Electric Vehicle Kits for the Masses? 177
Aciel asks: "I just finished watching 'Who Killed the Electric Car', and was quite impressed. I'm too poor to buy anything but an old clunker, and not eager to pollute the atmosphere (or empty my wallet) with gasoline. The movie inspired me: I think I'd like to convert an old car (or perhaps a motorbike) to run on electricity. Have Slashdot readers attempted such a thing before? What experiences have you had, and what would you recommend or not recommend?"
Modern EV's (Score:2, Interesting)
The expensive components in this amplifier are large bucket capacitors and rediculous huge transistors or valves.
The whole rig would cost roughly the same to build as a small radio transmitter, plus the cost of modding t
Re:Modern EV's (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Frequency_D
AFAIK this is the state of the art for electric cars. Digging something up on Google...
Unfortunately, I could not find a system made specifically for cars on the quick. But for an example of a complete VFD, the following should give you a rough idea of prize, size and weight:
http://www.joliettech.com/abb_acs-550_ac_drive_ov
Note that the ABB ACS550 AC is somewhat different from what you want in a car. It takes power from a 3-phase AC line, so it will have a rectifier and some big buffer capacitor that would be unnecessary in a car system where you draw DC from the battery. OTOH, you might want energy recovery when braking, which is not specified for the above and would probably cost extra.
I'll leave the search for motors and batteries to someone else
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why build when you can buy? (Score:2)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybri
Re: (Score:2)
Missed the first point... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I love my Prius. I can justify it with a long daily commute, as I get a more comfortable drive in it than a similarly thrifty gas-powered car. Overall, I could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but that aside, i question the whole idea of converting cars to electr
Conversions are not that hard (Score:5, Informative)
Make an electric bicycle first. (Score:2)
Not a solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
an oft-repeated fallacy. Larger = more efficient. Why do you think hardly anyone has bread-making machines at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an expert, but (Score:3, Interesting)
A properly designed small direct injection Diesel powered car (VW Golf in t
Re: (Score:2)
They are implementing this as a test right now. But from another article I read the technology is applicable in street cars as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll drink to that!
After my initial post I did a little investigating. It seems electric cars may well lead to significantly less carbon dioxide emmissions than the current gas guzzlers, perhaps as much as a threefold reduction is possible (although that's optimistic). The best you can do is to not drive any car at all, I don't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Transmission over power lines is about 85% efficient (over very long distances). A good internal combustion engine is (if I recall correctly) about 10-20% efficient. Plus, it takes a whole lotta batteries to equal the weight of the engine block plus the half-full gas tank.
Peeking around the tubes, the estimates I've been finding for EV fuel efficiency is about 1 or 2 cents per mile (compare to 7.5 cents per mile for a car that gets 40mpg at $3
Re: (Score:2)
From a marketing perspective, wind farms are the best thing since sliced bread. You can sell the environmental friendliness many times over: to the investor giving the money, to the area where you put it up, to the customer getting the electricity, to the electric car using the electricity. Everybody involved even a tiny bit will claim that they are responsible for less polution or
Are you joking? (Score:2)
The electric vehicle needs electric motors, which have weight. It currently needs hundreds of kilos of batteries to get a reasonable range, far more than that maybe 100kg pe
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a Prius has a smaller ICE than a conventional vehicle of similar power. The Jetta TDI, for example, outweighs the Prius by ~100 kg. (Granted, the body styles are different enough that the comparison isn't great, but the Prius isn't especially heavy for a car of its class. I don't think Toyota sells diesels in the U.S., thus I went with the VW.) The Prius's electric batteries aren't that large, esp. c
Re: (Score:2)
If you allow that, you also need to allow for "free" vehicle heating in winter from the waste heat.
My response was meant to be, this is largely cancelled out by the cost of air-conditioning in summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Along these same lines, you can generally guess at the pollution impact of (for example) selling your old gas guzzler and buying an econocar.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly everyone has bread making machines at home.
Of course, not everyone knows how to use their hands, a few mixing bowls, and an oven.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, power companies have a (somewhat) vested interest in making their plants efficient, because they pay for fuel and get political flak for polluting.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One interesting comparison in the article takes power line inefficiences into
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ruf.dk/ [www.ruf.dk] is a dual-mode transportation system that uses the best characteristics of electric trains and cars.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as you properly dispose of used batteries.
Part of a solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When they pry the keys out of my cold dead fingers. Dont tell me when i have to give up my 'private vehicle'. You may like mass transit but some us REFUSE to deal with it. i you want to ride the bus, go ahead but leave me out of it.
And you are somewhat incorrect about moving the pollution:
1 - central power stations are cleaner then all the cars it could replace. Are they 100% clean, no of course not. But they are cleaner.
2 - coal plants are really clea
Zap makes electric cars (Score:2, Informative)
Disgusting Cars (Score:2)
This is getting ridiculous (Score:2, Troll)
How about asking this instead: Dear Slashdot, does money grow on trees? Because I wa
Re: (Score:2)
Have you built anything before or do you only buy consumer made products? If you haven't built anything yourself (hardware or software), leave your geek card at the door on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, absolutely. But in this case, paying someone else to do it gets you access to all sorts of R&D write-offs and tax incentives. Check out sites like this 914 [austinev.org] where the owner has spent over $10k, plus the cost of car, and hasn't even really started yet.
Doing an expensive endeavor yourself is often chea
Re: (Score:2)
This is assuming that your time is not valuable. If I can pay someone to do something that would take me 10 times as long, it is money well spent. I have very little free time as it is.
And of course I have built something before. I just can't imagine someone who can barely afford a crappy car being able to afford a car + the electric conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
and don't even think of the cost of replacing them every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more (Score:5, Informative)
But they do sell a bunch of $1500 electric mopeds, if you're interested in going that route.
There are some other vehicles out there, too -- you'll have to look for them, though. Some are only in development, like the x-cycle [avianmotors.com], while others are incredibly expensive, like the Sparrow.
Here's my suggestion.
I'm going to assume that you can get under the hood of a car, remove the engine, and essentially work on a car without killing yourself.
In that case, you probably want to get a street-legal old vw-bug or Ford Fiesta (or Yugo)... anyhow, something that is small and aerodynamic, and then convert it to electric with a $3000 conversion kit from e-volks [e-volks.com]. (They also have a $1500 conversion kit, but I'd go with the better one if I were you.) This is Wilderness Energy (which sells hub bicycle conversion kits, unfortunately also of Chinese manufacture and easily broken) expanded to automobiles.
Just... I'd go ahead and make the electric supply/recharge system separate from the vehicle, for the reason that you'll want to change it over later as you get more money.
Initially, you'll want Sealed-Lead-Acid batteries as can be had from Wal-Mart in the Bike section. They're cheap but heavy, and you string up enough of them to get whatever distance and speed you need.
But later, you'll want to convert to Lithium-ion phosphate, since it is lightweight, extremely efficient, long lasting, and doesn't blow up like a DELL.
Two sources for those are A123 [a123systems.com] and Valence [valence.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you've not driven an old VW Beetle. Small? Yes. Aerodynamic? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
So aerodynamics aside, they aren't a bad choice for a first ev.
Re:aerodynamics (Score:2)
However, I've driven them on the New York Thruway in winter, and lemme tell ya, the things
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't.. the e-volts kits are fantastically underpowered for a car. Despite their claims, a 72V series DC vehicle will not do freeway speeds. Best practice in hobbiest conversions has been closer to 120VDC for awhile. The absolute minimum for a freeway EV is 96V and a small car (Geo Metro). Top end at 96V will be 60-65mph, and a 29+ second
Forget this question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I commute on an EGo (www.egovehicles.com) 17 miles each way.
Conversion kits for road bikes such as your 18-speed are easy to find online.
Checking google, I see ZapWorld.com among others.
You won't go 30 miles an hour uphill, though.
15-18 MPH on the flat would be good for a conversion kit.
Electric motors have high torque, so you'll not slow down much up hills.
Before getting something fast, like your desired 30 MPH, check licensing laws
15-18 in the flats - whimpy (Score:2)
I wish (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) The electricity. Here in California, paying PG&E rates, the cost to drive a mile with a given vehicle size/weight is much less for gasoline than electricity. I have seen this argued endlessly, but it is simply true. Even if you are willing to pay the cost, availability isn't there either.
The electricity infrastructure is teetering on the edge of failure now. Adding a bunch of electric cars would collapse the system. If the public would encourage the building of a bunch of new nuke plants (I think the Pebbel-Bed reactors being designed now are very promising) we might be able to meet the demand, but realistically that isn't going to happen. Adding new coal plants to charge electric cars seems just WRONG on several levels.
(2) The vehicles. The technology for electric vehicles simply isn't there for anything more than a glorified golf-cart. The best batteries are nowhere near good enough, are way too expensive, and don't last near long enough. Heck, we can't even build a good reliable battery for a laptop computer yet. And as for avoiding pollution, not only does most current electricity generation use fossil fuel and thus pollute at the generation site, but the manufacture and disposal of large numbers of toxic batteries is not exactly green either. And think those exploding Sony batteries have been a headache to laptop owners, wait until the scenario repeats itself on the scale of an automobile sized battery. Can you say "Car Bomb"?
I honestly think the best solution is to buy an older, small and efficient car from a manufacturer known for producing reliable and efficient cars. I bought a 20 year-old Toyota MR2. Cost, under $500.
Pollution? First, when buying an older car, simply budget putting a new catalytic converter on it right away, even if the one on it is working. Ditto, a good tune-up. I did, and then when I registered it the state mandated a smog test at speed, under load on a dynometer. The numbers returned were so low, the tech was blown away. He actually re-tested it a second time before believing the numbers. He said I could qualify as a "Super Low Emission Vehicle" based on the numbers alone. But since the make and model wasn't endorsed for that category, I couldn't officially do so. But new catalytic converters do work very, very well.
Mileage? Around town, grocery store runs and the like, it gets 37-39 mpg. On the road, between 43 and 48 depending on various factors. Plus, it's fun to drive. Plus, it's been dead-bang reliable.
It ain't a Prius, but it's darn close in terms of overall pollution and mileage. Cheap to buy, cheap to run, low impact on the environment, and reliable. Downsides? Well, it's getting a little long in tooth, appearance-wize. I probably should budget some paint and trim sometime soon, and because it's so tiny, I keep banging my head when I get in and out.
I keep hoping to put up a bunch of solar panels and charge my own electric car and declare my own personal fuel independance some day. But it isn't practical, and may not be for a long time, if ever. Ask me again in 20 years or so. Like it or not, the old-fashioned gas-buggy is the overall best solution. Just pay attention to what you're buying, buy just what you need and no more, and arrange your life to require as little driving as you can, and you will know you are living a life in harmony with both society and the environment.
Stony
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I also thought about converting them to electron drive, but the cost and technology isn't there yet. I'm actually researching switching over to propane or compressed natural gas. The mileage drops a little, but the cost is less, the engine runs much cleaner and it's far better for the environment.
CNT a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just wrong. The RAV4-EV requires around 30KWh for a full charge and has a range of around 110 miles. PG&E's highest tier for energy usage is $0.21 per KWh, meaning it costs $6.30 to "fill up" your vehicle. At the current national average gas price, $2.27/gal, that's equal to 2.76 gallons of gas. Thus, the RAV4-EV gets 39.9 equiv miles to the gallon, which is significantly higher than the gas-powered variant (28-30MPG).
It looks even better at CA's average residential electric price, $0.14/KWh.
That's a crap argument based on overdramatized supposition. Yes, we are running the grid closer to capacity than we have ever done - but that's because unused capacity is inefficent. Everyone points to the energy shortages in CA (which were caused by market factors) and the 2003 blackout (which was caused by a number of factors, including poor maintenence and inadequete staffing by FirstEnergy).
The grid is more complex than it has ever been. We need more power and we want it at a lower price and with fewer emissions than ever before. Better control systems, tighter monitoring, and better maintenence are necessary to keep the grid operational. The trade-off is that the grid is far more efficent.
As for adding capacity, our electricity usage has more than tripled since 1970. More plants will need to be built to support electric vehicles, but that's not a problem at all. We just have to keep doing what we have been doing for the past 100 years - building enough capacity to meet demand.
Wrong. The technology is there, it was just abandoned by the auto-industry. Current conversion EVs may have poor performance, but that's because they were never designed as integrated systems and generally run on low-voltage DC. High-voltage multiphase AC systems (like the system in Toyota's Rav4 EV and GM's EV-1) had no problems maintaining highway speeds and normal acceleration, and achieved ranges of up to 140 miles - that's useful for a lot of people.
Assuming that the tehnology isn't there because conversions don't act like traditional vehicles is foolish. Inverter, motor, and battery technologies are mature and on the road today (Toyota Prius, anyone?). Electric cars may not be economically feasable currently, but that doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist.
Ni-MH batteries don't burn when abused, nor do Lithium-Ion-Phosphate batteries. And every time someone says something like "car bomb", I just have to laugh - you're driving around with 10+ gallons of highly flammable fuel as is. Ford Pinto, anyone?
but the manufacture and disposal of large numbers of toxic batteries is not exactly green either
This is a misconception. Ni-MH batteries are not particularly toxic, and they recycle well - there are both economical and ecological reasons for recycling. Toyota, for example, pays $500 for every dead Prius battery packs.
Any production has environmental impact. Oil exploration and refining, for example, requires a huge quantity of energy and carries significant environmental risks.
And as for avoiding pollution, not only does most current electricity generation use fossil fuel and thus pollute at the generation site
Absolutely. But even modern coal power plants are considerably more efficent than the
Re: (Score:2)
Now figure in $26,000 cost of the battery pack and try again. [wikipedia.org]
At $2.60/g
One word for you (Score:2)
Geo Metro (Score:2)
Get yourself an old GeoMetro (or even older Chevy Sprint if any still survive). They get at least 50MPG on the hiway and 40 around town. It's too bad they don't make them anymore...
I'm waiting for the Toyota Aygo that's supposed to be available in the US next Fall (2007). As it will have a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine in a SmartCar-sized package I suspect that th
Re: (Score:2)
true, but I doubt you can find a 2003 VW Golf TDI for less than $10K and the OP was looking for cheap. I suspect you can easily find a metro for $500.
Here's what I did. (Score:3, Interesting)
It tells the reader about how even if cars ran on pollution and planted flowers everywhere they went, they're still a big pain in the ass and really, not worth the trouble. They're hard to maintain, expensive, deadly, hard to find parking for (and when we build more roads and parking, traffic and parking problems just get worse), and expensive to society as a whole.
The book also tells of two possible solutions to the problem, that you can implement right away. There's the car-lite life, and the no-car life. Because I was young and living in a big city with good public transit (where I still currently live, but not for much longer), I chose the no-car life. Instead of buying a car, I found an apartment closer to rapid transit, which gives me a direct route to work. I get my groceries delivered to my door - I can do this over the internet or any one of the many local grocery stores. If the trip is short, I just walk or bike. And if I *need* a car, I call for a cab.
The car-lite life means using your car as little as possible. 90% of all trips are less than a mile anyway, so why not walk or bike them? And yes, you'd be amazed how many shops will deliver, but I'd bet you hadn't had the need to ask before, have you? If your city has rapid transit in one form or another, it more than likely lets you park at the nearest train station, so that you can keep the trip distance down. Or perhaps you can lock up your bike there. There's not always a need to bike the *whole* way to get where you're going.
Either option is also good for your health, by the way. Not only are you contributing less to smog, but you're getting more exercise. And no doubt, your doctor knows how that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% of my trips are more than five miles away. And even a mile's walk in a storm is a misery.
I don't buy food unless I've picked it myself. This goes double for fruit and vegetables, triple for eggs and bread. And I doubt independent butchers have delivery services. Unless you like eating supermarket crap, then it might
Re: (Score:2)
>> Walking or cycling short distances (a few miles or less) isn't exercise unless you weigh 300 pounds.
Are you joking? You can ride pretty easily on a bike, but it takes a lot more human exertion than pushing accelarate/brake and turning a wheel.
>> And how much smog do you think a bus with two people on puts out?
P
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think it would be a rather small number that both live in the heavily urbanised areas where public transport is viable, and work and travel at the right times. Most people live in light urban areas or the suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really stupid.
1) Cars aren't hard to maintain, if you have a little mechanical knowledge. Just make sure you buy either a Honda or a To
Re: (Score:2)
Cars kill 1 million a year in accidents and 1.5 million a year in air pollution (cars make up 50% of pollution which kills 3M globally)
Everyone riding bikes would cause FAR FAR less deaths, but the trouble is, if everyone does the right thing, the defectors (in game theory terms) who do the "wrong" thing get the payoff in personal safety. By driving a car for safety you gain personally, at the ex
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, cars kill a lot of people. Now, take 25% of those people, stick them on bikes, and what do you think will happen to the death toll? The ones who are still in cars will be slaughtering the ones on bikes.
Air pollution can be reduced by more effective anti-pollution laws and enforcement. I see lots of crappy old cars spewing out pollution driving around; it's
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to get people onto bikes is to create the equivalent of bike freeways that cyclists can travel along without any cars. This can be very cheaply done by putting a bike lane next to a river. The river running East-West in the city of Adelaide has this path, and every year or so the local paper has people from 5/10
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as easy as you think. Things are a little different in Australia than in the US; here, there's 10 times as many people, and things are a lot more developed. WWII was a long time ago, and the population was much smaller back then. Since that time, things have expanded, and people have moved west. Where I live, Ph
Re: (Score:2)
link - this woman's husband was killed by a driver. His fine? $1000. Kill a biker with your SUV and you only have to pay $1000.
I know, this makes me really mad.
Kill someone with a few grams of metal, in the form of bullets, or knives, and you go to jail.
Kill someone with a tonne of metal, in the form of a car, and you get a slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the crux of the issue. To solve the looming problems in the world we may find that life gets harde and we have to make sacrifices, but surely we can afford this? Why not have the same number of TVs than people, rather than more? Why not use your own effort to get around more, or read on the bus rather than burn fuel sitting in a multi-tonne vehicle carrying a 70kg person?
I work as a software developer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I do too, which is why I ride my bike around the subdivision on weekends, in the evenings, etc.
I think this is the crux of the issue. To solve the looming problems in the world we may find that life gets harde and we have to make sacrifices, but surely we can afford this?
We could, if enough people were willing to make these sacrifices. But go almost
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? Or are you just a bitter, closed-minded jerk? Just because what I propose doesn't apply to *you* because of the choices *you've* made, because you're not willing to think differently from the people around you... well, I guess that makes me really stupid, doesn't it?
1) Cars aren't hard to maintain, if you have a little mechanical knowledge.
I suppose that depends on how you mean "hard to maintain." When was the last time you had to make repairs that did not cost several hundred d
Electric Automobile Association Rally (Score:2)
Ethanol != environmentally friendly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another common misconception about solar is that it's only useful in the southwest. Actually, while there is generally a lot of sun here, it comes with a lot of heat, which reduces the efficiency of the panels. Solar is actually more effecient in are
Re: (Score:2)
ethanol ? Air ! (Score:2)
Ethanol and bio-fuel pollute a little bit less, but do still exhaust CO2.
The cleanest alternative seems to come from a little known company that created a compressed air motor. They use it in conjuction with a standard engine for starting the vehicle
Few pollution whatsoever, you need a little bit of electricity to run a compressor, and get almost 2000 km in one go...
here : http://www.theaircar.com/ [theaircar.com]
Maybe we should start getting interested in the technology, the drawback in el
Re: (Score:2)
D.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least with corn-based ethanol, oil is pulled out of the ground and turned into fertilizer to grow the corn. So never mind.
Cornanol is a sucker's game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody's actually spraying oil on the ground (that I know of!) But the reactions that produce it are energy-consuming and require fossil fuel as reagents. e.g. Haber-Bosch process [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
This isn't *strictly necessary*. There are other options. And with algae-derived biodiesel, it isn't necessary at all.
The point is to be carbon-neutral. As long as we can stop pulling NEW carbon out of the ground, we'll be okay.
Re:ethanol ? Air ! (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention, running a car on compressed air is pretty simple, provided you have a source of compressed air. You could even use a regular gas engine without any modifications -- simply force high pressure air into the intake. The reason nobody does it is because doing so would require an ungodly amount of compressed air. There's not much you can do to improve the efficiency, either.
My conclusion: the site is a scam, attempting to extract money from dumb investors. Note how they are focusing on silly things like the benefits of not using gas (obvious) and how they will arrange the seatbelts (irrelevant) while thoroughly avoiding any description of the actual technology. Their tanks are supposedly good to 300 bar (~4300 psi), which is realistic (that's what scuba tanks or CNG tanks are rated for). However, this is not nearly enough energy to power a car. Hell, it's barely enough energy to power a car if you store NATURAL GAS in the tanks and BURN IT.
300 bar = 30 MPa = 30 MJoules / m^3 = 8.3 kWh/m^3. If you somehow managed to put 3 cubic meters of air tanks on that thing (that's about 800 gallons -- a HUGE air tank), you would have as much energy as ONE gallon of gas. To compress that air, you would use up several times that amount, because going from atmospheric pressure to 4500 psi will release a ton of waste heat. You would also never be able to get that energy out in any reasonable length of time because the air will become very, very cold when it expands.
If that technology really worked, we would have had air-powered cars 150 years ago -- it's a steam engine that's hooked up to an air tank instead of a boiler. The problem is, there is no way it could possibly work.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually Sch. 40 carbon steel pipe [engineeringtoolbox.com] + pipe caps, buttwelded.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Best toy I ever owned (well, tied with the Billy Blastoff [robotnut.com] I also had). I got it as a present after being in hospital...
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Car Scam (Score:2)
Note that vehicles powered by compressed air have a long history, it has been used in a shunting lococmotive, and many early torpedoes. I am quite sure they have a running vehicle, what they don't have is a use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who produced the television show apparently think that this is an interesting enough show to get ratings.
There is no reason to believe the network has fact checkers which do anything more that a cursory look. I really got turned off in the first place by your apparent willingness to trust the supposed fact checkers of a sensationalist "science" show over the (very easy to check) math of the post you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ailenw's math is simple, sound, and correct - as are the simple conclusions he draws.
No one seems to be willing to attack his math - everyone keeps defending the idea of an air car because it passed the muster of a frickin' TV show.
That is what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides little known Korean Companies there are well known European companies which have this as an option. There was a compressed air engine for Peugeot 106. The range was sub-30 km on one charge and the noise exceeded current maximum allowed EU limits. AFAIK its only use is in some French industrial installations where petrol and electrical are restricted for safety reasons. While at it, there is also an electric version of 106. In
Inefficiency (Score:2)
The problem comes from the irreversible process in between. When you compress air it gets hot. As the hot air sitting in the cylinder slowly cools, energy is lost to heat the surroundings. When you come back to draw on that power you will find that the
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, these s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)