Slashdot Mirror


Motorola Makes Gasoline Powered Cell Phones

Wister285 writes "Well, now that PDAs are integrated with cell phones, you'll need some extra juice to power that thing. Motorola seems to think that the next generation of cell phones needs to be powered by gas (fuel cells). Supposedly these cell phones can last for a whole month without needing to be recharged. Batteries are not being eliminated since the "power plant" of the phone is located on the user's belt. Seems interesting. Gives a whole new meaning to "Fill 'er up!""

17 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Gas, Not Gasoline by bellings · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first paragraph of the article (which is all I bothered to read, but that's still more than CmdrTaco) clearly says "methane gas-powered", not "gasoline powered".

    --
    Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    1. Re:Gas, Not Gasoline by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first paragraph of the article ... clearly says "methane gas-powered", not "gasoline powered".

      Which also explains why the fuel cell is attached to the user's belt. ;-)

    2. Re:Gas, Not Gasoline by J.Random+Hacker · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure how minor the variations would be. Last I knew, all fuel cells were based on the 2H+O->H2O, where the -> also produces a current. There was research on other types of fuel cells that could "burn" (e.g. oxidize to produce a current) methane (say) in this same manner, but i don't recall any success. What has worked is a process where a hydrocarbon (like methane or gasoline) is cracked to produce H2 and a residue, usually CO2, but sometimes with a quanity of CO as well.

      That said, the thing that has to change to burn another fuel is the cracking catalyst. I suspect that the methane catalyst is the easiest to handle, since the operating temperature is reasonably close to room temperature, as opposed to gasoline cracking catalysts, which operate at much higher temperatures, last I knew (which was 15 years ago -- much may have changed since I was a Chemical Engineer professionally).

      Does anyone out there have more recent info on fuel cell technology?

    3. Re:Gas, Not Gasoline by SnugBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, to have a fuel cell run off anything other than pure hydrogen requires a reformate process which takes a lot of power and space. The use of methane is only possible becuase the there are Proton Exchange Membranes avaialable that can extract hydrogen directly from methane using different catalyist loadings on the anode. While it is possible to run a cell from methane the effeciency is much lower than that of a hydrogen fuel cell, and the chances of the PEM fouling are much higher.
      It is so disturbing to see people commenting on stories with so much authority, when it is quite obvious that they have no idea what they are talking about (not particularly you FencePost, its just that I have seen many Fuel Cell realated stories posted here, and people make comments on them like they are experts). I am a Mechanical Engineer deeply involved in fuel cell research, and I would never assume to open my mouth in a forum about Networking protocols and such. Please have the same repsect and do not pretent to be an authority when you are not (again, not directed on you FencePost, your comment was fairly tame, it just so happenes I am responding to this post when feeling this way)

  2. more risks by stilwebm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great. As if it wasn't bad enough to share the road with people trying to hold on to a cigarette and a cell phone more than they are hanging on to their 3+ ton SUV. Now they are going to be catching on fire too.

  3. Fuel Cells by alnapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could this be the "Killer App" for fuel cells?
    They won't get cheaper untill there's a mass market, cell phones could be the answer.

    1. Re:Fuel Cells by dolanh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cell phones are pretty efficient already, IMHO. My Nokia 6185 battery lasts plenty long for me.

      Where this tech will find it's "killer app" is in the gas-guzzlers of the portable market -- the PDA/Cell-phones (as the article states), the color PDAs, and probably laptops eventually.

      I just hope this doesn't create another disposable tech. The article said nothing about any environmental side effects.

  4. correction by psych031337 · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the link:

    Motorola researchers announced Tuesday that they have successfully demonstrated a methane gas-powered fuel cell, which can provide enough juice between chargings for a month of cell phone calls.

    The way i understand it, it works as follows:

    1. You buy the fuel cell powerplant which is slightly smaller than a standard battery
    2. You keep using you phone as usual - recharging the normal battery when it goes flat.
    3. If you are out in the fields with no electricity or in a hotel without your charger, you hook up the phone with the flat battery to the fuelcell to recharge the normal battery
    4. After charging the devices are disconnected from each other and you keep using your phone like you are used to...

    I kinda like the idea, but hope for flexibility in the fuelcell device. It sure would kick ass if i not only could "refuel" my cell but also my PDA, MP2 player or whatever gizmo is currently hungry.

    --
    +++ath0
  5. Re:Wrong Solution by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Methane isn't just a natural resource and can easily be synthesized, hence you can view it purely as a very clean chemical battery: Expend some energy creating a CH4 molecule, and then extract the energy catalyzing with oxygen (or whatever).

  6. Wow, the batteries can now outlast my wallet... by ScooterComputer · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ooooh, that's great. The thing can stay powered up longer, but I doubt I can afford to use it.

    I was at the Sprint PCS store the other day looking at the Kyocera and Samsung Palm phones. Pretty cool. I have a Palm VIIx with Palm net, but to have a PIM, a network appliance, AND a phone would just be cool. Anyhow, Palm.net charges not by TIME, but by BIT...and this makes sense, as the data services are low-bandwidth and bursty. Just as it should be for a handheld device. Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39. I can go a whole month on Palm.net for $12, checking my email several times per day. I figured I'd rack up close to $50 on Sprint--and that's not allowing for actually GETTING any mail. I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.

    Apparently, the Kyocera and Samsung phones actually use a digital modem and connect to an ISP, rather than simply talking to the "network" like Palm.net. So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.

    So does anyone know of any providers that actually have a cool phone/Palm/data network worth needing extra battery life--that don't charge by the minute?

    --
    Scott
    "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
    1. Re:Wow, the batteries can now outlast my wallet... by snafu · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39.

      To be clear. Sprint PCS charges

      • $0.39/minute for "data" calls, plus it uses up minutes accoring to your plan.
        or
      • about $6/month for "Wireless Web" which gives you "data" calls and "WAP" (built-in phone.com browser) browsing which use up your minutes according to your plan (but no extra charges)
      It's not the best, it's not the worst.

      I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.

      AT&T wireless has free "pocket net" service but you have to buy the worst phones they sell (Ericsson). Sadly the Nokia phones don't do it. AT&T's "pocket net" -- from my understanding -- uses the same BellSouth network that Palm VII (Palm.net?) uses; thus is uses a totally different frequency and stuff to access, it's not just a matter of making a "data call".

      You can pay more (2 other pay levels) to get a pop-box and some other stuff (not sure what).

      ....So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.

      Yup. It's slow too. But it works. I use Sprint PCS for this data-stuff, and it's functional, but not amazing.

  7. Mercaptan (Re:A conversation in the car pool....) by isdnip · · Score: 5, Informative

    Methane doesn't stink. It's basically odorless.

    Natural gas doesn't smell by itself. Distributors add methyl mercaptan to it in order to make it smell, so that leaks can be found. (Walk up and down the street in front of my house any day of the year and you'll smell it coming from the rather porous old Boston Gas/Keyspan pipes. They make repairs when their leak detector shows the concentration getting scary.) Mercaptan was chosen because it, well, has a strong and distinctive smell. Acetylene smell similar but is itself explosive.

    This practice began after a very unfortunate incident in the 1930s. The public school in London, Texas had been heated by gas that was being, uh, skimmed off of a pipeline passing from a nearby well. The connection wasn't exactly professional. A leak sprang, and gas accumulated in the basement, reaching serious concentrations without being noticed. It blew the school sky-high, killing about 200 people, including most of the children, largely wiping the town off the map. (The town, near Tyler, was renamed New London; it now has about 900 inhabitants.)

    People nowadays appreciate methane's properties a bit better. A little cartridge to power a fuel cell should not be a problem.

  8. Not stupid. (was Re:Stupid idea.) by Fly · · Score: 3, Informative

    What are the added moving parts to which you are referring? Fuel cells do not use moving parts. Searching on Google took me about 15 seconds to find this page:
    http://216.51.18.233/whatis.html
    It shows a simple diagram of a fuel cell. It has the same number of moving parts as a conventional battery.

    Can someone please change the headline so it doesn't say "gasoline-powered?"

    end of line

    --
    end of line
  9. Background Information by gunnk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This technology appears to be some I've read about previously (as far back as 98). You can see the Los Alamos press release or an ABC News article (with a pic). Both give a little more background and tech info on the cells.

    --
    Life is short: void the warranty.
  10. Fuel Cell Link by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
    here is a links on Fuel Cells:

    http://www.fuelcells.org/

    Good introduction.

    Strangely enough, I do recall the proposal to use gasoline for fuel cells, say in cars, for pollution control, etc. The idea is that you need to have a cheap source of hydrogen and oxegen. And you do not what to use tap water because of the impurities. (never mind that producing a system that could handle impurities would cut the legs from under the Oil Companies)

    Any number of complex hydrocarbons could be used as a fuel for such a system. Methane is just one.

    And the one that some people like is to derive the hydrogen and carbon from ordinary gasoline. Although this is a wild mix of things, it has the advantadge of that it continues to feed the Oil Companies, and it takes advantadge of the distribution system already in place.

    Technology is partly based on the profit center, after all.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  11. Re:Stupid person. by trcooper · · Score: 3, Informative

    One, this could allow a cell phone battery to last months, not days. Two, it's a clean independent fuel source. Three, how many moving parts do you think there are? Plug it in, you push down a lever that releases an amount of methane into a chamber. Know how long a Bic lighter can last? Certainly longer than most folks keep their phones. Cell phone makers ALREADY consider their devices disposable. Motorola's Timeport with OLED will burn out with regular use in about 3 years.

    Finally, this has more application than just phones. Laptops, PDA units, GPS units, tools, toys could all use this technology. This allows people not to be tethered to power lines to use these devices.

    Fuel cells offer a great alternative to conventional energy sources. They promise a cheap portable and realistic power source. Its not a stupid idea. Its a forward thinking idea that has a lot of potential.

  12. Re:Stupid person. by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget the most important propertis.

    -Most of the waste in a standard battery is highly toxic, regardless of which battery technology you choose, with the only differentiating factor being how deadly. The only waste from one of these fuel cells will be a little platic canister that may take eons to degrade, but environmentally will resemble a rock.

    -Buy a pack of batteries and let them sit 6 months before you put them to use. How often do you use that flashlight? Do you check to batteries regularly to make sure that it will work when needed? Assuming a reliable enclosure system, methane cells will easily have a shelf life of something bordering on FOREVER!

    -Batteries are damned inneficient. AC power is produced from burning fossil fuels, travels over miles of cables, gets stepped down through several transformers, converted to a DC and then very innefficiently charges the battery. Even when your not using you device, the charge slowly drains from the battery due to internal currents. Methane cells will deliver all the energy straight to the device, and energy isn't lost during storage.

    There are advantages to miniature feul cells that go far beyond convience.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba