How to Build Zener Regulators for a Battery Pack

I'm making progress toward getting my US Electricar Geo Prism on the road. It hasn't run since it arrived on a flatbed from Indiana over a month ago.

Among the preparations I've made to get the car running, I just spent several days making zener-regulators to balance the charge going into each battery in my pack of 50 Odyssey AGM batteries.

I wanted to help other newbie electric vehicle builders with the basic process of building these handy and inexpensive components, so I made a video and put it up on YouTube. I'm no electrical engineer (that's my dad), but I'm sure those who are will comment on the quality of my work.

Oh well, learn by doing.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_Xlbw83Ko

Photobucket Album

On Chevron’s forum on renewable energy, I voiced the same challenge I’ve posted below in this blog.

In response I was asked:
1. What would be in it for Chevron?
2. What do the middle to lower class folks have to look forward to?
3. Is there room in your world for seniors living on a fixed income?
4. What would be done with poor, indigent, illegal aliens or criminals trying to get a fresh start?

Please don't quote the philosophy of some from the 200+ IQ group that believe “every one else is expendable". We all have relatives that fit in one or more category besides RICH and FAMOUS; but the RICH and FAMOUS have access to all these options right now.

Please tell us about mundane subjects such as the police, firemen, hospitals, and the local military base, let alone day care, schools, postal service, senior citizen housing, et cetera.

Consider the local lockup, maybe even a state prison, supermarkets, and other 'local industries'.

Ignore all the above -- please explain 'fuel cell powered fighter aircraft'.

Your idea sounds great but it doesn't sound affordable. On the other hand, if it were not for dreamers like you we would still be starting fires with two rocks and dry leaves.


My response:
I am an automotive systems engineer with no relationship with Chevron other than as a filling-station customer. Keeping in mind that the community I envision would be bound by the same laws and social order of every other town in the U.S. (I'm not suggesting building an island nation), here are a few answers:

1. Within the proposed community, Chevron would invest in renewable energy infrastructure, including implementation, distribution, maintenance and expansion, allowing diversification of interests away from petroleum (of course they are already doing this, but focusing on a single model community would improve feedback and resource coordination). After initial investment, Chevron would maintain control of energy distribution and regulation, particularly in regard to the "fueling" network of ESS exchange stations.

2. Middle and lower class people in the community would find that per capita cost of energy and housing significantly decrease, with commensurate improvement in living standards. Even at the outset, not every family invited to live within the township would be supported by tech-sector jobs. As in any community, a broad range of employment would exist in construction, sanitation, recycling, food service, security and policing, and maintenance (to name a few). As the model expanded there would be little change to existing socio-economics except as they relate to energy and environmental impact. Additionally, even lower income families would be attracted to incentives such as improved employment and lower cost of living.

3. Those living on fixed incomes would benefit from lower housing and energy costs and greater freedom of movement via free public transportation (within city centers). Mass transit in outlying areas would be less costly than in current practice due to greater component reliability (electric drive vs. gasoline/diesel) and lower energy costs.

4. If inexpensive and abundant energy allows diversion of government funds to education (both for minors and adults) and reform programs, we all benefit. Keep in mind how much federal tax revenue is currently devoted to war and political maneuvering in efforts to control dwindling resources (particularly petroleum).

5. No one is expendable. Right now, inequitable energy-distribution creates social stress and disillusionment that devalue human life. Abundant renewable energy will decrease geopolitical hostility and free up resources for social programs that improve the "value" of each individual.

6. This solution isn't for everyone. If anything, it enables those who prefer to be off-grid by allowing economies of scale for PV technology, insulating materials, energy storage and regulation systems, energy-efficient appliances, and more. Trickle-down economics from the REG would be a good thing for individualists everywhere.

7. As for affordability, you ask a loaded question. Can we afford to do business as usual? No. Can we afford to invest in a new model that creates its own renewable energy and resources for further growth? It is possible already, even without further (inevitable) advances in technology. Building the first "prototype" community will cost billions in terms of energy generation facilities, storage substations, factories to build components unique to the REG, homes, streets, sanitation, and the many other support systems of any modern housing development. But billions are already spent on development of suburban communities, with little expectation of residual return on investment.

8. Regarding fuel-cell powered fighter planes, I’m not talking about national defense here, but a small community within the U.S. There's no need for fighter planes in such a community.

The age of civilization powered by fossil fuels has proven to be equivalent to "starting fires with two rocks and dried leaves". In the long run, investing in a new energy paradigm is the only thing we CAN afford to do. If existing petroleum companies don't diversify to maintain an interest in an era of renewable energy, they only stand to become an unpleasant memory.

I Want to Break the Law

Because I'm disgracefully ignorant in the fields of physics, electrical theory and calculus, I generally extract what I can from the writings of those who are supposed to KNOW. I put that in all caps because those who believe they KNOW can be so damned arrogant about it. And so WRONG.

So it is that I joined the EVDL (electric vehicle discussion list) and have begun compiling valuable information about building an electric-drive vehicle. Generally, I find members there to be a bewildering combination of friendly, helpful EV geeks and arrogant professorial types who deign to offer enlightenment to those of us not so blessed as they. It takes all types, right?

Recently, the topic of overunity and zero point energy came up. Now, as a mechanically inclined person I had some idea of the concept of perpetual motion, but I knew that the commonly accepted understanding of Newton's laws of thermodynamics prohibited getting more energy out of a mechanical system than is put into it. In other words, according to the degreed electrical engineers of the world, there's no free lunch. Even for people who adore the movie "What the $#%! Do We Know?", driving a Camry requires gasoline and running the lights at home means paying the electric company.

Or does it? The entire topic over free energy was immediately and contemptuously shut down on the EV discussion list, with many a snide comment about the childish idiocy of those who maintain even an open mind about claims of a machine that runs without an external fuel (energy) source. Heck, I'm too dumb to even know I shouldn't be curious about such things!

To me, though, it all seems a little too X-Filish and conspiracy theorish to imagine that the scientific community might have known for decades that the kazillion-dollar energy industry is unnecessary. Does the government really squash research into overunity devices? Do men in black suits offer briefcases of money or a shallow grave to inventors who cry, "Eureka! I have the cure to the energy crisis!"?

I honestly can't say (I was threatened...). Ha ha.

Before the topic was killed, one of the posts linked to a news item about an Irish company named Steorn, who claim to have created just such an overunity device and are offering it to the scientific community for peer review. Unfortunately, the public prototype display they prepared at a London art gallery had problems, either because they don't have what they claim or because they had a genuine technical difficulty.

In the midst of educating myself as to exactly why scads of people were coming out of the woodwork to declare Steorn the Anti-Christ, Anti-Buddha, Anti-Muhamed, and Destroyers of the Known Universe (yes, the sentiment is that religiously fervent), I found a link to overunity.com, a site which openly claims awareness of a great many overunity/free energy/perpetual motion devices. In the physics/electrical engineering worlds, it's like a cathedral for Satan worshipers.

Interestingly enough, however, there are plenty of bright-eyed young people at universities around the world (and a few older blokes as well) who spend time posting there. Apparently, they are too stupid to know that the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken, because they took the work of a reclusive man named Steven Mark and successfully replicated his toroidal power unit (TPU) overunity device. Only last month, several people worldwide claim to have duplicated similar results via free exchange of information over the internet. They believe that they will soon achieve power levels equal to those displayed in Steven Mark's videos, with the difference being that this time the technical specifications will be freely available for replication by anyone with the skill to do so.

I sure hope they're not delusional.

My Challenge to the Energy Industry

MY CHALLENGE to the major energy conglomerates of the world: build a model community utilizing the best current technology. Start with geothermal, wind, wave, and solar energy sources as applicable. Besides storage banks at dedicated substations, make each home an active part of the renewable energy grid (REG), able to have its energy storage system (ESS) topped off during periods of peak production.

Construct homes of printed photovoltaic modular insulated polymer panels and store electricity with Firefly's carbon-graphite foam-based batteries and connect each home to the REG-management network to monitor efficiency.

Require that all community food production take place within a 100-mile radius (modern agricultural practices and distribution were developed when petroleum was abundant. Let’s re-think that). Utilize sustainable organic practices and large greenhouses of construction similar to that of community homes.

Construct dedicated electric vehicles with a quick-change modular ESS (much as battery-powered tools currently use) comprised of Firefly batteries with the capability of a 90% recharge in 10 minutes, 240V AC drive systems, and the amenities expected in a modern car. Build a network of battery charging, maintenance, and repair stations at which racks of fully-charged ESSes are available at a nominal fee and will fit any vehicle. As the community/REG expands, extend this “fueling” network. Additionally, liquid hydrogen production, distribution, and safe end use should parallel expansion of the REG, allowing for fuel cell powered airplanes and other machinery in which electric-drive alone is insufficient.

Make the community bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly with plenty of parks and extensive free public transportation.

As for local industry, the community should be actively engaged in discovering and exporting solutions in energy extraction, distribution, and efficiency. After initial construction of the core community, vehicle fleet, and REG, any expansion requiring fossil fuels or pollutant chemicals should be expressly forbidden (with the only exceptions being petroleum lubricants and plastics, though synthetic variants should be given priority if superior environmentally). There should be restrictions on industries that are unsustainable or create an unmitigated carbon footprint.

The REG should be connected with outlying grids with the explicit intent of annexing, upgrading, and expanding. "Urban renewal" in communities incorporated into the REG would involve upgrading homes, industry, and vehicles to sustainable power, a difficult but worthwhile endeavor. Those outlying communities demonstrating the greatest commitment to sustainable practices such as recycling would be first in line for annexation.

This is the challenge. It requires only two things: the will of innovative people and the resources of multinational corporations.

There is no time like the present.

Another Inconvenient Truth

I've watched "An Inconvenient truth" several times now, and it never fails to galvanize me to action. I was already very concerned with the environment, sustainability, and the future of the human race, and like most people, I've always thought I was pretty responsible in those regards. But I keep finding room for improvement. At a minimum, I want to rush out and buy more energy-efficient appliances and light-bulbs (my refrigerator sounds like a '56 Buick in the middle of the night, my clothes washer like a 1920 Model T), and in more extreme moments I want to do even more (for example, selling everything and making a commitment to live out of a backpack while I design and build the electric vehicle that will CHANGE THE WORLD!!! Okay, perhaps a bit extreme).

Obviously, there has to be a balanced approach to reducing one's carbon footprint, and it has to be attainable for everyone, rich, middle class and poor alike.

Make no mistake, some of the lowest-income people I know dump great volumes of pollutants into the atmosphere. Why? Because their appliances are old, second-hand, and inefficient; because even compact fluorescent bulbs seem expensive compared to incandescents; and because they drive old, poorly maintained vehicles that were gross polluters in the first place.

It doesn't take a great mind to realize that poor folk have more immediate concerns than saving the planet from global warming. They aren't going to lead the way to a cleaner, greener future. The simple truth is that the poor are recipients of the world's hand-me-downs, and if we truly want everyone on board with efforts to cut emissions there has to be a completely new paradigm from which to hand down "low-carbon-footprint" products.

All of this may seem like a no-brainer, at least until we do a little personal examination. We aren't just talking about cars and appliances here, after all, are we? For lack of a better term, we're talking about inheritance.

Suppose for example that a well-off American consumer purchases a high-end DVD player. Pretty innocuous, right? But what have they "inherited"? For this example, let's assume a product assembled in Japan with 70% of its electronics made in Taiwan and China. And although mass-quantities of each component are made and shipped in bulk (which mitigates impact somewhat), let's not minimize the environmental consequences of the creation of each capacitor, semiconductor, diode, resistor, transformer, transistor and rare-earth permanent-magnet motor in that DVD player. The environment within a factory manufacturing something as ordinary as circuit boards is (not may be... is) saturated with a stew of deadly chemicals, all of which had to be mined from the land or created in chemical plants and shipped (via petrol-burning conveyance) to the factory. The factory further boils, melts, solders, catalyzes and pressurizes those chemicals to create its components, which it then crates and ships (via petrol-burning conveyance) to the assembly plant in Japan. From Japan, the finished product is (you guessed it) crated and shipped (via...I'll spare you) to scores of ports worldwide, at which pallets are divided and further shipped to distribution centers, one of which finally supplies the retail store where our consumer purchases his shiny new toy, one of six DVD players in his thirty-five hundred square foot home.

In our example, the toxic nature of the components themselves, and of the manufacturing and shipping processes, are one part of the inheritance attached to the end product. The toll taken on the lives and health of factory workers in China, Taiwan, and Japan is another. But how well do you really believe the components are washed before becoming part of the finished DVD player? Have you ever opened a consumer electronic device and given it a smell? Unpleasant, isn't it? We can add the toxic fumes carried through the air of our consumer's home to the inheritance attached to the device. Was the new DVD player a gift for a child's bedroom? Hmmm. Lucky kid.

Now let's assume that a few years later a brilliant "must-have" technology replaces that DVD player on billboards and print ads across the land. It's owner takes the old player (and its five brothers and sisters) and sells or gives it away (or worse yet, dumps it in a landfill). For our purposes, let's assume that a minimum-wage earner ends up with the DVD player. Can the environmental history of the product be erased (as if only the first purchaser is responsible for its legacy) because the product is second-hand? Of course not. In our society we spread the blame for rampant consumerism from the top down, but we all end up sharing the guilt. And the consequences.

Now, let's go back and imagine that the wealthy person who purchased the DVD player is the proud CEO of a large company, one which has made great strides toward cleaning up its environmental impact. He drives a Lexus, but it's a hybrid (as is his wife's Prius), "'cause hey, we gotta be eco-PC these days, right?" The two of them are very proud of their efforts to be green. The measures they've taken alleviate a great deal of uneasiness about the size of their home (over three-hundred million BTUs to heat it for one year), her expensive jewelry (full of blood diamonds), the brand-name fashions made in Pakistani and Bangladeshi sweatshops, and his new home theater system (with components from China, Japan, USA, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore). How can we blame them? Billions are spent on advertising each month to convince them that they never have enough and that what they have is inferior to the new best thing.

Imagine for a moment a river of commercial goods and services flowing into, and out of, the lives and home of our wealthy family. Cars, remodeling materials, energy and fuel, landscaping products and maintenance, clothing, furniture, electronic goods, jewelry, concert and theater tickets, airline travel, food, water, toiletries and more. It's easy to see these items entering the lives of the family and being consumed, worn out, discarded, or passed on to new owners.

You don't have to try very hard to envision tons upon tons of... stuff passing through the lives of those people over a period of years, do you? A trip to a landfill would quickly convince anyone that the "consumer footprint" (I thought I invented the term, but Google proved me wrong), and its associated carbon footprint, of our capitalist economy has a dark underbelly. We're slowly choking to death on our own filth.

So what can we do? The answer is manifold, it's different for each one of us, and we certainly can't lay all the responsibility (or blame) at the feet of the rich. It falls to each one of us to examine our consumer footprint . How much do you and I own, maintain, fuel, eat, drink, throw away? Where does it come from? Where does it end up?

It also falls to each of us to decide whether we really believe the future of the planet is worth saving, if not for us personally then for our children or the children of those we love (if you come to the conclusion that your actions don't matter, or that you simply don't care, please remove yourself from the planet immediately. Yes, I'm serious).

And it falls to us to say, "NO! I don't need what you're selling. I have enough!" Rich or poor, that is the greatest challenge facing anyone in a capitalist society today.

I wish you all the best in your efforts.