• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

Status
Not open for further replies.

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,752
Location
Alfred, NY
WTF are you talking about grandpa? Do you even know what an enzyme is? Fair warning: I have over 50 papers in enzymology in tier 1 journals.
From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
WTF are you talking about grandpa? Do you even know what an enzyme is? Fair warning: I have over 50 papers in enzymology in tier 1 journals.
So, a bound enzyme still works when crosslinked? Oh, and the whole "grandpa" thing? Do tell me how you are willing to put Hexavalent chromium in your system, then.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?
More to the point, that happens rapidly. I don't think he really wants any Cr (VI) in his diet.
 

acetogen

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
108
Likes
46
From my limited understanding, the reduction to Cr(III) doesn't involve enzymes, but once it's at the +3 state, it can bind to enzymes- and DNA. Is this correct?
This is correct, chromium VI is reduced to the III states. The standard explanation is that Cr(III) has a high-spin d5 configuration that does not allow for the replacement of ligands from the coordination sphere, so it is not very reactive and therefore has a low toxicity profile. Cr(II) is actually a reductant that is oxygen sensitive (oxidizes to Cr(III).
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
I never said such a thing, this is a sign of your cognitive decline . The discussion was about batteries and you ranted on toxic metals (Ni, Co, Cu, Cr), but all of them are actually trace essential elements, so chromium for example:
Since J.J. is not a real person that gives you permission to post crazy non-sensical crap.

Well, you're the one who claimed that Cr(VI) didn't mess with common enzymes, apparently you're OK with what your own citation says:

"Chromium3+ may be involved in chromium6+-induced cancers because chromium6+ is converted to chromium3+ in vivo, and chromium3+ is genotoxic and mutagenic."

Yep, Cr(VI) is converted in the body to Cr(III) (which did not surprise me for obvious reasons) according to YOUR SOURCE, and Cr(III) is "genotoxic and mutagenic".

"genotoxic and mutagenic".

There we have it from your alleged reference. Apparently you don't like having the hidden claims of your bullying insults exposed?

What's more, your citation says "To date, no chromium-containing glucose tolerance factor has been characterized, the purpose of the low-molecular-weight chromium-binding protein is questionable, and no direct interaction between chromium and insulin has been found." but you claim it's an essential trace element? That's from the abstract of your citation. You know, the citation you represent as showing Chromium as an essential trace element? Now, this doesn't say Chromium is NOT an essential trace element, but it offers exactly ZERO proof that it is, and you, sir, claimed this as evidence for your implicit claim that Chromium is in fact a trace element. There are quite some metals that will bind to proteins. I don't think you want to go there as proof it's essential. That way leads to some very curious claims indeed.

These are both from your own attempt at proof by citation-that-doesn't-say-what-you-said-it-does. You're zero for two here. Your misleading claims, your personal attacks, and your misrepresentation of your choice of citation make it clear, you're simply out to win an argument while engaging in professional disparagement (the 'cognotive decline' part). In short, you want to win the argument and bully the other party into silence.

As to batteries, apparently you're good with toxic metal compounds. Ok. Your choice. They ***ARE*** necessary, most likely, but they are also not hard to recycle (and we get back that really rare lithium, too). Perhaps the whole picture is not as narrow as you want? Then again, LiFePO4 isn't as toxic as some, I suppose, but pretty freakin' heavy, too. Then again, now YOU have tried to change the subject, after asserting you have over 50 published papers in "enzymology". Cite one. It can't be the one from Pub Med, since you totally got that one wrong.

As to your per-se defamation, you might want to retract that real fast, fella.

Finally, you avoided the question I asked you twice now, are YOU willing to have lots of Cr(VI) in your diet? Do tell. Funny how you keep avoiding that.
 
Last edited:
OP
Doodski

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,753
Likes
20,785
Location
Canada
For a lack of a better place to put this comment I am putting it here because it's about batteries and conserving stuff. I went to purchase 2 or maybe 4 AA batteries the other day for my new ear and nose trimmer that requires 1 AA battery. I figured Walmart would be a decent choice for them so in I went. The smallest package size was a 12 pack. For ~$3 more I could buy a 24 pack of Energizer AA's @ ~CDN$13. So reluctantly I purchased the 24 pack knowing full well that the 2 year shelf life would result in most of them being tossed in the garbage. Is this the new state of battery economics. We purchase hoarding amounts of batteries to satisfy the retail powers that be and to heck with the environment and the issue of battery recycling? I was going to select a Energizer recharge kit but that had 1300mAh cells and from experience a 2400mAh battery is required to be useful and I was not buying both packages of 1300mAh and 2400mAh rechargeable batteries for a hair trimmer. It seems batteries have become a new false sense of security and the economics of them are in a poor state of affairs. :facepalm: I am now looking for peeps that want a couple of free AA batteries just so I can get rid of them. :D
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
For a lack of a better place to put this comment I am putting it here because it's about batteries and conserving stuff. I went to purchase 2 or maybe 4 AA batteries the other day for my new ear and nose trimmer that requires 1 AA battery. I figured Walmart would be a decent choice for them so in I went. The smallest package size was a 12 pack. For ~$3 more I could buy a 24 pack of Energizer AA's @ ~CDN$13. So reluctantly I purchased the 24 pack knowing full well that the 2 year shelf life would result in most of them being tossed in the garbage. Is this the new state of battery economics. We purchase hoarding amounts of batteries to satisfy the retail powers that be and to heck with the environment and the issue of battery recycling? I was going to select a Energizer recharge kit but that had 1300mAh cells and from experience a 2400mAh battery is required to be useful and I was not buying both packages of 1300mAh and 2400mAh rechargeable batteries for a hair trimmer. It seems batteries have become a new false sense of security and the economics of them are in a poor state of affairs. :facepalm: I am now looking for peeps that want a couple of free AA batteries just so I can get rid of them. :D
You could have gotten 2800 mah AAs of the low drain type (loses 3% of the charge per year) and a good charger from Amazon or similar for less money. These work even in remotes so you'll probably never need new AA's for years.
 
OP
Doodski

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,753
Likes
20,785
Location
Canada
You could have gotten 2800 mah AAs of the low drain type (loses 3% of the charge per year) and a good charger from Amazon or similar for less money. These work even in remotes so you'll probably never need new AA's for years.
Yeah, good idea. I almost never think about Amazon for regular domestic items. :facepalm:
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
For a lack of a better place to put this comment I am putting it here because it's about batteries and conserving stuff. I went to purchase 2 or maybe 4 AA batteries the other day for my new ear and nose trimmer that requires 1 AA battery. I figured Walmart would be a decent choice for them so in I went. The smallest package size was a 12 pack. For ~$3 more I could buy a 24 pack of Energizer AA's @ ~CDN$13. So reluctantly I purchased the 24 pack knowing full well that the 2 year shelf life would result in most of them being tossed in the garbage. Is this the new state of battery economics. We purchase hoarding amounts of batteries to satisfy the retail powers that be and to heck with the environment and the issue of battery recycling? I was going to select a Energizer recharge kit but that had 1300mAh cells and from experience a 2400mAh battery is required to be useful and I was not buying both packages of 1300mAh and 2400mAh rechargeable batteries for a hair trimmer. It seems batteries have become a new false sense of security and the economics of them are in a poor state of affairs. :facepalm: I am now looking for peeps that want a couple of free AA batteries just so I can get rid of them. :D

I find this is even worse with food with super markets doing 'buy one get one free' deals. It's great if you're going to eat it, and if it is a staple like 2Kg of potatoes for the price of 1kg, two packs of pasta for the price of one or 10Kg of rice for the price of 5kg I'm all in but I find on a lot of things it just leads to accumulating stuff we won't eat and which gets thrown away. The thing is even though I know that I still get sucked in.
 
OP
Doodski

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,753
Likes
20,785
Location
Canada
I find this is even worse with food with super markets doing 'buy one get one free' deals. It's great if you're going to eat it, and if it is a staple like 2Kg of potatoes for the price of 1kg, two packs of pasta for the price of one or 10Kg of rice for the price of 5kg I'm all in but I find on a lot of things it just leads to accumulating stuff we won't eat and which gets thrown away. The thing is even though I know that I still get sucked in.
I try to order online as much as is possible locally but sometimes Amazon does pop up in the do list. I find it difficult to be distracted when online shopping. I research, determine need, source a solution and make the order. Presently I'm meal planning to ~6 weeks out. I attribute that to online shopping and personalized delivery to the door. I mostly shop not by choosing items on sale but by what I know I will eat. That req's some MOD's. I need more colors and more wet solid/crunchy veggies too. That requires more energy and time. It requires way more energy to commute to the store regularly for veggies'n fruits.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,027
Just read an article on the dangers posed by EVs in a crash. It said EVs are much heavy than equivalent gas powered vehicles, with extra mass you get more damage when in a collision. They give examples of relatively small SUVs weighing in at more than 5000 lb.
 

Puddingbuks

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
588
Likes
987
And who really needs an suv? 0,1%?
 

Marc v E

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
1,106
Likes
1,606
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
Just read an article on the dangers posed by EVs in a crash. It said EVs are much heavy than equivalent gas powered vehicles, with extra mass you get more damage when in a collision. They give examples of relatively small SUVs weighing in at more than 5000 lb.
Iirc the largest producer of EVs has one of the best safety records. I think the weight is nothing to be concerned about, because we've had large differences in weight between gas cars too. Yes, it makes a difference, but its not that bad that you could say an ev is more dangerous than an ice car due to weight. The weight distribution plays a big part too. In battery cars its usually low to the ground giving them advantage of excellent handling, strength to protect passengers and no big engine means room in the front and back for big crumple zones. I'm quite sure that is the aim of many car manufacturers, ice included.
 
Last edited:

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,027
Iirc the largest producer of EVs has one of the best safety records. I think the weight is nothing to be concerned about, because we've had large differences in weight between gas cars too. Yes, it makes a difference, but its not that bad that you could say an ev is more dangerous than an ice car due to weight. The weight distribution plays a big part too. In battery cars its usually low to the ground giving them advantage of excellent handling, strength to protect passengers and no big engine means room in the front and back for big crumple zones. I'm quite sure that is the aim of many car manufacturers, ice included.
The article’s author finished by saying when it comes to collisions mass matters. There are very few old EVs around, how do they stack up against modern internal combustion engine cars?
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,220
Likes
24,187
p = m * v
and of course
kinetic energy = 1/2*m*v^2

So... yeah, mass matters.
Velocity matters more, though.
speed kills. :rolleyes:

1649615586902.png
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,220
Likes
24,187
So a crash at any speed would be worse in a car with a higher mass. That’s the point the author was making.
yup, it is true that mass matters and not irrelevant. Velocity just matters more.
We're in violent agreement (as they say).

Speaking of which, you've doubtless seen this video -- there are other factors that, practically speaking, might matter even more than mass...


although, in fairness, I don't know offhand the relative masses of these two GM vehicles. ;)
 

Ken1951

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
850
Likes
1,775
Location
Blacksburg, VA
yup, it is true that mass matters and not irrelevant. Velocity just matters more.
We're in violent agreement (as they say).

Speaking of which, you've doubtless seen this video -- there are other factors that, practically speaking, might matter even more than mass...


although, in fairness, I don't know offhand the relative masses of these two GM vehicles. ;)
We had a 59 Biscayne when I was growing up, glad we didn't hit anything with it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom