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?.

• 
  dgonzo
  

  Posts:
  2

  Reply

  01/23/2007 11:27 PM

  Small company from TX vs. the scientific community

  Let's see on one hand we have a small company nobody has ever heard of from TX that claims a 10x improvement on battery technology on the other hand we have thousands of scientists with peer reviewed research and publications that have been working on this for years...Hmm, let's see, who do we believe..?
  
  Then there is also the fact that in the President's address he mentions a need for reducing gas consumption and surprise! just around that time some no-name company from TX has just the solution for the problem...Coincidence? - I think not.
  
  This trick has been played many times and it is sort of a high level "get rich quick" scheme targeted at rich investors who are not very technologically savvy _but_ who think they are. These are the kind of people who would also invest in "free energy" machines as long as the "inventor" manages to carefully use some scientific sounding terminology -- like "flux capacitors" ;) for example. Then the investors think they found the next Google or Microsoft and give them the cash.
  
  Later on the company cites some minor technical difficulty and that their product is "just around the corner" until it is liquidated. Then company owners get lots of money. (It is more complicated than that but that is the basic ideas).

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    cobraphx
    

    Posts:
    14

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/24/2007 12:08 PM

    Re: Small company from TX vs. the scientific community -smell like Nichia...

    Again, take a look at Nichia, Nakamura and the blue LED. Small company, single engineer, and a compound (GaN) that other scientists, peer review, and large companies had discounted as 'impossible'. But we have blue LEDs white LED's , and blue laser diodes made from an 'unworkable' material, due to this one man and a small chemical company that only made phosphors at the time.
    
    Sometimes the scientific community is wrong. the scientific community once thought that disease killed of the dinosaurs, and not an asteroid. Scientists and engineers thought the "Sound Barrier" was unbreakable by a manned aircraft until Chuck Yeager did it. They aren't always right.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      dgonzo
      

      Posts:
      2

      Reply

      01/24/2007 04:55 PM

      Re: Small company from TX vs. the scientific community -smell like Nichia...

      Alright, so you found 3 examples.. Ok, maybe 4. That is against thousands of counterexamples of fake companies claiming that they've solved the world's energy problems just so they can pocket some cash.
      
      Going by your logic playing, the lottery is also  profitable and everyone should do it, because "look! so and so won a $100M!"
      

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        run
        

        Posts:
        7

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        01/26/2007 10:30 PM

        Re: Small company from TX vs. the scientific community -smell like Nichia...

        Gonzo your point though is that you made by analogy which you seem to abandon in reply going to poorly to lottery/lightning striking cliche.
        
        I had not considered the Chomskian basis of skepticisim here; that what's endangered is the flow of oil if people are not hustled into believing that it won't be need in the future.
        
        Flush out your argument by assessing the politics and/or gullibility of the Angel.  He's well known for this company.  He could hear the merit of your observations implication.  But then that MIGHT BE THE REASON THEY have been so modest even now.  That ride IN not ON bike is far more GRAND and much more widely respected to boot. 
        
        The walrus stretcheed out from arm to arm on our couch though is with technoology almost able to power cars, and the step being well before that obsolescing them altogether, why is this news at all?  Why would anyone want a car if a bike frame using what's available now can do far better for us in every way then any car size contraption could ever do regardless of what's under the hood?  WHY?

        Rate this comment:
        • 
          madmarty
          

          Posts:
          5

          Avg Rating:
          

          

          Reply

          01/27/2007 01:32 PM

          Re: Small company from TX vs. the scientific community -smell like Nichia...

          Please stop doing whatever you are to your mind. I read your post numerous times and am lost. What are you trying to say?

          Rate this comment:
  • 
    TJGeezer
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2007 09:43 PM

    Re: Small company from TX vs. the scientific community

    Oh oh - are you saying flux capacitors don't actually deliver free unlimited power from that place where quantum, uh, you know, weird stuff happens? My wife is gonna be SO mad...

    Rate this comment:
• 
  hunterino
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  01/23/2007 11:45 PM

  When it happens

  This may or may not work out.  But something like this eventually will.  When it does, I believe it's potential is as revolutionary as any revolution that humans have yet experienced.  The pure opportunity of it is wonderful.  Although militaries are always looking for new ways to kill people, I hope that this type of change can make the world a better place.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Doug Snodgrass
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  01/24/2007 08:55 AM

  Hype + Secretive = Wait and See

  I'm always in favor of any R & D in the direction of green technologies.  Still, I tend to take a wait and see approach whenever I see heavy publicity and flat-out hype combined with secret projects.  A recent case in point was the Segway scooter which fell way short of the life-altering hype.  I'd be really love to be pleasantly surprised in this instance though.
  
  http://ecotalityblog.com

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    jessielectric
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    01/25/2007 10:12 PM

    Re: Hype + Secretive = Wait and See

    Hype + Secretive = Sell some stock.  Alt energy is a very hot market, and there's way more hype than substantive technology or real plans for production.  I couldn't agree with you more...we'll just see what happens after Zenn gets a stock boost and Altair and A123 take a nasty hit.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  mit2918
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/24/2007 05:20 PM

  A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

  Like many of the readers I got very excited when I first glanced over the article. Who wouldn’t?  After all, if the company can truly deliver what it promised for, who isn’t able to recognize its potential and enormous impact to the society and to our daily lives?
  
  However, the more details I read into it, the more skeptical I became about the ultracapacitor’s estimated performance and the company’s approach to achieving it. In fact, I started to feel so strongly about something fundamentally wrong about it, that I studied the relevant patent documents mentioned in the article, and confirmed the existence of a fundamental flaw in the company’s patented technology. And, my findings about it are explained below in as much plain English as it allows.
  
  Details about the company’s key technology and approach to the ultracapacitor-based power system can be found in US patent #7,033,406. In essence, it relies on the wrapping of the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains (each is about 1 micron in size, with a permittivity as high as 33,5000) with two insulative coatings (each is about 10 nm in thickness, including alumina, with a permittivity of only about 10), hoping to improve the stability and performance of the capacitor by reducing potential current leakage in and/or through the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains. 
  
  A fundamental flaw is found regarding it’s way to calculate the reduction in effective permittivity of the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings. The calculation was based on the assumption that the coatings would only cause a reduction of 12% in permittivity from that of the barium-titanate-based grains, and concluded that the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings could still have an overall permittivity as high as 29,480.
  
  Unfortunately, such assumption is fundamentally wrong, because the reduction in permittivity in the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulativecoatings is mainly determined by the nature of the series connection between the grain and the coated films along the electrical field direction. It is equivalent to the case of two series-connected capacitors, one with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the barium-titanate grain and the other with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the two insulative coatings.
  
  And, the correct calculation about the effective permittivity for the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulative coatings should be based on the equation:
  
  Kgc = (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc  +  Kc x Dg)
  
  Here, Kg, Kc and Kgc denote the permittivities for the grain, the two insulating coatings, and, the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulating coatings, respectively; while Dg and Dc refer to the thicknesses of the grain and the two insulating coatings, respectively.
  
  Accordingly, it is always true that:
  
  Kgc < (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc );          
  
  i.e.,
  
  Kgc < (Dg + Dc) x Kc / Dc;    
  
  or,          
  
  Kgc < 260,
  
  given that the size of the barium-titanate-based grain Dg is about 1 micron, the total thickness of the two coatings is about 40 nm for each grain, and the permittivity of the coatings is about 10, regardless how purified barium-titanate-based powders has or will have been achieved by the company. 
  
  So, the effective permittivity of the entirety of the grain and its two coatings is always less than about 250, which is less than one percent of the permittivity of 29,480 as what was originally estimated by the company.
  
  As a result, the correctly estimated achievable energy density in the ultracapacitor based on the company’s technology should also be correspondingly less than one percent of what the company originally promised for.
  
  Of course, in reality, not every grain can be coated with the insulative coatings exactly in the manner as originally intended by the company. It may results in some minor fluctuation in the maximum achievable effective permittivity through the company’s technology; but, nothing appears to be able to substantially offset the significant reduction in the effective permittivity inherently caused by the two low-permittivity insulating coatings in the technology.
  
  Given what I have found here, can anyone still call the company’s technology a “game-changing” breakthrough?
  
  For those who would like to know more details of my finds, you are welcome to contact me for further discussion.
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    CJC_PE
    

    Posts:
    13

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/24/2007 06:55 PM

    Re: A Fundamental Flaw

    What is your assumption about what happens to the coatings during the sintering and hot-isostatic pressing? I have the impression that one of the purposes of the coatings is to reduce or eliminate the porosity of the solidified ceramic. What would be the effect of replacing air-filled pores with the coating material?
    
    Have you looked at patents 6,078,494 and 6,268,054, cited as references in the EEStor patent? Do you think that they shed any light on this subject?

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      leafbreeze
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/25/2007 10:49 AM

      Re: A Fundamental Flaw

      Although it seems that the Electrical Engineering community is willing to duke this one out, not unlike the debate between Tesla and Edison over AC or DC power production (and everyone thought Tesla was wrong then too -- however, jokes on Edison) I have some very simple questions:
      
      Assuming this new battery works - can it survive an electrical magnetic pulse from a nuclear bomb detonation, extreme desert heat, cold artic air or even daily wear and tear? Having a breakthrough in a stifled area of science is one thing -- knowing the short and long term dependability and implementations of that technology is something completely different.
      
      One of the main reasons for the current battery technology (from a military perspective) is that they can survive on the shelf for years and can be used in shielded equipment long after the delicate generators and electrical grid are toast. I would seriously like to see (still assuming this is a real discovery) the EMP impact, flow weather survivability and long-term durability numbers on this product with possibility some real numbers on its shelf life during and after storage.
      
      To many “breakthroughs” in science are rushed to market for a quick buck due to the advent of “eureka science” and multi-billion dollar contracts. It may be a great battery, but if I can pour a glass of water on it and kill it, it does not do me, or the world at large, any real good.
      
      Cheers

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        Tysto
        

        Posts:
        24

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        08/10/2007 05:55 PM

        Re: A Fundamental Flaw

        Yeah, I was totally going to buy a Toyota Camry, but then I thought, 'Wait, can it survive the electrical magnetic impulse from a nuclear detonation?' Sorry, Toyota: pass.
        
        And then I was going to buy a Dell laptop, but I thought, 'If I can pour a glass of water on it and kill it, it does not do me any good.' Sorry, Dell: no sale.
        
        So I bought a titanium spork.

        Rate this comment:
  • 
    softwarelaw
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    01/25/2007 08:38 PM

    Re: A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

    Hello MIT2918,
    
    I am a patent attorney and would like to work with you in an reexamination of EEstor's patent.  No attorney's fees, I just need you to provide more technical information on the inoperability of their invention.  please respond to michael @ googlef.com

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    dkiser
    

    Posts:
    2

    Reply

    01/25/2007 09:30 PM

    Re: A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

    I am impressed with your knowledge.  I am curious, what do you think of Altair's NanoSafe battery?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Dave

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    lysdexia
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/26/2007 11:01 AM

    it's -> its, illiterate shitheads

    The "effective permittivity" is the junctional average, not the element's.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    hamid
    

    Posts:
    11

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/26/2007 02:52 PM

    Re: A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

    Do you know why the particles have to be (double) coated in the first place?  If barium titanate is an insulation, what does the coating achieve?

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      CJC_PE
      

      Posts:
      13

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/26/2007 05:06 PM

      Re: A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

      According to the patent, the coatings:
      1. assist in removing voids from the dielectric
      ensure that the dielectric layer will be uniform and homogeneous
      2. increase the breakdown voltage of the dielectric
      3. reduce the leakage and aging of the dielectric
      4. lower temperature required for sintering and hot isostatic pressing allowing nickel to be used for electrodes rather than more expensive metal

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    bugpower
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    01/28/2007 04:42 AM

    Re: A Fundamental Flaw That Leads To More-than-100-times-overly Estimated Permittivity

    Many thanks for the in-depth review. I checked it myself to find the two classical, almost high-school-type physical mistakes:
    
    [1] Assumption of linear permittivity for high fields, which is not true for high-permittivity insulators, in particular, this Barium Titanate powder.
    [2] The alleged 12% reduction in permittivity due to the coating.
    
    Obviously, from the capacitance point of view, the barium titanate balls could have been just replaced by a conductor or removed completely with only the coating material left between the plates.
    (Also, if it leaks current, replacing it by a coated conductor appears to be the same thing. No point in coating it anyway IMHO).
    Of course, we are though not after the capacity but the total energy, Energy=CVmax^2/2, but then making a layered structure of greater volume would still produce better result than the maximum that can be achieved with their model.
    
    To estimate the maximum energy storage to be ever offered by capacitors, one can consider the field energy density formula - Edensity=epsilon0*E^2/2.
    (E is the maximum electric field)
    I even neglect the permittivity here, which is strictly speaking not okay, but for high fields it falls down to 1 anyway. The maximum field would then be determined by the breakdown field of an insulator, 1e8 Volts/meter is okay for EEstor's coating, yielding density of 40KJ/m^2 - negligible compared to any type of a chemical battery. Toyota Prius'es 1.2MJ battery would be a medium truck size at such energy density.
    
    About EEstor - I guess this is a typical fate for a company that is keeping absolute radio silence and is getting scared by the idea of sharing information with sufficient number of experts and the community.
    

    Rate this comment:

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