Slashdot Mirror
Hitachi Readies Fuel Cell for PDAs
Anuj Jain writes "The Register is reporting that Hitachi and Japanese cigarette lighter maker Tokai will ship a direct methanol fuel cell system for PDAs in 2005. The prototype has already been built. The two companies believe they can develop the prototype into a device the size of a AA battery. Hitachi first demonstrated its fuel cell system back in March. NEC is also known to be working on a similar system of its own, as is Toshiba. Unlike Hitachi, they are targeting the notebook computer market. In October, Toshiba showed off a PDA-sized version of its fuel system that can recharge a mobile phone. Another article here. Light on details, but cool photo in the Reg article!"
there are four (yes, 4) links to theregister up there. the one with the pic is the first one.
There is also a competing technology being developed using sodium borohydride. You can read about it at Wired, at the following URL , http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60305, 00.html
Last I checked, they served 80 proof alcoholic beverages on airplanes. These things use a 20% methanol solution. They're way safer than a nip from the bar cart.
There is zero chance of one catching fire in your pocket too. You can't say that about the LiIon cell in your Tungsten T3.
But it isn't pure hydrogen. They are reforming Methanol, which if I remember correctly, is CH3OH. A lot of us know that the products of the Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel cell is just pure water, but what OTHER products are there for this process? The carbon at least has to be accounted for somehow. I've never seen that answered anywhere. If anybody has a link or something, that would be appreciated.
Erioll
You refill them with liquid fuel. Fuel cells covert chemical (usually liquid) into electricity
The only way the security-paranoid TSA will let this slide would be if it was non-flamable, or in such small quantities it would be harmless. Unfortunately, that would also make the technology useless.
GAH!
1. Read
2. Think
3. Post
It's very simple.
It's right in the story. 20% solution. Non-flamable. In fact the device *can't work* with pure methanol. It needs a 3-6% solution. I'd hardly call making it non-flamable the same as making it useless. Making it non-flamable is the *only way* to make it useful.
Your argument is questionable, GM has an article about an Ethanol fueled car and station in Missouri: http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/ne ws_issues/news/e85_awareness_103003.html
00101010
"Environmental Acceptability - Because fuel cells are so efficient, CO2 emissions are reduced for a given power output. The fuel cell is quiet, emitting only 60 decibels at 100 feet. Emissions of SOx and NOx are 0.003 and 0.0004 pounds/megawatt-hour respectively. Fuel cells can be designed as water self-sufficient. "
The complete reaction is explained there as well.
0x or or snor perron?!
While that is how it is designed, that doesn't mean that someone with nasty intentions couldn't fill them with 100% methanol (or something worse). Unless the TSA uses sensing equipment sensitive enough to tell what concentration of what chemical is in the fuel cells, it would provide good camouflage for the nasties. Of course, we are still talking about really small amounts of stuff, so I bet it would still be difficult for a terrorist to use it to bring down a jet.
Exactly my thought. I can just see it now, Methonol at only $1600/gallon ($5 per 2oz refill @ 20%). Use anything else and we'll find a way to void your warranty.
Luckily we'll have ebay, and it'll you'll be able to buy 10 refills for $.99. Of course, it'll cost you $20 in shipping and handling for the 1.5lb package.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I wouldn't recomend drinking methonol.
I think he meant more that it won't catch on fire, rather than you can safely drink it. The ethanol comparison only referred to relative concentrations of the flamable substance (40% served as drinks, vs 20% in fuel cells, neither of which will light on fire).
For a comparison of safety of chemicals involved, modern batteries contain things that will not only will harm you if ingested, but they will burn skin on contact. Methanol might dry out your skin (like an astringent), but comes nowhere near an actual caustic burn.
One problem with methanol is that it easily soaks right through your skin into your bloodstream. According to one MSDS I have read, the potential exposure level through skin absorption can be comparable to that of directly inhaling methanol vapors.
Be careful!
Are you smoking crack? Alpha emissions are indeed incapable of penetrating our dead outer layer of skin--but that does not make them harmless. If ingested or inhaled, alpha emitters are extremely dangerous. Alpha radiation is a much more effective mutagen (and consequently carcinogen) than beta or gamma radiation, precisely because it has poor penetrating power. All of the energy each alpha particle carries is deposited along a short path, doing significantly more damage--causing things like double-stranded DNA breaks. One mechanism by which cigarettes may cause cancer is mutations in the lungs caused by inhaled polonium-210 particles from tobacco. (Po-210 is an alpha emitter.)
Many alpha emitters are also potent chemical poisons, such that their direct toxic effects on exposure (ingestion) can kill more quickly than their radiological ones. (Plutonium, for instance, falls into this basket.)
People will crush these things inadvertantly, they'll leave them out in the rain, they'll lose them, they'll leave dozens of cells in their office drawers, they'll throw them out with the regular trash, they'll dispose of them by incineration. (All the stupid things that people do with batteries now.)
Power cells containing high specific activity nuclear materials are an interesting concept, but they do not belong in consumer products--because consumers will do incredibly stupid things with them. Radioisotopes require competent supervision.
For the record, I am a physicist.
~Idarubicin