Slashdot Mirror


Aluminum-Celmet Could Increase EV Range By 300%

LesterMoore writes "Japanese company Sumitomo Electric Industries have developed a new material that they believe can significantly improve the capacity of EV batteries. The material is a form of porous aluminum called 'Aluminum-Celmet.' 'The positive electrode current collector in a conventional lithium-ion secondary battery is made from aluminum foil, while the negative electrode current collector is made from copper foil. Replacing the aluminum foil with Aluminum-Celmet increases the amount of positive active material per unit area. Sumitomo Electric’s trial calculations indicate that in the case of automotive onboard battery packs, such replacement will increase battery capacity 1.5 to 3 times. Alternatively, with no change in capacity, battery volume can be reduced to one-third to two-thirds. These changes afford such benefits as reduced footprint of home-use storage batteries for power generated by solar and other natural sources, as well as by fuel cells."

129 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Flush1 · · Score: 1

    I read it as aluminum-helmet :/

  2. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1, Funny

    I read it as aluminum-helmet :/

    I read it as aluminum-cement and said "wtf". Then I read it again and saw "aluminum-helmet" and said "wait WTF". Then I smacked myself in the face and read it right.

  3. Alumninum Cermet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suspect this should be "Aluminum-Cermet" since the metal apparently is deposited on a ceramic base.

    Japanese often mismaps the "R" sound into an "L" sound ... perhaps that happened here?

    1. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought it odd as well, but checking the company's website it is in fact "Celmet".

      It appears that Celmet is a proprietry compound they've been making for a while from nickel and chromium which is designed to be very porous (and high surface area). This announcement seems to just be that they've created an aluminum variant and figure it should work well in lithium batteries.

      However, like others have noted, it appears to be pure conjecture on the company's part. There's no mention of creating an actual battery using this method and, if I were to guess, this whole thing is just an attempt to generate interest in their new (patented, trademarked, and whatever else-d) material.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    2. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's a reference to all the little cells in the metal?

    3. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by Belly · · Score: 1

      Wrong. That's true for Chinese. Japanese goes the other way around, where "L" tend to become "R".

      No, you're wrong. With Japanese it can go either way. The R and L sounds aren't differentiated in Japanese, so unless a native speaker or proper translator is involved, Japanese will often simply guess which one it is. So in Japan you will see instances of L used mistakenly instead of R, and vice-versa.

    4. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      NO! Celmet is their brand of super-porous metals, Celmet being a brand name. The name is composed of Cell and Metal, thusly Celmet. http://www.sei-toyama.co.jp/2-3.html They have made working samples too, but only the briefs are in English: www.sei.co.jp/tr/pdf/energy/sei10498.pdf .

    5. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've made prototypes and samples, the information just isn't fully available in English. Documentation on one of the samples: www.sei.co.jp/tr/pdf/energy/sei10498.pdf

    6. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by kurthr · · Score: 1

      Almost certainly an effort to get people interested, though it appears that the original patents (for Ni not Al) just expired a few years ago (1990-2009).
      The original purpose has always been about batteries, and I can't imagine that it hasn't been tested.... that it's not ubiquitous either means that it's not that good, or that whatever innovation actually makes it good hasn't been popularized.
      http://www.google.com/patents?id=ydwfAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=4957543&hl=en&ei=yU0jTvrfMMPWiAKE0Mm9Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

      I can't imagine that everyone in the field of battery electrodes hasn't heard of this technique.

    7. Re:Alumninum Cermet? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Chinese guy comes to visit on a business trip.
      Over lunch, he and his American hosts chat and of course the theme turns to politics.
      One of the Americans challenges, "So do you have regular elections?"
      "Oh yes, evely molning!"

  4. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    /me raises hand. It took a while to realize that EV stands for Electric Vehicles. My question is, if they are using aluminum foam instead of foil for the positive terminal, then why don't they replace the copper foil with a copper foam for another improvement.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. Power Miracle by clinko · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm working on a battery entirely powered by stories about battery improvements. It is due "within the next 3-5 years" and should improve our buzzword threshold by 2 fold!

    1. Re:Power Miracle by whiteboy86 · · Score: 2

      I would not bet on any battery tech..., but magnetically levitated (in vacuum) flywheel might actually be a power/energy storage miracle, it is much more viable now then any chemical battery. I would dare to say flywheel is back - big time.

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

    2. Re:Power Miracle by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Exxxxcellent. (said as I twiddle my thumbs and snicker).
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB8MN4Kc

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    3. Re:Power Miracle by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Mr Rosen, is that you? Rosen Motors did this in the '90s but based their business on getting the US Big Three to buy into it. Silly boys for thinking Ford, GM, or Chrysler cared about efficiency.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    4. Re:Power Miracle by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Except guess what, battery density actually has improved steadily over time, and dramatically overall. It's not automatic, it's the result of many improvements just like this one.

    5. Re:Power Miracle by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Your doing it wrong. You're supposed to just touch your finger tips together, forming a pyramid, and peer through the center of it.

    6. Re:Power Miracle by cgenman · · Score: 1

      I believe you've just violated my 2002 patent on true random data compression algorithms. That's due 5 years out from my Israeli start-up.

    7. Re:Power Miracle by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flywheels come with their own set of problems. They exhibit gyroscopic effects. The heavier the flywheel, the more energy it takes to accelerate or decelerate, fighting against itself. You have to maintain it in a vacuum. My 10-year-old car can't even keep the exhaust from breaking every five minutes, let alone maintain anything vacuum tight.

      Also, you're not really talking about THAT massive a store of energy. Gasoline is at 47.2 Megajoules / Kilogram. LiOn batteries used in cars are at 720 Kilojoules / Kilogram. The article you list refers to commercial flywheel power storage at 40 Kilojoules / Kilogram. That's 10x less than Lithium Ion batteries. For the equivalent amount of weight, a Ford Volt could drive a paultry 4 miles between charges.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see flywheel regenerative braking and acceleration take off... Momentarily store energy at a dead standstill before harnessing it to launch forwards. That's what it is used for in motorsports and it works well there.

      But it would take a bit of a leap to get from there, to a car whose flywheel is spun up in the morning before driving out. Remember, once all of the physics conversions and equations are stripped out, you would need to spin a big honking physical something fast enough to power pushing around a 2k pound car for a day's driving.

    8. Re:Power Miracle by bertok · · Score: 1

      Flywheels are a huge safety risk. You either run them at low speeds, making them less efficient than batteries, or you run them at very high speeds, in which case a mechanical failure leads to an explosion. Check out this video for an idea of what happens when a lot of stored rotational energy is suddenly released. Now imagine that in every car!

    9. Re:Power Miracle by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      You don't actually remember how crappy batteries used to be, do you?

      Battery tech is improving steadily, and a surprisingly large number of the big breakthroughs we hear about become standard equipment within a few years of their announcement. Batteries aren't flashy like processors or displays, so people tend not to notice, but in fact batteries have been following their own version of Moore's Law for quite some time now. Even cursory research will show you that batteries of all kinds are longer-lived, more powerful, more reliable, and less expensive for the performance delivered than they've ever been.

      But I suppose it's just easier to make snarky remarks on /. than to spend five minutes Googling for the relevant information.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:Power Miracle by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that is different from gasoline powered cars in what way?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    11. Re:Power Miracle by GameMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the most part, gasoline powered cars only explode in television shows or movies.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    12. Re:Power Miracle by zmollusc · · Score: 2

      I haven't noticed the improvements in battery tech because every time the batteries improve, the manufacturers use smaller ones.
      My first cellphone used six AA nicads (which gave a day or so of use when new) whereas now my current (hah!) cellphone has a battery the size of an After Eight mint (which gives a day or so of use when new).

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    13. Re:Power Miracle by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nickel foam is already used in NiMH batteries to improve storage capacity, it's just expensive, so most often used in high-density NiMH car batteries. They already produce a low-nickel variant of this foam that's cheaper and simpler to produce, called celmet, that's comparable in performance to more expensive production methods - Sumitomo are not a fly-by-night company, this is part of their bread-and-butter business.

      They've now applied the same foam technique to creating aluminium foam instead of nickel foam, so it can be used in Lithium batteries instead of NiMH. Given their focus, I imagine it's going to be more suitable to larger Li-ion batteries for EV purposes rather than smaller consumer electronics, but there's no fundamental reason it won't work for Li-ion batteries. After all, all you're doing is increasing the surface area of the electrode with a foam-type material; the trick is making it cheaply enough while maintaining mechanical strength. That appears to be the problem they have solved for aluminium, using their existing technique.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    14. Re:Power Miracle by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone was complaining to me recently about rechargeable D cells only providing the same capacity of AA cells[1]. I told him he should check the capacities before buying them, since all rechargeables list their capacity in mAh on the side. I told him 650mAh was about what he'd expect from an AA, because that was about the most I could find when I last bought AAs. Then I decided to actually check. It turns out that these days 2-3Ah is normal for AA batteries. I used to have a Psion Series 3, which ran on alkaline AA batteries and had a battery monitor that told you how much it had drained - that's more than I got out of alkaline non-rechargeables back then (mid '90s).

      It's easy to miss these advances, but I was really surprised how much cheap rechargeables have improved. The other thing that really brought home the improvement to me recently was a toy helicopter that I got for my birthday. I got one a few years ago, but it had a much smaller and lighter body, and didn't fly as long. In the early '90s, I asked about building electric toy helicopters, and was told that there was no power source that would work for them. The person I was talking to went through the calculations - batteries of the time simply did not have the energy density to lift themselves. That was just before LiIon started to become commercially available. Now, not only is it possible, it's so cheap that you can put them in toys for children / geeks. Oh, and as an aside, I also remember seeing the first prototype for a helicopter with counterrotating rotors on Tomorrows World. It's really amazing seeing a toy containing so many technologies that were totally unavailable just a couple of decades ago.

      [1] This is actually true for Duracell - their rechargeable batteries all seem to use the same cell, irrespective of the size.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Power Miracle by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Flywheels come with their own set of problems. They exhibit gyroscopic effects.

      So you install them in counterrotating pairs.

      The heavier the flywheel, the more energy it takes to accelerate or decelerate, fighting against itself.

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      You have to maintain it in a vacuum. My 10-year-old car can't even keep the exhaust from breaking every five minutes, let alone maintain anything vacuum tight.

      And yet I have two 20 year old cars without exhaust or vac leaks... while the flywheel systems are sealed, these systems are NOT closed systems.

      In any case, flywheels are best suited to use in trains and in stationary installations due to their weight...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Power Miracle by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Counter-rotating pairs aren't magic. They have to be connected by something. The stress on the connecting member will be huge. How do you plan to attach them?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:Power Miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drinkypoo is a well-documented Space Nutter. It is futile to ask him concrete engineering questions, he'll either veer off into Star Trek fantasy-level "technology", or say that NASA has already solved these problems since manned space travel is so important.

    18. Re:Power Miracle by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's how KERS works ALREADY, so I'm not really sure of the nature of your complaint. They don't have to be directly physically coupled in any case, making your question all the more perplexing. They only need to come in pairs, be mounted along the same axis, and both be solidly mounted to the frame.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Power Miracle by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Just as soon as I have perfected my system for harvesting and refining fairy farts and unicorn sprinkles. I'll just need about $50 million in grant money, half of which will go to procuring a 30,000 acre ranch in Wyoming where the fairies and unicorns will be grazing.

    20. Re:Power Miracle by haruchai · · Score: 1

      One advance I'm looking forward to from Sumitomo is their lower-temp ( below 100 deg C) molten-salt battery as it could finally be cheap storage for electric buses / trucks.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    21. Re:Power Miracle by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So you have not noticed that your cell phone no longer weighs as much as a brick?

      For real fun check out the latest AA and AAAs these are still NIMH but will now hold a charge for years. Sure only 1.2v but the discharge curve is a hell of a lot flatter than alkaline.

    22. Re:Power Miracle by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      New NIMH AA are about 2Ah and can hold 80% of their charge for 6-9 months. After that the self discharge losses are even less. Using alkaline batteries today is silly. If you need long self discharge times, like in a remote, get a modern NIMH if you need high voltage and high energy density get a non-rechargeable lithium cell. These NIMH cells pay for themselves in about 2 uses.

    23. Re:Power Miracle by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Agreed - the only place I use disposable AAs now is in cheap flashlights and toys I know my kids will lose :)

    24. Re:Power Miracle by russotto · · Score: 1

      Your charts are not consistent; the second one shows a maximum of 350 Wh/l, whereas the first shows 580 Wh/l.

    25. Re:Power Miracle by amorsen · · Score: 1

      I wish they would do 5 NiMH cells shaped like 4 AA batteries in the most common configuration. There are quite a few things which require 4 AA batteries but only runs briefly or not at all on 4.8V. Obviously joined-up batteries wouldn't fit in every device, but it would help in some of them.

      Alternatively, device makers should add a 5th battery slot for NiMH batteries, but that would require people to be sensible or device makers to add protective circuitry. Neither seems likely.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    26. Re:Power Miracle by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Good point. There are no dates on the second one, so I wonder if it is outdated. The lower range of energy density for lithium-ion is about the same for both, whereas the upper end is much higher on the first.

    27. Re:Power Miracle by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The heavier the flywheel, the more energy it takes to accelerate or decelerate, fighting against itself.

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      Not if you're trying to accelerate the whole thing down the street. The more massive the flywheel system, the more energy it can store. But the more energy it can store, the heavier the car is. That's more energy you need to accelerate the car, or bring it up hill. Then you have additional weight in the structure to handle cornering with a heavy flywheel system, stronger brakes, etc.

      Really, the three ways you can store more energy in a flywheel system is 1: heavier wheels, 2: larger wheels, 3: faster spinning. As we've seen with CD's, there are practical limitations before 3 becomes majorly problematic. With modern flywheels rotating at 250 times per second, we're probably pretty close to that limit for the moment. 1 and 2 are limited by the practicalities of car design and tooling. Even if you built out a pair of giant spinning disks in the underfloor of your car, in the most massive, structurally impenetrable SUV body you could find, you still couldn't get close to a quarter of the distance of a low-end gas car. And the radical retooling costs alone would probably be in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars... Not to mention repairs and liability on that much spinning mass constantly having rocks and other road debris thrown at it, or minor fender-benders, etc.

      I'm not saying these are inherently insurmountable. Being able to recharge from a standard electric outlet already puts it above Hydrogen. But that's not where I'd invest my retirement savings. Yet.

    28. Re:Power Miracle by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Meh, I would happily have my cellphone four times the weight and twice the thickness if it meant the battery was ( squints at battery and makes estimate ) eight or ten times the capacity.
      Cellphones can stand some increase in weight. My keys weigh more than my phone.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    29. Re:Power Miracle by Bobtree · · Score: 1

      For the most part, gasoline powered cars only explode in television shows or movies.

      GameMaster? You forgot about video games!

    30. Re:Power Miracle by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Those devices must eat alkaline batteries. Alkalines are down to 1.2 quite quickly. Check out a discharge curve for them one time.

    31. Re:Power Miracle by pookemon · · Score: 1

      Yep - it's along the lines of "We can't have Hydrogen powered vehicles until we find a way to store the Hydrogen safely - Hydrogen is highly flamable and explosive!". Kind of like "gasoline" - and Lithium based batteries.

      FUD is what makes the world go 'round. Until it explodes...

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    32. Re:Power Miracle by phaggood · · Score: 1

      The ex head of GM recently gave a talk about how the advances of the early 20th century are due to the engineers calling the shots at corporations, after MBA's took over the products started to suck. Looking at the design of my Sanyo Zio it appears that there was a REALLY great phone in there during the engineering phase, then the marketing ppl made a bunch of stupid-ass decisions (pertaining mostly to battery life and those ridiculous little doors all over the sides, I expect Scooby and the gang to chase monsters in and out of them while I'm not looking). With as tiny as the battery is, I'd bet a 1/2 centimeter of depth would've given this phone 30+hrs of additional standby; now I'm charging the damn thing about every 6-8hrs. An ENGINEER would have called this a good idea; the MBA's would say 'but it's not as thin as the eye-phone'

    33. Re:Power Miracle by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Making a system "tight" to hydrogen is significantly more difficult than making one that is "tight" to liquid hydrocarbons. Or gaseous hydrocarbons, for that matter. (Speaking from experience of maintaining gas detection and analysis systems involving hydrogen flame ionisation detectors for more years than I care to remember.)

      That's not saying that it can't be done, just that there will be "learning experiences", particularly amongst experienced maintenance personnel who know that RTFM is for children in school, not oily-handed master tradesmen. Some people will die in those "learning experiences". I haven't (yet) heard of the first fatality from someone putting a wet finger where it shouldn't go in an electric car, but I don't routinely go around looking for such reports ; I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened already. I see the F1 car monitors talking about hundreds of volts in whatever this month's boost system is called, and I expect to see big sparks one day.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    34. Re:Power Miracle by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1
      From the comments of that video:

      This test was successful in that the failure was contained. i.e. engine parts did not go beyond the engine cowling.

    35. Re:Power Miracle by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Touche!

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  6. Let's Raise Some Money by mark_elf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA is full of words like "reportedly" and "could". It's marketing baloney. If this stuff is so great, let's have a story about a working battery. Also, the technical details in the summary about electrodes and battery size reduction don't appear in TFA. Please remember, No Original Research is one of the core content policies of /.

    1. Re:Let's Raise Some Money by Iskender · · Score: 2

      It's true that this is not ready. However, the basics are probably sound - changing battery electrodes can boost power significantly. They're pretty much the movers and shakers in batteries, after all.

      Lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries probably started this way too. There will always be a lot of fluff but it's important to keep an eye out for technical developments since some will actually be the next big thing, like powerful LEDs. New electrodes in some shape and form are probably it when it comes to lithium batteries.

  7. Obligatory xkcd reference by fotbr · · Score: 2

    http://xkcd.com/678/

    As a side note, a hovercar might be nice later this summer when my commute floods.

    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd reference by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      You should get a Hover Bike but it may not very good going over water.

      http://www.hover-bike.com/

  8. Slashvertisement by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Search for the term "Aluminum Celmet" and all the returns are from the last month or so, all reference the company mentioned here, and are either press releases, stories on tech sites made from press releases, or astroturf on forums. The term "celmet" appears to be a trademark of the company.

    I'm very interested in novel battery research, but this one tastes like Ovaltine.

    1. Re:Slashvertisement by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Search for the term "Aluminum Celmet" and all the returns are from the last month or so, all reference the company mentioned here, and are either press releases, stories on tech sites made from press releases, or astroturf on forums. The term "celmet" appears to be a trademark of the company.

      I'm very interested in novel battery research, but this one tastes like Ovaltine.

      Ovaltine? Are you sure? I'm in! *yum*

    2. Re:Slashvertisement by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      OVOMaltine!

    3. Re:Slashvertisement by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

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

      It's not that uncommon that products are named different in different countries.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Slashvertisement by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Actually the information just isn't available in English. Aside from the Celmet site there are numerous documents on prototypes, samples, and working production models if you simply search for the name in Japanese: .

    5. Re:Slashvertisement by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Slashdot UTF8 FAIL!

    6. Re:Slashvertisement by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Slashdot UTF8 FAIL!

      Can you give us a percent-encoded URL to a working search? We could feed results through one of the online translators.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. what, no.... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    These changes afford such benefits as reduced footprint of home-use storage batteries for power generated by solar and other natural sources, as well as by fuel cells.

    All that matters for home storage batteries is that they be cheap and recyclable. "Footprint" is completely irrelevant. And mentioning fuel cells as a power source is just asking for a flame war.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:what, no.... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Footprint irrelevant? Not everyone can afford to be evicted from a 3000 sq ft house. Cheap and recyclable is good but so is smaller, safer, efficient and long-lasting.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:what, no.... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If footprint were completely irrelevant, then it would be a solved problem. It's only of lesser importance, which means that really huge batteries with low efficiency aren't feasible.

      N.B.: if footprint were irrelevant, then one solution would be to build a large tank covered by a heavy weight. To store power, you pump in some fluid underneath it. Air would work. To extract power you run it through a turbine. You need a fairly heavy weight, so use the house. (This, additionally, gives you earthquake protection if you use proper design.) That means you can store the fluid under lots of pressure, so you can run the turbine at high efficiency. Simple, reliable, efficient...but HUGE. And simply because it's huge it's expensive in many different ways. But with a heavy enough weight, and a large enough tank, you can store as much power as you want. And if the fluid has low surface tension (which makes sealing the tank difficult) you can have excellent efficiency. (This is actually a reasonably good mechanical analog of a battery.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:what, no.... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      He said cheap - so he placed a reasonable constraint on size. Unlike what marketing places on laptop batteries...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  10. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    From what I can tell, they only know how to make this foam with a few types of metal right now.

  11. Re:I read it for what it was. by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

    I read it as "Aluminum-Celmet", which is exactly what it says. Stop being so lazy. Protip: generally, if a word is set off by being within quotation marks and/or is capitalized, it is being emphasized for a reason.

    Or its just part of a title....

  12. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    Ah I get it--you speak one of the minor dialects of the language, instead of the dialect with more speakers than all the other ones combined...

  13. If this is decent at all... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    ...and can be applied at sizes smaller than a car battery, the first practical applications of it won't be car batteries. They'll be consumer electronics. If you've ever seen the inside of an iPad or iPhone, you already know that the largest single component is the battery. Being able to shrink it means that the technology companies can shrink the form factors of devices like those. I know in the case of the iPhone, the camera is one of the current major constraints on thickness, but for laptops you may be able to see drastic reductions in thickness and weight. And for smaller electronics, you may be able to simply make the device lighter, or else can afford to make fewer compromises due to space constraints. It could be very interesting indeed.

    Now, granted, this sounds like a lot of astroturfing, but if there is any worth to it, you can bet that the technology companies that are trying to make slim and stylish devices will be all over it. Apple in particular, since they've already started developing their own battery technologies to save space and increase capacity.

    1. Re:If this is decent at all... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "Apple in particular, since they've already started developing their own battery technologies to save space and increase capacity."

      Apple in particular so they can continue to justify non user replaceable batteries because their new batteries are "special". Come on Apple, if you just want more money admit it. Don't tell me it's because you couldn't find a way to package the internals so that the battery is accessible. Every other manufacturer seems to be able to make thin phones with replaceable batteries after all. Apple could come up with a 1 sq cm battery and would STILL embed it deep in the bowels of the device.

      I've taken apart 2 iphone 3g's and replaced the batteries myself. Tiny parts and 45 min of dis-assembly/reassembly does NOT qualify as user replaceable. I just get so tired of companies lying about being greedy. Just admit it and stop with the BS and spin.

    2. Re:If this is decent at all... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
      I'm sick of all this "thinner, lighter, smaller" crap. We went passed the practical barrier on those constraints in almost all technologies. But marketing has tuned it into a dick size replacement and are wasting the engineers time making make marginally useful and really small crap instead of solid technological powerhouses which I think each of us has the right to expect to see in their pockets and laptop bags.
      Down with small!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    3. Re:If this is decent at all... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You're being rather hostile for no apparent reason and speaking from an apparent wealth of ignorance on the topic. I didn't advocate thinner, if you actually read my post. I merely discussed my predictions for how this will likely get used. That said, surely you can't be so technophobic that you fail to recognize the value in the miniaturization of technology? Making things small is incredibly important, otherwise we'd be trying to figure out ways to fit vacuum tubes into our pockets. Whether or not you're into trendy smart phones, I'm sure you can appreciate that having something with that much horsepower in your pocket is phenomenal compared to where we were just a few years ago. And if you think that current smart phones and laptops are lacking in power, I think you've lost your moorings and ended up with your head in the sky, since both of those device types are pretty outstanding these days.

      And it's devices like those trendy, cutting edge, or demanding ones which push the innovation to the masses. Graphics cards have been driven forward for years by gaming, which has led to them becoming far more powerful than what any normal person requires. But the end result is a plus to the normal consumer, since they can get a card with far more power than they need for relatively cheap. Similarly, devices that drive specific form factors help to push forward the technology that makes those form factors possible in the first place, which makes the technology more viable for other companies to adopt. If Apple makes a thinner iPhone, then that means the parts had to come from somewhere, and that means that similar parts can then be adapted to the types of uses you'd prefer. Without someone pushing the form factor down in size, those devices you want may not even be possible.

    4. Re:If this is decent at all... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I was so aggressive - it's just that the wording struck a nerve - it's not your fault - as you said, it's a prediction.
      Let me reiterate more clearly - I think we are pushing form factors down faster than we can fill them up with power/ability. Examples: cell phone cameras - unneededly crappy, just to shave of some millimeters in thickness, without meaningfully affecting weight or mobility, laptop batteries - considering how small and longlived netbooks are on a single charge, why is it that larger form factor laptops always competing on weight and horsepower, where both are long inside the useful range, yet no one seems to get the idea to put a netbook mobo in desktop replacement class shell, and cram it full of batteries?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  14. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by aevan · · Score: 2

    Same...and then went on to read EV as in extra-vehicular (activity) and wondered what the hell helmet material astronauts were using that so limited them before...

  15. Whatever happened to EESTOR? by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

    EESTOR had a super capacitor storage technology that was supposed to work at 1800 (V). They have filed 30+ patents. Last I checked, I couldn't find any announcements from them. I couldn't even find an EESTOR sign in front of the EESTOR office building on Google Earth.

    Anyone know if they are still alive?

    1. Re:Whatever happened to EESTOR? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      They are still in business.
      They have not demonstrated any products or prototypes.
      Many believe that the tech doesn't / can't work.
      Some believe they are frauds.
      Some believe they are real.
      The site theeestory.com follows the company, though in the absence of any actual news, the site has devolved into other topics.

    2. Re:Whatever happened to EESTOR? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And oddly, they still have money coming in and they are working. Even more interesting is that they now have some type of feds working with them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. The car battery problem has been solved by Casandro · · Score: 1

    The Sinclair C5 ran for 40 kilometres with a fairly simple battery, so this is clearly just another excuse for the car industry to not bring out more electric vehicles, or to bring out only highly inefficient ones.

    1. Re:The car battery problem has been solved by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Sinclair C5 - cool though it was, and I still want one - was a small electric recumbent cycle. Its real range was closer to 25km than 40km, and at a top speed of 25km/h. It had pedals, but then the aerodynamic design was compensated for by carrying around 30kg of deep-cycle lead-acid battery. It needed to charge up overnight from flat, giving about an hour's run time for a full 12 hours of charging.

      I'm not a particularly hardcore cyclist, but even I can beat the C5's range and speed, powered only by a pint or two of beer and a couple of pies...

    2. Re:The car battery problem has been solved by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Looked up the C5. As the review said: "Nothing good was ever said about the C5..."

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    3. Re:The car battery problem has been solved by PPH · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Won't people learn that people don't want electric vehicles until they have a roof, windows and enough cargo space to fill in for the petrol vehicle they are replacing?

      FIFY

      Yep. People want vehicles that work. But by 'work' they mean be able to perform a reasonable set of functions that justify their capital expenditure. For most people, this means occasionally hauling a load of groceries or the kids to football practice (don't ask). Hybrid vehicles are there. Plug-ins are getting close. But this Sinclair seems to be more a replacement for a bicycle than a second car*. So put pedals on it and the 40 km limitation won't be a problem. But then don't produce advertising copy with models wearing business suits riding them. Lets see the helmet-wearing, Lycra-clad, goat-smelling user base commonly associated with the bicycle commuting class (at least here in the USA).

      *Many years ago, I got into a discussion (argument) with a real EV proponent.
      "Why won't people switch to electric cars?" he asked.
      "Because they are little more than golf carts with little range and no comfort", I replied. "When they come out with an electric car that is as comfortable and performs as well as a traditional car, people will buy them".
      "But that's not the point! If everyone had only an electric car, they'd be uncomfortable and eventually switch to mass transit."

      And so the electric car's place in the grand plan of social control begins.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:The car battery problem has been solved by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'd love to get hold of a C5 (unfortunately, they are all now collectors items) and re-motor it with a modern brushless motor (something like the Scorpion HK-4025 650kv that I use in my T-Rex 600 RC helicopter, the motor itself has a maximum of 2.6kW and easily fits in the hand - it's small) and ESC, and use a bank of Li-Poly batteries (which would end up being much smaller and lighter than the original lead-acid). Unlike in my heli, the motor wouldn't be really running all that hard (but would have plenty of reserve to get up hills).

    5. Re:The car battery problem has been solved by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      But imagine if one of those ol' C5's was retrofitted with modern components. It might be a very fun go-kart project and heaps better than the original ever was.

      Hey, the original was pretty damn good considering the technology of the day. Bear in mind that deep-cycle SLA batteries were *the* hot new battery technology in the early 80s - now you could run your caravan lights *all weekend* without having to start the car to charge them! The traction motor was not derived from a washing-machine motor as popular belief has it, but a high-efficiency motor designed for truck radiator fans and built using quite clever new magnets.

  17. This might be real by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    The actual press release is rather conservative.

    This is Sumitomo Electric, annual sales about US$20 billion, not some startup. Their major businesses are wire and cable, which includes fibre optics and associated laser diodes. Looking back at their press releases, there are items like "Arrival of the "Era of High-Temperature Superconducting Wire with 200-A-Class Critical Current", followed a few months later by "World's First In-Grid High-Temperature Superconducting Power Cable System is Now Online at Albany, New York". This company doesn't typically overhype their technology.

    Their "celmet" materials have been around for a while, but until recently, they were nickel-based only. They've made some NiMh batteries with this technology, but there wasn't a big win. Now they have an aluminum version, which is more useful for batteries.

    This might actually work.

    1. Re:This might be real by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you.. probably the most informative post in the thread so far. I would love to see longer battery life in consumer electronics too though... I just hope that someone does a reliable, peppy EV/Hybrid. Will probably see biodeisel make a comeback first though.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:This might be real by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Aluminium is 8% of the planet's crust. it's not a rare earth metal: it's available in unbelievably large quantities. Europositron, a company that has also developed a 100% rechargeable high-capacity cell (5x that of NiMH) - that doesn't degrade or require chemical or mechanical re-processing - has recognised the capacity of aluminium for years. unfortunately, despite working demos, nobody's believed them.

      the problem with aluminium as a high-capacity rechargeable battery is that the energy storage capacity is so high (80kWh in a 100kg cell is not unreasonable) that it can easily be classified as a weapon (in the same way that a molotov cocktail can be classified as a weapon).

    3. Re:This might be real by TomHeal · · Score: 1

      This might actually work.

      I have a preference for results instead of "this might actually work."

    4. Re:This might be real by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      the problem with aluminium as a high-capacity rechargeable battery is that the energy storage capacity is so high (80kWh in a 100kg cell is not unreasonable) that it can easily be classified as a weapon (in the same way that a molotov cocktail can be classified as a weapon).

      The energy content of 100 kg of TNT is 115 kWh, so this is almost 70% as high. Thermal destruction of a battery like this won't be pretty. (Well, maybe it *would* be pretty in a Myth Busters/fireworks kind of way, but you won't want to be close by.)

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    5. Re:This might be real by russotto · · Score: 1

      Aluminium is 8% of the planet's crust. it's not a rare earth metal: it's available in unbelievably large quantities. Europositron, a company that has also developed a 100% rechargeable high-capacity cell (5x that of NiMH) - that doesn't degrade or require chemical or mechanical re-processing - has recognised the capacity of aluminium for years. unfortunately, despite working demos, nobody's believed them.

      This Europositron?

      See, it's stuff like this which makes slashdotters wary of battery breakthroughs, even when they may actually be legitimate.

    6. Re:This might be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what about 100 liters of gasoline? In more *useful* terms,

      gasoline - 45MJ/kg
      100kg, 80kWh (magic) battery - 2.9MJ/kg
      TNT - 4.7MJ/kg

      So, what's the problem? gasoline is 10x as much energy dense as TNT. But then the comparison is kind of ridicules. TNT is designed to release all energy at once. A battery or gasoline, generally cannot do that. Gasoline can only do that under very specific circumstances. Batteries are even less likely to be destroyed as rapidly as openly burning gasoline.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_Energy_Densities

    7. Re:This might be real by hitmark · · Score: 1

      That depends on it being able to release the stored energy in as short a time as TNT.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    8. Re:This might be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By that logic you should be really worried about butter. 100 kg of butter has an energy content of 830 kWh after all. What makes TNT dangerous isn't the energy density, which is pretty low, but the speed of the reaction.

    9. Re:This might be real by Alioth · · Score: 2

      You're comparing apples with oranges: TNT releases that energy in a very small fraction of a second. However, a lithium battery when it catches fire takes a minute or two to actually burn out, so unlike TNT it won't explode, it'll just burn. Petrol (gasoline) burns much more rapidly and ferociously than a Li-Ion battery. Also liquid fuels can spread out while they are burning and catch a lot of other things on fire, a lithium battery tends to sit and flare off in one place. It's considerably less threatening than a liquid fuel fire.

      A lithium battery probably makes a better weapon by blunt impact rather than burning.

    10. Re:This might be real by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      Who needs a hybrid when Tesla can make a car with a range of 300 miles? Yeah I know that model is like 80k but their design philosophy is to start at the high end where $100k (Roadster) isn't ridiculous and then work down.

  18. Awesome! by ewieling · · Score: 2

    This is great news! Only 20 years until the patent expires and products can start being made using this technology.

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    1. Re:Awesome! by russotto · · Score: 1

      This is great news! Only 20 years until the patent expires and products can start being made using this technology.

      Only if they're dicks about it. It seems more likely that they'd want to actually make the products and/or license the technology rather than sit on them and sue anyone who makes anything remotely similar. So you'll pay more for 20 years, but it'll be available.

  19. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by mitch_feaster · · Score: 1

    Tin foil hat!!

    --
    fun
  20. Future Tech is Future tech, so stop being a cynic by Xeranar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have no other definition for a group so well entrenched and yet supposedly so well educated in science. First off take a course in the history of science and understand just how developments actually work. We've been wowed by computer sciences for the last two decades and the lightning speed of updates but in the real world of mechanical parts and economics moore's law just doesn't apply. The first EVs used nickel-cadmium batteries the newest models use lithium ion technology. In ten years this aluminum-celmet which is a process that is widely known and thus likely will be trademarked but not patented. We're close to breaking the magic 300 mile range barrier and when we do the EVs will sell.

    The overall cynicism of the posters is getting depressing and irresponsible. Science occurs at the speed of humanity, advancements happen every day that takes years to filter into our world. If you don't like reading about cutting edge future technology then stop reading these articles.

  21. Misleading use of percentages by stormboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looking at the stated figures for battery volume, the increase in range is "by up to 200%" NOT "by 300%" as the title states. The correct use of the 300% figure would be "increase range to 300% of current range". An increase of range by 300% would mean the range would be 400% of the original range. It may seem like a little difference between the words "by" and "to", but misuse of words and percentages occurs far too much to exaggerate things that do not need exaggerating.

    1. Re:Misleading use of percentages by unixj · · Score: 1

      It might be more correct to say they occur far too *often*.

  22. Sounds like BS to me by davesag · · Score: 1

    I fail to see how changing the wires can possibly increase the energy density of the battery. Sorry but I'm calling BS on this one.

    If they could show some actual examples of their tech in action I'd be more willing to overcome my scepticism.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    1. Re:Sounds like BS to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The clue is in the word "porous" - they increase active surface area. What annoys me slightly is that I see announcements like that almost weekly using all sorts of material from nano tubes to recycled fluffy animals (no, I made that up) - but I don't see this in reality. In that respect we think alike: cute announcement, now make it actually *work*.

      I personally see more mileage (pun intended) in fuel cell technology: refuelling is much faster than recharging,.

      What I have not seen so far is attempts to store lightning. One flash can power a minor city for months, so if we could master than one we'd save a LOT of energy, but we're not capable of handling such a jolt, let alone store it.

  23. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

    What if someone drives like they expect to see other people who are dangerous accidents waiting to happen?

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  24. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Thansal · · Score: 1

    What if someone drives like they expect to see other people who are dangerous accidents waiting to happen?

    That's called a pedestrian.

    --
    Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  25. What the heck is a EV battery? by Moldiver · · Score: 1

    Well colour me stupid but what the heck is a EV battery?

    1. Re:What the heck is a EV battery? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 2

      Electric Vehicle

    2. Re:What the heck is a EV battery? by Moldiver · · Score: 1

      Thanks - These 2 letter shorts drive me mad. What's so bad at writing e-car or electric car?

    3. Re:What the heck is a EV battery? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but EV is a common term here in Japan and I myself assumed it was overseas. Take the MiEV for example, it has EV right in the name: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/i-miev/ .

    4. Re:What the heck is a EV battery? by bartonski · · Score: 1

      Please mod this up... and any other post that asks for an explanation of some obscure acronym/initial-ism.

  26. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Flush1 · · Score: 1

    Got your panties in a bunch? Way to post an explosive rant as anonymous..cause we all know teh internets is srs bzness! Maybe what we need of less is raging ranting self pity driven imbeciles as yourself whose only purpose is to deflect and redirect their anger of their penis size on to the internet. Good day sir

  27. L vs R by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Typical misunderstanding with Japanese pronunciation:
    Q: "When do you have elections in Japan?"
    A: "Ah yes, have one plactically evely molning!"

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  28. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I was really wondering how that could possibly improve batteries...

    I was wondering how it was going to improve my sex life.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. weight reductions in laptops... by lkcl · · Score: 1

    ... means that the laptop falls over backwards when you open the screen! the reason is that the screen weighs 0.5kg and the rest of the laptop is now only about 300 grammes - including only a 100 gramme battery. so it's necessary to put a counterweight at the front, or to redesign the laptop and have the screen moved forward. no, you can't reduce the weight of the screen, because it's thin glass (which is heavy itself) but it's not self-supporting and so needs to be surrounded by a metal frame.

    so, yes, lots of speculation, but the writing is clearly on the wall.

  30. How was it going to improve your sex life? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    will increase battery capacity 1.5 to 3 times

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:How was it going to improve your sex life? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      *golf clap*

    2. Re:How was it going to improve your sex life? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      If you are James Bond, then you will have to swim around twice as long dragging a nearly naked scuba diver away from the laser sharks. Well, that's his sex life, anyway.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  31. Which is the wrong way to go by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Instead, focus on ultra-caps and then have charging stations every so often that allows for FAST charges. For example, from stop to stop, a bus can pull up and charge in 10 seconds with enough power to go to the next 2-3 stops. With that approach, you can have a VERY lightweight, efficient, and CHEAP bus.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Which is the wrong way to go by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That won't help trucks and that sounds like a very awkward way to charge city buses. It would be better to charge them at the bus garages or have a few designated swap stations. Lightweight is good but, for a bus, not a deal breaker. And for buses and trucks that are out one the highway, range and drag are of greater concern.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Which is the wrong way to go by haruchai · · Score: 1

      A very good point and one that most people just don't get. I've lost count of the number of times that someone talks about the 500-mile battery without realizing just how much electricity would have to be delivered to charge it in a reasonable amount of time. And fast-charging it to 80%? Stand way, way, way back from the electric force field that's about to vaporize your car.
      What the super-battery crowd don't get is that pumping gas into your ICE's tank is roughly the same as delivering electrical energy at about 2 MW.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Which is the wrong way to go by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Something else about ultra-capacitors - their efficiency needs to improve and they need to be safer. Read the link below about ultra-cap electric buses catching fire

      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1063473_chinese-electric-bus-catches-fire-on-road-not-the-first-one

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  32. KISS principle? by h00manist · · Score: 1

    I see no need for such complex vehicles for the majority of uses. While autonomous vehicles certainly are necessary for many uses, the majority of the trips are along regular routes - city streets and freeways - and adding some sort of tracks with a power source in some sort of third rail is old tech. We only don't have it because it doesn't sell cars, but that's an economic problem, not an engineering one. Yes, lots of people are crazy about cars and proclaim public disasters and military dictatorships at any sign of providing them with the option to not depend on one, but that's also not technical, that's just marketing, politics or entertainment. Millions of people everywhere have no personal car and live quite fine. If you add up their negatives, it becomes a long list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_automobile_on_societies
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  33. 300% increase or 3 fold increase??? by gordona · · Score: 1

    Lets see, a 3 fold increase would be from 'a' kwh to '3a' kwh. The percent increase would be 100%*(3a - a)/a = 200%. So is it 3 fold increase or 300% increase (which would be 4 fold increase).

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
  34. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    Oh, well that's really good for you--you'll be able to talk to your grandchildren...

  35. Re:Future Tech is Future tech, so stop being a cyn by HiThere · · Score: 1

    If I understand correctly, the application of this technology to aluminum *is* new, and I suspect that there will be a number of (legitimate) patents surrounding it. It's not just deciding to replace one metal by another, different metals behave quite differently.

    OTOH, it may be something that will break "the magic 300 mile range". But I doubt that it will allow for quick refueling short of a battery exchange. I don't think that even super-capacitors could do that, as the power requirements for a fast charge are a bit appalling.

    That said, I'm certain that it will have MANY uses. Some in power transmission, some in other areas. (Earlier comments have lead me to believe that this company won't be interested in pursuing powering consumer gadgets, but in that case they'll probably be open to licensing for that purpose. Which could be very useful.

    But I don't think that electric cars will ever be practical as a general purpose vehicle without implementing a battery exchange program, or something equivalent. (Some types of battery operate on a flow-thru principle, so in principle you could treat that just like a two-part fuel, with regeneration done at fixed stations.) FWIW, a general purpose vehicle must be capable of driving from Nome, Alaska to Mexico City (given suitable roads) in one trip without extensive layovers. I do admit to the necessity for stops along the way to refuel, but they can't require more than 45 minutes if they are very infrequent, or 5 minutes if they are frequent. (Yeah, that's quite vague. Intentionally. I don't consider "general purpose vehicle" to be a category with hard edges, but rather with very fuzzy ones. And I acknowledge that some people would reasonably include off-the-road requirements, but I don't. And I'm willing to consider a shorter maximum trip length...but 300 miles isn't long enough. San Francisco to Los Angelas is a bare minimum.)

    So I end up thinking quite highly of battery exchange programs for electrical vehicles. Which means standardization requirements for battery shape and connectors. But it's best to wait for the proper battery technology...or to have a standard that is flexible enough to allow variation as technology improves. Which is tricky in and of itself. (Note that under a battery exchange program, you wouldn't own the battery in your vehicle, just the power that it contains. So this would mean that there were various social adaptations necessary, e.g., Mobile would need to be willing to accept batteries owned by Shell in an exchange. Do they charge them? Relabel them? Ship them off to Shell? Can they charge a premium for accepting someone else's battery?)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  36. When did Apple lie about being a company? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    They are a profit-making venture just like every other company on the planet. Are you new to the planet? is this why you are confused by this phenomenon?

    Why are you so off-topic? Are there not enough Apple-themed threads that you have to find a way to dig at Apple on a topic about battery technology?

  37. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    To our grandchildren 'American English' will be a dying language spoken by the final remnants of US civilisation. Our descendants will be introduced to the concept of american exceptionalism as a sociopolitical dead end thankfully relegated to the endnotes of history.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  38. Re:Horrible by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    As much as I dislike using a company name as if it were plural, it is a collective noun and it is permissible use it as plural. If you wish to nit-pick, use it as plural when you mean "(the people at) X corp." and singular when you mean X corp as a unified entity.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  39. Re:Future Tech is Future tech, so stop being a cyn by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    The cynicism has everything to do with the inability to distinguish real advances from marketing hype and vaporware claims that make up just as many articles. That is the fault of poor quality moderating on Slashdot's part, not the community.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  40. Re:Future Tech is Future tech, so stop being a cyn by HiThere · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point of the "Nome to Mexico City".
    1) I'm assuming overnight stops, lunch breaks, etc. That was the reason for "45 minutes if very infrequent". I could easily stretch it out to an hour, but every extra minute makes the option less desirable. (As I said, the concept doesn't have sharp edges.) The purpose of the "Nome to Mexico City" was to ensure that there was a requirement for refueling during the trip. (If it could handle that without problems, then it could handle any expectable trip.)
    N.B.: I'm assuming that you overnight at motels with charging capability. So I'm assuming that that's not a problem. But you still need to be able to put in a day driving with a bit of reserve in case your motel is full and lost your reservation.

    2) The other consideration is: most people don't keep a separate car around for when they go on vacation. So the "general purpose vehicle" has to be able to handle the "going away for a week" trip. A battery exchange program would solve this.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  41. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    And mares eat oats & does eat oats & little lambs eat ivy...

  42. Re:Who Else read that as "aluminum-cement"? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Me.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  43. How to make your blog popular by muradbar · · Score: 1

    You may waste a lot of hours and money form your life to increase your page ranks and also popularity of your blog.You may searched in google for tips and browse thousands of websites for tips but you can get 10000 tips form one site here is its link. http://tipstomakeblogpopular.blogspot.com/