Slashdot Mirror


The Replacement For the Battery?

jackd writes "Great article in Technology Review, bordering on 'too good to be true,' about a small company in Texas that is developing the replacement for the electrochemical battery. The device is a kind of hybrid battery-ultracapacitor based on barium-titanate powders. Quoting: 'The company boldly claims that its system... will dramatically outperform the best lithium-ion batteries on the market in terms of energy density, price, charge time, and safety... The implications are enormous and, for many, unbelievable. Such a breakthrough has the potential to radically transform a transportation sector already flirting with an electric renaissance.'"

318 comments

  1. Sounds great! by Hazclan13 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This sounds wicked however we shall see if it works......

    --
    Harry McLaren - Hazclan13 http://www.kumahosting.co.uk
    1. Re:Sounds great! by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Feh. I want to know two things:
      Watts per kilogram (330) and Watts per cubic centimeter (not derivable from speculations).

      Then I'll be impressed.

      (a 25g AA battery at 1.2v output would store 6875 mAh, assuming a similar density to NiMH. Half of that would impress me.)

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:Sounds great! by chrwei · · Score: 1
      --
      - Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
    3. Re:Sounds great! by jamesjw · · Score: 2, Funny


      It does indeed sound aw.. ahh crap!! low battery warning!!

      -- Jim.

      --
      -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
    4. Re:Sounds great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultracapacitors typically have a much *higher* Watts/kg or Watts/volume than batteries. Their main problem is energy density (watt-hours/kg), not power density.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Supercapacitors _chart.svg

  2. Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Everybody who can pump 90kW into a car battery, please stand up.

    1. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's only 120 horsepower! Now, if only we had some sort of "engine" hooked up to what I like to call a "generator"...

    2. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously going to require a special charging station with a high-power hookup---and it won't be available at home. But when I'm at home, I don't care if my car has to charge overnight.

    3. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why would it?

      For example, your television steps your house current up to a couple thousand volts. At, say, 120kv, your house circuit need only handle 20A (ie: 120kv by 0.02A is 20A at 120v. Given the specs of 280Wh/kg and 100lb [45.5kg] for a vehicle power system, that means we have 12kWh to fill. That means 5 hours for a complete fill-up, or just leaving your car plugged in overnight.)

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    4. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by lhaeh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I wouldn't want 120KV lines in my house, kinda dangerous since they arc 5 feet or so. You would also have to have a transformer to upconvert from street voltage to 120KV, those are expensive. Just because you increase the voltage to offset the current flow, it will not negate the fact that you are sending 12KW through, you need big wires for that.

    5. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A lot of problems here.

      You'd want high voltage to the house, not a high voltage transformer in the house anyway.

      Regardless, transformers for high voltages aren't particularly expensive, you've probably been around more high voltage equipment then you realise:
      - CRT flyback transformers can be had for tens of dollars, they typically do around 30kV
      - Microwave ovens typically power the magnetron with 2kV

      "Just because you increase the voltage to offset the current flow, it will not negate the fact that you are sending 12KW through, you need big wires for that."

      True, but not for the reason I suspect you think this. The wires do not need to be very thick as the current will be small, however the insulation will have to be quite thick because of the high voltage. Primarily you look at the current for conductor thickness, and

    6. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Fordiman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Well I wouldn't want 120KV lines in my house, kinda dangerous since they arc 5 feet or so. "

      Not lines; a line. Proabably with a nice idiot-proof interconnect (so there's never any bare conductor). You could probably do it with a low-voltage/high-current magnetic coupling (also designed to not be 'on' until coupled).

      "You would also have to have a transformer to upconvert from street voltage to 120KV, those are expensive."

      Never heard of a flyback? If not, I don't suggest disassembling your TV. Anyways, they can be had for tens of dollars, or built for less (if you have LOTS of time on your hands)

      "Just because you increase the voltage to offset the current flow, it will not negate the fact that you are sending 12KW through, you need big wires for that."

      You're not sending 12KW through; you're sending 12 kWh through, over the course of five to eight hours. That means your cable has to be rated for 1500-2400W, 12.5-20A@120V at the transformer input, 0.0125-0.02A@12kV at the output.

      Knowing a little Ohm's Law might help you out. Or at least knowing the difference between a Watt and a Watt-Hour.

      Meanwhile, the voltage step up has nothing to do with 'offsetting' the current. Because of the way ultracaps work, you have to fill them using a very high potential difference (or suffer a greatly reduced operating capacity). You then step the voltage back down in the device using it (one of the reasons I don't see this tech in small applications anytime soon).

      Anyway, a 20A/120V line is about 3/8" in diameter, insulator included (you generally see them as the bright orange extension cables). Hell, your air conditioner has thicker than you'd need (they're usually rated for 30A@120V). Truth is, current determines conductor size, so at 0.02A the conductor need not be very thick - though you'd want to bring it back up to the 3/8" diameter using insulator so as to protect from the voltage; I imagine 12kV would hurt a bit.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    7. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Meanwhile, if you don't have time to wait 8 hours (I imagine most people would have it plugged in as they sleep), you pull up to the juice station and plug into their 12kV@30A (360kW) line and be out of there in two minutes flat. It would best be supplied off their own ultracaps that feed off a continous flow of converted 480V 3-phase at 100A apiece (48kW, meaning a 15 minute recovery time per customer. As a station, you'd want lots of extra capacity). I give this setup because there's already infrastructure to install that sort of line.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    8. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or at least knowing the difference between a Watt and a Watt-Hour.


      a. 1 J/s

      b. 36 hJ

      HTH.
    9. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr. Fusion" is standing by, so what is your point?

    10. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Medievalist · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't want 120KV lines in my house, kinda dangerous since they arc 5 feet or so.
      You might want to move your TV and microwave oven out to the garage then. They've got high arc potentials too.
    11. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't agree with u

    12. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      At, say, 120kv, your house circuit need only handle 20A (ie: 120kv by 0.02A is 20A at 120v.

      120 kV tends to only get used for long-distance power transmission lines and such. It's stepped down to somewhere around 3-5 kV at the nearest substation, and stepped down again to 240V (with a center tap for all of your 120V stuff) where it enters your house. It's not likely that they'd step it back up at the "pole pig." If they could safely run 120 kV to your house, they could get rid of most of the substations.

      TFA stated a capacity of 15 kWh. Charging that in 10 minutes means you're drawing 90 kW, which works to a current draw (@ 240 V) of 375 A. Most homes aren't wired to the grid to pull nearly that much current; for instance, my two-bedroom condo (with all-electric appliances) is connected through a 150-A main breaker. Even a larger home isn't likely to need much more than 200-A or 250-A service, and that's to power your whole house--A/C, water heater, stove, clothes dryer, and everything else. If you have some gas appliances instead of electric, your electric utility connection is likely to be lower-current-capable.

      90 kW is a sh*tload of electric power to handle. If you have an electric stove, take a look at the plug it uses sometime. Next, consider that the stove probably pulls only about a tenth as much power (mine says 9.6 kW). What kind of connector would be needed to safely carry 90 kW? Keep in mind that it also will need to handle being connected and disconnected frequently...much more so than your stove, which will probably be plugged and unplugged only once in its lifetime.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    13. Re:Charged in 10 minutes by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Whoopty freaking do.

      The short answer is you're wrong.

      The long answer is you're wrong, and since I already gave you the long answer, you're also too stupid to understand why you're wrong.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  3. Why are they even trying to do cars? by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Leave cars to companies that specialize in cars, like Honda or Ford, that can apply your batteries to already working hybrid or electric cars with manufacturing, distribution and sales in place. If you have amazing [anything] technology - focus on that technology instead of re-inventing its applications.

    1. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are they even trying to do cars?

      Because companies like Honda and Ford won't produce a viable electric car on their own!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Exactly, First make a regular car starter battery. There is already an infrastructure based around 12v batteries: cars, boats, many off-the-grid homes use these or banks of these heavy, limited lifespan lead/acid things that would provide an eager market to replace with a lighter/longerlasting/fastercharging battery.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by mcg1969 · · Score: 1

      Uhh, that's what they're doing. EEStor is not in the car business, they're in the ultracapacitor business.

    4. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope,

      my car battery is cheap, lasts longer than 5 years and just works.

      My laptop battery however is a piece of expensive useless junk.

      Fix broken things not things that are already fixed.

    5. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Becuause the State of the Union speech is tonight?

      Ok, this will sound like conspiracy theory stuff, but is it not interesting that a small company in *Texas* just happens to announce a 10- to 20-fold imrovement on battery technology - and emphasises cars more than they ought to - just when an embattled prez is preparing to announce new domestic energy policies, and is widely blamed for foreign policies that are driving up oil prices?

    6. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Because it's more cost-effective for those companies to keep on selling petrol cars. They have no incentive to make those cars until the market makes them, which isn't happening anytime soon.

    7. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by lukesl · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't live in a very cold climate. When I was growing up, I had to use jumper cables routinely in the winter. I agree with your basic point, but I think that car batteries could still stand some improvement.

    8. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for why companies would focus on cars? Can anyone say untapped market? The first company to produce a truly clean car that's cost effective gets rich, I mean really, really rich. It may not be the most logical place for the technology to be used tomorrow but the first (or second) one into the electric automobile market is hip deep in money. That's enough incentive to work hard in the automotive industry even if you haven't got a clear roadmap of how to get there and can only work on stuff that doesn't matter that much at present.

      You're right the rest is conspiracy theory fluff...what's more I know it's crap by the fact that you got modded insightful on Slashdot. Now if there's any justice in the universe I'll end up "insightful" as well ;).

      That said from the company's standpoint, if I had a product that would help move us a stop closer to eco-friendly transportation I would want to announce it during a speech that will no doubt contain lots of "addiction to oil" and "alternative fuels" talk so while I think your conspiracy theory is crap I wouldn't rule out good timing by the marketing department.

    9. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by arielCo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your car battery, if it were made large enough to hold the same amount of energy as your 50-liter tank, would weigh about 17 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density):

      50 l * 0.74 kg/l (gas) * 46.9 MJ/kg (gas) / 0.1 MJ/kg (Pb batt) = 17353 kg

      For your laptop's battery, that figure improves by a factor somewhere around 6.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    10. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's just the thing. These supercapacitors have wild performance swings over standard Earth temperature ranges. And the problem of freezing lead-acid car batteries has already been solved. It's called the Absorbed Glass Mat battery and it has been on the market since at least 1989 (has always been the OEM battery in the Miata, for example).

    11. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because companies like Honda and Ford won't produce a viable electric car on their own!

      Yep. GM's essentially just waiting for the battery. Honda and Ford will follow suit, or try and get out in front. Either way, once the battery is avaliable, they will put it in their cars.

    12. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by jbailey999 · · Score: 1

      By car battery doesn't drive me around the block. If I got one big enough to do so and retrofit the engine to accept it, it certainly wouldn't last 5 years.

    13. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      my car battery is cheap, lasts longer than 5 years and just works.

      My laptop battery however is a piece of expensive useless junk.

      My 4.2Ah lead-acid battery weighs 1.6kg, my 4.4Ah lithium-ion laptop battery weighs 324g. You might want to carry around an extra three pounds in order to save $150 every couple of years, but the market seems to indicate you are in a very small minority.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    14. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Uh, OK, re-reading your post, that wasn't your point. Oh well. And I actually weighed my laptop battery and everything (data point: 12" iBook batteries weigh 324g).

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    15. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly! That is what I thought of. Most of the meaningful research doesn't come out of nowhere like some no-name startup from the Texas desert. It usually comes gradually from years of peer reviewed research. So on one hand we have thousands of officially recognized experts working on the energy storage problem for years on the other hand we have some unknown start-up from Texas that claims a 10x improvement on battery technology...hmm..let's see who do we believe...?

      This is a typical money making scheme designed for the not so technologically proficient investors _but_ who think they are very smart and finally found the next Microsoft , Intel or Google. Basically people with lots of money and not enough brains when it comes to science.

      The company waits for the President's speech, the President, as predicted, mentions a 20% reduction in gas consumption. The no-name company from TX announces they they have just the solution for the 20% and more reduction in gas consumption! -- Anyone surprised!?

      They rake in investments, then liquidate the company and buy a small island in the Bahamas. Except for the idiots who invested in the company, everyone will forget about this just like they forget about the "free energy breakthroughs" that come in every 3 or 4 years.

    16. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gasoline engine is about 30% effective, electric is about 90% effective - so its not 17 tons, its about 6. It is feasible to hit gas tank equivalent under 5x weight, anything under 10x is expensive.

    17. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You obviously don't live in a very cold climate. When I was growing up, I had to use jumper cables routinely in the winter. I agree with your basic point, but I think that car batteries could still stand some improvement. Don't worry. Thanks to wide spread use of cars, there won't be any cold climates much longer, so this won't be a problem.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    18. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      So on one hand we have thousands of officially recognized experts working on the energy storage problem for years on the other hand we have some unknown start-up from Texas that claims a 10x improvement on battery technology...hmm..let's see who do we believe...?

      I read this in a book. when Texas Instruments announced first IC's using Silicon, the reaction was similar.

      not exact quote, but from my memory:

      Some caller on the phone: "They made transistors with Silicon, in Texas". I wasn't sure if he was more surprised that they did it with Silicon or that they did it in Texas.

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    19. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Global Warming accounts not only for warmer temperatures, but wider temperature swings resulting in colder winters (due to the change in the ocean's convection currents. The warming is also melting our ice caps, until it reaches a critical point where the waters flood the area, and then refreeze, creating another ice age. At least that's the theory I've heard- any climatologists out there, feel free to let me know if our knowledge has changed at all.

    20. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      This is one of the comments that really needs a mod option I've wanted for a long time:

      funny, because its true

      or optionally

      funny, but really sad

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    21. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure they will. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca r/ (flash, sorry)

    22. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Think about how long your laptop would last for using a car battery. :D

      Hmm...Spare Pentium 1 laptop? Check
      Car nearby? Check
      Some copper wire and iron core for a homemade transformer? Damn. I'll have to get some later.

    23. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by xarak · · Score: 1

      How did this get +5 Funny ? Al Gore didn't have mod points, I take it.

      --
      Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
    24. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by julesh · · Score: 1

      They aren't. The cars are being built by a company called ZENN, who have contracted with EEStor to produce the batteries for them. I think they're making a mistake signing an exclusive license deal with an unknown company, but if the product works and they go out of business, the patent will be sold off to a mainstream manufacturer. If it doesn't work, who cares?

    25. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by shitbrain · · Score: 1

      Why do you claim they are making car's when they are not?
      They have teamed up with someone making cars like you sugested.
      While they could have approached the major manufacturers like Ford,
      its often much more to be gained from working with smaller companies.
      You can make a better deal in terms of profit splits, and you
      gain interest from venture capitalists as well as market interest that
      in turn increase the value of the company.
      When the snowball is rolling you will then get serious interest from the big
      guys, and they will be very interesting in securing their position.
      And you then have a much stronger position facing them.

    26. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by feitingen · · Score: 1

      Good luck trying to transform dc currents!

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank.
    27. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Dutch_Cap · · Score: 1

      I believe the established car companies have been and will be reluctant to put out electrical cars. Gasoline cars are more complex and have more moving parts that wear and tear. So producing and servicing gasoline cars is simply much more profitable than producing and servicing electrical cars.

      Also, the excellent documentary "Who killed the electric car" suggests that hydrogen technology is a complete sham, that will always be inferior to battery technology when it comes to efficiency and capacity. The reason the oil and car industry is pushing it, is because there's lots of money to be made in building the new hydrogen infrastructure that would be needed to refuel hydrogen cars. Hydrogen cars are also more complex than electrical cars, thus increasing the profits made from producing and servicing them.

    28. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Global Dimming is what we should all be more concerned about.
      This phenomena is actually ameliorating global warming - Basically, lowering the cooling effect of global dimming will actually increase global warming. So by not using anything that generates reflective pollution will increase global warming. We need to pollute in a specific way to reduce the effects of global warming.

      Reducing carbon emissions only, will reduce global warming with the positive effect of global dimming helping out. Then it may be then possible to reduce global dimming.

      The problem is easy to create, but the solution is hard to apply.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    29. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Branko · · Score: 1
      So producing and servicing gasoline cars is simply much more profitable than producing and servicing electrical cars.

      Hmm... so a company that has the audacity to strongly push the electric car would produce cheaper and more reliable cars and sweep the competition off the market?

      The same happened with Luddites vs. looms, horses vs. railway, and the same will happen with electric vs. gasoline cars, provided technology is good enough.

    30. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      You need a car battery for your Laptop . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    31. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      my car battery is cheap,

      I certainly don't think so. At least not for the relative ammount of work it does.

      lasts longer than 5 years

      As it's only really used to start the vehicle, it gets very little use, and then often dies in less than 5 years.

      and just works.
      ...unless it doesn't.

      My laptop battery however is a piece of expensive useless junk.

      Strange. My laptop battery is only about as expensive as my car battery, does far, far more, lasts longer than 5 years, and just works.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the environment that a car battery lives in is a lot less benign then a laptop. Between the temperature extremes, vibration, shock, and power demands they work remarkably well. Wet cell NiCd and maybe NiFe batteries would work even better but cost more in materials. The newer polymer lithium ion batteries that are used in power tools might work as well but again are more expensive.

    33. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I thought that it was precisely because capacitors have fairly small changes in value over temp that they were being aggressively developed for use in cold-start as battery replacements or supplements, or even as APU replacements in trucks. I'll even quote from that last source (since it takes a bit of scrolling to find the relevant section):
      "Starting can be a problem if batteries are discharged too deeply, a situation all too common in extremely cold weather. Supercapacitors are devices with the ability to store large amounts of current and release it quickly at high energy levels. They replace starting batteries, allowing deep-cycle batteries to provide HVAC and hotel loads.

      Developed in Siberia to start construction equipment in frigid climates, supercapacitors quickly recharge from batteries too weak to start a truck's engine. Although they cost close to $1,000 each, only one is needed and they are still substantially less costly than APUs.

      With supercapacitors, batteries can exclusively power both 12-volt and 120-volt appliances using an inverter. Dollar-for-dollar, battery power may be less expensive than APUs, in terms of both initial and operating costs.

      The ability of batteries to accept a recharge is inversely proportional to ambient temperature. As the climate gets colder, the batteries accept less recharging current. Over time, their state of charge may severely degrade. Cold doesn't affect a supercapacitor." [emphasis mine.]

      Are these sources wrong?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    34. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wow, dude, sounds to me like you just had a shitty car. We've neglected to plug ours in on occasion (a '94 Honda Accord), and it'll start all the way down to at least -20C/-4F. And plugged in, we've *never* had a problem, and it's not unusual for a cold snap to drop us below -30C/-22F.

    35. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by C0y0t3 · · Score: 1

      um... what did you connect the other end of the jumper cables to? Maybe you had a bad battery?

    36. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      You obviously don't live in a very cold climate.

      He doesn't live in the desert, either. Here, you're lucky to get 3 years out of a maintenance-free battery in a daily driver. Heat kills batteries.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    37. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by cbacba · · Score: 1

      If it was a conspiracy, it's by a democrat since bush junior is pushing hydrogen fuel cells, not electric/battery technology. THis doesnt support his position, it implies his position is wrong and that other things are on the verge of sucess without the need for billions of gov. boondoggle dollars.

      Texas is and has been a hotbed for technology, usually on more practical real world applications than one sees on the two coasts so having a high tech battery company here in texas is nothing unusual.

      That battery company CEO is out to push his company as much as possible. If he chose the night of the state of the union to do so intentionally - it's because he hoped to get more publicity for himself and his company by doing so.

    38. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I actually meant that during the cold months, I would often help out other people. My battery was usually fine.

    39. Re:Why are they even trying to do cars? by lukesl · · Score: 1

      My car was basically okay, it was other people's cars. Where I come from, it can get down to -60F, but cars that aren't plugged in generally won't start below -40F (at least mine wouldn't). I think at those temperatures, there is more than just battery problems going on, though.

  4. Miracles Required? by EricBoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've blogged about this EESTOR stuff twice already:

    http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/09/power_s torage_r.html
    http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2007/01/ultraca pacitor.html

    And I remain unconvinced that they are going to actually achieve what they claim. And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed. And we haven't heard anything about "leakage" (or "self-discharge") rates.

    It's all vapor ware until they show us a functioning prototype instead of just bragging about materials purity...

    --
    augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
    1. Re:Miracles Required? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      And I remain unconvinced that they are going to actually achieve what they claim

      Indeed, FTA:

      "I get a little skeptical when somebody thinks they've got a silver bullet for every application, because that's just not consistent with reality," says Andrew Burke, an expert on energy systems for transportation at University of California at Davis.
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Miracles Required? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.

      I'm skeptical as well, but your argument above is silly. I don't have a refinery or a pumping station at my house, yet my car is quite practical.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Miracles Required? by bunions · · Score: 1

      filling a gas tank and charging a battery are surprisingly different propositions.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    4. Re:Miracles Required? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      filling a gas tank and charging a battery are surprisingly different propositions.

      So are filling a tank with gas compared with getting a bag of feed for the horse.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:Miracles Required? by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      Not if the time frame becomes the same.

      Roll up to the pump connect it to the refill tube, press the button hold the handle and it's all done. Now did I flow gas or electrons.

      Who cars as long as I don't attach a gas pump to my electric tank.

    6. Re:Miracles Required? by bunions · · Score: 1

      erm, the point was that the time frames can't become the same because:

      we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    7. Re:Miracles Required? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Why would you need 10kA service? To fill up the 12kWh at home on the spec'ed out batteries, you need 120V@12.5A and an eight hour nap. Don't have that kinda time? Go to your service station which will be happy to fill you up at 12000V@30A (coming directly off their own ultracapacitors which are filling up off 120V@100-500A).

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    8. Re:Miracles Required? by bunions · · Score: 1

      > So are filling a tank with gas compared with getting a bag of feed for the horse.

      well, if it's ok to take as much time to refuel your car as it is to let a horse eat it's fill, then I guess we have no problems.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    9. Re:Miracles Required? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Bigger issue is whether there is enough of the raw materials needed to produce their product on the scales they claim. Short answer: no. Barium isn't a problem, though it's energy intensive to refine, but Titanium supplies are pretty tight, and mostly eaten up by aerospace. Now, maybe they can start with refined TiO2 (which is cheap), and skip the pure metal stage, but I would want to see the synthesis and yields first.

      Iron-Phosphate is much more probable as a battery material, as it's available on the scale needed for automotive uses. Even if the above works, it will probably only be laptops and phones, and then only in places where sudden capacitor failure isn't a hazard.

      Hope I'm wrong, but this is probably a great system that works in the lab and is useful on a small scale. However, VC's want to hear that it's the cure for everything, so there it is.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    10. Re:Miracles Required? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the right solution is the same as with horses: Just like one changed the horses at relais stations, maybe one would simply change batteries at the filling station. Then it wouldn't matter too much how long they need to get refilled, only how long they need to be exchanged.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Miracles Required? by Henneshoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where did you get your 10,000 amp service number?

      TFA states the energy storage of the battery was 15 KWH. Therefore to charge it in 10 minutes would require 90 KW or 375 Amp service at 240 Volts. Now this would be a lot of current for a household circuit but totally within reason for a "filling station". A typical household application (30 Amps at 240 Volts) would be able to charge the battery in 2hrs 5min.

    12. Re:Miracles Required? by adrianmonk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.

      Having a special hookup from the electric company is not the only possible way to charge one of these quickly at home. This electrical engineering problem can be solved with a technique that software guys have been using for quite some time: double buffering. Simply buy another bank of ultracapacitors with a slightly higher capacity (to account for losses), and slowly charge that up overnight, or all day, or whatever. Then, when you want to charge your car, grab some really damn thick cables, hook your car's ultracapacitor up to the one you've been charging at home all night, and FWOOOM 1.2 megawatts of power flows from ultracapacitor A to ultracapacitor B for a few minutes.

      Alternatively, if the things are small enough, just physically swap out one for the other.

    13. Re:Miracles Required? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You're hardly comparing like with like. Liquid fuel is easy to transfer to a car (in what amounts to megawatts).

      But you canna break the laws of physics. Saying my car is easy to fuel up therefore a battery is easy to charge at a rate which would require hundreds of kilowatts to megawatts to each house is so wrong it isn't even wrong.

    14. Re:Miracles Required? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      but Titanium supplies are pretty tight, and mostly eaten up by aerospace.

      That's changing. The new FFC process for electrochemically refining titanium will likely replace the cumbersome Kroll batch process, and do for titanium what the Hall process did for aluminum. (Before the Hall process, refining of aluminum was done chemically and was so difficult that aluminum was considered a precious metal.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:Miracles Required? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      The point is that the infrastructure for rapid charging, like the infrastructure for filling your car with petrol doesn't need to be at your house. Slow charge with kilowatts at home at your leisure, or fast charge with hundreds of kilowatts from the local 'filling station'.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    16. Re:Miracles Required? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Saying my car is easy to fuel up therefore a battery is easy to charge at a rate which would require hundreds of kilowatts to megawatts to each house is so wrong it isn't even wrong.

      The point is that you wouldn't charge it at your house -- you'd charge it at a filling station with big-ass cables wired into the grid -- just like we do now.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    17. Re:Miracles Required? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      own ultracapacitors which are filling up off 120V@100-500A).

      More likely 240V, or even 600V. 10 charging stations at 100 amps each is quite a bit of power. To avoid having to use power cables the size of telephone poles, you'd want to increase the voltage.

      Even for the home example, you'd be better off putting a 240V 'dryer' socket out in the garage. Then you could do it with 6.25 amps, or use 20 amps and have it filled up in two hours. Just use a system so that you get cheap off-peak power.

      The higher voltage would mean less waste for any given wire size. It'd also let you get enough charge so you could go out to dinner at, say, seven and still not use any gas.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Miracles Required? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      As always, would love to see it, as it's such a versitile material, and a shame that it has been mostly used as a whitener. On the other hand, if refining it makes the price of titanium dioxide go up, what are Oreos going to use?

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    19. Re:Miracles Required? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > coming directly off their own ultracapacitors which are filling up off
      > 120V@100-500A).

      More likely 480V three-phase.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    20. Re:Miracles Required? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      As common as titanium dioxide is, this process is likely to make its price go up about as much as the Hall process made the price of clay go up.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    21. Re:Miracles Required? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I can not see how they can make such a large claim unless they had produce at least one of these batteries. I can see them spending a huge sum of money to develop the first one than trying to figure out a way to economically mass produce them. I would hope that the government would have had several experts out there to test them. I would think the President Bush would have mentioned this in his state of the union speech if the government thought they could produce such a battery. I certainly hope that this is better than the story about atom chip. It has been over a year since they made their claims and still nothing to report on any of their products(tera byte solid state disk). I can read science fiction for fantastic technology. I am hoping that the article here have a better chance of becoming reality.

    22. Re:Miracles Required? by rcheli32 · · Score: 1

      So don't you just have an extra big capacitor at home, that trickle charges off the grid, but can discharge at high amps to recharge your car/bike/boat/laptop etc?

    23. Re:Miracles Required? by Danse · · Score: 1
      Well, maybe the right solution is the same as with horses: Just like one changed the horses at relais stations, maybe one would simply change batteries at the filling station. Then it wouldn't matter too much how long they need to get refilled, only how long they need to be exchanged.

      Basically the same way people get propane around here. They buy a tank, and then keep swapping it out for a fresh one whenever it runs out.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    24. Re:Miracles Required? by anagama · · Score: 2, Informative

      Around here, it is $25 to swap a tank a 5 gallon tank (20# tank, usual size for grill). Propane costs about $2.50 per gallon. In other words, you pay double to swap tanks, or half has much to refill (depending on your perspective).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    25. Re:Miracles Required? by Hirsto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have 300A 240V service to my house. I can run the breaker at the design limit and pull 15kW-hr from it in 12.5 minutes and only spend $1.00 (I live in an obscenely cheap power state) I think the battery would be very hot.

      I'm extremely skeptical of the new super-capacitor claims as it implies a 6 Farad capacitor rated at 3KV that weighs less than 100lbs and can supply 15kW continuously for one hour all the way down to 0V. To perform the same feat I'd need something like 2,200 Maxwell BCAP3000 super-capacitors in two 1,100 series capacitor banks (Maxwell spreadsheet says I need 18,904 of them).

      I could build a NiMH battery with similar energy storage characteristics using 1042 12A-hr 1.2V NiMH D-cell batteries costing about $9378 weighing 345lbs (no wiring).

      It would be cheaper and less hassle to build a huge battery from 39 Sears #02830126000 car batteries weighing a total of 1170lbs for only $1560. My 1-ton truck doesn't mind the weight much and it costs 1/6 of an NiMH system and 1/3 less than the vapor-ware super battery.

    26. Re:Miracles Required? by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would put a dangerous financial burden on someone. Even ultracaps have limitations on the number of charge/discharge cycles, so at some point, someone is going to have to deal with testing these things and taking them out of circulation, or you're going to have situations where a person ends up trapped in the middle of nowhere because his ultracap died prematurely.

      From there, you've got to ask yourself what the environmental impact of building these things is, what the impact of disposing of them is, and whether the change is going to make a means of transportation that is better than or worse than what already exists.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    27. Re:Miracles Required? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...Whats better?

      Idiots who cause static discharge and blow themselves up at the petrol pump or idiots who electrocute themselves at the recharge station?

      Well I suppose the electrocuted idiots would be easier to clean up. All you need is one of those large brooms.

    28. Re:Miracles Required? by julesh · · Score: 1

      And even if they did, we don't have the 10,000amp service at my house necessary to actually charge them at speed.

      Why would you need a high-power line to charge it at home? You can charge over a period of hours, at your leisure, at home. It's only roadside charging that requires such ridiculous amounts of power.

    29. Re:Miracles Required? by julesh · · Score: 1

      TFA states the energy storage of the battery was 15 KWH.

      It's worth pointing out that a 15kWh energy source isn't going to get a car very far -- perhaps you'd get a 60 mile range out of it (except in extremely lightweight vehicles, which are expensive to manufacture and unpopular because of poor handling in windy conditions). For real applications, you're going to need multiple batteries of this capacity.

    30. Re:Miracles Required? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why charge batteries for cars on the spot and wait for it? Once, I like to drive up to what was once my petrol station, and quickly swap the battery for another one, fully charged. Now if Shell etc. is to produce or charge batteries, that would leave the logistics chain to the "petrol" station intact, hence leading to a higher probability of success.

    31. Re:Miracles Required? by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you are going to do this, zinc-air is pretty much there as far as power density. You reprocess instead of recharging. I'm not sure there is enough zinc though.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    32. Re:Miracles Required? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I thought about this too. I think this might even work in countries that are able to respect standards. It would be a good solution in Japan, since they produce a lot of their own cars and local manufacturers can just standardize on a universal battery form factor and design. It might work in China, where local companies could start making their own electric cars and have standards imposed on them from above. Actually, these would be very good things.

      But it's not likely to happen in Europe; the EU is too weak to achieve the necessary standartization. And it definitely happen in north america.

    33. Re:Miracles Required? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Of course there is such a thing as roadtax and it is calculated on the weight of the vehicle and the type of fuel used*. That and 500 kilo's extra would cost extra electricity to move and wear out your tires, shockabsorbers and brakes more quickly. The superbattery would be cheaper in the long run. (btw: I think the speed limit on electric cars as of today is 15 km/h)

    34. Re:Miracles Required? by ReverendHoss · · Score: 1

      This method has the added bonus of allowing for easy upgrades as battery technology improves. Simply start putting the newer, better batteries into cars as they come for replacements, and start filtering out the old ones for recycling or what not.

      All that would really be needed is size, shape, and interface standardization.

    35. Re:Miracles Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I hate only being able to buy AA batteries and car tires from just one manufacturer.

      (Sarcasm)

      Jeez...

    36. Re:Miracles Required? by Henneshoe · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I don't think you would get very far on 15KWH with anything like today's cars. The car in the article weighed about 100 lbs and had a range of 200 mi. If you extrapolate that to 1900 lbs (weight of a Geo Metro) you could have a car with a range of 200 mi that uses 285KWH. Even with this new fast charging technology it would take about 3 hours at 240V and 375A or at home 40 hours at 240V and 30A. I think we need to rethink our power grid or drive really light cars for the technology to be viable.

    37. Re:Miracles Required? by agurkan · · Score: 1
      Physically swapping would work of course but may be too expensive.

      However, your first solution will definetely not work. Discharging a capacitor, requires energy. In every capacitor there is an electric field and changing this field from its full value to zero will lead to motion in the dielectrics over which the field passes.Actually if you do it too fast, your capacitor will certainly explode. Remember we are talking about transferring energy equivalent to what is in a tank full of gas. It will be a pretty big explosion too :-)

      For the record, I am a physicist who now works as an astronomer.

      --
      ato
    38. Re:Miracles Required? by MavenW · · Score: 1
      That would put a dangerous financial burden on someone. Even ultracaps have limitations on the number of charge/discharge cycles, so at some point, someone is going to have to deal with testing these things and taking them out of circulation, or you're going to have situations where a person ends up trapped in the middle of nowhere because his ultracap died prematurely.

      Oh, you mean like when gasoline powered cars have the engine throw a rod, or the water pump goes out and the radiator overheats, or distributor cap cracks? Once I got stranded at a rest stop outside of Malad, Idaho when my timing belt failed. Are the ultracaps going to be any worse?

      From there, you've got to ask yourself what the environmental impact of building these things is, what the impact of disposing of them is, and whether the change is going to make a means of transportation that is better than or worse than what already exists.

      Exactly. Let's talk about the environmental impact of gasoline powered cars and see if it's any better. Is disposing of supercaps going to be worse than disposing of used motor oil and radiator coolant and lead-acid batteries? Is the generation and transportation of electricity going to be any worse than pumping, refining, and transportation of gasoline? Just getting all the tanker trucks off the highways could make a difference. How much damage can one wrecked tanker truck do to the environment? The one last year up Spanish Fork canyon made a huge crater in the road and burned surrounding vegetation and soaked gasoline into the ground on both sides of the road. I have a hard time seeing how disposing of supercaps could be any worse. What about tailpipe emissions? Noise pollution?

      We've come up with lots of ways that supercap cars are better for the environment than gasoline powered cars, and these are just the obvious ones. Can you come up with one where they're worse?

    39. Re:Miracles Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok-- I'm really tired this morning, and haven't given this a whole bunch of thought (so don't savage me).

      But if charging such a thing quickly is such a problem with household current / voltage, why not have a big "ultracap" installed at your house (say 5-10x the capacity)-- it could quickly transfer charges to your cars, and could also provide energy to the house in the event of a power failure.

      Problem solved?

    40. Re:Miracles Required? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A quick google search gives ultracapacitor cycles as 100,000 or 500,000. 1 cycle a day means a 100,000 cycle device lives 273 years.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    41. Re:Miracles Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "getting trapped in the middle of nowhere" never happens with gasoline-based transport???

    42. Re:Miracles Required? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Where did he get his 10,000 amp service number? Well duh! Just do the math!
      90 KW = 10,000 amps * 9 volts. Obviously he was planning on running it at 9 volts!

      And the best part is that his answering machines and other various household gadgets don't need those annoying power adapters. He can just plug them straight into his wall socket.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    43. Re:Miracles Required? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like when gasoline powered cars have the engine throw a rod, or the water pump goes out and the radiator overheats, or distributor cap cracks? Once I got stranded at a rest stop outside of Malad, Idaho when my timing belt failed. Are the ultracaps going to be any worse?

      No, those would be problems with the engine, and an electric vehicle would have plenty of components that could fail in that regard. This is more like taking a risk every time you fill up your car, that your gas tank is going to randomly fail. Even worse, if quality control was a bit lax at a certain station, you could end up getting massively variable energy in each ultracap, leading to a situation where you don't know for certain whether your car with the newly filled ultracap is going to send you as far as you need to go.

      Exactly. Let's talk about the environmental impact of gasoline powered cars and see if it's any better. Is disposing of supercaps going to be worse than disposing of used motor oil and radiator coolant and lead-acid batteries? Is the generation and transportation of electricity going to be any worse than pumping, refining, and transportation of gasoline? Just getting all the tanker trucks off the highways could make a difference. How much damage can one wrecked tanker truck do to the environment? The one last year up Spanish Fork canyon made a huge crater in the road and burned surrounding vegetation and soaked gasoline into the ground on both sides of the road. I have a hard time seeing how disposing of supercaps could be any worse. What about tailpipe emissions? Noise pollution?

      We've come up with lots of ways that supercap cars are better for the environment than gasoline powered cars, and these are just the obvious ones. Can you come up with one where they're worse?


      Asking a different question, what is the process for refining the chemicals used in these batteries? How common are the substances in use? How much energy is used, and what byproducts are created? Are said byproducts recovered, or is the waste from the process simply waste, and thus is the creation of the substances needed for tonnes and tonnes of ultracaps going to require the processing of tonnes and tonnes of a second chemical, and result in tonnes and tonnes of toxic waste? The process for making gasoline is relatively benign, and most of the products of creating gasoline from crude oil are recovered and used.

      Until the questions are answered, it's irresponsible to declare any technology clean or safe. It would be nice to find a silver bullet to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, but until the entire picture is seen, you can't just go "Oh, we don't have to see any pollution here, so it must be better than gasoline!"

      --
      It's been a long time.
    44. Re:Miracles Required? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      How often do you run out of gas because the energy stored in your gas tank varies dramatically from tank to tank?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    45. Re:Miracles Required? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      If everyone only used 1 tank of gas per day, then the energy use problems of the world would be much simpler to solve.

      There's going to be people who cross the country and use ultracap tanks like water, and there's going to be people in cold climates who are going to be going through these things like candy, and there's going to be a bunch of people who are all going to have reasons to use more than 1 battery every day, and the average charge rate for a battery passed from station to station could be much higher than 1/day.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    46. Re:Miracles Required? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      Discharging a capacitor, requires energy. In every capacitor there is an electric field and changing this field from its full value to zero will lead to motion in the dielectrics over which the field passes.Actually if you do it too fast, your capacitor will certainly explode.

      I can see that, but I do have a question: why is it harder to discharge the capacitor quickly than it is to charge it quickly? It's already known these capacitors can (or are claimed to be able to) charge that quickly, which is still a huge amount of energy being transferred in a short period of time, so if they can pull off doing it in one direction, why not in the other? Or is there something especially hard about discharging that doesn't apply to charging?

      Also, if it's really difficult to discharge a big (i.e. high capacitance) capacitor really quickly, how come this guy doesn't seem to have problems doing it using capacitors from these guys?

    47. Re:Miracles Required? by Danse · · Score: 1
      Around here, it is $25 to swap a tank a 5 gallon tank (20# tank, usual size for grill). Propane costs about $2.50 per gallon. In other words, you pay double to swap tanks, or half has much to refill (depending on your perspective).

      Strange. It cost me about $25 to buy the first tank, already filled. Then about $16 to swap it out each time.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    48. Re:Miracles Required? by anagama · · Score: 1

      That price seems fair enough for the convenience factor. Here in NW WA though, it really is $45 for a tank+gas, $25 for a swap. I sense some gouging. Maybe I should open a competing business, get it going, then sell it off before the TankXchange (I think that's their name) changes their practice.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    49. Re:Miracles Required? by agurkan · · Score: 1
      AFAIK there is not an asymmetry in charging and discharging per se. However, while charging a capacitor, your power supply's/batteries' internal resistance comes into action; but to discharge, you can just short the poles of the capacitor. So, if you want to have fun in the electronics lab, discharging is a lot easier.

      I don't know how the guy in your link handles the rapid energy production problem. I glanced over the link, and I have the impression that a lot of energy is wasted in that process. This whole issue is part of electrical engineering and admittedly not my expertise. My experience is though, you have to be careful with large currents flying through your circuit elements.Even if your capacitor does not explode, a substantial energy loss would still render your solution unviable.

      --
      ato
    50. Re:Miracles Required? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      the EU is too weak to achieve the necessary standartization.

      The EU was not too weak to impose GSM, DVB, the Euro. If anything, I think our representatives impose too many standards.

    51. Re:Miracles Required? by cbacba · · Score: 1

      Well, it probably will take a miracle to overcome some of the problems the ceo was queried about but didn't answer. Nothing works for efficiency like leaking out $5 worth of electricy over night.

      Having seen the advances made in batteries over the last 2 decades, it does look like this stuff might hold some fantastic opportunities. The sheer forces being held inside those batteries due to separation of charges though have got to be incredible - assuming that there is significant amounts of charge rather than energy tied up in chemical changes. It takes lots of energy to move objects from one place to another and whenever that energy cuts loose over a very short time, it goes into tearing up and radically heating up stuff around it. To equate gasoline energy with explosive energy - it seems like its either 5 or 25 sticks of dynamite per gallon which weighs just a few pounds. Mileage depends substantially on the weight of the vehicle and passengers/cargo and if that's a given, the mileage for various types of cars (gas,diesel,electric) are going to be fairly similar as well because the efficiencies tend to be fairly close (order of magnitude close - not necessarily 2-5% close). That means to have any decent distance between recharges, there is going to be a serious amount of explosive energy stored in the battery - even if it takes some outside conditions to help. Anyone here ever see the big table top capacitor with the 1/4" nichrome wire short experiment in elementary school??? Suffice to say it's about like a fire cracker going off - and that is nothing compared to the energy in this battery.

      As for the 10 minute quick charge, that's probably only for the corner fuel stop. A 15kwh battery set - which I thought was the power mentioned for 100 pounds of weight - would need about 400 amps at 220 volts to fill it up (assuming perfect efficiency). At home, the need for a 10 minute charge is far less than being somewhere else and needing to refill. There, a 60 minute recharge would be acceptable to most people most of the time. That requires about 66 amps - which can be handled by most modern electric breaker boxes which can usually handle 200 amp service to homes. For those that don't have that capacity, 4 hour charging would permit usage in the realm of electric stoves and electric
      clothes dryers.

      The big question is where is all this excess electric power generation going to come from if such vehicles suddenly gain mass popularity. Hmm - maybe it'll come from some big old ugly surplus generators sitting behind Friendly Fred's service station - the ones with no pollution controls which haven't been maintained since 1965. OOPs!

  5. Better hybrids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can make a reasonable electric battery for a car that provide power for trips up to 60 km or so without needing a recharge, transportation could change dramatically. Couple in a gasoline engine to recharge the battery for longer trips (like a hybrid vehicle) and you could probably cut oil use by the general population by half or more. Unfortunately, this wouldn't be particularly useful for commercial transportation (ships, trucks, trains, etc.). And since commercial transportation is still a significant part of our oil usage technologies like fuel cells will still need to be advanced.

    1. Re:Better hybrids by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Informative
      If they can make a reasonable electric battery for a car that provide power for trips up to 60 km or so without needing a recharge, transportation could change dramatically. Couple in a gasoline engine to recharge the battery for longer trips (like a hybrid vehicle) and you could probably cut oil use by the general population by half or more.

      Um, you mean like the recently announced Chevy Volt (made by GM, the "company that killed the electric car"), which has a 40 km capacity on battery, and a small electric engine that kicks in as a generator when the battery runs out? They expect to be producing it in two or three years.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    2. Re:Better hybrids by kfg · · Score: 1

      You mean like the one designed by Porsche and produced by Lohner, with the advancement of hub motors (like the GM Sunraycer), more than 100 years ago?

      KFG

    3. Re:Better hybrids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if it was designed 10 years ago or 2000 years ago. If I can't buy it then it does me no good. All that I care is for an economical vehicle that I could operate off of electricity for most of my short range trips while still be able to use a gasoline engine for longer trips. This shouldn't be fracking rocket science.

    4. Re:Better hybrids by localman · · Score: 1

      I hate to be a party pooper, but I doubt that something as revolutionary as the Chevy Volt will not be on the market in the next 5 years by any American automaker. I've been casually watching concept cars for a couple decades now, and very little of the dramatic tech makes it into production vehicles. It seems that they're just a way to keep people excited while they churn out the stuff that really sells: big cheap boxes.

      On the other hand, I hope I'm wrong and if I am, I'd certainly be a potential customer for such a car, as I own a Prius and would love to see even more dramatic ways to reduce our oil dependency and polution.

      Cheers.

    5. Re:Better hybrids by kfg · · Score: 1

      This shouldn't be fracking rocket science.

      Well, rocket science is simple at its heart and several centuries old.

      But what you are looking for is more than 100 years old nonetheless. One might wonder where it went.

      If I can't buy it then it does me no good.

      One might also wonder if there were ways of acquiring one's needs without buying them, or at least reducing that which needs to be bought to the commodity level. It seems I can no longer buy a classic, double breasted trenchcoat because "nobody" is wearing them anymore. I do, however, have a sewing machine. Hello, my name is "Nobody."

      Yes, a car is a bit more complicated, both physically and legally, but the principal still stands.

      And since you're in the realm of dreaming, you might also want to consider if a car is really what you want to buy. Perhaps if we're shifting paradigms and all there is a better one.

      KFG

    6. Re:Better hybrids by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they can make a reasonable electric battery for a car that provide power for trips up to 60 km or so without needing a recharge, transportation could change dramatically.

      Yeah, then all we'd need is this shit called "energy."

      KFG

    7. Re:Better hybrids by dbIII · · Score: 1
      but I doubt that something as revolutionary as the Chevy Volt will not be on the market in the next 5 years by any American automaker.

      Two things - first it may not be as revolutionary as the claims so may be similar to other things already in development - and second GM is not a US only company. Their US products may be unfit for export and in danger of losing on quality to China but their cars from Germany and other places certainly are of good quality.

    8. Re:Better hybrids by Zobeid · · Score: 1

      The Chevy Volt can't be produced and sold with today's li-ion battery technology. The batteries would be too expensive (I'm guesstimating around $16,000) and their service life would be too short (about 20,000 miles). GM are hoping better batteries will be available in a few years. I'm cautiously optimistic that they might be right -- but I don't really know and they don't really know.

    9. Re:Better hybrids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. It is VERY easy to produce such a hybrid car.
      A car that has sufficient battery storage to power it for 50 miles or so will be more than enough for 99% of journeys, and instead of a normal full size ICE, all it needs is a super efficient (because it is designed to only one at ONE speed) SMALL engine, 200cc would do it, that can be used to charge the battery if necessary, and will also run when the car is TURNED OFF. i.e. say you travel 50 miles to your destination solely on the battery, and in the last few miles the engine automatically starts up to charge the battery - when you turn off the electric motor and park the car, the ICE keeps running until the batteries are recharged. 99% of the time this wouldn't even be necessary because 99% of journeys are under 50 miles there and back.
      The engine would cost about £100 to make, could be removed and easily serviced by the layman (hell, I can service most of my normal ICE and I'm no expert), and you could of course drive to a mechanic, have him remove the engine in two minutes, drive home on electric, and have the engine refitted the next day.
      I am also amazed at the ridiculous prices of current electric vehicles: they have no ICE! The ICE is a very costly device to manufacture and especially to MAINTAIN, compared to an electric motor. An electric motor doesn't have hundreds of parts with very low tolerances, doesn't need regular oil, doesn't need water cooling, needs NO maintenance, etc. So why are electric cars so ridiculously expensive?

    10. Re:Better hybrids by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A 20 horsepower electric motor typically goes for $600 or more. Highly efficient electric motors are more expensive because they require more copper and better quality magnetics. Most electric motors require slip rings or commutators, which will wear out. (There are designs that use permanent magnet rotors or inductive coupling, I don't know it these are suitable for automotive use.) Batteries and controllers and low production quantities add to the cost of electric vehicles.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. Fantastic! Until... by fragreaper · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mr Shell comes along, buys the company and disbands the project and says "nothing to see here.. move along..."

    1. Re:Fantastic! Until... by dredson · · Score: 1

      That is no doubt what the company is betting on.

    2. Re:Fantastic! Until... by bobscealy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This might be some shocking news to you - but your big oil companies didn't end up rich and powerful by being morons. I fail to see the financial gain in Shell (or any other big oil) buying the company and disbanding the project. Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to buy the company, finish development, and then have a strategic advantage over their competitors by being able to roll with the punches as oil demand goes down and demand for high performance energy storage goes up.

      Actually, no, what I have written is crazy. I forgot to take into account that these are the same people that suppressed the 400 mile to the gallon carburettor and had the guy killed that invented the car that only runs on water.

    3. Re:Fantastic! Until... by SeePage87 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the battery works the way they claim it does for as cheap, etc., then they stand to make much more money letting the company flourish then selling it to Shell. Even if they did sell it, Shell would have the wits not to destroy the technology; they would just become a more diverse (and profitable) energy company as a result of the accusation.

    4. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Those are fantastic claims. Do you have sources?

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    5. Re:Fantastic! Until... by FST777 · · Score: 1

      If the current owner has a mind at all, he will realize that he might just have a silver bullet if Shell is that interested. That means he won't sell.

      As long as a company doesn't have 66% of its shares on the market, it's not that easy to buy out a potential competitor.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    6. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I remembered a James Bond movie while reading your last phrases... so that's why they never had that car back in the movies again...

    7. Re:Fantastic! Until... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, lets not by it and be the sole owner and reap many hundreds of Billions of dollars, look like the good guys, and watch are competors dry up over night, that wouldn't make sense at all.

      Idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      As long as a company doesn't have 66% of its shares on the market, it's not that easy to buy out a potential competitor.


            Although there are plenty of other ways a huge corp can put a little guy out of business WITHOUT buying him out... and as a last resort they can always rely on goverment lobbying to introduce new legislation at different levels (municipal and up) to put insurmountable obstacles in their path...

            Best to keep quiet about something like this unless you're ready for production, really.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Fantastic! Until... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      If the battery works the way they claim it does for as cheap, etc., then they stand to make much more money letting the company flourish then selling it to Shell.

      And Shell will make an offer they can't refuse. "Either their signature or their brains will be on the contract."

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Fantastic! Until... by joe_cot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, no, what I have written is crazy. I forgot to take into account that these are the same people that suppressed the 400 mile to the gallon carburettor and had the guy killed that invented the car that only runs on water.

      Rubbish. Every year or so, some inventor comes up with an engine that runs on water, and it turns out to make about as much sense as the free energy machines of the 30s. All these snake oil inventions ever do is appease some of those who have concerns with our future energy strategies into believing technology will solve everything. The closest we have is fuel cell technology, which takes stored hydrogen and oxygen, and combines it into water (which is a method of storing the energy, not a cheap way of creating it) Water itself is not a viable energy source, no matter how you slice it. People just need to give up and face the facts: besides nuclear power, we will never again have a form of creating energy that's cheaper than pumping some liquid out of the ground and burning it.

    11. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but this is drivel.

      Shell can't afford it. If it is even half of what its proponents claim it is, the value of the technology is in the multi-trillions. Shell doesn't have that kind of cash sitting around. Perhaps they borrow it? Then they have to pay off the debt, and they are competing with the other major oil companies who don't have to service a huge debt. Perhaps a comglomeration of major oil companies? The coalition will not hold together, because the first oil company that does not join reaps all of the benefits and none of the costs.

      GM might buy it.

    12. Re:Fantastic! Until... by rawporkchop · · Score: 1

      ...not by it...

      ...watch are competors...

      You came here from Digg, didn't you?

    13. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      I think P was being sarcastic.

    14. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Rubbish. Every year or so, some inventor comes up with an engine that runs on water, and it turns out to make about as much sense as the free energy machines of the 30s.

      And every hour or so, a Slashdot poster fails to recognize the most blatant sarcasm.

      Jeez Louise.

    15. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      No, Dig.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    16. Re:Fantastic! Until... by boarsai · · Score: 1
      Yeah! Why can't they be smart like RIAA and MPAA! They should take a leaf out of their books!

      Oh shi-...

    17. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the above is a possible scenario. However consider this...

      What if the profits of keeping oil in heavy use outweighs the profits from cornering the ultracap market? For one, as demand for oil increases, price and profit will go up. For another, once you buy the ultracap from the oil corp., your interaction with them is over. You then increase the profits of your local electric company. Now, if you kept your gas burning engine, you buy from oil over and over and over.

      So really, the more likely scenario is that a large electric company would throw money at these people, while an oil company may well buy and liquidate it.

    18. Re:Fantastic! Until... by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Shell can't afford it.
      [...]
      GM might buy it.


      ROFL

      GM is practically bankrupt, has massive pension liabilities and is burning cash at several $B per year.

      Shell is making over $1B per month, net.

    19. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      I think if anyone is gong to kill this off it will be the GMC and Fords of the world. Car Companies make a killing on servicing an replacement parts on combustion engines as part need regular replacements (spark plugs, oil filters, air filters ect) but the electric car needs virtualy no love, when was the last time sony needed to service your DVD player?. It was one of the reasons (according to the documentary who killed the electric car) that GM killed off the EV.

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    20. Re:Fantastic! Until... by maxume · · Score: 1

      GM killed the EV because the market was too small(10,000 vehicles does not a market make), they were losing money on it, and because they were not interested in the liability exposure. Some yahoo that thought that they could buy a $100,000 car for $30,000 is a pretty good bet to sue.

      Car companies don't make all that much money on spark plugs, oil filters and air filters, there are too many other companies willing to undercut their prices with reasonable replacements. My car is on it's second set of spark plugs, which cost about $60, at 70,000 miles. I probably won't replace them again, maybe someone else will. Air filters add up to about $50 for every 100,000 miles you drive a car, if you replace them aggressively. Oil filters are only oem at the dealership, and between diy and quick lubes, I bet that dealers don't have that large a percentage of the oil change market.

      Yes, the brain worms do have me.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Fantastic! Until... by Isca · · Score: 1

      You're too naive. "Hour"?!?!. Pshaw!

    22. Re:Fantastic! Until... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I fail to see the financial gain in Shell (or any other big oil) buying the company and disbanding the project.

      Well that's a problem of your own imagination, because the profit is definately there.

      There have been numerous examples in the past of that type of business.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Fantastic! Until... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Car companies make money by selling cars. Toyota developed the reputation for having reliable cars. They sell more cars because of that reputation.

      Also, many (probably most) people don't buy GM/Ford replacement parts. They buy NAPA, etc.

      In new technology like this, they could make a killing on after-sale upgrades if they design the car right. "Hey, we've got a new ultracap design that holds its charge much better than the one in your car. Here's a limited time offer for replacements."

  7. Isn't there other capicitors in an earlier story.. by J.Dev.06 · · Score: 1

    Nano fibers used to increase a capacitors surface area i believe was the concept. Capacitors look to be coming mature

  8. Color me by Buelldozer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a deep shade of skeptical. In fact I'm borderline disgusted. A claim like this should ONLY be made when at least an engineering sample is available for review.

    I'm tired of "too good to be true" products whose primary goal is to draw VC.

    1. Re:Color me by jonnythan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well those products cannot make it to "engineering sample" unless they have funding.

      How do you propose they get it?

      "Yes, sir, this probably won't work. If it does it probably won't be any better than what we have now. But give us tons of money to find out!"

  9. I hope they last long by scoot80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Geez.. ultracapacitors.. we had supercapacitors till now.. whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors.. anyhow..

    So far, the supercaps i know of are quite expensive, and their performance degrades - i.e. with each charge cycle, the capacity gets smaller and smaller. I am not sure what the lifespan of a supercapacitor is, but it surely isn't terrbily long. I guess for the current applications (flash in cameras for example) its not all that critical - how many times is flash used over the lifetime of the camera.. If the lifespan is really improved, then they may be onto something.

    1. Re:I hope they last long by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> ultracapacitors.. we had supercapacitors till now..
      >> whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors..

      googlecapacitors!

    2. Re:I hope they last long by stonefoz · · Score: 1

      They're taking on all the web... and now all the roads.
      drive.google.com

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    3. Re:I hope they last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flux-capacitors? (a la Doc Brown)

      -AC

    4. Re:I hope they last long by Brickwall · · Score: 4, Funny
      >> ultracapacitors.. we had supercapacitors till now.. >> whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors.. googlecapacitors!

      I for one welcome our new googlecapacitor overlords.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:I hope they last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leetcaps! A11 y0ur 3lec+r0ns Ar3 b3l0|\|g +0 u5!

    6. Re:I hope they last long by dafing · · Score: 1

      googlecapacitors!

      Why do you think they build their Data Centres next to power plants?

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    7. Re:I hope they last long by alienmole · · Score: 1

      I, for two, welcome them, but can we at least shorten their name to something more manageable, like Googlecapacitoverlords?

    8. Re:I hope they last long by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      I don't think we should use any, over exposure to ubercaos causes CAPS LOCK AND MAKES YOU SHOUT

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    9. Re:I hope they last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dare I say it ...

      UberCapacitors?

    10. Re:I hope they last long by bdonalds · · Score: 2, Funny

      whats next..

      FLUX capacitors.

      --
      The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
    11. Re:I hope they last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez.. ultracapacitors.. we had supercapacitors till now.. whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors.. anyhow..

      If Capcom were to name the next generation of capacitors they would known as superturboultraspecialchampionshipalphazerocapacit ors.

    12. Re:I hope they last long by monkeyGrease · · Score: 1

      > whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors?

      Flux Capacitors

    13. Re:I hope they last long by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Just watch out for the damn Neoconpacitors.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  10. Some people will claim anything to get investors.. by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet in a few months, they will only be somewhat better and in a year, it will turn out that their product is actually inferiour for mots applications. Same scam over and over again.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. Pound for pound. by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > Ultracapacitors have many advantages over traditional electrochemical batteries. Unlike batteries, "ultracaps" can completely absorb and release a charge at high rates and in a virtually endless cycle with little degradation.

    10 amp-hour 12V Li-Ion Battery: 500 grams ($100).

    versus

    10 amp-hour 12V Ultracapacitor (or 36-amp-second 12kV ultracapacitor): 50 grams ($100).
    Current-limiting resistor of sufficient wattage rating to ensure that ultracapacitor storing that much energy won't vaporize any conductor that it happens to touch...: 450g. ($Priceless)

    1. Re:Pound for pound. by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1


      Yeah, li-ion batteries never have safety issues.
      </sarcasm>

  12. Too good to be true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

    They just want media coverage so they get investors or their stock rise.

    We've seen similar stuff before, a small company that is claiming to have something that can revolutionize everything, but its all just a PR stunt.

  13. Next Year's Vaporware? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The company is expecting delivery of the systems later this year.

    Great. Call me on December 31 and I'll tell you how it's looking. At least they gave a date of delivery. We'll know when they didn't make it. Not that I'm hoping they'll fail. I would be a good fit for an electric car. But I'll never buy a chemical battery based electric or hybrid. Why? I'm in Alaska. Capacitors can work at low temps much better than the chemical batteries. Not to mention a cell phone with longer life, lighter laptops, and cheaper rechargable everything that would come out of these if they work as advertised.

    1. Re:Next Year's Vaporware? by volsung · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, it sounds like they aren't yet able to make things work in very cold environments. From the article:
      He also doesn't believe that the ceramic structure--brittle by nature--will be able to handle thermal stresses that are bound to cause microfractures and, ultimately, failure. Finally, EEStor claims that its system works to specification in temperatures as low as -20 C, revised from a previous claim of -40 C.
    2. Re:Next Year's Vaporware? by Lothsahn · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually, their system is WORSE than lithium Ion batteries at low temps. These would NOT work for you and your Alaskan friends, at least until Global Warming really kicks off.
      FTA:

      Finally, EEStor claims that its system works to specification in temperatures as low as -20 C, revised from a previous claim of -40 C.

      "Temperature of -20 degrees C is not good enough for automotive," says Miller. "You need -40 degrees." By comparison, Altair and A123Systems claim that their lithium-ion cells can operate at -30 C.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    3. Re:Next Year's Vaporware? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I read that it is rated at -20, not -40, but that doesn't matter for me. They need -40 for automotive applications, according to the article. For some of the same reasons GM wouldn't let anyone outside CA and AZ get an EV-1 (led acid sucks in the cold), they'll have to make it work or not sell it. Some electric cars have warmers around the batteries to keep them in proper operating range and prevent damage. That wouldn't be hard with this system. It gets colder in MN than here. I'm in Anchorage, coastal, so it isn't as cold as people think. We have cold for 6 months, so something that loses 50% efficiency at 0F is crap, but it rarely gets below -20 here. In Minneapolis, they'll have a low for the year well below Anchorage's low for the year. So they'd be breaking them there more than here, as long as I don't drive up to Fairbanks in the winter. But an electric or hybrid car that runs about the same whether it is -20 or 120 outside is great thing. And, based off their initial number of -40, I'm sure they are hoping to get back to the magical -40 rating.

    4. Re:Next Year's Vaporware? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Actually, their system is WORSE than lithium Ion batteries at low temps.

      Chemical batteries lose effeciency as the temperatures decrease. At -19 C, it will have even a greater advantage over chemical batteries. Then, at -21 C (assuming a hard floor, which is overly pessimistic) the capacitors will fail. As long as you aren't below the minimum operating temperature, they are increasing their lead over chemical batteries. Then they fail completely. Chemical batteries also have a temperature at which they can't operate below (lead acid batteries don't work if the acid is frozen solid), but it is lower than -20 C. As long as the capacitors are kept above the point where they physically break (apparently, -20 C for now) they will be good. A little heater in the compartment should help out.

    5. Re:Next Year's Vaporware? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      But I'll never buy a chemical battery based electric or hybrid. Why? I'm in Alaska.

      Batteries work better than you think.

      Unlike an engine, it's quite easy to put insulation around them, and even easier to add a tiny heating coil, which could be powered from the batteries themselves.

      But more importantly, the issues with batteries in cold weather are exclusive to batteries that need large ammounts of power in an instant, such as a starter.

      With sustained power draw, the chemical reaction inside the battery produces heat, meaning after a few minutes of driving, the capacity of the batteries will go up, not down.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. Patents anyone? by argoff · · Score: 1

    Are they going for a patnet or do they have one? If so it is guaranteed that they are either full of shit, or will be so high priced that it won't be worth it.

    1. Re:Patents anyone? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have a patent, which they filed for in 2000. Details.

  15. Can I buy stock in this company? by deft · · Score: 1

    Or does the stock not yet exist either?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:Can I buy stock in this company? by ThePopeLayton · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you are ready to buy stock in this company after reading this article. I own a business that you might want to buy stock in. My company makes food replicators, the kind on star trek. We don't have a working model yet but it should be out in a year or two. Please send checks to.... you will receive your stock certificates in 6-8 weeks.

    2. Re:Can I buy stock in this company? by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      Frak that, give me my holodeck now! I can then ask it to give me the replicator, fluxCapacitor (TM), Duke Nukem Forever and hot alien babes.

    3. Re:Can I buy stock in this company? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      What do you think he is dumb?

      He just wants to buy all the stock, spam the net with junk mail saying how good it is, then dump it all after it raises 10%.

      Rinse and repeat.

  16. About 10 or 15 years back.../usage model by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There was some battery technology that used liquids. When the battery ran flat, you'd just pump out the old and pump in fresh and you'd be recharged and going again. The proposed technology would be supported by "gas station"-like refill services where you'd dump the old stuff and pick up recharged new stuff. The proposed usage madel was very much like a regular gas car. Unfortunately the technology never got commercialised.

    Perhaps the same could be used here. Pull into a "gas station". Dump & replace the whole battery pack (or the old powders or whatever) and pick up fresh. That would make a lot of sense from various angles. You won't have to fit a 10kA feed into every house. Just one hefty feed into the recharge station.

    Of course, for any such technology to work, there is going to have to be some sort of regulatory standard for batteries (just like there are for fuels and oils) to ensure interoperability.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:About 10 or 15 years back.../usage model by Timbotronic · · Score: 1

      There was a comprehensive article on flow batteries in New Scientist a week ago (subscription only unfortunately). It said that flow batteries currently only have about half the storage density of lead acid batteries so right now there are better alternatives for vehicle applications. However they really shine for fixed locations that need to store large amounts of power such as wind farms. You can scale up the amount of storage capacity simply by adding additional chemicals and larger tanks.

      --

      One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

    2. Re:About 10 or 15 years back.../usage model by evilviper · · Score: 1
      When the battery ran flat, you'd just pump out the old and pump in fresh and you'd be recharged and going again.

      That would be fun... Now you have people regularly transporting and pumping large quantities of highly acidic liquid.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:About 10 or 15 years back.../usage model by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

      ... or maybe you have a "gas station" model where you can reload.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    4. Re:About 10 or 15 years back.../usage model by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The gas station is precisely what I was talking about. I doubt they're going to have Chemistry PhDs as attendents.

      Acids are decidely more dangerous to deal with than flamable liquids. Just staying away from a sparks won't make everything safe. Even breathing some of the fumes may cause very serious health concerns.

      And then, there are going to be car accidents...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. I don't know about you but... by Quick+Sick+Nick · · Score: 5, Funny

    I find this shocking.

    1. Re:I don't know about you but... by painQuin · · Score: 1

      I am sincerely apologetic that I do not have mod points, because that's my kind of humour.

      --
      A guilty conscience means at least you've got one.
    2. Re:I don't know about you but... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've been insulated from this kind of humor all my life, and frankly, it made me want to bolt. I'm trying to resist, but my capacity for remaining grounded has charged off over the horizon, transforming me from a person who inducts current events into their personality to one who follows an entirely different arc.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:I don't know about you but... by setrops · · Score: 1

      wow, Even in my best artistic moment, I couldn't have writen such prose. /bow.

    4. Re:I don't know about you but... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Watt the hell are you talking about? I think you need to go ohm.

      Did you see Joule as the guest judge on American Idol?

  18. Re:Some people will claim anything to get investor by Alain21 · · Score: 1

    Not so sure. About a year ago, I've seen an Oshkosh military hybrid truck using ultracapacitors instead of batteries (for weight and safety).

  19. About fast charging... by mcg1969 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I see the claim about charging in 10 minutes---but I've never seen them claim that will happen at home. It is indeed quite clear, as you've figured out yourself, that a residential hookup just doesn't have the capacity for a fast charge. But frankly, that's not that big of a deal, because in practice it will not be impractical to recharge a car at home over the course of hours.

    It's when you're on a long trip and you need to refill and go that you'll be wishing for a filling station with an ultracap-compatible, high-power electrical supply---for which you'd likely be willing to pay a premium kWh rate.

    1. Re:About fast charging... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      And while you are on these road trips, waiting 10 minutes or so for your car to charge isn't so bad. 10 minutes is a good break from the road and gives you time to relieve yourself, get some food, or buy souvenirs.

      While this might not be the case in the midwest or east coast, out here in the south west there is a lot of undeveloped land (desert) around rest stops. Sounds like a good place to setup a giant solar power plant. During the hot summer, more people will be driving (and your energy generation level will be highest).

    2. Re:About fast charging... by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if you don't mind the expense of having two of them, you could keep one charged at home, make a quick pit stop, and off you go. If they can make the amps, they can take the amps.

      Stop, stop, I can't help flogging this:
      If you have solar power you can take your transportation off of fossil fuels too. The range issue looks as though it may be fixed with this technology. Once you get an electric vehicle just add a few solar panels to your locked in rate solar system and your fuel costs are fixed to. How is the FED going to keep inflation at 3% if prices refuse to rise?

      I've started keeping a list of users who can help you get a solar power system: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    3. Re:About fast charging... by cbc1920 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um... Couldn't you just use another bank of capacitors? At home, you can charge one bank slowly, and when you get back from the trip, use them to dump power into your car. The ones at home would be cheaper because there are much lower size and weight restrictions.

      The same concept applies at the gas station- just have a big bank of capacitors. On the other hand, this type of power is perfectly doable if you have a high voltage line going to the gas station. I think people forget how much juice is going through those things, thousands of times more than what gets to your house.

    4. Re:About fast charging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is the FED going to keep inflation at 3% if prices refuse to rise?

      Have you looked at your contracts lately? I've been haggling for several months with one possibly-will-be partner company that wrote into their contract that yearly cost increase will be 10% or CPI (doesn't specify which), whichever is greater

      Don't worry about the government. Capitalists will make sure prices keep going up all on their own.

    5. Re:About fast charging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It sounds as if you gobble a lot of kok.

    6. Re:About fast charging... by Ikester8 · · Score: 1

      I think what's eventually going to happen is that fueling stations will simply exchange your drained batteries for already-charged ones, once the automakers figure out how to make a quick-switch battery pack.

      --
      That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
    7. Re:About fast charging... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      I envision a system like the one used for propane tanks for gas grills. You take an empty tank back to where you purchased it and replace it with a full tank, which the company who sold you the tank refills for a future customer. Depending on the size of the power cell, you could even keep a spare in the trunk along with the spare tire.

    8. Re:About fast charging... by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      I might not mind a 10 minute break, but I'll mind having to wait 40 minutes for the pumps to all free up and me to get to the front.

      If it takes 10 minutes to "fill up" we're going to need alot bigger gas stations to serve the same number of people in a given hour.

    9. Re:About fast charging... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't have "pumps", you have parking spaces with chargers instead.

      --
      Deleted
    10. Re:About fast charging... by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a residential hookup just doesn't have the capacity for a fast charge.

      You could use some sort of energy accumulator. Store up the hydro for 24hrs, then dump it in 10 minutes. You could dump 144 times what a normal residential service could provide directly.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:About fast charging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not farfetched. At the Toyota factory in Japan, they have been using parking spaces with chargers for several years.

    12. Re:About fast charging... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      All you need is another capacitor at home. It can take the whole day to charge up, then get dumped into the car.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    13. Re:About fast charging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people forget how much juice is going through those things, thousands of times more than what gets to your house.

      Your American house has 120v (with two "hot" wires for 240). The wires on the utility poles are 750v. The high tension lines are 30,000v.

      I'd have to ask my dad, who built these things for 40 years, how many amps it takes to blow a fuse on one.

    14. Re:About fast charging... by j-beda · · Score: 1
      You don't have "pumps", you have parking spaces with chargers instead.
      In very cold climates, it is common to have outlets in parking spaces to plug in the car battery/engine heaters - typically they are unmetered and provided by the employer - I've always thought that electric car owners could get an easy free ride using those.
    15. Re:About fast charging... by gemada · · Score: 1

      Or electric cars could have a "universal" battery size and the filling stations would keep spare charged batteries on hand and simply lift your discharged one out and drop a fully charged one in using some sort of little crane device...I read about this idea somewhere but can't remember where.

    16. Re:About fast charging... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      but presumablly if too many people try that the distribution cuircuit will start tripping regularlly and questions will start being asked, probablly resulting in some soloution like current limiting the individual points to a value just big enough to power engine heaters and/or metering the points.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  20. Seems unlikely by mgemmons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Per the article,

    Pound for pound, it will also pack 10 times the punch of lead-acid batteries

    So, let's see...lead-acid batteries have a energy density of 30-50 Wh/Kg. Lithium-ion is 110-160 Wh/Kg. If it packs 10x as much as lead-acid batteries we can expect an energy density of 300-500 Wh/Kh. About 3-4x that of li-ion battery. Although the claim doesn't seem overly outrageous I find it unlikely that someone has managed this sort of improvement while the rest of the world is clueless.

    1. Re:Seems unlikely by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting
      FTA
      For example, the company's system claims a specific energy of about 280 watt hours per kilogram, compared with around 120 watt hours per kilogram for lithium-ion and 32 watt hours per kilogram for lead-acid gel batteries

        so they're claiming more like 2 1/3 an Li-ion battery. On the other hand even if the thing is too fragile and doesn't have enough temperature range for over-the-road use as some anticipate, I can think of some useful thing to do with it in a stationary mode such as peak buffering solar-voltaic or wind generation stations.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fun thing about capacitors is that the power storage increases as the square of the voltage, so increasing the breakdown voltage pays big dividends. According to Wikipedia, EEStor claims a unit with 37 farads capacitance and an operating voltage of 3.5 kV, capable of storing up to 52kWh...

  21. Re:Isn't there other capicitors in an earlier stor by DamonHD · · Score: 1
    See also http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:gDrrgY0YU9QJ: peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MIT_Nanotube_Super _Capacitor+supercapacitor+lifetime&hl=en&lr=&clien t=firefox-a&strip=1 (Google text-only cached copy) for similar MIT technology.

    If two groups are independently getting similar results in terms of potential lifetime (>10y; 600,000 cycles) and speed of charge, then we can be more hopeful IMHO.

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  22. Please..... by Chineseyes · · Score: 1

    Wake me when there is a demo of this miracle battery if I could actually produce something this fantastic and I wanted investors overnight I'd demo it on video put the demo on youtube and sit around waiting for cash. I need to start a vaporware company so I can get some VC.

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
  23. Dupe by ed_g2s · · Score: 5, Informative
  24. All the way down from pacemakers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >"It's really tuned to the electronics we attach to it," explains Weir.
    >"We can go all the way down from pacemakers to locomotives and
    >direct-energy weapons."

    All the way down from pacemakers?

    Down from that would be a toy train and a joy buzzer.

  25. Good news, bad news... by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    The good news: everything in the article is true, and they've already started production with a major worldwide OEM.

    The bad news: it's Sony.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:Good news, bad news... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      The bad news: it's Sony.

      The news is still good ... after the inclusion of a detonator they've been repurposed as low-cost cluster bombs for the U.S. military.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Good news, bad news... by MattPat · · Score: 1

      ... I'm sorry, but I must ask: why is the parent modded "Interesting?" :P

      One of my Funny mod points goes to you, man.

    3. Re:Good news, bad news... by MattPat · · Score: 1

      ... if I had remembered that I can no longer assign mod points to this thread. :P

    4. Re:Good news, bad news... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Didn't Sony just recall a whole heap of Li-Ion batteries? They could use those as detonators!

  26. The article is confusing by mcg1969 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 10x comment must be pretty rough. From the article, the EEStor ultracaps will come in at 280Wh/kg, with Li-ion at 120Wh/kg and 32Wh/kh. So really, it's more like 2.3x the density of Li-ion. I dunno, that doesn't seem that far to me.

  27. Hate to break it to you: by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative
    But I'll never buy a chemical battery based electric or hybrid. Why? I'm in Alaska. Capacitors can work at low temps much better than the chemical batteries.

    From TFA:
    Finally, EEStor claims that its system works to specification in temperatures as low as -20 C, revised from a previous claim of -40 C.

    "Temperature of -20 degrees C is not good enough for automotive," says Miller. "You need -40 degrees." By comparison, Altair and A123Systems claim that their lithium-ion cells can operate at -30 C.
    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Hate to break it to you: by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Of course, a heater on the capacitors would work wonders. Add a small battery that is used just to heat the capacitors. This ultra capacitor could be made to work up north without too much work esp if this is a hybrid system (as opposed to pure electrical).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Hate to break it to you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, a bit more global warming and we've got that problem licked.

  28. Redox flow batteries by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  29. Don't Try This At Home by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The trick is to modify the composition of the barium-titanate powders to allow for a thousandfold increase in ultracapacitor voltage--in the range of 1,200 to 3,500 volts, and possibly much higher.

    Oh man.. as if tossing a charged capacitor to an unsuspecting victim wasn't funny enough already.

    1. Re:Don't Try This At Home by mcg1969 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh man.. as if tossing a charged capacitor to an unsuspecting victim wasn't funny enough already.

      I just don't get this danger angle. I mean, yes, charged high-voltage capacitors can be dangerous. So can bottles of gasoline with flaming pieces of cloth stuffed in the neck. And yet, none of us seems to be particularly freaked out by a fifteen-gallon can of gasoline strapped under our butts when we're driving---even with thousands of tiny explosions occurring per minute under the hood in front of us.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the safety issues---just that I think we can be reasonably confident that the obvious ones will be licked if this comes out to market.

    2. Re:Don't Try This At Home by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the GP was referencing the practical joke of throwing a charged capacitor at someone. Obviously if that's funny on its own, then using a supercapacitor will be hilarious.

    3. Re:Don't Try This At Home by evilviper · · Score: 1
      yes, charged high-voltage capacitors can be dangerous. So can bottles of gasoline

      Gasoline is relatively hard to ignite, whereas high voltage electrical just needs a tiny electrical short. Gasoline will quite slowly burn for a long time, while a capacitor will almost instantly expend all of it's energy. Gasoline requires large ammounts of oxygen to burn, which it can't get (quickly) while inside the gas tank.

      If cars ran on nitro glycerine or gun powder, it would be a closer comparison.

      I'll still probably be one of the first in-line to get a super-capacitor/electric car. Reasonable sheilding could ensure any potential explosion would be directed into the air, away from passengers.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Don't Try This At Home by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      At these power levels, making a small short vaporizes the conductor and so solves the short. (the principle behind self repairing capacitors) Not that I would like to be near it when this happens, but I doubt this would result in an explosion. However if this capacitor would be shorted through something massive and conductive, then lets say you're toast.

    5. Re:Don't Try This At Home by evilviper · · Score: 1
      At these power levels, making a small short vaporizes the conductor and so solves the short.

      At high voltages, you're sure to get a large arc if something (like a small short) is there to set it off.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Don't Try This At Home by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      trouble is once you get that initial bit of vaporised metal that can start an arc

      and arcs can easilly sustain massive currents while producing massive ammounts of heat.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  30. Phillip Jose Farmers Riverworld series had this. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Not For Hire ran on a batacitor charged on the grail stones. According to Phillip Jose Farmer these things were supposed to have been developed in the early 80s. 5th paragraph.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  31. Durability by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Ultracapacitors are good for hundreds of thousands of cycles. It's one of their advantages over a rechargeable battery.

  32. Re:Some people will claim anything to get investor by gweihir · · Score: 1

    For a hybrid, that is ok. The power does not need to be stored long-term. And batteries loose a lot and die fast if they have to be charged fast. Capacitors are very good in that department and may be suberiour to batteries if you have several 10's of charge-discharge cycles that may be interrupted at arbitrary times per hour.

    Of course it is possible that we will have capacitors in 10-20 years that can sort of compete against todays batteries. But the claims made seem very inflated.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. I can't really understand Jim Miller's criticism by sonoronos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Taken from the Technology Review article:

    "We're skeptical, number one, because of leakage," says Miller, explaining that high-voltage ultracaps have a tendency to self-discharge quickly. "Meaning, if you leave it parked overnight it will discharge, and you'll have to charge it back up in the morning."

    The Jim Miller quote above confuses me, as Maxwell Technologies advertises a 125V output power module which is spec'd to only lose 70% of its charge after 30 days. So why is he contradicting his own company's products?

    For those who are unfamiliar, while ultracaps sound fantastic, they are ultimately bound by the physical laws of capacitors, one law being that their output voltage drops (linearly) as they discharge. Maxwell Technologies knows about this, so they develop ultracapacitor arrays with extremely high internal voltages (4000+ V) and regulate the power output using efficient step-down converters. Battery cells, of course, do this naturally, because the electrochemical reactions generating the current do so at a voltage determined by the electric potential of the galvanic reaction inside the cell.

    This is one reason why you don't hear much about using ultracaps in portable electronic equipment. While ultracaps may be relatively compact, they are still bulky, and though they may be able to provide the necessary voltage, you have to factor in doubling or even tripling the required voltage to use efficient step-down converters. The story gets even worse for charging. Let's say you want to charge using 12 volts DC. Do you run through dedicated charging circuitry which takes in "safe" voltage, but can only charge the ultracap at battery-style rates (low current), or do you try and charge the ultracap in its theoretical minimum charge time (high current), which means that the wall-warts you are used to seeing will look more like big, boxy IGBT/Invert-based welders (and you thought your xbox 360 power supply was big...)

    In short, while it sounds good in theory, the practical challenges of discharging and charging ultracaps are fairly sizable.

  34. Kleiner Perkins is funding this by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First off, this was reported in Business Week back in 2005, with some of the same quotes.

    What's striking is that Kleiner Perkins, one of Silicon Valley's top venture capital firms, is funding this. If they're funding it, it's not totally bogus; they will have done a due diligence and had some competent people look over the technology. There may turn out to be some reason it's not feasible, but if it was physically impossible, they wouldn't have obtained money from that group.

    1. Re:Kleiner Perkins is funding this by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Kleiner Perkins has funded dozens of not hundreds of completely bogus businesses that failed miserably. I've been to conferences consisting entirely of K-P startups pitching their bullshit business plans to each other.

  35. Patents by RH_Jesus_Freak40 · · Score: 1

    This technology sounds great! I'm just afraid that someone will have an overly-broad patent that ties this technology up with lawsuits.

    --
    The dyslexic atheist says, "There is no dog"
  36. Less capacity? by togashi06 · · Score: 1
    FTFA:

    Where they're weak, however, is with energy storage. Compared with lithium-ion batteries,
    high-end ultracapacitors on the market today store 25 times less energy per pound.
    I fail to see how a battery with less capacity than the actual ones can be of any use.
    Anyone care to explain?
    1. Re:Less capacity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

    2. Re:Less capacity? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Sure, I'll explain. You see, an article like this contains examples of earlier efforts in order to set a counter-point tone for the actual subject matter at hand. In order to retrieve (that is, understand and store in your head) the actual information being presented in the article, you have to forge ahead and read the entire presentation. This will reveal to you the entire structure of the information presented therein, and reveal to you the content that is hidden from those who only read until they find a sentence that satisfies their preconceptions, or perhaps startles them. I give you this gift of article reading technology not to obligate you, but to teach you how to fish, as it were. Now, go back, start at the beginning, and read to the end. Skip nothing. You'll be amazed at the knowledge this incredible "reading technology" opens up to you! You can even pass it on to your children some day.

      No, no, don't thank me. I am a modern day knight; I live to serve.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Less capacity? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Where they're weak, however, is with energy storage. Compared with lithium-ion batteries,
      high-end ultracapacitors on the market today store 25 times less energy per pound.


      I fail to see how a battery with less capacity than the actual ones can be of any use.
      Anyone care to explain?


      Easy:

      The factor-of-25-less-than-batteries power-to-weight ratio is for CURRENT PRODUCTION ultracapacitors from other vendors. That's the competition.

      The 'way-better-than-batteries number is for their NEW one. They claim a power-to-weight-ratio
      improvement of more than a factor of 25 for their new gadget compared to the current ones.

      Make sense now?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Less capacity? by xj · · Score: 1

      A capacitor may store less energy per lb than a battery, but it has the ability to charge and discharge that full capacity very quickly. This is especially important in regenerative braking applications. When a vehicle is moving it has kinetic energy because of its mass and velocity than can be converted to 1) heat with disk brakes 2) electricity with a generator connected to the wheels. Seeing as how #2 is much more useful let us do that. In vehicle "A" we have a Li battery pack to charge in vehicle "B" a fancy ceramic capacitor. We have to slow down fast enough to avoid hitting the car in front of us so we only have a short window in which we can charge our storage device. Li ion batteries a especially picky about how they are charged (lest they pull a sony on us) so no matter how much energy is available to us we are limited by the charge rate of the battery. Note the difference between the charge /discharge rate and capacity. The battery works best at slow charge and discharge rates. Now in vehicle "B" the capacitor can handle the inrush of current when we flip on the generator and start slowing down here we are limited by the capacity of the device not the charge rate. So if you are going down a slight slope for 10 mi and want to control your speed a bit the higher capacity of the battery could allow you to store more energy. If you are doing stop and go driving in town you'll be able to capture and use more of the energy, you do not have to store the energy very long just until you need to accelerate again. Here the higher capacity of the battery does not help it much because it is only able to capture a small % of the energy available in any stopping event which is then quickly used to accelerate again so the larger capacity of the battery does not help it. 2nd topic. Charge cycles and life batteries have a rated life of a thousand or so charge discharge cycles if someone tells you they have one that will last for 3000 people get really excited... never mind that they tend to die of old age before they see that many cycles anyway. A capacitor has a rated life of 500,000 to 1,000,000 cycles. How many times will you hit the brakes, today? this year? over the life of the car? You have to choose your battery / capacitor or combo of the two based on your requirements and funding limits.

  37. I was pretty sure... by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was pretty sure the order was supposed to go:

    Capacitor
    SuperCapacitor
    Capacitor64
    Capacitor^3
    Gii

  38. Not a dupe. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This one has more info. The other one was more business aspect. This one is lightweight tech and has a bit more behind it. Now, the skeptics can attack it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. It is far compared to other ultracaps. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    "So really, it's more like 2.3x the density of Li-ion. dunno, that doesn't seem that far to me."

    But it is around a factor of 50 over other ultracaps.

    1. Re:It is far compared to other ultracaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it works simply by increasing the voltage. Energy in a capacitor is 0.5CV^2 joules. Doubling the capacity from say 1 to 2 Farad makes it twice the size. Doubling the voltage by increasing the insulation also makes it twice the size but gives 4 times the energy density. multiply by 50 and you get 2500 times the joules in a package 50 times the size. The other thing is that capacitors don't weigh a lot for their size.

  40. Yeah... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    Along with the desk-that-charges gizmos and hard-chip that converts heat-energy to electricity, until I see one (or at least hear about one on a reputable site other than their own), I won't believe they are trying to do anything other than get hype to achieve the allocation of the almighty grant.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  41. Another Slashdot "Investment Opportunity"? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Be careful. Slashdot has been running lots of stories that are "investment opportunities". Read this, the first comment to the story linked from the Slashdot story. I didn't write it, it was written by someone with the nick Emosson, but it sounds correct. (Also, read the other comments showing skepticism of the idea.):

    "Unfortunately EEStor never made and will never make the supercapacitor described in the patent because they ignore a well known physical effect, called "dielectric saturation".

    "Barium titanate has been used in capacitors for decades, due to its high dielectric constant: (PDF file).

    "However, the dielectric constant drops as the electric field strength increases: http://www.nap.edu/books/NI000488/html/49.html
    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i12/p890_1

    "At a hypothetical field of 3500 Volts over a thickness of 12.76 micrometers, as proposed in the patent, the dielectric constant of barium titanate would be orders of magnitude lower than the claimed 18500, reducing capacity and energy density by the same factor...

    "This has been discussed in more detail by Prof. Anatoly Moskalev on December 24th and 26th, 2006 in
    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=43

    "with an update on January 20th, 2007:
    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=46."


    Also read this comment considerably below:

    "Further evidences of EEstor's hype! by Roger Pham 1/22/2007 10:41 PM

    "In his patent #7033406, Richard Weir, EEstor CEO, cited data published WAY BACK in 1985 from the Japan's Journal of Applied Physics, as basis for the high dielectric property of Barium Titanate (BaTiO3)powder, when coated with aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicated glass. If BaTiO3 capacitor was so good way back in the 1985, the likes of the GM EV1 would be around evey street corners since 1996, or the Prius would have been a PHEV way back in 1997!

    "What held back coated BaTiO3 powder from becoming a SuperCapacitor was the fact that BaTiO3 has dielectric property that varies by nearly ten folds with just typical seasonal swing in ambient temperature, and the fact that its dielectric property drops by as much with high electrical field strength, as Emosson has brought up!"

    1. Re:Another Slashdot "Investment Opportunity"? by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I have no idea about this specific tech, but...
      There are ways to stabilize dielectrics, via selective channels, vacuums, and other weird esoteric stuff; it is not IMPOSSIBLE that they have found a way to work around the drawbacks of BaTiO3.
      But I would have to ask my brother the mad scientist for details.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  42. Is this more wishful hype than physics? by viking80 · · Score: 2, Informative

    barium titanate has an extremely high dielectric constant of around 5000 at room temperature. see http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/selvaduray/page/papers /mate115/hsiaolin.pdf

    This is hundres of times more than polystyrene, but the challeng is still formidable:

    A cap with 320Wh/kg or 1GJ/m^3 or 1kJ/cm^3 at 3kV would require:

    C/cm^3=0.7Farad

    Since C=k*e0*A/d, e0=8.8E-12, k=5000
    we get C(BaTiO3)/cm^3=4.4E-8*A/d
    and with A*d=1cm^3 (not all of the cap can be dielectric so this is a ceiling)we get:
    A=4m^2 and d=250nm

    So with d=250nm, and U=3kV, the voltage across the dielectric is 12GV/m. Breakdown voltage for most ceramics are less than 300MV/m.

    This would imply less than 1% the capacity claimed. Still an incredible feat, but the car would only go a few km.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Is this more wishful hype than physics? by fossa · · Score: 1

      The trouble with ceramics is always catastrophic failure due to their brittleness. When they do break down, they do so in specatular fashion, sometimes blowing into pieces, and always ceasing to function. That is why auto manufacturers currently use polymer film capacitors in the inverters of hybrid cars. Despite the disadvantage of likely requiring an additional cooling loop (I think the standard auto cooling loop is around 125-150 degC while polymer film caps tend to be rated around 75-85 degC) and having much lower capacitance and thus greater bulk, a short in the capacitor ablates the electrode at the short without destroying the rest of the polymer. Thus one might have power to get to a garage rather than being stranded somewhere. I imagine similar concerns would be raised about ceramic supercapacitor batteries, but could probably be tolerated or worked around if the advantages are so great.

  43. Long on hype, Short on evidence. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    This has been hyped every few months (VC funding cycles?) for a couple of years now. I remember it was supposed to be in Cars last year, I expect I may be saying that next year as well. As of yet they have not delivered a single testable capacitor for anyone to test. I am not talking about a car sized unit, I am talking the smallest cell that delivers on any of the extraordinary claims.

    I have seen a couple of people with some related physics knowledge examine the claims and indicate they can't see this happening.

    To me it looks like an appeal to greed from VC vultures. Though I won't shed tears for them.

    If the claims were true, they could submit one small capacitor for testing and the floodgates of money would open. The claims are revolutionary. But the behavior is not that of scientific breakthrough, it is more like trust us, it is great. Those who are smart enough to trust us will get the privilege of giving us their money.

    I expect that if they do eventually deliver something it will turn out to be in line with the energy density of other ultra capacitors, there will excuses about production problems, perhaps indications that it will get better in the future, but they will have received the cash to get their business off the ground.

  44. Saftey? by Tavor · · Score: 1

    Capacitors explode... batteries explode... so how is one better than the other in this case?

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    1. Re:Saftey? by gtada · · Score: 1

      Hell gasoline explodes (remember the exploding Chevy trucks?).

    2. Re:Saftey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explosion you've just heard was the sound of a million spelling zealots exploding in unison as they read your post.

    3. Re:Saftey? by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Capacitors explode... batteries explode... so how is one better than the other in this case?

      Well, see, Capacitors SIZZLE and then explode. Batteries just explode and catch fire. Batteries are old and broken, capacitors are the new hotness.

    4. Re:Saftey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cermaic ones just explode

    5. Re:Saftey? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It depends upon what's inside the device. Lead-acid batteries exploding aren't nice because sulphuric acid is dangerous. Capacitors with poisonous oil dielectric (illegal now, no longer produced) are dangerous. Most capacitors are less poisonous than most batteries.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:Saftey? by bertfromburke · · Score: 1

      Yes, gasoline burns, but it is limited to the rate of oxygen supply. Batteries when in an accident will release an acid into the environment, but that is limited. The energy is contained in the state of the lead plates, and does not have a violent reaction. Shorting out a battery, which I have unfortunatly done will be limited by the internal resistance of the cell, resulting in fire, sparks, and melting the battery. [really not a good idea] My understanding is that the electrical energy in a super/ultra capacitor will be instantly released in an accident. Please do not miss-understand me, I want for electric cars to be available to all, but the safety aspect needs to be clearly worked out. Thanks

  45. Pump-and-dump stock scheme? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    This comment below the article linked by Slashdot suggests that the article may be part of a pump-and-dump stock scheme: "Re: Who knows? by JRIP 1/23/2007 3:40 PM".

    Slashdot has been running a lot of "Investment Opportunity" stories recently.

    1. Re:Pump-and-dump stock scheme? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Articles like this one need to be tagged pumpanddump.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  46. Call me when... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ... we can buy shipstones. Slide the rest of these posts under the door one lot over.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  47. Inflation by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    OK, I can't help it: The way Bert and I stemmed inflation was to tell the Secretary of the Treasury, the shrivel up little man with the enormous right arm, "Mister Secretary, The law says you have to sign your full name to each of them bills, no initial."

    He gave us the dirtiest look, then started in signing his full name.

    Here's another: http://www.bertandi.net/mp3/camdenpiercenewyork.mp 3

  48. Whoops, wrong thread... never mind by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Mentally transcribe the parent article into the correct thread and read in context... 8-)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Whoops, wrong thread... never mind by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      I was wandering what it had to do with batteries... batteries for electric chairs maybe?
      Instead of electrocuting, we are ultracapping your ass!
      :)

  49. Why all the negativity here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how people here know how far capacitor technology has come in the last few years. Maxwell has been in the business for a while now and much of their improved technology has come from involvement in the SDI. Now it is hard to believe that they have some magical lock on developing new technologies and processes for ultracap construction.

    As to the feasibility of high voltage storage I don't see an issue here either. Sure leakage is a problem with CURRENT technology products but it is a bit silly to think that no improvement can be made here. Charging is not an issue either, this should be obvious to anybody familiar with a battery, as chargers can be built to match the requirements of any battery voltage. Charge rate isn't a problem either, in fact it could very well be variable depending on the capacity of the supplying circuit.

    Frankly people should be happy that efforts are being made to replace batteries with a different technology. If there is one technology that has held up a number of others it is the battery. Be it a car, a laptop, a motorcycle or a power tool, the lack of battery technologies to meet user needs is and has been a problem for a long time.

    You can't knock the company for keeping information close to the chest. Play to loosely and info will get stolen. There is little doubt about that. Is this hype, at this moment I don't think so. One has to strike a balance between awareness and reclusiveness. Funding and partners to use the technology have to be found. Partners are important because they need to be able to incorporate your product when it becomes available production wise. Nothing could be worst than to bring new technology to market and have nobody at all to sell the product to.

    Dave

  50. Year 3 of the supercap revolution by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this the 3rd year these startups have been pitching supercapacitors? The first one was in San Diego. In exchange for a super sized check, they gave you a 5F capacitor that supported up to 1V and recharged 100 times before it died. Still nothing new to report here.

    The "electric car revolution" is a funny thing. As soon as you cross the Sunol grade, all the hybrids, vegetable oil, methane, ethanol, corn starch, soybean powered cars disappear and you're back in giant SUV land.

  51. Re:I can't really understand Jim Miller's criticis by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are almost there, just put the parts together correctly. You said:

    > Maxwell Technologies advertises a 125V output power module which is spec'd to only lose 70% of its charge after 30 days.

    and

    > they are ultimately bound by the physical laws of capacitors, one law being that their output voltage drops (linearly) as they discharge.

    Now do the math. Or you could if enough numbers were available, so lets do it back of the envelope style. It's all about the discharge CURVE. Remember caps won't self discharge like a battery. That voltage is going to be slip sliding away from the small unavoidable losses and the that first 10% of the voltage drop will be seeping out what percentage of the watt-hours? 19% Ouch!

    It will be like a car with a leak in the gas tank, the question is will be be a slow leak that can be ignored in most cases or will it feel like losing gallons per day. They are promising a car with a 500 mile range. Get the losses down where those Maxwell caps are and you lose 15 miles per day to losses. If the losses creep up to 5% terminal voltage per day to losses and recharge nightly and that will be paying for a 50 mile drive whether it sits in the driveway or runs all day. Large losses mean splitting it into banks and only charging what you plan on needing plus a reserve. Big lot of bother. Lets hope for low losses, but at the extreme voltages they are talking about I doubt it.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  52. Temperature is absolutely NOT a problem by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This temperature "issue" is a red herring.

    As the thing requires being kept above -20 to work, put it in a well-insulated box with an electric heater and see to it that the heater comes on if the temperature goes near -20. A heater working at those temperatures, and only looking for a rise of a few degrees in a very small volume, wouldn't consume much energy at all, and it can tap the ultracap for energy, or simply be plugged in. Or keep your car in a garage. Or both. Hell, around here, we have to plug in our cars now when it gets around -20, because gas engines don't work very well when they get that cold, either. My car has both battery and engine-block heaters.

    Where I live (Montana) we see -40 once or twice a year in a cold year. Not yet this year, though we've been down to -20 once. I would *love* to have this kind of clean, high rate, long-lifetime energy storage available, and not just for cars. The cold, we know how to beat. Energy storage -- that's the issue.

    I'm a lot more concerned about materials availability and manufacturing practicality than I am any of these supposed limits; if they can just make them so they work under limited circumstances, I'm pretty sure we can adjust the circumstances if we cannot adjust the ultracaps themselves. Electricity is particularly friendly to voltage and current conversions. The available power's the same, or at least, barring the efficiency losses of conversion, which aren't horrible. And anyone who is saying that the environment is a problem is ignoring our demonstrated ability to create just about any environment we want, wherever we want to.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  53. Brown U has similiar, polymer tech by J05H · · Score: 2, Informative

    Heard about this on the radio and looked it up a couple months ago:

    http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/20 06-07/06-022.html

    It's a battery-capacitor hybrid that has interesting properties. It's not at the same production level, but doesn't provide quite the same strong claims as the EESTOR system. Any opinions on the Brown effort?

    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  54. Ugh by second+class+skygod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From time to time I've read the idea of swapping batteries in EVs as the solution to long charging times. It doesn't make sense for several reasons:

    1) The most obvious reason is that different makes and models of cars will use differing battery packs. It would be very difficult for a station to stock packs for all cars that might show up.
    2) Even for packs of the same type, there will differences in quality. If you just bought a car with 200 miles of range, would you want to have someone yank out your shiny new battery pack and replace it with one that had deteriorated to 80 miles range?
    3) These schemes assume that it will be really easy and quick to replace the pack. That's far from proven. My estimate is that you're looking at a minimum of 20 minutes. While designing an automated system to swap packs is possible if they are all the same, it seems very unlikely that they will be.
    4) Advances in battery technology are making it increasing less likely that the swap can be done quicker than a recharge. In the case of capacitors, the potential recharge times will so short as to make swapping a laughable proposition.
    5) The propane tank example is a poor one if you want to support the EV battery swap idea. Where I live, the price of a refurbished and filled propane tank is ~$10/gallon which is much more than the value of the propane itself. One of the major factors is the cost of testing/refurbishing/replacing the tanks returned by customers which can be in arbitrarily bad condition.
    6) People seem to miss one of the main advantages of EVs which is that the paradigm of periodically going to a "gas station" to get energy for powering our cars will mostly go away. Most EV charging will be done at home and with perhaps some supplementation at our workplaces. The only "gas station" type charging that needs to be considered is for the 5-10% of driving which is outside of a reasonable EV range. This will go down even further as EV ranges get higher.
    7) The interim step towards full EVs is plugin-hybrids. These will be on the road within a few years and will bridge the gap from today's technology to the availability of long-range full EVs with a network of quick charging stations for those relatively few trips that take one far from home.

    So, simply put, there will never be a large infrastructure for swapping batteries in privately-owned passenger vehicles as a means of extending range.

  55. There was also one for lithium batteries... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't there other capicitors in an earlier story..

    Nano fibers used to increase a capacitors surface area i believe was the concept.


    There was also a similar development with lithium cells, also using nano-fiber graphite forests for electrodes, producing hysterical energy densities and recharge rates (like 80% in a minute or so), high efficiency (since they'd slag down at that rate otherwise), and both long lives and a large numbers of cycles (since the graphite nanotubes don't tend to degrade anywhere but at the tips, and very slowly there.)

    Somebody also did something similar with lead-acids, of all things. Built the plates' base structure by plating the lead onto a graphite (non-nano) fiber base, rather than starting from a lead skeleton. Greatly increased charge/discharge rate and efficiency (since the graphite conducts better than lead) significantly reduced weight (like well under half of a regular battery if I recall it right) and enormous increase in number of charge/discharge cycles before failure (since the graphite skeleton holds its shape rather than participating in the chemical reaction, which is what's behind some of a lead-acid's failure mechanisms - thus letting the plates "heal".)

    And then there's vanadium redox...

    Lots of good alternatives in the pipe. A conglomerate of oil companies would be hard pressed to buy them ALL up and bury 'em. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. That's easy... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Geez.. ultracapacitors.. we had supercapacitors till now.. whats next.. ubercapacitors? ubersuperultracapacitors..

    That's easy: Hypercapacitors.

    (You can tell when they're coming by the amount of hype.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  57. Re:Isn't there other capicitors in an earlier stor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the capacitors covered in nanotubes? No, this is different. Although it's tough to really prove them distinct, since this story is incredibly vague, the technology in the earlier story had nothing to do with barium-titanate powders, so it's highly unlikely this is the same thing.

  58. BANG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay we've seen lithium ion batteries go up in smoke now imagine those reactions are of course limited by diffusion with this capacitor the energy release would be at the speed of electricity and since it is high voltage resistance wouldn't really limit it much. If you feel safe driving around with nitroglycerin based battery this is the thing for you.

  59. Re:I can't really understand Jim Miller's criticis by mollymoo · · Score: 1

    "We're skeptical, number one, because of leakage," says Miller, explaining that high-voltage ultracaps have a tendency to self-discharge quickly. "Meaning, if you leave it parked overnight it will discharge, and you'll have to charge it back up in the morning."

    The Jim Miller quote above confuses me, as Maxwell Technologies advertises a 125V output power module which is spec'd to only lose 70% of its charge after 30 days. So why is he contradicting his own company's products?

    That module is made up of 'normal' 2.7V ultracapacitors. These new folks are claiming 1000x that voltage per capacitor.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  60. Clarifying my post... by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Typing too fast.... before someone else points out the idiocy in my original post I'll fix a few of em myself.

    > Get the losses down where those Maxwell caps are and you lose 15 miles per day to losses.

    Since the power loss is not constant, which was the whole point, obviously this part has to be taken in the context of the next (fairly mangled) sentence and assume nightly recharging to 100% to enable the 500 mile advertised range. Which would be the logical course, so an unexpected trip could be undertaken without worrying about charging.

    > Large losses mean splitting it into banks and only charging what you plan on needing plus a reserve.

    Doh. The obvious method is of course to leave it one big bank and only recharge it to give tomorrow's driving plus a fudge factor if self discharge is a problem. (Explanation left as exercise)

    But running the numbers a little more gets some disturbing trends. Assume the loss is only equal to 15 miles of driving per day as I did in the best case above. That means every single car would be wasting enough power to drive a NYC to LA round trip annually. But keep the caps around 25% charge most days would cut the waste in half. Assuming that the real world loss curve looks close to a perfect capacitor discharge.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Clarifying my post... by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      That means every single car would be wasting enough power to drive a NYC to LA round trip annually.

      How much fuel is wasted hauling around energy (fuel and battery) in todays vehicles? How about todays electric cars?

      A 15 mile per day leakage may well break even if the weight of the devices is significantly lighter.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:Clarifying my post... by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      || Get the losses down where those Maxwell caps are and you lose 15 miles per day to losses.

      | Since the power loss is not constant, which was the whole point, obviously this part has to be taken in the context of the next (fairly mangled) sentence and assume nightly recharging to 100% to enable the 500 mile advertised range. Which would be the logical course, so an unexpected trip could be undertaken without worrying about charging.

      And I bet the power industry would just love to sell everybody the power to top these ultracaps off every night!

  61. their battery to power a 100lb car by t35t0r · · Score: 1

    EEStor claims that, using an automated production line and existing power electronics, it will initially build a 15-kilowatt-hour energy-storage system for a small electric car weighing less than 100 pounds, and with a 200-mile driving range. The vehicle, the company says, will be able to recharge in less than 10 minutes.

    I'm not so sure that I would like to drive a car that weighs 50-60lbs less than me.

    1. Re:their battery to power a 100lb car by iainl · · Score: 1

      My bicycle weighs a hell of a lot less than I do. Adding two more stabilising wheels to the thing doesn't strike me as a terribly dangerous thing to do, but I'd just be asking why they're bothering with them. Motorbikes are a much better form factor for light transport with plenty of equipment already designed to be (a) light and (b) cope with supplying plenty of power to the wheel.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:their battery to power a 100lb car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't be shy. We all know that it's closer to 150 lbs less than you.

  62. Googol = 10^100 by MCRocker · · Score: 3, Informative
    googlecapacitors!
    Argh! The success of google has overshadowed the very word that was the inspiration for the name in the first place... googol. May I suggest... googolcapacitors?
    --
    Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
  63. Hybrid UltraCap-Battery? by Timbotronic · · Score: 1

    Like a lot of people, I'm pretty sceptical about the claimed storage density and ability to hold charge for a long period of time.

    However I think there's huge potential (excuse the pun) in coupling ultracapacitors with traditional batteries in hybrids. They can charge much more efficiently from regenerative braking or mains power, deliver big bursts of power back for acceleration and charge the batteries with any excess.

    --

    One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

  64. Re:Rumor: I am a Google SHILL !!! by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

    You're both fucking shills.

    --
    +5, Truth
  65. Fast charging at home is trivial: just use two by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    The argument that you can't fast charge an ultracapacitor at home only holds if you are trying to charge it directly off the mains. But that would be a silly design approach.

    Instead, keep one device at home on permanent trickle charge from the mains, and then connect this home unit to your mobile units when they need fast high-amperage charging.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  66. Re:I can't really understand Jim Miller's criticis by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

    We have an application using supercaps for short term power storage. It's part of a system that has a very high peak, short duration power draw - similar to a strobing camera flash. The caps have very good power density and don't degrade with the charge/discharge cycles. However, they do leak-down badly. They lose 50% of their voltage which is 75% of their energy in under an hour sitting on the bench. We could have gotten better leakage rating, but at the expense of much lower energy density. I suspect this is the tradeoff that Miller is referring to.

  67. Incredible ! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    A texan making incredible claims ! News at 8 pm !

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  68. Wow, that's some serious energy density by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    I bet the TSA is already drawing up plans to ban these things being brought within half a mile of an aircraft.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  69. Re:I can't really understand Jim Miller's criticis by jesup · · Score: 1

    Or discharge (largely) the ultra-cap when parked in a garage or at a charger at work, and make sure the charger can give a complete charge in a few minutes (maybe combined with a timer). Read AMPS - probably not possible unless there's a local storage device that ISN'T an ultracap.... Could install vacuum flywheels in every home.

    So don't expect them to replace batteries in cars, but they could greatly improve electric-only cars in combination with Lithium-ion batteries. Don't use the ultracap for long-term storage, but use it for performance and possibly for a just-before-trip "top-off".

  70. ...please stand up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...please stand up.

  71. repeate by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    They ran this last year too. Old news, no progress apparently.

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
  72. Al Gore must be thrilled... by mpitcavage · · Score: 1

    Is it funny that they're touring the country to show you how great electric vehicles are by towing them in a trailer with an SUV?

    I guess middle America is too crappy to stop and charge the thing.

  73. It gets better... by mpitcavage · · Score: 1

    I'd TOTALLY pay $15000 to feel what it's like to go 25mph!

    25mph top speed, 35 mile range, $15,000. I'm not sure if WonderCaps (TM) can save this company...

  74. Silicon Valley's venture capital you say?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's no way they can fail. Where do I send my money?

  75. Flywheels and Grocery Stores by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Um... Couldn't you just use another bank of capacitors? At home, you can charge one bank slowly, and when you get back from the trip, use them to dump power into your car.

    Bah, capacitors? I'm still waiting for an excuse to have a big flywheel at my house. :) OK, you win - and maybe it even looks like the technology that's inside the battery ("never sell one when you can sell two at twice the price").

    The same concept applies at the gas station- just have a big bank of capacitors. On the other hand, this type of power is perfectly doable if you have a high voltage line going to the gas station.

    A gas station? Is that like the thing in front of the parking space at the grocery store that charges up your car when you plug in the cable and swipe your frequent-shopper-card and then shows up on your receipt after you shop?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Flywheels and Grocery Stores by j-beda · · Score: 1
      A gas station? Is that like the thing in front of the parking space at the grocery store that charges up your car when you plug in the cable and swipe your frequent-shopper-card and then shows up on your receipt after you shop?
      No, I think it is like the thing outside of city hall that my mom calls a "parking meter" that you plug your car into when you go shopping downtown. I heard that the city makes a lot of money off of the electricity they sell from that big windmill up on the hill.

    2. Re:Flywheels and Grocery Stores by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No, I think it is like the thing outside of city hall that my mom calls a "parking meter" that you plug your car into when you go shopping downtown. I heard that the city makes a lot of money off of the electricity they sell from that big windmill up on the hill.

      awesome. They'll still double-charge though!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  76. Safety problems are accepted, no licked by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the safety issues---just that I think we can be reasonably confident that the obvious ones will be licked if this comes out to market.

    Not necessarily - last week in my folks' town some kids were street racing after school - the unfortunate ones were in a Caddy STS which got hit side-on by a short bus, resulting in a massive fireball. 4 of the 5 involved were killed. The firefighters were losing their lunch on the side of the road.

    But gasoline is terribly convenient, cheap and the energy density is fabulous. I've never seen a horse explode into a fireball.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Safety problems are accepted, no licked by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a horse explode into a fireball.

      Try preparing the horse with a large methanol enema first and you may have better luck.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  77. Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, an exploding rootkit!

  78. Texas Fuel by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    Who needs caps or a fancy battery when you can just drop a pill in the tank.

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BioPerforma nce_Fuel

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff179058.h tm

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  79. What's the current handling on the flyback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a lot, I would guess.

  80. Because... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    The Ultracaps, IF they've pulled it off, will have to be able handle a dead short in the stacked cells for a pack or you'll have >350W/kg dumped in about a millisecond or so. That's a LOT of energy- if you thought exploding Dell's because of a Li-Ion pack were impressive... If they can't ensure no instant discharge in the case of cell damage, you're going to want to spread them all throughout the car with a distribution bus instead of a single pullable pack that gets a new one replaced to "fuel up" your car, not to mention it's going to be a big bulky thing that's not easily pulled. You're going to want an inductive charging system for safety reasons.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  81. Tinfoil hats aside by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    there's no conspiracy theory needed to explain why electric cars aren't the panacea that various folks would have you believe. Combine the limited range available from any reasonably priced battery technology, the cost/life ratio of said batteries, the limited nubmer charging stations combined with the charging times required and it's easy to see why this "amazing" technolgy isn't quite ready for prime time. Come back when you find a battery that's got even 50% the energy density of gasoline, a charging time of five minutes, and a cost similar to that of the empty steel tank we're currently using.

    It's always fun to blame GM for "killing" the EV1, (hey, this is slashdot, where any company with more than three employees or that makes an actual profit is "evil") but when you factor in the limited life of motor brushes and batteries, I don't see that electric cars are all that much less complicated to service. Leaving that aside, you've made the common mistake of confusing dealers with manufacturers. Ford doesn't make a penny when Big John's Ford does a transmission service on your 2002 Tarus. The service profit is just the dealer's gravy. Replacement parts aren't even much of a profit center, since so many are available from 3rd parties.

    I'd love to see viable electrics, because I'm a motorcycle rider and I hate breathing exhaust fumes. But we aren't there yet.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:Tinfoil hats aside by jwo7777777 · · Score: 1

      ...limited life of motor brushes... "Alex, I'll take 'Motor Technology' for $100."

      "Here's the answer:...DC Brushless."

      BZZZZZTTT!!!

      "What's the prevailing DC motor technology?, ALex."

      DING DING DING!

      "Correct....for $100."

      [cue applause]
  82. Why care about storage density? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    It is very easy to get stuck in a mindset of what matters. Storage density only really matters if you have to charge the batteries overnight.

    The Re-Fuel guys think you can easily make vehicles with a 50 mile range (and going further just means storing more juice). After 50 miles you just need a recharge which just takes a couple of minutes (pump out old and pump in new).

    For example, my daily commute is approx 35 miles each way. I could easily do a re fuel for my trip home.

    Services could very easily be provided that do a mobile recharge. While your car is in the parking lot, someone comes along with a tanker and refills.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  83. Re: in other news by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

    Homeland Security has advised that there are unconfirmed reports of Sony-equipped suicide bomber kits being available on eBay to replace the common C4 chest-to-belt package.

  84. Another bank of capacitors -- brilliant! n/t by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    That's the right idea.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  85. Old news ... what the impact of this tech might be by SimCash · · Score: 1

    Just as A.C.Clarke predicted the use of satellites in global communications (did he get a patent?), so was this idea (supercapacitors replacing batteries) the science in an old science fiction story. Unfortunately, there was not room in the margins of my brain to write the full reference.

  86. http://tinyurl.com/2d2exh transformer? by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 0
    Did I hear correctly from the parent then this reply > someone mentioning a step-up transformer process? Am I imagining this or has someone suggested a real-time engine that would not use a battery but a capacitor? Did I hear someone whisper "Millenial Dawn" engine?

    Hmm. Looks like someone is making history after I made history > I released the Millenial Dawn engine system onto the Internet on November 14, 2005. And uhm, just in case you don't believe that, I locked the original documentations in a bank safety deposit box -prior to going online- that has not been opened since. I own this Imitation Energy sandbox. I also encoded my engine by referring to it as a "vaporgenerator", a term I have not yet defined to anyone. So trot out anyone you want. Bring Goliath and I will let him read this webpage > http://www.newpath4.com/imitationenergy.htm . The copycats are performing a valuable service selling my concepts for me. President George Walker Bush and his henchman Cheney have had a major part trying to stop my engines but they are failing to do so quite miserably by passing me more State of the Union ammunition.

    The walls of Jericho are crumbling. The Washington DC independent inventor shutout & control mechanisms are now exposed as an evil shellgame being wielded against successive generations of hardworking American citizens who have to leave their cherished children with strangers ("babysitters") so they can work 3 and 4 jobs just to make ends meet, which is an ongoing crime against children parted from their parents by a 296+% economic whip. When my engine gets here -as it one day will- every one of us will be rich, not just "the Rich". We are all rich in electric power sources, have been since before the day any of us was conceived.

    Take it to the bank, that the words I have launched using this World Wide Web against King George Walker Bush are coming home today > January 25 2007: http://communitytalk.rd.com/WebX?14@697.1cCMak2mKu y.0@.ef9f8ce/23335 . We will walk tall as energy freed men & women, living free of energy slavery to corporations, freed of electric meters they want us all to have on the side of our houses paying them a monthly energy tribute like a Roman galley slave pulling oars with blistered and infected hands unable to pay for doctor services. Because when all is said & done, they want us wearing their meters too, for permission to live, permission to breathe, permission to speak and exist ->&>- I don't think so.

    ....

    --
    Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
    1. Re:http://tinyurl.com/2d2exh transformer? by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 0

      And from the parent, yes, in fact I did think my Millenial Dawn engine was an "electronic renaissance" when I thought of it on February 15 2003, bordering on "unbelievable" as some /.'ers have also thought. That day a vision of invention light hit me square on as powerful as a Light from Almighty God actually. Some SlashDot readers want their inventions to come from a "respectable source" not this disabled independent inventor stuck on disability, someone like me from outside their sandbox of accepted energy gurus. It's a sign of selfish gluttony when you want to tell inventions where they can come from.

      Or tell them they can't come from a "philosopher-scientist" religious fellow like myself. Do your best to erase me. My 2003 invention of an air-powered car engine that runs on a symbiotic synergistic combination of air-steam isn't going away any more than the Millenial Dawn of February 2005. Squeal kick and cry foul all you want. The writing is on the wall y'all. The prophet Daniel was heralded by King Nebuchadnezzar as being blessed by his God for interpreting dreams. Do the Math > http://www.newpath4.com/about.htm . Do some more Math > http://www.newpath4.com/faqoverview.htm . Then see the
      333+ links on http://www.newpath4.com/sitemap.htm .

      I'm in this for the long haul; you'll have to fight me for the Finish Line. And I have help.

      --
      Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.