Rechargable batteries deteroriate in a variety of ways. Just because your NiCad battery isn't putting out what you expect doesn't mean you are suffering from the memory effect. Overcharging can do damage that results in lower capacity.
The "memory effect" is specifically the result of repeatedly going through a discharge/charge cycle that is (effectively) always a fixed percentage of the battery's capacity. Consumer use of NiCad batteries is vanishingly likely (read not hardly at all) to meet this strict requirement.
Charging too slowly, or allowing the battery to get too hot are other species of mistreatment that harm capacity.
Now, "rejuvenitation" may well be able to repair some of these forms of damage, but that doesn't mean that "memory" is involved.
Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was looking at?
Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.
True. But, if Makita's product literature is to be believed, their chargers are well-behaved in this regard.
Fair enough.
Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know. But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as well as the various failure modes.
Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.
Yep. "Patent pending" means one has been applied for, but not granted. I applied for a patent on my electric fork, but the shitheels at the patent office never gave me one.
If you've gotten grain growth in the Cadmium plate, it may be possible to run the battery down and recharge it at the optimal rate to reform the crystal structure. If you've gotten dendrite growth, you can fry the dendrites that are shorting the battery (zap!), but there is a high liklihood that the problem will recur.
In addition, there are other ways to damage batteries so that they don't produce the expected level of output that are permanent. The rejuvenator you describe sounds like something sophisticated that will actually do the job when it can be done. Randomly trying to run the battery completely down (as some might try) is a crap shoot.
The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you dehydrated water.
[snip a whole bunch of stuff where we are in fair agreement or better]
My bad. I DAGS for "nicad memory effect", and the first two hits were productive, one being the sci.electronics FAQ.
OK. That makes sense. I'm just twitching at the misuse (widespread) of the term "memory effect" as it applies to NiCd batteries, since it also serves to gloss over mistreatment effects by the end user.
Well, in the case of these defib batteries, it was mistreatment that caused it, but that's the nature of a defib. They sit for long periods of time, interrupted by very occasional intense discharge cycles - usually for the monthly or weekly calibration and recharge time checks. A defib probably gets discharged in testing 100 times for every time it gets used on a patient. So, the batteries sit at full charge, with the charger on 'em, nearly all the time. But, the need to have it usable outweighs the cost of the deterioration of the battery packs. Medical devices are a strange world, where "do something that'll hurt the batteries in the long run, but test it and get rid of them before 'the long run'" makes some sort of sense.
But, as far as language and terminology, if it acts like "memory", and smells like "memory", and gets fixed the same way one fixes "memory", then it's memory-enough-ish for me.
You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100 hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb. This improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any carburetor.
Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group could though.
Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
Yes, that's what fuel injection does - improves atomization. Changes the surface area:mass ratio of the fuel. If you have unburned hydrocarbons, that would show up in the emissions. It doesn't, therefore there aren't massive quantities of unburned hydrocarbons with which to improve your mileage. This
Right. So what's your point then? 80MPG never happened in anything resembling a production vehicle.
By the way "I heard an interview on the radio" also isn't what's known as a "cite".
VW Lupo 3L TDI, sadly now out of production because it was too expensive for so small a car and VW thought it better to produce nonsense products like the Touareg or the 1001PS Bugatti, the development cost of which could have probably helped to maket the 3L Lupo to larger volume and lower price...
Of course one-off prototypes of unworkable or unmarketable cars can be made for nearly any purpose. Rocket cars go really really really fast, but they're not roadworthy or marketable either.
Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers.
Vespa used to have some scooters that were in that neighborhood. I'm not familiar with current offerings.
The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.
80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself, but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.
Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c). Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type, or maybe a Morris 'mini'.
In terms of absolute government published figures then the answer to the first point is yes, a few, (four) but this is due to a change five years ago in the way the tests are performed. Government published steady state 56mph tests were routinely in the 50-60mpg bracket 25 years ago.
Real world magazine published road tests show that 80mpg + is achievable across a whole raft of vehicles. Just last year a team of journalists drove around 800 miles from the top end of the UK to the bottom and got more than 100 mpg (in a VW)
Anyway, ignoring the journalists and doing this purely on a scientific basis I've listed below the 159 models that officially, in European Union Type Approval Tests, achieved more than 70mpg on the extra-urban cycle - this being carried out in controlled laboratory conditions on an vehicle that has previously run for around 2.5 miles from a cold start.
It consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph average speed is 39 mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.
In case you have doubts over the size of the vehicles achieving these figures, some of them are two seaters, some are four, some are capable of carrying five median sized Americans with enough space left over for a week of non stop food ;-)
Emissions? Well in general they all meet the latest emissions requirements for Europe (EU4) which is a similar level to that required in the US and Japan. As for the second point, No, but did you expect it to be.?
Sorry for the appalling formatting but if you want the raw data go to
formatting link
= cubic capacity in cc divide by 16.384 to get cubic inches D=Diesel P = Petrol P/E = Petrol/Electric Vauxhall = UK General Motors ;-)
It might look like there are multiple entries but these are usually for different body styles etc, the raw data which has more columns shows this better.
Manufacturer Model Engine Fuel MPG VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6 FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6 FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6 MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6 FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6 NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6 FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6 FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 MITSUBISHI Colt 1493 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6 MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 CITROEN C4 1560 D 70.6 FIAT New Punto (2003) 1910 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6 FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 70.6 SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6 FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6 SMART Smart Cabrio Hatchback 698 P 70.6 SUZUKI Alto 1061 P 70.6 RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.6 KIA Cerato 1493 D 70.6 CITROEN Xsara Picasso 1560 D 70.6 HYUNDAI Accent 1493 D 70.6 VAUXHALL New Astra, MY2005 1248 D 70.6 SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6 SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6 SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6 SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6 RENAULT Modus 1461 D 70.6 RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7 RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4 FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4 FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 998 P 72.4 MERCEDES-BENZ A-Class (W168) Hatchback 1689 D 72.4 FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 72.4 FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 72.4 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4 FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 72.4 RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4 SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Tigra, MY2005 1248 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 72.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4 PEUGEOT 206 SW 1398 D 74.3 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3 TOYOTA Yaris 1364 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 PEUGEOT 1007 1398 D 74.3 HYUNDAI Getz 1493 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3 SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3 FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3 RENAULT Clio 1461 D 74.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 FIAT New Panda 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3 CITROEN C3 1398 D 76.3 RENAULT Clio 1461 D 76.4 PEUGEOT 206 1398 D 78.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4 VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4 AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5 AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5 CITROEN C2 1398 D 78.5 VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1716 D 78.5 VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1422 D 78.5 RENAULT Clio 1461 D 78.6 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1 HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars. He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.
Yeah, but I'm, er, pretty sure it wouldn't pass USA'n crash tests. What with the seats being basically lawn chairs and all, for starters.
Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.
Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.
Will that vehicle pass present crash tests, and can I drive it to work as a normal car? (no to at least one, and I suspect both).
How fast were they driving? Again, experimental one-off "but nobody would ever use a car that only goes 3MPH" cars are interesting but not relevant here.
Great, that gets me 1/20th of the way to work.
Safely?
Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.