Discussions

« Back 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Battery Breakthrough?.

• 
  evporcshe
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  01/22/2007 06:59 PM

  i think it 's great

  hopefully  they will put one in my'66 ev porcshe that i am converting! contact me at harmoniousmobility@yahoo.com

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    sleeper365@yahoo.com
    

    Posts:
    2

    Reply

    09/29/2008 12:01 AM

    Re: i think it 's great

    are you interested in a great idea? i need a battery man. currently everyone is concentrating on this idea of replacing the gas guzzlers saturating our highways,and long term its the right idea. but Harry isn't ready to junk his new s.u.v. because he'll take a financial loss, he needs to get to the office ,but there's no monorail.to make things harder yet gas is eating away his mad money and his toys are more expensive every day. I have a right now solution that needs a little technical expertise, and it needs the right hands. so can we talk?   sleeper365@yahoo.com

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Roger Pham
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/22/2007 10:41 PM

  Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

  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!
  
  Apparently Richard Weir didn't know that, since nowhere in his patent did he mention this property of BaTiO3, nor any way to deal with this greatly varying dielectric property of BaTiO3. EEstor's claim of 100x increase in electrical energy storage of ceremic capacitor reflects his unwareness of this knowledge that has barred others from even considering using BaTiO3 as SuperCap.
  
  The following is a verbatim quote from Richard Dean Weir's US patent # 7033406 to illustrate my above point:
  "Yet another aspect of the present invention is that the coating of aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass on calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder provides many enhancement features and manufacturing capabilities to the basis material. These coating materials have exceptional high voltage breakdown and when coated onto the above material will increase the breakdown voltage of ceramics comprised of the coated particles from 3.times.10.sup.6 V/cm of the uncoated basis material to around 5.times.10.sup.6 V/cm or higher. The following reference indicates the dielectirc breakdown strength in V/cm of such materials: J. Kuwata et al., "Electrical Properties of Perovskite-Type Oxide Thin-Films Prepared by RF Sputtering", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 1, 1985, 24(Suppl. 24-2, Proc. Int. Meet. Ferroelectr., 6.sup.th), 413-15. This very high voltage breakdown assists in allowing the ceramic EESU to store a large amount of energy due to the following: Stored energy E=CV.sup.2/2, Formula 1, as indicated in F. Sears et al., "Capacitance-Properties of Dielectrics", University Physics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.: Dec. 1957: pp 468-486, where C is the capacitance, V is the voltage across the EESU terminals, and E is the stored energy. This indicates that the energy of the EESU increases with the square of the voltage. FIG. 1 indicates that a double array of 2230 energy storage components 9 in a parallel configuration that contain the calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder. Fully densified ceramic components of this powder coated with 100 .ANG. of aluminum oxide as the first coating 8 and a 100 .ANG. of calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass as the second coating 8 can be safely charged to 3500 V. The number of components used in the double array depends on the electrical energy storage requirements of the application. The components used in the array can vary from 2 to 10,000 or more. The total capacitance of this particular array 9 is 31 F which will allow 52,220 Wh of energy to be stored as derived by Formula 1. "
  
  The storage capacity of EEstor's EESU is just a theoretical projection from data by J. Kuwata et al in Jpn Journal of Applied Physics published  WAY BACK in 1985. There was no mention of any actual construction nor testing of any of the coated BaTiO3 superCap that was described in the patent! Little did he know...that he may be able to pull a fast one on the venture capitalists, but he has not fooled neither all the scientists nor engineers!
  
  If they have a secret solution to this problem but do not want to disclose it in the patent(s), then legally, by not mentioning this problem in the patent application(s) and hence without a proposed solution to deal with it, this would render their patent(s) worthless due to failure to disclose sufficient information to make the invention operable as claimed. You can confirm this with any patent attorney!
  
  If EEstor would only demonstrate to the world one small capacitor cell of their superduper Cap that support their claim, instead of making us wait for them to complete a whole 15-52kwh car battery...(Just as A123 Battery Firm demonstrated their nanotech Li-phosphate cells in power tools and afterward winning 15 millions from USABC consortium (Battery for Auto's Big 3) and other contracts and other big investments)...then EEstor would have gotten all the millions of dollars research grants and contracts that have gone to A123 instead!!!...How long would it take to build just one capacitor cell to demonstrate the high 330wh/kg energy density that they are claiming?
  Perhaps the USABC consortium (Battery for Auto's Big 3) and other energy storage research facilities have hired all the high-caliber electromagnetic physicists to work for them already, leaving venture capital firm Kleiner & Perkins et al with less qualified experts?
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    kitk
    

    Posts:
    66

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/23/2007 01:37 AM

    Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

    I must repeat: the reason why cars were first made with gas engines was NOT because all makers of cars were evil, mean, greedy, cruel, patriarchal oppressors of nature (no matter what my idiot cousin Al Gore says), but because gas engines WORKED! Gas was a by-product, actually a waste product, of oil refining, and thus cheap. Thousands of machine shops existed to tend the simple engines. They stopped making electric cars because the gas ones did better as speeds increased and cities grew broader. Most big car makers today are rightly suspicious of the flashy news about electric car possibilities--remember, they have lost loads of money making electric cars that don't sell, and have not worked well enough to compete.
      I pray for the day they will, but I have read right here just too many glossy stories of electric car solutions. Prove it, then the auto world is yours. I hope you can.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      asdar
      

      Posts:
      69

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/23/2007 07:56 AM

      Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

      There is no proof or even support of proof in the statement or reference to past technology.
      
      I'm not a believer, but all you've shown me with the reference to Weir is that he's done research.  I applaud your research, but that's hardly proof of any wrongdoing.
      
      I'll leave his patent concerns to his legal staff.
      
      Why so much effort to discredit EESTOR, time will discredit EESTOR if they deserve it.
      
      They are actually building something, they have 3rd party verification for the purification of materials in a production setting and they have a contract to deliver.
      
      If they fail to deliver that's all the proof I need for scam. If they're vindicated and do deliver, then that's the proof I need for believing.

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      VCRAGAIN
      

      Posts:
      35

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/23/2007 08:34 AM

      Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

      it's not that car makers/oil companies are EVIL, but we all know that any big business with entrenched interests WILL do all it can to keep it's hold on the market, and protect it's own interests, and because they ARE big they have the resources to do just that - hence the fury from the little guy that HIS/OUR interests are not the priority - ie nothing is happening for the right reasons when the lobbyists get active !! and we need things to happen for the BEST of reasons if possible - so we bitch and moan to try to prevent this pattern and try to sway the outcome - that's all we can do - vote and complain LOUDLY (:>)

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      karn
      

      Posts:
      2

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/23/2007 09:06 PM

      Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

      See the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" As an EV1 driver for 5 years, I can say that the movie was completely accurate. Battery technology did *not* kill the EV1. Improved batteries would always be nice to have, but the fact is that EVs are practical *now* for a very large fraction of the population, even with current batteries (especially Li-ion).
      
      It seems that everyone "just knows" that EVs need ranges comparable to gasoline cars to ever be practical. Everybody except those who actually drive them, that is. The ability to charge at home or work without ever going to a gasoline station is a convenience you have to experience to fully appreciate. And actual experience with an EV will also demonstrate that high ranges just aren't all that important.
      
      If anything, faster *chargers* are more important in practice than bigger batteries, though existing medium-power chargers are enough to top off an EV battery overnight.
      

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    banrjeer
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/23/2007 05:40 PM

    Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

    if the patent makes only a theoretical projection without mentioning well known limitations then why was it accepted to start with. Does the microstructure of the cells somehow prevent breakdown under high electrical fields??
    
    purification of raw material is a far cry from a working prototype. So I wonder how they are going to stick to schedule. Either they are really operating in stealth or maybe its hype. If they are really close to a working prototype then stealth would be counter productive.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    Neilzero
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/09/2007 10:37 PM

    Re: Further evidences of EEstor's hype!

    Roger Pharm typed, BaTiO3 has dielectric property that varies by nearly ten folds with just typical seasonal swing in ambient temperature
    Does that mean we can charge the ultra capacitor to 360 volts at minus 20 f and the capacitor voltage increases to 3500 volts if the ultra cap warms to 140 f? That should have some great applications, but not so good for an electric car, if the watthour capacity is lots lower hot than EEStore hopes.   Neil

    Rate this comment:
• 
  cobraphx
  

  Posts:
  14

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/23/2007 01:06 PM

  Who knows?

  I'm not saying they are the holy grail in storage. They may not be able to actually produce anything useful.
  
  But, for the doubters quoting other's research that it won't work, or that this kind of innovation can only come from large companies, that argument doesn't fly. One of the biggest technology breakthroughs in recent history, the Blue LED flys in the face of both these arguments. It was perfected by Shuji Nakamura while working at Nichia (A small, pretty much unknown Japanese chemical company). Nakamura took a path most scientists in the field had discounted as unworkable. But this lone researcher and his hunch payed off.
  
  ---"Meanwhile, back in November 1993, Nichia announced its blue LED, promising at the same time that a blue laser was under development. Nichia's devices are made from an entirely different compound material, gallium nitride. The announcement caught the rest of the industry with its pants down. Gallium nitride had long been written off as fatally flawed. Making a diode requires both positive and negative types of material, and no one had been able to make positive-type gallium nitride."---
  
  Back to EEstor... Nano-processing of materials has changed the playing field. Carbon is a pretty common and not teribly exciting, but carbon nanotubes have some totally unforseen properties. It is entirely possible that using modern processing technology, the properties of BaTiO3 are different than those published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics in 1985. Nakamura proved this quite dramatically in GaN.
  
  EEstor may be the next Nichia/blue laser, or they may just be the next 100mpg magnetic fuel-ionization carburator. Time will tell.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    JRIP
    

    Posts:
    2

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/23/2007 03:40 PM

    Re: Who knows?

    Here's a hypothetical for everyone to ponder:
    
    Let's say you are a technology journalist and write a popular "clean technology" blog that people use to inform their investing.  You notice that every time you have news to pass on about EEstor, through your own writing or by posting stories on your blog, the stock of the only EEstor-affiliated company offering stock jogs up at least 50% for a few days, and then glides slowly back down to close to its previous level.  It does that because EEstor's claims are so radical and paradigm changing (if true) that people keep nervously jumping in and out of the related stock, hoping to be ahead of the Big, Official Proof of Concept announcement, hoping to make a killing when the stock zooms up like Google did in august 2004.
    
    If you knew when to buy and always got back out in time, several of these little pre-proof "bounces" could add up to a lot of profit.  After all, for people who bought Google shares at the start of 2006, they only increased in value 22% - not 50%.
    
    Would you consider doing any of the following? 
    
    Buying on the low, then posting an article, and selling at the 50% high? Rinse and repeat?
    
    Posting favorable analysis anonymously on your own and other technology blogs to keep the game going when some of the physics majors out there start pointing out a huge hole in EEstor's patent reasoning?
    
    I'm really starting to wonder. 
    
    

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      larnel
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/23/2007 08:51 PM

      Re: Who knows?

      I guess that's always possible with any journalist or blogger. But the story comes across as balanced - you've got two engineers dissing the technology. EEStor's claims are interesting, despite being controversial.
      
      And after a quick search on Hamilton's blog, I see nothing overly boosterish about EEStor; aside from some genuine interest in the company's progress. You're a pretty skeptical dude JRIP. You should chill out.

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      dwx
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/24/2007 09:33 AM

      Re: Who knows?

      Interesting hypothesis, but I don't think there's a way to profit by attempting to "influence" the stock in this case.  Isn't EESTOR a private company? There's no way to buy or sell stock.
      
      On the other hand, putting out a hype article about a company that's been closed-lipped as a way to spike your website traffic. So it's not totally beyond suspicion that the whole things a fraud.
      
      Certainly the ZENN guys that are building electric cars in Canada are for real.
      
      It's not exactly like they've said they'll be ready in 10 years, this is stuff they're promising in less than 6 months. Why not give them a chance to deliver?

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        JRIP
        

        Posts:
        2

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        01/25/2007 11:59 AM

        Re: Who knows?

        The EEstor-affiliated company is Zenn Motor Company.  ZNN on the Toronto Stock Exchange <URL:http://www.tsx.com/>

        Rate this comment:
    • 
      rock47
      

      Posts:
      2

      Reply

      03/28/2007 01:09 AM

      Re: Who knows?

      why knock a possible great advance in American ingenuity? Get behind it and build off of it for the betterment of us all!!as for the stock cheaters, 3 letters should come to mind...S.E.C. 

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    Neilzero
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/09/2007 09:45 PM

    Re: Who knows?

    Corporations typically exaggerate, and projection typically exceeds reality. Let's assume EEStor produces a 102 pound, low cost, reliable, 29 farrad instead of 31 at 3000 volts instead of 3500 volts that stores 11 kilowatt hours for a few hours, which drops to 9 kilowatt hours in 72 hours due to leakage. It is still twice as good as the battery pack for the Tesla roadster, in nearly all respects.
    Since the competition is likely also exagerating, EEStor "batteries" may enjoy the top for several years, even if they make only slight improvements during the mass production years. Of course it is possible EEStor will forever remain insignificant. I wish them success as a good battery is important to reducing our dependence on Arab oil.
    An electric car can use a separate motor for each of the 4 wheels, the motors can be in series, so operation at 3000 volts = 750 volts per motor is not a big problem. Some of the auxillary systems can operate at 750 volts and be bridged across the motors that need less torque, briefly.  Neil

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      CapacitorMan
      

      Posts:
      26

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      10/14/2007 09:16 AM

      Re: Who knows?

      Except doesn't the voltage go down as its discharged, what will that do to the system?

      Rate this comment:

« Back 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »