along with Lancia and Alfa Romeo. Jaguars and Volvos just gussied up Fords??? Bentley owned by VW??!!?? What a world.

* I am in the market for batteries for two projects, and lithium-based cells from China are likely the way I will be forced to go. Cobasys has successfully driven people away from NiMH, despite the fact that Toyota has shown convincingly (as did GM with the NiMH GM EV1) that they could be a viable technology. My friend with the many electric vehicles has NiMH, Li phosphate, NiCad, Gel and AGM batteries in his fleet, and NiMH is the only technology he really trusts as being mature and reliable. Unfortunately, Cobasys cannot be trusted to deliver reliable batteries, unlike Panasonic. I think LiFePo has a lot of promise and am leaning strongly in that direction.

Well, Blink, it sounds like you are in the infancy stages of an exciting industry. I hope you do well in it.

In an earlier reply (9/30/2008) you were discussing compressed air powered vehicles. I looked on Google briefly and saw nothing that excited me about that technology. I was particularly concerned about the fact that some of these experimantal cars required a storage tank that held air at more than 4,000 psi. I don't think I would feel comfortable traveling in a vehicle that had that amount of energy stored under my seat. I know that oxygen is stored at high pressures for acetylene metal cutting torches, but I don't travel with them in the vehicle.

Your ascertion that stored air is very inefficient is right on the money (in more ways than one). When one considers the energy required to 1) - produce the electricity to 2) - drive the motor driven compressors to 3) - operate the vehicle, the expended energy is nearly all used up. There has to be a better way.

What are the problems you see with compressed air as a means of storing energy? I remember seeing a car recently that ran on compressed air. It was ugly and noisy, but if I remember correctly it had a range of 200+ miles, and could be recharged at home using a standard AC powered compressor. I also see that a compressed air car will be going to market soon in India (link below) with a range of 125 miles.

I don't mean to be facetious, but air is pretty cheap. I assume there must be some other problems for you to dismiss it so easily.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

Air itself is cheap enough. But to compress it, you need a pump (electrically inefficient), a storage tank (physically inefficient), and a means to transfer the stored latent energy to the road surface (mechanically inefficient). With all those inefficiencies marching against it, I doubt compressed air will be a practical solution. May as well use the electricity directly to drive the wheels.

In industry, compressed air is used for motive power (or general running of machines) only if there is some compelling reason to justify its energy cost. Imagine, in a typical plant with air piping every where, how easy it would be to charge up fork lift trucks with compressed air. Instead, the truck must travel back to the battery room (often only one per plant) for a battery change. In industrial use, compressed air is usually considered about 15% efficient, and for a couple decades there has been at least lip service given to eliminating air leaks, etc to reduce costs. Electric motors, on the other hand are about 90% efficient. The best batteries are now 95% efficient. For home use, a modern electric car can get about 80% of the kWh input back out as mechanical energy. With air power, this would more like 20%.

As far as I can, tell the MDI air car is effectively a scam. Historically, their claims have not been supportable. In an earlier thread, I calculated the energy contained in a tank that was supposed to supply this tiny car, and found that the car would have to be powered by a 1/2 hp air motor to meet the mileage claims. (That was assuming 100% efficiency, which is not remotely close to real world.) Even the notion of 89 gallons of air storage alone (approaching two 55 gallon drums) on a tiny car seems extremely implausible.

I read somewhere that the air car has never gone more than 4km (or maybe miles) on a charge. I'm not sure if that is accurate, but it would not surprise me.

The last time I looked at the MDI site, there was little to base any solid analysis upon. But compressing air without heat loss is impossible. If the heat of compression could be used for some purpose, like heating domestic hot water, then ther would be some hope for the concept, were it not for the very poor energy density of stored compressed air. Negre has been "working" on this for almost two decades, has never demonstrated a long-range drive in the car, but has apparently signed 50 licensing agreements with potential manufacturers. One was suppose to begin building cars in 2000, another in 2003, but as of yet, nothing has been built. Tata say they have no immediate plans to build the car.

Perhaps it's legit, but I have seen nothing that suggests that it is.

Compressed air, hydrogen, and electricity are all energy carriers, not fuels. In the US, electricity is, on average across all sources and all states, produced with 38% efficiency, well-to-plug. Gasoline is produced with 82% efficiency, well to pump. Taking already lossy electricity and using it to compress air, incurring very large additional losses, seems anything but green.

In my college days (many decades ago, when TVs ran on whale oil) a friend built a VW-powered dragster. It had a monstrous hydraulic accumulator on it, which fed four hydraulic wheel motors. All four tires would smoke at the start of a 1/4 mile, and the accumulator was pretty well depleted by the end. In that case, the energy (originally supplied from gasoline via the VW engine) was stored in the form of the compression of nitrogen in the accumulator. Although the peak power was impressive, the amount of energy storage was not.

I ran some calculations on CNG (compressed natural gas) vs battary (li-ion) and compressed air.

CNG: Batt.: air

Energy/weight: 800: 10:1

Energy/volume: 100:10:1

This is not an exact calculation because the air energy is very dependent on how it it used, but for general ratios, you can see that CNG is much better than battaries.

I believe, based on my research and development, that the "end game" of passenger transit is 500 mpg city and 250 mpg highway (70 mph) during night driving and with solar fraction during day driving increasing this to several times this level. The CIA also believes this...Casey on C-span before congress testified that 525 mpg is doable...

The bottom line of transit is "time," not the cost of fuel. Successful cars will have 1000-2000 mile ranges to save time once we break through the 100 mpg highway and 200 mpg city barrior for a 3500 lb car. That is a 3-6 times increase from current vehicles. A car like a Prius would get 120 h, 240 city, for example. That requires a 60-70%+ efficient engine.

When you park your car, you will reform CH4 back from CO2 from the solar thermal process. A battary does not have the capacity to store a days energy harvest, whereas a CNG tank will have plenty of storage. The key is capturing co2 from previous runs or out of the air, a more inefficient process. Co2 is important, not for GW or some other religious hoax, but for the carbon to make ch4.

Climate controlled cars will become the standard and the trade off is energy harvest vs climate control. If you park your car 8 hours you generate 7.5 hrs and then cool the car .5 hours in time for the driver to drive home. Batteries cannot compete here from my view of what is possible... and hence this electric "trend" (ie Volt, Prius) will prove a mirage and there will be a point that will make GM, Ford, and others critically weak at the right time for new entrants to enter the market, despite the $25 billion "bailout" that was recently passed.

That time is 3-4 years out...

Seaplanguy

It is imperative that some better type of electric power storage be developed or solar and even wind power will not be really viable sources of power. EVs will remain short-range and expensive, if the cost of the power storage is not also lessened. That is the greatest stumbling block at this time.

The answer is not the battery itself but the very road we drive on, ie magnetic inductance why not have large rare earth magnets (each set inlaid in opposite polarity) after one another as the car moves over the magnets it induces a voltage in the coils(just above the road) this should greatly increase the range as you are converting a small rolling force(technically a electromagnetic flywheel by using the mass inertia of the vehicle ) into a usuable power source to charge the batteries. At stop lights have sensors inbuilt to detect a electric car above and have an AC transformer charge(air coupled) it is the roads that should have the infrastructure not the cars, ie roads are where most ppl drive and the cars are on so why not use a common sense approach and change both as time passes the whole network of roads would have these abiltiy greatly extending drive distance. Also angle the magnets could be another option ie have naturally repeling fields as a car passes over the magents on both car and road wish to repel the car in the direction of travel, to over come the intial force ie passing over the magnet field a cam or servo could syncronize the positions, so with little force you could technically accellerate the car by just lifting its magnets and lowering them at the correct intervals.

Batteries are much more efficient at storing energy than compressed air or hydrogen. The problems are expense, size, recharge time and weight. The only way to make solar or even wind energy viable is to develop a way to store large amounts of electrical energy at low cost.

The main application today would be in EVs, but their short range, slow speeds, long charging times and high costs make them less than ideal to replace cars powered by IC engines. IC engines in vehicles are less efficient than an alternative. "(www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 % despite that the maximum efficiency for a gasoline engine is 35 %. The main reason to that is that a 200 kW ICE operates at very low loads (10-20 %) almost all it's life where efficiency is about 10 % instead of 35 %. A steam engine has the opposite efficiency characteristic, that is, maximum efficiency at part load (10-20 % load) and lower efficiency at full load. Complete simulation indicates 32 % efficiency at part load for a steam engine, that is 3 times lower fuel consumption for a 200-300 kW engine operating during normal conditions."

Yet using a steam engine as direct drive to wheel increases the load, lowering its efficiency. It can take 30+ seconds to reach operating pressure, delaying moving and the water can freeze. However steam power is used to generate most of our electricity.

A standard size car could be built as a plug-in EV that would be able to travel up to 50 miles [one way] at moderate speed without being terribly expensive. But few people are willing to be limited to being able to travel only 25 miles from home, they want to be able to travel as far as they do with IC powered cars. By adding a steam engine to run a generator on demand as needed to recharge the batteries one could increase the range to 300+ miles. Since about 80% of the driving would be short distances using electric power the average driver would use about 80% less fuel.

Steam engines need not be heavy, check out the Lysholm expander, the Green Steam Engine and the Tesla Turbine. Even piston and cylinder engines can be made lighter by using modern materials, one in the 1920's was even light enough to power an airplane. Water tube boilers do not explode and the Lamont design produces more power for its size. For a car it might be about 15"-18" in dia. and 13"-16" high and the engine about the same size or less. External combustion using a forced draft is cleaner than an IC engine, plus it can be built to use any liquid or gaseous fuel. [Solid fuels are a bit harder to handle in an auto.]

The use of batteries and electric drive also solves the freezing problem using heat strips and the car will move immediately without waiting. The car can even be used as an emergency generator when the electrical grid is out. A steam-electric hybrid could be the answer to using less fuel, using multiple fuels and keeping the price down to affordable levels. It could give us a lot of leeway in the time it would take to invent those inexpensive, small, high-energy electrical storage devices that we need to switch over to using all-electric cars, solar energy and smoothing out the variables in wind power.

Interesting Blog, I agree that batteries will probably be the next logical step in the mass transit industry. I won't harp on about water powered engines or steam power or any of the other ideas such as stirling engines. I was slightly bemused by the idea that changing batteries in cars would be a long job, as has been pointed out, modern warehouses have electric fork trucks that visit the charging bay once a day, usually to have the battery replaced, this takes about 5 minutes! \if you fill your tank, it takes about 5 minutes which is identical. The only problem will be planning your journey so that there are always enough battery changing stations to work, and you will have to guarantee your battery from a station, will it still be up to the apparent 200 miles that some people are quoting?

Just a few random point, but lets see what happens

"...planning your journey so that there are always enough battery changing stations..."

No real difference between "last chance for gas" and "last chance for electrons", is there?

Shai Agassi is promoting the concept of switching out batteries, and particularly the idea of leasing the batteries, rather than owning them (thereby, among other things, making the purchase price of an electric vehicle extremely attractive). It will be interesting to see how this works, but as someone involved in two production-intent electric vehicle projects, I'd have to say that fitting the batteries into a vehicle efficiently is not a simple task, even when dealing with the individual modules the size of a typical car battery, let alone something ten times that large. An advantage of many smaller cells (despite the disadvantage of many electrical connections) is that the battery pack can then take many shapes, and parts of the pack as a whole can be tucked here and there. For aerodynamically efficient vehicles, a standard, monolithic battery pack would be difficult-to-impossible to integrate into the structure. For chunkier city vehicles, this would be less of a problem, in that you could sacrifice some aerodynamics in favor of battery pack standardization.

Even in city vehicles, there would need to be several sizes of battery pack for various sizes of vehicle. Keeping several sizes of large heavy packs in stock could be quite difficult, but with position monitoring of each vehicle, the best location for pack replacement could be predicted. Transporting packs from station to station would have to be avoided in the interests of efficiency, so this network would need to be quite sophisticated, and would require, at least, that users enter trip details into and onboard computer, so the at the system would have some hope of being able to predict where batteries would be required, and how they might get there. None of this is impossible, but it certainly requires a huge effort to get everything to work together.

I'd like to see battery-augmented "slot cars." These cars would be powered from a (probably) low voltage high amperage "slot" down the middle of each lane (maybe broad surface contacts at 24 V, so they could be exposed without posing a significant electrocution hazard... or maybe a real slot at higher voltage... with more sophisticated controls to steer the pickup to the slot, pull it out quickly when the car maneuvers suddenly, etc. Travel around neighborhoods and towns would be by battery, but at intersections, there would be contacts that would enable fast recharge (10 seconds for 1/10 battery pack capacity -- which according to Altair Nano, is available now -- they claim full charge in one minute). In addition, there would be the usual ways of recharging, such as at home, or at public and private high speed recharging outlets.

In Georgia, in the southern US, solar cells are now a better-than-break-even proposition vs buying power from the utility company. So a household here can fuel all its energy requirements and its commuting vehicle requirements entirely by sunlight. Today. No new tech required. Here, and virtually everywhere in the US, there is net metering in place, so rather than having a bunch of batteries, you sell excess electricity to the power company, and buy it back when you need it at the same price (and in some situations at a lower price).

As soon as I figure out how to lengthen each day to 48 hours, I am going to convert an old Daihatsu, which I've had sitting around, to electric power. It could hardly be a better vehicle for my wife to commute in. Range would be perfectly adequate, and her "fuel" costs would drop to 1/8 of current cost. The conversion parts cost, for a tiny car like this, is about $2000 plus batteries, and for this usage, standard deep cycle lead acid is fine, while being eminently recyclable. This car would be used about 16 miles per day, 250 days per year, and I'd expect to replace the battery pack every 18 months, at a cost of about $500. The overall energy/battery cost per mile would be lower than it is currently, but not by a lot. Using one of the lithium technologies could cut this overall cost in half, while adding a lot of up-front cost.

Of course, the overall ownership costs, including depreciation, are a tiny fraction of what most people spend on a new car. There are loads of potential conversion donor cars that are available for peanuts, small car low-performance tires are dirt cheap, etc. etc. If I amortised all the costs and expenses over 5 years, I'd be hard pressed to spend more than $120/month, total -- nowhere near the depreciation alone on the average new car.

Picture trying to change batteries for as many cars per hour as a busy service station refuels. Just changing standard auto batteries would take at least 5 minutes. Then picture the number of attendants needed to change the batteries. The batteries in an EV are heavy enough to require the use of power equipment to lift them out, move them to the recharge area, then go to the fresh battery area and move them to the car, also add in the time to unhook and reattach all connectors. I think more in terms of 15-20 minutes to switch batteries. This builds into a large facility with many employees and it will cost money to operate. If customers come in faster than expected there could easily be long lines of unhappy EV drivers waiting to have the batteries replaced. Forklifts have their single battery in the open or under a simple cover and changing one is far easier than in an EV.

The idea of a steam-electric plug-in hybrid avoids all that. It is not the "zero-emissions" that the extreme perfectionists insist on with their less than practical schemes, but it comes close with all its advantages. Water powered engines are a scam and Stirling engines do not lend themselves to this type of power generation. Steam engines have a proven record, although they were trashed by IC engine makers and were then condescendingly dismissed under a pile of lies and propaganda. Modern technology can build steam engines that will run rings around IC engines and do it cleaner.

ok, a good answer.

Why none has thought of Nuclear Powered Batteries?

I read in some Russian journal ABOUT SOME TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO THAT SUCH BATTERIES ARE POSSIBLE AND INDEED WERE DEVELOPED BY RUSSIANS .ONLY THIS time THEY HAVE TO BE MADE CRASH PROOF OR SELF DESTRUCTING IN CASE OF COLLISION Of CARS.I believe some Russian sattelites had them.These batteries are highly durable .

ANY ONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT CAN E-MAIL ME AT

alokmisr23@rediffmail.com or phone me at 0091-121-2576801. I will look up my archives for him to do furthur research

hello guest,

not me. i am totaly anti nuke.