MajorGeeks.com - Download Freeware and Shareware Computer Utilities.

MajorGeeks.com - Download Freeware and Shareware Computer Utilities.:

'via Blog this'

Having a successful California refinance!

Learn what it takes to have a successful California refinance. If you are not careful, you might end up losing your hom You wouldn't want this nightmare happening to you, would you?

Home Improvement Shouldn't Cost You Your Home

You wake up to peeling paint on the ceiling and drab, stained walls. It's another dismal scene but you have no choice. No money is rolling in and until it does, you can't give your house the makeover of the century. Your wife and kids also share this dream, but there's no choice until you've found the right California refinance company to bail you out of a bleak existence.

It's right to be apprehensive about some California refinance companies. You don't want to join the angry mob complaining against unscrupulous companies that took advantage of low bracket earners by allowing them to take out fast refinance and home loans. Some of them only wanted minor improvements, but were hustled to take out loans they could barely afford. These people are on the verge of losing their homes because of adjustable rate loans with rates that kept on increasing.

So proceed with caution if you're dreaming of new painted walls and a larger living room because your dream house makeover should not cost you your home. The loan you need should fit your budget since it will take years before you can fully pay the new loan. There are several things to consider before you hop to the nearest mortgage company, offline or online.

Before Your California Refinance

Whether you're deciding on relocating to California or already residing in one of the state's breathtaking places, arm yourself with the latest home loan trends. If you're relocating, check out the new houses or foreclosed properties in the state's friendly suburbs.

Even at the stage of dreaming of relocating to California, or making minor home improvements in your California home, you should be looking at the facts already. Here are some of the signs to watch out for if you don't want to ride with bust:

1. Will you be able to afford the monthly fees?
2. Will your family be able to live on a slashed budget?
3. Do you have other credit to be paid?
4. Have you discussed the pros and the cons with your family?
5. Are you happy with your current lender?
6. Do you want to switch your loan program to get lower interest rates?

These questions will help you make your decision with your feet firmly planted on the ground. If you're going into a California refinance deal, forcing yourself to risk it, forget all about it.

At these times, nobody should take risks when it comes to the security of homes and their future. Take out a fixed rate mortgage and lock into a low interest rate. You will have an idea of your monthly budget after the monthly fees for the refinance loan.

Avoid companies offering fantastic deals like interest-only loans, no closing fees, and other similar enticements. Check out the different refinance programs before you settle on one. In short, take your sweet time before shaking hands with a loan agent over a clinched deal.

The Morning After

When the California refinance company finally releases your bundle, roll up your sleeves. It's time for you to make your loan. Whether the loan was for a new home in sunny California or a home improvement project, be careful with the money. It's still money have to pay for years. It's time to be frugal and be wise with your money. Face up to the reality that you have a California refinance installment to be paid promptly each month.

PS: The Ultimate Real Estate System

Buy Nothing Down, Realize Returns As High As 50% With Tax Lien Certificates And Discount Real Estate With Foreclosure Short Sales.

Clothesline Fresh - Country Myth Breaker # 17

Clothesline fresh, country fresh scent, smells like a country garden, those of us from the city have all seen our share of country clad laundry soap commercials. The token red barn glows in the distance. Closer in, clothes adorn the line. Each piece is so straight and evenly spaced you'd believe a team of sophomore geometry students hung them as their final class projects. Even more perfect, the lightest of breezes launches an 'oh so soft' billow along the stain free front row.

Even I think, who wouldn't want their clothes to be clothesline fresh? And, don't those people own underwear? Ahhhh! I use my clothesline. I must. There is not a man in the five-state region willing to rise to the challenge of touching my daunting propane line and antiquated fuse box. Like my outhouse, my dryer is purely ornamental. 

Despite this forced march to my clothesline the results can be startlingly adequate. Yet as a good Cidiot (city idiot), It would be negligent of me if I did not point out a few hazards of clotheslines to budding country converts. Beware, hanging your skivvies in the wild is not all its cracked up to be. Consider these dilemmas.

Seven of Ten Birds Prefer to Defecate Out of Doors - Avian species have a remarkable instinct for textile quality. Anyone doubting this should hang their Thai Silk robe on one end of the clothesline. Put a flannel shirt on the opposite side. At the end of the day tally the results. 

Sheets Attract Wind - Kids have a new kite? You can plan your day around it, guaranteed! Just wash your bedding in the morning and place it on your line. Rest assured, Mariah herself will blast through your backyard. Kites, bedding, lingerie, pugs - anything with a flat surface will dance its way through the sky, only to impale itself in full display atop the silo of your local feed mill.

Remember the One Foot Rule - Most educated people know the three second rule. No matter where in your home you drop a piece of silverware, if you can retrieve it in three seconds or less you can eat off it without rinsing first. The one-foot rule, however, is only taught in rural school districts. It goes like this: Any textile on a clothesline that sags to within 12 inches of sweet Mother Earth, via the wind or any other means, must immediately be scent marked by every male canine (dogs, coyotes, wolves or prairie dogs) inside a three mile radius. 

Animals Have Hair - Strangely enough farms are inundated with animals. Go figure. With all due respect to clothespins, they do little to remove hair. It takes four fabric softener sheets and a small nuclear plant to fluff out an intricate weaving of fur and feathers. During the spring shed I keep a HAZMAT team on stand by just to clean my lint traps. 

Remodeling Your House? - You can save a fortune in costly building materials. Just hang your cotton towels out to dry on the clothesline. Not only will they dry stiff enough to be use as support beams, the bird shit will act as an adhesive for roofing projects. 

Remember on that warm spring day, when the cottonwoods are spawning and your best angora sweater has just hit the line, imagine, within a matter of hours it will be more than you ever dreamed possible. And, as always, it will smell 'clothesline fresh!'

Surefire Ways To Combat Rising Gas Prices

I have heard the rumblings of many of you in Readerland about the recent spike in gasoline prices. In fact it's all I seem to hear about lately. But at least it keeps you from rumbling about the infrequency of my columns and articles. Nonetheless, I have decided to try to help you get through this crisis by generously providing: 3 Ways to Combat Rising Gas Prices!

1. Don't Drive Your Car This is, of course, the most obvious solution. If you never take the old Plymouth out the driveway, then it won't matter that at current gas prices it takes $125 to fill up the 30 gallon gas tank, or that you only get about 2.51 miles to the gallon. If you never drive, you could care less. Of course, I know what you're going to say. "But Tim, I have places I need to go-like work. And the kids have school and soccer practice. And then there's grocery shopping and yoga lessons and dinner at the Richardson's and blah blah blah and...." OK, I get the point. Not everyone can sit around the house writing not-so-funny articles and searching the Internet for Drew Barrymore photos like me. I fully understand that some of you have a life. But just because you don't drive your own car doesn't mean you can't get around. The answer?


2. Carpool It's seems so simple now doesn't it. Instead of using your gas-Use Someone Else's! Have someone else pay $5.50 a gallon for gas to take your kids to school. Make someone else dip into their retirement fund just so they can cover the gas bill needed to get you to the office and back everyday. Make someone else get a second job so that they can have a full tank of gas in their SUV when your daughter needs to cruise the mall. It's so simple.Of course, the concept behind carpooling is that everyone takes turns driving. So in a normal carpool situation you would eventually be required to use your car and spend your money driving others around. But this is not a Normal Carpool Situation, this is a Tim Ward Carpool Situation (TWCPS). In a TWCPS you avoid using your own car by making it so that the other carpool participants would rather walk barefoot on 120 degree asphalt than ride with you. You achieve this by: (a) never washing or cleaning your car. Leave it looking and smelling like the county landfill. (b) Have the worst behaved child in your family sitting in the front seat at all times. Feed the child lots of candy so he/she is always super hyper. (c) Refuse to discuss anything in your car except your spouses bad bathing habits, bodily fluids, hang nails, chest hair, etc. (d) Only play reggae music on the radio. Loud! You shouldn't have to worry about anyone wanting to ride with you ever again.


3. Ride the Bus/SubwayMany cities have a mass transit system that is an alternative to driving your own vehicle. If you live in a city that doesn't have one don't worry-you can always move. Of course, riding public transportation does have a few drawbacks, but these can be easily overcome if you follow these simple guidelines:1. No matter what happens never, ever make eye contact with anyone. Making eye contact is an invitation for someone to mug you.2. No matter what happens never, ever give up your seat to anyone. This is seen as weakness, and will be taken as an invitation to mug you. 3. No matter how tempted you are never, ever strike up a conversation with the person sitting next or across from you. This is very annoying and can be taken as an invitation for someone to mug you. Or worse, for someone to talk back.


4. Always make sure you are alert to get on and off at the right stop. Getting off at the wrong stop can lead to immediate mugging.5. Never, ever take children with you on public transportation. Fellow passengers hate children. Children make you definite mug victim material. Well, there you have it. 3 ways to deal with rising gas prices. Hopefully, you will be able to use these methods to keep from spending twice your car's Blue Book value just going to Walmart. Hopefully, next time your friends are grumbling and ranting about the mounting gas prices you will be able to just sit back and smile, content because the issue no longer concerns you. Hopefully, I've once more helped my loyal readers in a time of crisis. And all I ask in return as a simple thank you next time you see me. Just make sure we're not on the bus. I'd hate to have to mug you...

HIPAA Guidelines - How are they being inforced?

Your visit to the doctor now contains a page where you sign that you acknowledge that the physician's office has notified you about their compliance with HIPAA laws. More often than not, you probably read through quickly or barely skim the authorization form before signing it. However, HIPAA laws are important, and they are in place to protect you from identity theft, being denied care, and/or health insurance coverage.

HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, enacted in 1996. HIPAA laws created a new national standard in protecting your health information. As you see different physicians or become admitted to different hospitals, your health information should follow you. HIPAA delineates the need to properly protect your health information as it flows through to these different channels. As more and more transactions are completed electronically these days, HIPAA laws focus on the protection of your health information specifically through these channels.

So what does HIPAA protect? For you, HIPAA protects personally identifiable health information, such as your Social Security number, birth date, address, etc., as well as current, past, or even future physical and/or mental conditions or treatment. Such information may not be disclosed except for specific uses. Information that HIPAA does not cover must specifically be personally non-identifiable. In protecting this sort of information, there is more protection against identity theft and more recourse if such a thing should happen.

HIPAA also protects how health insurance providers may use your health information. These entities may use your information without your authorization only if they are sending you information, using this information to provide the best treatment or health care, or collecting payment on medical expenses, among other things. If disclosure of your health information does not fall under these categories, you must authorize the transfer of information in writing. Furthermore, because the government understands that highly technical language can be a barrier in understanding your health information privacy rights, any authorization must be in plain language.

This may all seem like unnecessary paperwork, but beyond identity theft, HIPAA laws also help those looking for health insurance coverage. Title 1 of the HIPAA laws oversees the availability and range of health insurance plans for those without perfect health. It outlaws any health insurance plan from creating discriminatory rules to create premium rates or deny coverage. HIPAA laws are quite extensive, but this gives you a look at how your health information is being protected and used. Your department of health should be able to give you further information, or you can search the government's Web site for the entire HIPAA law.

"JUSTRELEASED: A Collection Of FREE "Underground"

VideosThat Reveals Every Single Tip, Tactic And

SecretFor Creating Persuasive Emails That Make You

MoneyNOW!... 100% Guaranteed!"

ClickHere => http://www.emailpromosexposed.com/?thankyou-page=166793

Is Reality TV Really Reality?

Part of the appeal of reality TV is that it offers a look into the lives of ordinary folks like you and me. No writers, no actors, just everyday folks using their strength and common sense. Why, we could be the ones up there on screen winning glorious prizes for outlasting our tribe mates or marrying a pseudo millionaire! But just how real is reality TV?

Not very, say some critics and observers. In fact, reality TV producers manipulate reality in several ways. Otherwise, the shows wouldn't attract the ratings they have. After all, who would tune in to watch people in their own homes living a perfectly average day?

The first way that reality is manipulated is that the participants are removed from their everyday environment. Whether they are marooned on an island or housed in a resort, they are fish out of water and their access to resources depends on the goodwill of the producers.

Second, the participants are placed in competition with each other. Only one person can win the grand prize, whether that prize is a cash reward, a television contract, or the love of another person. In order to stay on the show, contestants must face difficult challenges. Each show usually ends with at least one contestant being sent home. Thus the focus of reality TV is manufactured conflict.

The conflict is usually heightened by the selection of participants. Producers know that conflict means ratings, so they try to cast each show with people who are natural opponents such as an out gay man or lesbian and a homophobe or a strong, take-charge woman and a sexist man. Such pairings are almost guaranteed to keep conflict going and provide hours of arguing for the entertainment of viewers.

Finally, even with the controlled environment and the inherent conflict, reality TV shows must still be edited to create a "storyline." Editors sort through countless hours of mundane activities to find the moments fraught with tension and conflict. If two participants get along great for 99% of the day, but exchange sharp words once, it is likely the argument that you will see. Similarly if a participant says many positive things about another participant but adds, "I wish he weren't so controlling," you're likely to see only the complaint about the controlling behavior and none of the compliments that came before.

Careful editing can make smart people appear dumb, nice people seem like villains, and casual friends look like lovers.

Over and above these obvious manipulations, there is some question about whether reality TV producers go even a step further and try to manipulate the results of the competition. In 2001, for instance, Stacey Stillman sued the television program Survivor claiming that the executive producer had encouraged other contestants to vote her off the island instead of a player who was more popular with viewers. CBS, the network that airs Survivor, has vehemently denied these charges. Other series that have been accused of rigging outcomes include The Amazing Race, American Idol, and Big Brother. Even many of the staunchest reality TV fans admit to wondering if the outcomes are really as random as they are made to seem.

In the end, no one has ever been able to prove that the outcomes of these shows are fixed. One thing is certain, though. The situations in which the participants interact with each other are so carefully manipulated that they bear little, if any, resemblance to reality.

Check Out This Opportunity to Boost Your Existing or Start a New Niche Market Home Base Business:

Follow the Link ===>> http://marketerman.MyBusinessBuilderPlus.com

Revolutionary Development thru Visualization and Affirmation

How accelerated learning can help you visualize your future 

Conventionally educational trainers presented to trainees information that allowed them to assess their performance. The assessment test was based on the information conducted in the training. 

One of the common methods, combines talking and chalking however, this method lost its reputation. The reputation was lost because most corporate training does not produce any change in a company's performance is because conventional training methods failed to meet common standards. 

The following is a four-phase learning cycle that provides practical classroom strategies to allow trainers to focus on true learning. These strategies use accelerated learning techniques and review activities that make understanding and retention far more likely to be interesting. 

Accelerated learning is a growing industry that is helping many people overcome learning obstacles by encouraging them to use visualization and affirmation through a repetitive learning option. In the programs, students are encouraged to create a positive environment for learning by using visualization through positive relationships. 

The common interest includes submitting preparatory kits prior to class announcement. Students are encouraged to visualize the broader picture while overviews of systematic instructions unfold. Students' curiosity is stimulated by the use of visual aids. Mental and emotional barriers are broke through affirmation or positive persuasion. 

Lively musicals and visualization help the students to brainstorm effectively while working to build their skills and abilities. Their mission is to learn quicker by involving themselves in many striking learning styles. Instead of sitting long hours in class, students learn in a structured environment where they have choices and learn in 20-minute intervals. 

Students in accelerated courses have alternatives amid physical and passive activities. Visual aids, such as video clips and the audio tapes give them strong visualization that creates effective metaphors. The students enrolled in this course showed that their memory improved. 

Personalized learning helps people to develop necessary skills to succeed in the world today. Instead of sitting long hours trying to figure out what your next move is in development, accelerated learning helps you to make the next move through effective exercises and activities that center on visualization and affirmation. 

Simple persuasive tactics, such as classroom collaboration makes up a rich interactive social environment amid teams so that they can collaborate to learn effectively. Educators must be certain to provide opportunities for individual work so pupils have time to personalize and reflect on their learning. Classroom games create room for reviews that fill in gaps. 

- Use problem solving as a way for trainees to engage with the subject matter.
Interpretation he goal of this phase is to make sure knowledge is retained and learning is continuous.
- Provide activities for trainees to show what they learned. Group trainees in teams to teach the group key points.

- Make evaluations in-class. Self-assessment of training and the trainees' self-assessment of learning are very important. Educators should ensure performance exercises allow the trainees to evaluate learning that has occurred.

- Create post-classroom learning activities and post-session resources.

- Consider measures that could be instated to ensure learning is successful.

Quick tips for enhancing learning

Mind Break
When you take breaks, it helps to improve your learning. You learn faster, since you give your mind the time to digest information learned. When you take breaks at least 15-20 minutes after each study, it helps you to learn faster. The breaks will allow your brain room to relax. You learn new information quicker and it goes into the conscious mind and subconscious mind deeper, which you will retain what you learn. 

Action steps
After you finish your break, get your trainees to erect, standing with you and start talking to someone, such as your learning partner, two minutes about the important points they have learned. Accelerated, the students can feel the power of learning as they focus their attention on recalls of learning through various strategies proven to boost memory. Maria Montessio left an imprint in accelerated learning courses.

Check Out This Opportunity to Boost Your Existing or Start a New Niche Market Home Base Business:

Follow the Link ===>> http://marketerman.MyBusinessBuilderPlus.com

The Future Generation of Video Game Systems: What to Expect

In the past, everybody thought they knew where the video gaming industry was going. Almost all people who love to play with video games thought that video game systems or consoles will become more powerful, faster, and have better graphics and sounds with plenty of cool accessories. 

However, this type of perception in the future of the video game system industry changed when the Nintendo Wii came along. At first, everybody thought that video gaming was just about sitting down and pushing a bunch of buttons on their joystick or game pad. 

However, this wasn't the case for Nintendo Wii. Instead of the traditional way of playing with video games, Nintendo Wii just had to go to the next level. Even though Nintendo Wii is inferior when it comes to graphics, it didn't disappoint even the toughest video gaming critic out there. In fact, the Nintendo Wii became the top selling video game system. 

So, just what is with Nintendo Wii that a lot of people are considering this as the video game system that is paving the way for the future of video gaming? For starters, the Nintendo Wii is highly interactive. It doesn't just require you to sit down and push a bunch of buttons to play the game, but you really need to get up and move your body or at least some of it. 

 The key feature of the Nintendo Wii is the infrared motion sensitive remote. Known also as the Wii Remote or the Wii-mote, this feature is highly sensitive to movements. And, depending on the game you are playing, you'll need to follow certain movements in order for your character in the game to execute the movements properly. What this means is that if you are playing baseball, you need to do a throwing motion like you would when you throw a baseball if you are the pitcher. 

You also need to swing your arms if you are batting. There are also high action games in Wii where you need to swing a katana at your opponent. There's also boxing and a lot more games in Nintendo Wii that will require you to move your body. You will even see the latest innovation by Nintendo Wii called the Wii Fit. This particular accessory and game promotes exercise and healthy living. The game will actually be your fitness trainer and it will monitor your weight as well as your progress in the game. 

 The best thing about Nintendo Wii is its simplicity. It doesn't have the bells and whistles that the other popular video game system has, such as Blu-ray disc playing capabilities, and better online gaming experience but it has what people are looking for which is highly interactive gaming experience. The future of video game system is already here. With the Nintendo Wii, you will be able to experience something new and unique in playing with video games. 

 Because of its success, it will not be a surprise that the future generation of video game systems will base on the highly interactive feature of the Nintendo Wii. So, if you are wondering what the future holds for the video game industry, you may want to take a look at Nintendo Wii. This is considered by a lot of people as the start of a great future in the video gaming industry.

EV1 - The first GM Wonder or Blunder!

Brief History

The General Motors EV1 was an electric car produced and leased by the General Motors Corporation from 1996 to 1999. It was the first mass-produced and purpose-designed electric vehicle of the modern era from a major automaker, and the first GM car designed to be an electric vehicle from the outset. The decision to mass-produce an electric car came after GM received a favorable reception for its 1990 Impact electric concept car, upon which the design of the EV1 drew heavily. Inspired partly by the Impact's perceived potential for success, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) subsequently passed a mandate that made the production and sale of zero-emission vehicles a requirement for the seven major automakers selling cars in the United States to continue to market their vehicles in California. The EV1 was made available through limited lease-only agreements, initially to residents of the cities of Los Angeles, California and Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. EV1 lessees were officially participants in a "real-world engineering evaluation" and market study into the feasibility of producing and marketing a commuter electric vehicle in select U.S. markets undertaken by GM's Advanced Technology Vehicles group. The cars were not available for purchase, and could be serviced only at designated Saturn dealerships. Within a year of the EV1's release, leasing programs were also launched in San Francisco and Sacramento, California, along with a limited program in the state of Georgia.

While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market as they were only able to lease 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years. An alliance of the major automakers litigated the CARB regulation in court, resulting in a slackening of the ZEV stipulation, permitting the companies to produce super-low-emissions vehicles, natural gas vehicles, and hybrid cars in place of pure electrics. The EV1 program was subsequently discontinued in 2002, and all cars on the road were repossessed. Lessees were not given the option to purchase their cars from GM, which cited parts, service, and liability regulations. The majority of the repossessed EV1s were crushed, and the rest delivered to museums and educational institutes with their electric powertrains deactivated, under the agreement that the cars were not to be reactivated and driven on the road.

The EV1's discontinuation remains controversial, with electric car enthusiasts, environmental interest groups and former EV1 lessees accusing GM of self-sabotaging its electric car program to avoid potential losses in spare parts sales, while also blaming the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road.

In January 1990, GM chairman Roger Smith demonstrated the Impact, an electric concept car, at the 1990 Los Angeles Auto Show. The car had been developed by electric vehicle company AeroVironment, using design knowledge gained from GM's participation in the 1987 World Solar Challenge, a trans-Australia race for solar vehicles, with the Sunraycer, which went on to win the competition. Alan Cocconi of AC Propulsion designed and built the original drive controller electronics for the Impact, and the design was later refined by Hughes Electronics. On April 18, 1990, Smith announced that the Impact would become a production vehicle.

Impressed by the viability of the Impact, and motivated by GM's promise to produce the Impact, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) moved on a large environmental initiative, ruled that each of the U.S.'s seven largest carmakers—the largest of which was GM—would be required to make 2% of its fleet emission-free by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003, in accordance with consumer demand, in order to continue to sell cars in California. The mandate was instated to combat California's poor air quality, which at the time was worse than the other 49 states combined. Other members of what was then the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, along with Toyota, Nissan and Honda, each also developed a prototype zero-emissions vehicle in response to the new mandate.

In 1994, GM began PrEView, a program whereby 50 handbuilt Impact electric cars would be lent to drivers for periods of one to two weeks, under the agreement that their experiences would be logged. Volunteers had to own a garage where a high-current charging unit could be installed by an electric company. Program supervisor Sean McNamara said that he expected at most eighty volunteers in the Los Angeles area, but was forced to close the phone lines after 10,000 people called in. In New York City, 14,000 callers responded before the lines were closed. Driver response to the cars was favorable, as were reviews by the automotive press. According to Motor Trend, "The Impact is precisely one of those occasions where GM proves beyond any doubt that it knows how to build fantastic automobiles. This is the world's only electric vehicle that drives like a real car." Automobile called the car's ride and handling "amazing," praising its "smooth delivery of power". That year, a modified Impact set a land speed record for production electric vehicles of 183 mph (295 km/h). However, according to a front-page article in The New York Times, GM was less than pleased with the prospect of having developed a successful electric car:

"General Motors is preparing to put its electric vehicle act on the road, and planning for a flop. With pride and pessimism, the company, the furthest along of the Big Three in designing a mass-market electric car, says that in the face of a California law that requires that 2 percent of new cars be "zero emission" vehicles beginning in 1997, it has done its best but that the vehicle has come up short.... Now it hopes that lawmakers and regulators will agree with it and postpone or scrap the deadline."

According to the report, GM viewed the PrEView program as a failure, evidence that the electric car was not yet viable, and that the CARB regulations should be withdrawn. Dennis Minano, GM's Vice President for Energy and Environment, questioned whether consumers desired electric vehicles. Robert J. Eaton, chairman of Chrysler, also questioned whether the market was ready for electric cars, and said, "... if the law is there, we'll meet it... at this point of time, nobody can forecast that we can make [an electric car]." The negative positions taken by the automakers was criticized by Thomas C. Jorling, the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation for New York State, which had adopted the California emission program. According to Jorling, consumers had demonstrated tremendous interest in electric cars, but automakers did not want to render obsolete their multi-billion dollar investments in internal combustion engine technology.

Release of Gen I and Initial Reaction

Work on the GM electric car program continued after the end of PrEView. While the original 50 Impact cars were destroyed after testing was finished, the designed had evolved into the GM EV1 by 1996. The EV1 would be the first GM car in history to wear a "General Motors" nameplate, instead of one of GM's marques. The first-generation, or "Gen I" car, which would be powered by lead-acid batteries, had a stated range of 70 to 100 miles; 660 cars, painted dark green, red, and silver were produced. The cars were made available via a leasing program, with the option to purchase the cars specifically disallowed by a contractual clause (the suggested retail price was quoted as $34,000). In similar fashion to the PrEView program, lessees were pre-screened by GM, with only residents of Southern California and Arizona eligible for participation. Leasing rates for the EV1 ranged from $399 to $549 a month. The car's launch was a media event, accompanied by an $8 million promotional campaign, which included prime-time TV advertising, billboards, a web site, and an appearance at the premiere of the Sylvester Stallone film Daylight. The first lessees included celebrities, executives and politicians. A total of 40 EV1 leases were signed at the release event, with GM estimating that it would lease 100 cars by the end of the year. Deliveries began on December 5, 1996.

Some consumer organizations, allegedly funded by oil companies, opposed the use of taxpayer money to build an electric vehicle charging infrastructureJoe Kennedy, vice president of marketing for GM marque Saturn, accepted concerns regarding the EV1's cost, the outdated lead-acid battery technology, and the car's limited range, saying "Let us not forget that technology starts small and grows slowly before technology improves and costs go down." Some anti-taxation groups were against the exemptions and tax credits that EV1 lessees received, which they said constituted government-subsidized motoring for affluent professionals. Some of these groups, such as consumer organization Californians Against Utility Company Abuse (which mounted opposition to the use of taxpayer dollars to build public EV charging stations), were themselves accused of receiving their funding from oil companies interested in keeping gasoline cars on the roads. Concerns were also raised that the car had received only a limited launch, because GM had made a deal with CARB to delay the implementation of the first phase of the ZEV program, which had been scheduled to go into effect in 1998.

In the first year of release, GM leased only 288 cars. However, by 1999, the brand manager for the EV1 program, Ken Stewart, described the response of the car's drivers as "wonderfully-manical loyalty." The lessees had integrated the EV1 into their lifestyle, making the car less a novelty item and more a primary source of transportation. Tom Hanks, a lessee, praised the car on late-night talk shows, saying "Believe it or not, that sucker goes!"

Some EV1 enthusiasts believed that GM was demonstrating ambivalence towards promotion of the EV1 after its initial release. While one of the first EV1 TV spots was nominated for an Emmy award, later advertising was limited to direct mail and print and TV ads in niche channels. While GM remained officially committed to the electric vehicle, enthusiasts were concerned that low public interest would result in the program being scrapped. One driver, Marvin Rush, a cinematographer for the TV series Star Trek: Voyager, became so concerned that he spent $20,000 of his own funds to produce and air four unofficial radio commercials for the car. While the automaker was initially opposed to the action, it later changed its position, announcing that it would make the spots official and reimburse Rush. The company spent $10 million on EV1 advertising in 1997, and promised to increase that amount by $5 million the following year. According to EV1 program brand manager Frank Periera, the car was not suited to a high-profile advertising campaign because it only appealed to a small fraction of the car-buying public, who were unfazed at the prospect of a relatively expensive, limited-range two-seater.

Second Generation: 1999-2003

The EV1 was equipped with a more-advanced NiMH battery pack for the 1999 model year (Toyota Prius battery pictured)For the 1999 model year, GM released a Gen II version of the EV1. Major improvements included lower production costs, quieter operation, extensive weight reduction, and the advent of a nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery. The Gen II models were initially released with a 60 amp-hour (18.7 kilowatt-hour) Panasonic lead-acid battery pack, a slight improvement over the Gen I power source using the same 312 V voltage; later models featured an Ovonics NiMH battery rated at 77 Ah (26.4 kWh) with 343 volts. Cars with the lead-acid pack had a range of 80 to 100 miles, while the NiMH cars could travel between 100 and 140 miles between charges. For the second-generation EV1, the leasing program was expanded to the cities of San Diego, Sacramento, and Atlanta; monthly payments ranged from $349 to $574. 457 Gen II EV1s were produced by General Motors and leased to customers in the eight months following December 1999. According to some sources, hundreds of drivers wanted to but could not become EV1 lessees.

On March 2, 2000, GM issued a recall for 450 Gen I EV1s. The automaker had determined that a faulty charge port cable could eventually build up enough heat to catch on fire. Sixteen "thermal incidents" and at least one fire occurred as a result of the defect, destroying a car leased by Ron Brauer and Ruth Bygness as it was charging. The recall did not affect second-generation EV1s.

Over the next two years, approximately 200 Gen I EV1s were refitted with NiMH batteries and re-issued to their original lessees on revised two-year leases, including a new limited-mileage clause. Delays were involved due to design complications resulting from the NiMH pack retrofit. As a result, GM offered Gen I drivers the opportunity to terminate their lease at no charge, or the chance to transfer the lease to one of the remaining 150 second-generation EV1s — ahead of those already on the waiting list for Gen II models.

Program Cancellation

By 2002, 1,117 EV1s had been produced, though production had ended in 1999, when GM shut down the EV1 assembly line.[citation needed] On February 7, 2002, GM Advanced Technology Vehicles brand manager Ken Stewart notified lessees that GM would be removing the cars from the road, contradicting an earlier statement that GM would in fact not be "taking cars off the road from customers." Drivers feared that their working cars would be destroyed after repossession.

In late 2003, General Motors, then led by CEO Rick Wagoner, officially canceled the EV1 program. GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In addition, the cost of maintaining a parts supply and service infrastructure for the 15-year minimum required by the state of California meant that existing leases would not be renewed, and all the cars would have to be returned to GM's possession. At least 58 EV1 drivers sent letters and deposit checks to GM, requesting lease extensions at no risk or cost to the automaker. The drivers reportedly agreed to be responsible for the maintenance and repair costs of the EV1, and would allow GM the right to terminate the lease if expensive repairs were needed. On June 28, GM famously refused the offer and returned the checks, which totaled $22,000; By contrast, Honda, which had taken similar actions with its EV+ program, agreed to extend its customers' leases. In November 2003, GM began reclaiming the cars; several were donated to museums and educational institutions (e.g. Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan), albeit with deactivated powertrains meant to keep the cars from ever running again, but the majority were sent to car crushers to be destroyed, allegedly with government permission to do so.

The documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" presents evidence that GM stuck with plans to cancel and scrap the car, despite apparent public interest. The film includes footage of GM employees on the EV1 team discussing a waiting list of people interested in leasing or purchasing EV1s. In 2003, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times attempted to lease an EV1 from GM, but was told that he "was welcome to join their waiting list, along with undisclosed others, for an indefinite period of time, but [his] chances of getting a car were slim." Critics of GM and proponents of electric vehicles claim that GM feared the emergence of electrical vehicle technology because the cars might cut into their profitable spare parts market, as electric cars have far fewer moving parts than combustion vehicles. Critics further charged that when CARB, in response to the EV1, mandated that electric vehicles makeup a certain percentage of all automakers' sales, GM came to fear that the EV1 might encourage unwanted regulation in other states. GM battled against CARB regulations, going as far as to sue CARB in federal court. At the 2000 hearings, GM claimed that consumers were simply not showing sufficient interest in the EV1 to meet the sales requirements called for by CARB mandates. The American automaker, along with Toyota, cited a study they had commissioned, which showed that customers would only choose an electric car over a gasoline car if it cost a full $28,000 less than a comparable gasoline car. Dr. Kenneth E. Train of UC Berkeley, who conducted the study, stated that given a typical retail price of $21,000 for a RAV4 SUV, "Toyota would have to give the average consumer a free RAV4-EV plus a check for approximately $7,000." An independent study commissioned by the California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) and conducted by the Green Car Institute and the Dohring Company automotive market research firm found very different results. The study "used the same research methodologies employed by the auto industry to identify markets for its gasoline vehicles". It found the annual consumer market for EVs to be 12-18% of the new light-duty vehicle market in California, amounting to annual sales of between 151,200 and 226,800 electric vehicles, approximately ten times the quantity specified by CARB's mandate. The results of the Toyota-GM study were questioned in light of the success of Toyota's electric RAV4-EV, which retailed at $30,000 yet had a waiting list of its own. At the hearings, the automakers also presented the hydrogen vehicle as a higher alternative to the gasoline car, bolstered by a recent federal earmark for hydrogen research. Many, including members of the CARB hearing committee, were concerned that this was a bait-and-switch on the automakers' part, in order to make CARB eliminate the EV mandate, and that hydrogen was not as viable of an alternative as it was made to seem.

CARB had already rolled back deadlines several times, in light of car companies not being ready to meet the ZEV requirement. In 2001, it proposed amendments that would grant automakers credit for producing advanced-technology, partial-zero emission vehicles, such as hybrid cars, in place of battery EVs. However, the industry used the relaxation of the rules to challenge the regulation as a whole. General Motors and DaimlerChrysler, backed by the Bush Administration, filed suit against CARB in the US District Court in the Eastern District of California, successfully arguing that CARB's method of determining whether or not a vehicle qualified as an Advanced Technology Partial ZEV (AT PZEV) used the vehicle's fuel economy as one of the standards, in addition to reduced emissions; according to federal law, states are barred from regulating fuel economy in any way. Judge Robert E. Coyle issued a preliminary injunction on June 11 against the CARB, ruling the provision unconstitutional and preventing the implementation of CARB's 2001 amendments. The mandate was modified, with the zero-emission requirement reduced to at least 250 fuel cell or battery-powered vehicles by 2008.

The GM training center in Burbank, California, served as a storage location for many EV1s prior to being crushed, and saw protests and vigils by EV1 drivers and fans.

Reaction

In the aftermath of the program, reactions to the cancellation of the EV1 continued to be mixed. In GM's view, the EV1 was not a failure, but the program was doomed when the expected breakthroughs in battery technology did not take place within the anticipated timeline, citing the lack of availability of the NiMH-technology battery packs, developed by Energy Conversion Devices of Michigan, until late in the production cycle. The batteries improved the EV1's range, but not as dramatically as expected, and came with their own set of problems; a less-efficient charging algorithm had to be used (lengthening charge times), and the batteries heated up more quickly than the lead-acid packs (requiring use of the air conditioner to cool them down, wasting power). The automaker also cited the elimination of the CARB zero-emissions mandate as a factor in the program's cancellation, though the company was widely accused of lobbying against the mandate in an act of deliberate self-sabotage. The media perspective was far less favorable; in 2006, the Wall Street Journal's Detroit Bureau Chief Joe White said, "The EV1 was a failure, as were other electric vehicles launched in the 1990s to placate California clean-air regulators." This opinion as echoed by Time magazine, who in 2008 placed the EV1 on their list of "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time".

In light of falling car sales later in the decade, as the world oil and financial crises began to take hold, opinions of the EV1 program began to change. In 2006, former GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner stated that his worst decision during his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image." Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. auto industry bailout request. In the March 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier,'" referring to the forthcoming plug-in hybrid car which was hailed as the spiritual and technological successor to the EV1.

Resurrection

Some of the deactivated EV1s given to universities and engineering schools were reactivated, and driven on public roads. The institutions came under fire from General Motors for violating the agreements of the donation, which indicated that the cars not be "titled, licensed, nor driven on public highways" and could only be restored and showcased. GM has potential legal obligations under laws that require automakers to maintain parts and service infrastructure for consumer vehicles for a period of no less than 15 years.

In 2004 General Motors donated one of the first generation EV1s (serial number 660) to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was displayed as part of the "America on the Move" exhibit at the National Museum of American History until it was removed in 2006 during renovations to the museum.While the car remains part of the Smithsonian collection, the EV1 has yet to be redisplayed within the exhibit at the museum.

Technology and Design

The engine bay of the EV1The decades before the release of the Impact and the EV1 had seen little in the way of development on the electric car front. The Henney Kilowatt, which ended production in 1961, was the last time a feasible production electric car of any sort had been released; GM's own Electrovair and Electrovette of 1966 and 1976, respectively, never reached production, amounting to little more than conceptual electric conversion kits for the automaker's popular gasoline models. Technical and production costs difficulties were blamed.

In contrast to these cars, the EV1 was designed from the ground up to be an electric vehicle. It was not a conversion of an existing vehicle, nor did it share a drivetrain with another GM model, which contributed to its high development and production costs. The EV1 program was initially administered by a GM engineer named Kenneth Baker, who had been the lead on the Electrovette program in the 1970s.

Configuration

The EV1 was not only used to showcase the electric powertrain, but also premiered a number of features and technologies that would later find their way onto more common GM models and other manufacturers' cars. The EV1 was among the first production vehicles to utilize aluminum in the construction of the frame. The car's body panels were made of plastic rather than metal, making the car lightweight and dent resistant. Anti-lock brakes, which had just appeared on the production car scene, and a traction control system were among the EV1's advanced driveability technologies. Comfort improvements included a keyless entry and ignition system, a special one-way thermal glass for better heat rejection on sunny days, an automated tire pressure loss warning system, electric power steering, and a time-programmable HVAC system.

To boost efficiency, the EV1 possessed a very low drag coefficient (Cd) and reference area (CdA) of 0.19 and 0.36 m² (3.95 ft²), respectively. Super-light magnesium alloy wheels and seats provided strength despite their low weight, and self-sealing, low-rolling resistance tires developed by Michelin rounded out the EV1's exceptional efficiency characteristics.

The EV1 featured an aluminum frame, dent-resistant plastic body panels, and was sculpted to a drag coefficient of just Cd 0.19At 169.7 inches (4,310 mm) in length, and 69.5 inches (1,765 mm) in width, the EV1 was a subcompact car, with a 2-door coupé body style.

Drivetrain

The car's 3-phase AC induction electric motor produced 137 brake horsepower (102 kW) at 7000 rpm. Like all electrically powered cars, and unlike a car powered by an ICE, the EV1 could deliver its full torque capacity throughout its power band, producing 110 pound-feet (149 newton-meters) of torque anywhere between 0 and 7000 rpm, allowing the omission of a manual or automatic gearbox. Power was delivered to the front wheels through a single-speed reduction integrated transmission.

Battery

The Gen I EV1 models, released in 1996, used lead-acid batteries, and weighed in at 3,086 pounds (1,400 kg). The first batch of batteries were provided by GM's Delphi branch; these were rated at a mere 53 amp-hours at 312 volts, and provided the initially mediocre range of 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge. Gen II cars, released in 1999, used a new batch of lead-acid batteries provided by Panasonic; some Gen I cars were retrofitted with this battery pack. The Japanese batteries were rated at 60 amp-hours (18.7 kWh) at 312 volts, and increased the EV1's range to 75 to 100 miles (120 to 160 km). Soon after the rollout of the second generation cars, the originally intended nickel metal hydride (NiMH) "Ovonic" battery pack, which reduced the car's curb weight to 2,908 pounds (1,319 kg) entered production; this pack was also retrofitted to earlier cars. The NiMH batteries, rated at 77 amp-hours (26.4 kWh) at 343 volts, gave the cars a range of 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge, more than twice what the original Gen I cars could muster.

It took the NiMH-equipped cars as much as eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity (though an 80% charge could be achieved in between one and three hours). The Panasonic battery pack consisted of twenty-six 12 volt, 60 amp-hour lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 megajoules (18.7 kWh) of energy. The NiMH packs contained twenty-six 13.2 volt, 77 Ah nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 megajoules (26.4 kWh) of energy.

Driving Experience

The EV1's interiorThe experience of driving an EV1 was unlike a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle. The EV1's drag coefficient of 0.19 was the lowest of any production automobile in history, while typical production cars have Cd's in the 0.3 to 0.4 range. The EV1's clean shape meant it produced less wind noise at highway speeds, providing a more comfortable driving experience for its occupants. At lower speeds, and when stationary, the car produced little to no noise at all, save for a slight whine from the single-speed gear reduction unit. The car's smooth shape, waterfall tail and rear fender skirts gave it a distinctive appearance, reminiscent of an updated, 2-door Citroën DS. The EV1 had no analog dials, and all instrumentation readouts were displayed in a single thin curved strip mounted high on the dashboard, just underneath the windshield.

Thanks to the on-demand torque output of the electric motor, the EV1 could accelerate from 0–50 mph (0–80 km/h) in 6.3 seconds, and from 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in eight seconds. The car's top speed was electronically limited to 80 mph (130 km/h). At the time of release, the lead-acid battery-equipped EV1 was the only electric car produced which met all of the United States Department of Energy's EV America performance goals.

The home charger provided by GM, which was required for "fast recharging" of the car, measured roughly 1.5 by 2 by 5 feet (0.5 by 0.6 by 1.5 m), and featured integrated heatsinks and a resemblance to a gasoline pump. The charger refueled the car using induction, accomplished by inserting a Magne Charge paddle into the slot between the EV1's headlights. The wireless charging technology meant that no direct connection was made, and charging the car while it was raining did not pose any risks, though there were isolated incidents involving fires starting at the charge port. GM also offered a 120 V AC convenience charger that could be used with any standard North America power socket to slow-charge the battery pack. The convenience charger was not available for EV1s equipped with the NiMH battery packs. Installation of the device took between one and two weeks, at an additional average cost of $2500.

Analysis of Success vs. Failure

The EV1 is seen as both a technological milestone and a business failureThe view of the EV1 as failure is a controversial one in itself. When viewed as an attempt to produce a viable EV product, it was a success, while certainly from GM's perspective not a commercial success as the high profit margins seen with internal combustion engine vehicles remained elusive. If one considers the vehicle as a technological showpiece—a production electric car that actually could replace a gasoline powered vehicle—the program's outcome is less clear. The EV1 was produced for the consumer market, and many lessees found driving an EV1 to be a favorable experience. On that basis, EV1 might qualify as the most successful electric car ever built.

Some analysts have suggested that it is inappropriate to compare the EV1 with existing gasoline powered commuter cars as the EV1 was, in effect, a completely new product category that had no equivalent vehicles to be judged against.

Costs

GM based the lease payments for the EV1 on an initial vehicle price of US$33,995. Lease payments ranged from around $299 to $574 per month, depending on the availability of state rebates.[citation needed] Since GM did not offer consumers the option to purchase at the end of the lease, the car's residual value was never established, making it impossible to determine the actual full purchase price or replacement value. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs; other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000. GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.

Related Development

EV1 shown plugged into charging stationGeneral Motors revealed several prototype variants of the EV1 drivetrain at the 1998 Detroit Auto Show. The models included diesel/electric parallel hybrid, gas turbine/electric series hybrid, fuel cell/electric version and compressed natural gas low emission internal combustion engine version. In addition, during this period, GM reorganized their electronics divisions (amongst them Hughes Electronics and Delco Divisions) into Delco Propulsion Systems in order to attempt to commercialize this technology in niche markets. Several non-affiliated companies purchased inverter and drivetrain systems from DPS for vehicle/fleet conversion purposes.

The new platform was a four-passenger variant of the EV1, lengthened by 19". This design was based on an internal (GM) program for a more "marketable" EV begun during the proof of concept phase of the EV1's development. During the original EV1 R&D period, focus groups indicated one of the major market limiting factors of the original EV1 was its two seater configuration. GM investigated the possibility of making the EV1 a four seater, but ultimately determined that the increased length and weight of the four seater would reduce vehicle's already limited range to 40–50 miles - placing the first ground up electric car's performance squarely in the pack of aftermarket gas vehicle conversions. Understandably, the company elected to produce the lighter two seater design.

For hybrid and electric vehicles, the battery pack was upgraded to 44 NiMH cells, arranged in "I" formation down the centerline, which could fully recharge in just 2 hours using onboard 220 V induction charger; additional power units were installed in the trunk, thus complementing the 3rd generation 137 hp AC Induction electric motor installed in the hood. Hybrid modifications retained the capability of all-electric ZEV propulsion for up to 40 miles (64.4 km).

EV1 CNG

The compressed natural gas (CNG) variant was the only non-electric vehicle in the line-up, even though it employed the same up-stretched platform. It used a modified Suzuki 1.0-liter turbocharged 3-cylinder all-aluminum OHC engine installed under the hood. Due to the high octane rating of the CNG (allowing for a greater compression ratio), this small engine was able to deliver 72 hp at 5500 rpm.

The batteries were replaced with two CNG tanks capable of maximum operating pressure of 3000 psi. The tanks could be refueled from a single nozzle in only 4 minutes. In-tank solenoids shut off the fuel during refueling and engine idle, and a pressure relief device safeguarded against excessive temperature and pressure. With the help of a continuously variable transmission, the car accelerated 0 to 60 mph (96.6 km/h) in 11 seconds. The maximum range was 350 to 400 miles, and fuel economy was 60 mpg (in gasoline equivalent) .

EV1 Series Hybrid

EV1 series hybrid prototype at EVS-16 in Beijing, 1999The series hybrid prototype had a gas turbine engine APU placed in the trunk. A single-stage, single-shaft, recuperated gas turbine unit with a high-speed permanent-magnet AC generator was provided by Williams International; it weighed 220 lb (99.8 kg), measured 20 inches (50.8 cm) in diameter by 22 inches (55.9 cm) long and was running between 100,000 and 140,000 rpm. The turbine could run on a number of high-octane[citation needed] alternative fuels, from octane-boosted gasoline to compressed natural gas. The APU started automatically when the battery charge dropped below 40% and delivered 40 kW of electrical power, enough to achieve speeds up to 80 mph (128.8 km/h) and to return the car's 44 NiMH cells to a 50% charge level.

A fuel tank capacity of 6.5 US gal (24.6 L; 5.4 imp gal) and fuel economy of 60 mpg-US (3.9 L/100 km; 72 mpg-imp) to 100 mpg-US (2.4 L/100 km; 120 mpg-imp) in hybrid mode, depending on the driving conditions, allowed for a highway range of more than 390 miles (627.6 km). The car accelerated to 0-60 mph (96.6 km/h) in 9 seconds.

There was also a research program that powered the series hybrid Gen2 version from Stirling engine based generator. The program demonstrated the technical feasibility of such drivetrain, but concluded that commercial viability was out of reach at that time.

EV1 Parallel Hybrid

EV1 Fuel Cell

Who Killed the Electric Car

Paste From: http://www.westhillscollision.com/upperv.php?article=ev1