Garden State CLE
21 Winthrop Road • Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 [email protected] !
Video Course Evaluation Form
Attorney Name____________________________________ Atty ID number for Pennsylvania:______________________ Name of Course You Just Watched_____________________ !
Please Circle the Appropriate Answer !Instructors: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent !Materials: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent !CLE Rating: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent!Required: When you hear the bell sound, write down the secret word that appears on your screen on this form. !Word #1 was: _____________ Word #2 was: __________________ !Word #3 was: _____________ Word #4 was: __________________ !What did you like most about the seminar? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ !What criticisms, if any, do you have? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ !
I Certify that I watched, in its entirety, the above-listed CLE Course
Signature ___________________________________ Date ________
Garden State CLE, 21 Winthrop Rd., Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 – 609-895-0046 – fax 609-895-1899
New Jersey Continuing Legal Education Services
Presents…
Technical & Scientific
Defenses in an Alcotest
Case
Table of Contents
1. Alcotest – 7110 – “What’s Under the Hood” –
Evan Levow, Attorney
2. Analysis of Alcotest Foundational Documents –
John Menzel & Robert Ramsey
3. Data Downloads – Analysis & Review
Samuel L. Sachs
4. Top Useful Scientific & Technical Arguments &
Defenses- Panel - Samuel Sachs, Evan Levow, and
John Menzel
Documents & Witnesses Needed to Prove Per Se
Offense Using Alcotest-7110 Evidence
State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008)
I. In General - (Page 134)
(1) the device was in working order and had
been inspected according to procedure;
(2) the operator was certified; and
(3) the test was administered according to
official procedure.
II. Alcotest Documents Needed to be introduced in
Evidence
([W]e have required the routine production in discovery of all of the
foundational documents that might reveal some possible flaw in the
operation of the particular device and we have demanded that the core
foundational documents that establish the good working order of the
device be admitted into evidence. Page 148))
Core Foundational Documents
1. Operator Qualification Card (page 141)
2. Most Recent Calibration Report (page 145)
(Part I Control Tests)
(Part II Linearity Tests)
(Credentials of Trooper who performed Calibration)
3. Most Recent Standard Solution Report Prior to
Defendant’s Test (Page 145)
4. Certificate of Analysis for Solution Used in
Defendant’s Control Tests (Page 145)
5. Alcohol Influence Report (Page 148)
6. Work Sheet A (Page 118 Order page 150)
7. Operator Must Testify (Page 148)
III. Foundational Documents to be Produced
During Discovery (Page 135 and Order on Page
153)
(Absent a pre-trial challenge to the admissibility of the AIR based on
one of the other foundational documents produced in discovery, we
perceive of no reason to require that they be made a part of the record
routinely. (Page 145))
Foundational Documents
(1) Calibrating Unit, New Standard Solution Report, most
recent change, and the operator's credentials of the officer who
performed that change;
(2) Certificate of Analysis 0.10 Percent Solution used in New
Solution Report;
(3) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy Alcotest CU34
Simulator;
(4) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy Alcotest 7110
Temperature Probe;
(5) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy Alcotest 7110
Instrument (unless more relevant NJ Calibration Records
(including both Parts I and II are offered));
(6) Calibration Check (including both control tests and
linearity tests and the credentials of the operator/coordinator
who performed the tests);
(7) Certificate of Analysis 0.10 Percent Solution (used in
Calibration-Control);
III. Foundational Documents to be Produced
During Discovery
(8) Certificate of Analysis 0.04, 0.08, and 0.16 Percent Solution
(used in Calibration-Linearity);
(9) Calibrating Unit, New Standard Solution Report, following
Calibration;
(10) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy Alcotest CU34
Simulator for the three simulators used in the 0.04, 0.08, and
0.16 percent solutions when conducting the Calibration-
Linearity tests;
(11) Draeger Safety Certificate of Accuracy Alcotest 7110
Temperature Probe used in the Calibration tests; and
(12) Draeger Safety, Ertco-Hart Digital Temperature
Measuring System Report of Calibration, NIST traceability.
IV. Data Downloads (page 90)
Similarly, the Special Master recommended, and the parties by and
large agree, that the State should create and maintain a centralized
database of information regularly uploaded through modem (Special
Master's Finding 7), and that defendants should have access to centrally
collected and maintained data on their own cases, as well as to the
compiled scientific data on matters involving others that has been
redacted to shield the personal information related to those other
individuals as appropriate (Special Master's Finding 2(h)).FN20
Our
review of the record satisfies us that there is substantial, credible
evidence that supports the Special Master's recommendation
concerning the creation and maintenance of a regularly-updated
database, as well as his recommendation relating to providing access to
that data to defendants.
FN20. The amicus NJSBA suggests that defendants should have access
to previously downloaded, centrally collected data. We do not perceive
this to be different from the Special Master's recommendation in this
regard and the extent of the access to be afforded to any litigant does
not appear to be a matter in dispute. In the absence of any suggestion in
the record that there is a genuine difference of agreement among the
parties on this matter, we see no need to address it further.
Order (Page 153)
Create and maintain a centralized statewide database, comprised of
downloaded Alcotest results, and shall make the data, following
appropriate redactions of personal identification as needed, available to
defendants and counsel.
V. Pending Amendments to Rule 7:7-7
(f) Time and Procedure. A defense request for discovery shall be made
contemporaneously with the entry of appearance by the defendant's attorney,
who shall submit a copy of the appearance and demand for discovery
directly to the municipal prosecutor. If the defendant is not represented, any
requests for discovery shall be made in writing and submitted by the
defendant directly to the municipal prosecutor. The municipal prosecutor
shall respond to the discovery request in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this rule within 10 days after receiving the request. Unless otherwise ordered
by the judge, the defendant shall provide the [government] prosecutor with
discovery, as provided by paragraph (c) of this rule, within 20 days of the
prosecuting attorney's compliance with the defendant's discovery request.
Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, the parties may exchange
discovery through the use of e-mail, internet or other electronic means.
(g) Continuing Duty to Disclose; Failure to Comply. If a party who has
complied with this rule discovers, either before or during trial, additional
material or names of witnesses previously requested or ordered subject to
discovery or inspection, that party shall promptly notify the other party or
that party's attorney of the existence of these additional materials and
witnesses. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to
the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or
with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order that party to
permit the discovery, inspection, copying or photographing of materials not
previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from
introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order
as it deems appropriate.
VI. State v. Holup, 253 N.J. Super. 320, 325-326
(App. Div. 1992)
By way of clarification of the situation where discovery has not been
provided, we would also recommend that defense counsel serve a
motion, on the papers, with certification similar to R. 1:6-2, upon the
municipal prosecutor, filing the original with the municipal court
seeking an order limiting time for the production of discovery and upon
the municipal prosecutor's failure to do so, dismissal of the action. Such
an application and the ensuing order would alert the municipal
prosecutor and enforcement authorities to their discovery
responsibilities and avoid the inconvenience to litigants and witnesses
that occurs with such frequency when all parties appear in court for
trial. Another salutary affect of such a practice is to expedite the
processing of cases by assuring both sides of the certainty of the trial
date and eliminating the unnecessary work, expense and delay resulting
from the continuance of a case because the discovery process has not
been completed.
In the State's brief counsel infers that the sanction imposed by the
Law Division judge would be paid by the municipality. We believe that
sanctions imposed pursuant to R. 1:10-5 in the form of relief to a
litigant, in the municipal court context, will only rarely be paid by the
municipality. If the failure is that of the municipal prosecutor, then the
burden falls personally upon that officeholder. After all, the
municipality relies upon the municipal prosecutor to perform his job
properly and with due diligence and should not be charged with paying
for his individual failures.
VI. State v. Holup, 253 N.J. Super. 320, 325-326
(App. Div. 1992)
Lastly, we are constrained to comment on the effect of R. [7:7-2(a)]
which permits motions in the municipal courts to be made “orally and
informally.” As our municipal courts mature and become responsible
for the disposition of more complex, more serious in terms of penal
consequence and more communally important cases, more formal
practices become essential. We understand that much of the subject
matter in controversy in the municipal courts is minor and, in such
cases, informal practices should continue, but in the more significant
cases, a more careful, thorough procedure is warranted. There is a
recognizable difference in the analysis of the discovery in a drunk
driving case as compared to one involving a stop light violation. The
mere fact that the Court Rule allows informality does not give broad
license to counsel. Motions and supporting documents assist the
municipal court judge in making a fair and considered decision. A
motion limiting the time for completion of discovery in this case would
have ensured notice to the prosecutor and avoided the waste of time by
defendant, the expert witness and defense counsel.
DONINI & RAMSEY
448 HAMILTON AVENUE
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08609
(609) 396-7979
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
___________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY : HAMILTON TWP. MUNICIPAL COURT
MERCER COUNTY
Plaintiff :
vs. : SUMMONS NO.
SCOTT A. BROWN :
CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT RAMSEY
Defendant :
____________________________
I, Robert Ramsey, of full age do certify the following to be true:
1) I am an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey.
2) On or about January 18, 2001, I entered my appearance in the above
captioned matter pursuant to Rule 7:7-9. At the time I entered my appearance
with the Court, I simultaneously served a copy of my letter of appearance with the
prosecutor and included a demand for discovery consistent with Rule 7:7-7(b).
3) Within thirty days of the entry of my appearance, I had not received any
discovery from the municipal prosecutor. As a result, I wrote a separate letter to
the prosecutor and once again made a demand for discovery upon him.
4) To date, I have had no response from the municipal prosecutor and have
been unable to prepare the defense in this case.
5) My client has been charged with a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a), driving
under the influence of alcohol. The police alleged from the motor summons that
this offense took place on January 10, 2001.
6) I have reason to suspect that there is significant evidence in possession
of the state, which will help me prepare my case and put forth an appropriate for
my client. Without this information, my client and I are not able to prepare the
matter for trial or other disposition.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true to the best of
my knowledge. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are
willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
___________________________
Robert Ramsey
Dated: January 12, 2008
DONINI & RAMSEY
448 HAMILTON AVENUE
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08609
(609) 396-7979
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
___________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY : BORDENTOWN TWP. MUNICIPAL
COURT
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Plaintiff :
vs. : SUMMONS NO.
SCOTT A. BROWN :
NOTICE OF MOTION
Defendant : PURSUANT TO RULE 1:6-2
___________________________
TO: John Doe, Municipal Prosecutor
Hamilton Township Municipal Court
222 Slabtown Road
Matthewville, New Jersey 08648
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date to be set by the Court, the
undersigned counsel will move for an Order limiting the time for the production of
discovery upon the State of New Jersey. In the event the municipal prosecutor
fails to comply with the ensuing Order of the Court a dismissal of the within action
and sanctions to be paid by the municipal prosecutor pursuant to Rule 1:10-3.
In support of the within application, the undersigned counsel will rely upon
the annexed certification, oral argument and the rule of law established by the
Appellate Division in State vs. Holup, 253 N.J.Super 320 (App.Div.1992).
DONINI & RAMSEY
448 HAMILTON AVENUE
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08609
(609) 396-7979
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
___________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY : HAMILTON TWP. MUNICIPAL COURT
MERCER COUNTY
Plaintiff :
COMPLAINT NOS.
vs. :
SCOTT A. BROWN :
ORDER
Defendant :
___________________________
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon a Motion of Donini &
Ramsey, Esquires, Robert Ramsey, Esquire, representing the defendant, Scott A.
Brown, and good cause having been shown;
IT IS ON THIS __________ DAY OF __________, 2008;
ORDERED that discovery in the above captioned matter be provided by the
municipal prosecutor to the defense within ten days; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the absence of the production of
discovery within this time period, the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss the
within complaint and to grant sanctions pursuant to Rule 1:10-3.
______________________________________
J.M.C.
Barred from using discovery at trial.
Top Useful Scientific & Technical Arguments &
Defenses- Panel
Samuel L. Sachs, Alcotest Expert
1. Plus or minus 5% (State v. Lentini, 240 N.J.
Super. 330 (App. Div. 1990))
2. Patterns of Repeated Failures (Data
Downloads)
3. Repair Records & Fuel Cell Replacement
4. Data Integrity & Completeness
5. Defective calibration, certification, linearity and
new standard solution sequence.
Attorney Discovery Review
Purge time less than 2 minutes
Blank Data Fields on AIR
Unsigned AIR
Top Useful Scientific & Technical Arguments &
Defenses- Panel
John Menzel, Attorney
1. Data Completeness
2. Otherwise undisclosed
3. Environmental Issues & RFI
4. “Blowing” Refusals
5. Quality of Breath Samples
Attorney Discovery Review
Twenty-minute observation issues
Transport to another department
Outdated Discovery Documents
Temperature Probe
Mouth Pieces
Link the Documents
Work the Numbers
Top Useful Scientific & Technical Arguments &
Defenses- Panel
Evan Levow, Attorney
1. Get Five Prior Reports from Same Officer
2. Street PBTU (Brady Materials/Confusion)
3. “You Give Me Fever!” Breath Temperature
4. No Checks on Breath Tube Temperature
5. Tolerances Between EC and IR Results
Attorney Discovery Review
Officer’s Instruction in Refusal Case (Language)
Confusion & State v. Spell, 196 N.J. 537 (2008)
Errors (Mouth Alcohol/Plateau not Reached)
Check Expiration Dates in Officer Cards
!Loo
king�Und
er�th
e�Hoo
d/Technical&
ScientificDefen
sesinan
AlcotestC
ase
Technical�&
�Scientific�Defen
ses�in�an�Alcotest�C
ase
May�22,�200
9Evan�M
.�Levow
Dra
eger
50 Y
ears
Alc
otes
t:19
53Alcotest�Rö
hrchen
/Tube
1953
1980
1981
AlcotestRö
hrchen
�/�Tub
e
Alcotest�7
310
Alcotest�7
010
Draeger�Alcotest��
Breath�alcoh
ol�te
sting�worldwide
1983
1988
1991
Alcotest�7
110�MK�I
Alcotest�7
410
Alcotest�7
110�MK�II
1992
1994
1996
Alcotest�7
410�Printer
Alcotest�7
110�MK�III (
)19
96
1997
2002
Alcotest�7
410�Plus�(R
S)
Alcotest�7
110�Mk�III�C
Alcotest�E
PAS
2002:
EPAS
Eviden
tial,�Portable�Alcoh
oltesting�System
�with�pa
lm�
compu
termag
card
read
eran
dcompu
ter,�mag�card�read
er�and
�printer
1998
:A
lcot
est 7
110
MK
III
-C
Infrared
�and
�electroche
mical�sen
sor
Measuremen
t�of�
breath�te
mpe
rature
!Loo
king�Und
er�the
�Hoo
d/
The
711
0 em
ploy
s tw
o di
ffer
ent t
echn
olog
ies
capa
ble
of a
naly
zing
and
mea
suri
ng th
e sa
me
ib
id
dh
li
spec
imen
by
two
inde
pend
ent t
echn
olog
ies:
IR
spe
ctro
scop
y an
d Fu
el C
ell t
echn
olog
y.
Cla
imed
Feat
ure:
Cla
imed
Fea
ture
:T
he 7
110
dem
ands
the
follo
win
g m
inim
um
requ
irem
ent (
defa
ult)
to d
eter
min
e an
alv
eola
r, d
hl
tib
thl
end-
exha
latio
n br
eath
sam
ple:
-M
inim
um fl
ow r
ate:
2.5
L/M
in.
-Min
imum
bre
ath
volu
me:
1.5
Lite
r-M
inim
um b
low
dur
atio
n: 4
.5 s
econ
ds-S
lope
det
ectio
n-S
top
blow
ing
Stop
blo
win
g
Cla
imed
Ben
efit:
An
inte
rnat
iona
lly a
ccep
ted
brea
th te
st
sam
plin
g re
quir
emen
ts
pg
equ
ee
Dra
eger
Cla
imed
Fea
ture
:T
h71
10i
tifi
db
NH
TSA
dh
The
711
0 is
cer
tifie
d by
NH
TSA
and
as s
uch
publ
ishe
d on
the
Con
form
ing
Prod
ucts
Lis
t (C
PL) a
s an
EB
T.
Dra
eger
Cla
imed
Ben
efit:
Bas
ic p
erfo
rman
ce r
equi
rem
ent a
nd
cert
ifica
tion
inth
eU
SA
cert
ifica
tion
in th
e U
.S.A
.
Conn
ector�po
rts�/�ON�/OFF�Switch
41
ON�/OFF�Switch
2AC�receptacle
3Fuses
45
3Fuses�
412
�V�Con
nector�port
5Keyboard
port
5Keyboard�port
6RS�232
7Functio
n�key
and�Tempe
rature�probe
12
36
7
All�conn
ectio
ns�are�located�on
�the�backside
�of�the
�instrumen
t.
Dual�Sen
soric
Mot
or
Pist
on
Posi
tion
Switc
h
Out
let
EC S
enso
r
Sim
ulat
or in
let
Mirr
orM
irror
Inpu
t Tub
e
Cyli
nder
Volt.
/Cur
r.C
onve
rter
EC S
enso
r
Mirr
orM
irror
Sam
ple
Cha
mbe
rIR
em
itter
IR d
etec
tor w
ith9.
5 um
filte
r
ELEC
TRO
CH
EMIC
AL S
ENSO
R(F
UEL
CEL
L SE
NSO
R)
Flow
Sen
sor
Airb
lank
/ D
ry-G
asin
let
Brea
th in
INFR
ARED
CU
VETT
E(IR
SEN
SOR
)
The�IR�cuvette�ope
rating�at�9.5�
m
Absorption�cham
ber
Infrared
�Sou
rce
Infrared
�Detector
Flow
�Sen
sor
Gas�(b
reath)�inlet�to
()
cuvette
Cuvette
&l
Draeger&s�Claim
s•Metallic
(solidbrass)cuvettebo
dywith:
Metallic�(solid�brass)�cuvette
body�with:
•�
/Sup
erior3�ethanol�spe
cificity
�@�9.5�m
icron�range
pp
y@
g
•�
/Fully�enclosed,�no�du
st�build�up3
�N
hh
l•
�No�chop
per�w
heel
•�
70ml�volum
e
•�
/Sho
ck�re
sistant�IR�source3
•�
Parabo
lic�gold�coated
�(40�m
)�mirrors
Draeger�Fue
l�Cell
(man
ufacturedby
Draeger)
(man
ufactured�by�Draeger)
Draeger&s�Claim
ed�Features:
�1Alcoh
ol�spe
cific8
p
�1Fast�recovery8
�1Sup
erb�stability8
�1App
rox.�4�6�years�life�expectancy8
BiC
ifh
FlC
llBa
sic�Co
nstruction
�of�the
�Fue
l�Cell
Hou
sing��Ca
se
vapo
r�inlet
vapo
r�outlet
casecase
electrod
e��o
xidatio
n
mem
branewith
Sche
matic�of�the
�hou
sing
bottom
�part
mem
brane�with
electrolyte
electrod
e��red
uctio
n
Mecha
nicaland
Chem
icalCo
mpo
sition
Mecha
nical�and
�Che
mical�Com
position
�of�the
�Fue
l�Cell�M
embran
e
The�mem
brane�plate�is�th
e�.heart/�of�th
e�fuel�cell. catalytic�electrode
�(Platin
um�black)
cond
uctive�layer�(Gold)
porous�m
embrane
cond
uctive�layer�(Gold)
y
catalytic�electrode
�(Platin
um�black)
Sche
matic�diagram
Thb
i�
tfth
tl
td
The�mem
brane�is�
�supp
ort�for�th
e�tw
o�electrod
es.
�matrix�for�the�electrolyte.
�The
�gold�layer�is�to�increase�th
e�electron
ic�con
ductivity
�in�th
e�electrod
e�area.
�The
�catalytic�electrode
s�are�po
rous�Teflon�bo
nded
�platin
um�black�electrode
.�T
he�tw
o�electrod
es�are�identical�on�bo
th�sides
EC
Sen
sor
Out
let
Out
let
HEATER
INF
RA
RE
D C
UV
ET
TE
(IR
SE
NS
OR
)
7
HEATER
INF
RA
RE
D C
UV
ET
TE
(IR
SE
NS
OR
)
7
R
WE
T B
AT
H
SIM
ULA
TO
R4
6
5
R
WE
T B
ATH
S
IMU
LAT
OR
4
6
5
Am
bien
t air
23
1) M
outh
piec
e
2) B
reat
h ho
se
3) P
ump
4) V
alve
5) V
alve
2-w
ay
6) F
low
sen
sor
Am
bien
t air
23
1) M
outh
piec
e
2) B
reat
h ho
se
3) P
ump
4) V
alve
5) V
alve
2-w
ay
6) F
low
sen
sor
DR
Y G
AS
CY
LIN
DE
R
17)
Pre
ssur
e se
nsor
DR
Y G
AS
CY
LIN
DE
R
17)
Pre
ssur
e se
nsor
Intle
t
INF
RA
RE
D C
UV
ETT
E(I
R S
EN
SO
R)
Out
let
HEATER
WE
T B
ATH
S
IMU
LATO
R
7
Out
let
4
6
55
inou
t
23
1) M
outh
piec
e
2) B
reat
h ho
se
DR
Y G
AS
CY
LIN
DE
R
1
3) P
ump
4) V
alve
1-w
ay
5) V
alve
2-w
ay
6) F
low
sen
sor
7) P
ress
ure
sens
or
Cla
imed
Fea
ture
:T
he71
10is
shie
lded
agai
nstr
adio
freq
uenc
yT
he 7
110
is s
hiel
ded
agai
nst r
adio
freq
uenc
y in
terf
eren
ce a
nd h
as a
n op
tiona
l RFI
det
ecto
r to
abo
rt a
ny te
st if
RFI
leve
ls e
xcee
d a
pres
et
liit
limit.
Cla
imed
Ben
efit:
Freq
uent
lyad
dres
sed
inco
urtc
halle
nges
Freq
uent
ly a
ddre
ssed
in c
ourt
cha
lleng
es
Feat
ure:
The
7110
offe
rsop
tiona
lbre
ath
tem
pera
ture
The
711
0 of
fers
opt
iona
l bre
ath
tem
pera
ture
se
nsin
g.
Ben
efit:
“Exh
aled
bre
ath
tem
pera
ture
has
bec
ome
a pr
efer
red
defe
nse
man
euve
rin
vari
ous
cour
tpr
efer
red
defe
nse
man
euve
r in
var
ious
cou
rt
chal
leng
es.
An
incr
easi
ng m
anda
te in
var
ious
t
i”
coun
trie
s.”
Breath�Tem
perature:��Facts,�Problem
�and
�Solution
Breath�Tem
perature:��Facts,�Problem
�and
�Solution
Note:��
Deviation
�of�the
�actua
l�end
�respiratory�breath�tempe
rature�from
�the
�assumed
�34�C�will�eithe
r�over�or�un
derestim
ate�the�true
�alcoh
ol�
concen
tration�by�6.58%
�per�one
�degree�Ce
lsius.
Rather�re
cent�studies�sug
gest�th
at�th
e�average�breath�te
mpe
rature�
is�between�34.5�C�and
�35�C
Man
dates�for�breath�te
mpe
rature�ana
lysis
German
yBu
lgaria
German
yBu
lgaria
Taiwan
Alaba
ma,
U.S.A.
Hon
gKo
ngSouthAustralia
Hon
g�Ko
ngSouth�Australia
Feat
ure:
The
bre
ath
hose
is h
eate
d an
d th
e t
ti
lt
ill
tll
db
tem
pera
ture
is e
lect
roni
cally
con
trol
led
by
sens
ors.
Ben
efit: Tr
aditi
onal
ly, b
reat
h ho
ses
are
only
y,
yhe
ated
but
not
tem
pera
ture
con
trol
led.
M
aint
aini
ng a
nd m
onito
ring
the
tem
pera
ture
ata
pres
ette
mpe
ratu
rete
mpe
ratu
re a
t a p
rese
t tem
pera
ture
al
low
s pr
oper
hea
ter
oper
atio
n an
d pr
even
ts o
verh
eatin
g of
the
brea
th h
ose
whi
ch c
an d
amag
e th
e ho
se m
ater
ial.
Feat
ure:
The
711
0 op
erat
es fr
om 9
0 th
roug
h 26
0 VA
C.
Cla
imed
Ben
efit:
The
sst
emis
imm
neto
olta
gefl
ctat
ions
The
sys
tem
is im
mun
e to
vol
tage
fluc
tuat
ions
.
Feat
ure:
Pow
erco
nsum
ptio
nin
"Rea
dy"
mod
eis
less
Pow
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
in
Rea
dy m
ode
is le
ss
then
40
Wat
ts.
In "
Stan
d-B
y" m
ode,
less
then
15
Wat
ts.
Ben
efit:
To m
inim
ize
heat
bui
ld u
p in
the
inst
rum
ent.
H
eati
sany
elec
tron
ics’
enem
yH
eat i
s any
ele
ctro
nics
ene
my.
N
o ne
ed fo
r ve
ntin
g th
e in
stru
men
t. N
o du
st im
port
.
Feat
ure:
The
711
0 pe
rfor
ms a
“tr
ue”
"Am
bien
t Air
C
hk"
Thi
ili
hd
bt
tiC
heck
". T
his i
s acc
ompl
ishe
d by
ext
ract
ing
an
air
sam
ple
afte
r th
e pu
rge
cycl
e fr
om th
e IR
ch
ambe
r fo
r an
alys
is b
y th
e Fu
el C
ell s
enso
r.y
y
Ben
efit:
Ben
efit:
The
nee
d fo
r a
true
air
bla
nk te
st h
as b
ecom
e th
e ce
nter
poi
nt o
f man
y co
urt c
halle
nges
. Onl
y a
fuel
cell
anal
ysis
ofth
eai
rin
the
IRch
ambe
ra
fuel
cel
l ana
lysi
s of t
he a
ir in
the
IR c
ham
ber
can
prov
ide
assu
ranc
e th
at th
e IR
syst
em is
tr
uly
set t
o ze
ro p
rior
to a
bre
ath
test
.
How
ever
, IT
IS N
OT
set t
o a
true
zer
o.
Feat
ure:
The
7110
can
prov
ide
com
plex
test
data
for
The
711
0 ca
n pr
ovid
e co
mpl
ex te
st d
ata
for
rem
ote
data
col
lect
ion:
•Blo
w ti
me
and
brea
th v
olum
eIR
Ab
ti(
lti
)t
•IR
-Abs
orpt
ion
(rea
l-tim
e) c
urva
ture
•Bre
ath
flow
(rea
l-tim
e) c
urva
ture
•Fue
l cel
l (re
al-t
ime)
cur
vatu
re
Ben
efit:
Opt
imiz
ing
the
test
’s in
tegr
ity
Feat
ure:
The
711
0 pr
ovid
es P
C, m
odem
and
Eth
erne
t in
terf
ace
and
com
mun
icat
ion
capa
bilit
ies.
p
Ben
efit:
To a
llow
711
0 bi
-dir
ectio
nal c
omm
unic
atio
n,
syst
em c
ontr
ol, d
ata
uplo
ad a
nd v
ario
us
serv
ice
and
qual
ity a
ssur
ance
feat
ures
.q
y
Feat
ure:
Com
plet
eca
libra
tion
ofth
e71
10re
quir
esC
ompl
ete
calib
ratio
n of
the
7110
req
uire
s on
ly o
ne s
imul
ator
and
one
bot
tle o
f sol
utio
n.
Thi
s pr
oces
s ta
kes
less
than
5 M
inut
es.
Ben
efit:
Min
imal
labo
r tim
e re
quir
emen
t, m
inim
al
equi
pmen
t and
sup
ply
need
s re
sult
in
subs
tant
ialc
osts
avin
gs.T
here
are
nosu
bsta
ntia
l cos
t sav
ings
. The
re a
re n
o po
tent
iom
eter
adj
ustm
ents
nee
ded.
Cos
t-of
-ow
ners
hip
is th
e m
ost s
igni
fican
t ti
li
tSt
top
erat
iona
l exp
ense
in m
ost S
tate
pro
gram
s.
Obvious
Errorsin71
10Co
deObvious�Errors�in�711
0�Co
de
•Disabled�catastroph
ic�error�detectio
np
•Disabled�error�d
etectio
n�logic���No�
reason
ablene
ss�che
cking
•No�po
sitive�feed
back
•Arbitrary�substitution�of�data�on
�diagnostics�
dfl
and�flo
w�m
easures
•Excessive�Use�of�G
lobal�Variables�re
ducing�
insulatio
nbe
tweenmod
ules
insulatio
n�be
tween�mod
ules
•Incorrect�fun
ctions�as�fund
amen
tal�as�
averaging@averages
andweightedaverages
averaging�
averages�and
�weighted�averages
Obvious
Errorsin71
10Co
deObvious�Errors�in�711
0�Co
de
TIMING�AND�SAMPLING
•A/D�con
verters
•Sine
�wave�is�con
verted
�to�stepp
ed�curve
•Step
s�de
pend
�whe
re�th
e�sine
�curve�is�sam
pled
•Sampling�was�claim
ed�at�1
28/secon
d
/•
Sampling�is�actually�122
/secon
d
•Times/secon
d�are�furthe
r�redu
ced�by�sam
pling�to�8�
12/secon
d12
/secon
d
ErrorsAdm
ittedon
Cross
Errors�Adm
itted�on
�Cross
We�knew
:�
As�fuel�cells�age,�the
y�get�u
sed�up
�and
�drift
Draeger�adm
itted
:�
Drifting�fuel�cells�are�fo
rced
�to�agree�with
�IR�sen
sors
Draeger�LIED:�
�IR�and
�EC�do
�not�cross�che
ck�and
�verify�each�othe
ry
Wha
t�Draeg
er�M
ust�D
o�Fi
hP
blto�Fix�th
e�Prob
lems
REWRITE
CODEFROM
SCRA
TCH
REWRITE�CODE�FROM�SCR
ATCH
�
Dep
loy�code
�correctly,�scien
tifically
�Ado
ptarecognized
standard
�Ado
pt�a�re
cognized
�stand
ard
�Docum
ent�its�cod
ing
�Docum
ent�e
rrors
�Docum
ent�e
rror�correction
Exercise�cod
e�against�h
ardw
are�via�OIM
L�g
proced
ures