 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / October 2006supercapacitors instead of batteries in electric cars
Hi all, Recently it was announced that a company called EEStor plans to replace batteries in electric cars with supercapacitors, which hold more charge, charge faster, and contain no hazardous toxins. My questions are, has anyone done this aleady and what supercapacitors exist already that are useful for this? Thanks. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. Haven't heard anything about that. Capacitors store much less energy than an equivalent-sized battery because it's stored as an electrostatic charge between two plates, while the battery uses a chemical change to store and release power. The capacitor's storage depends on the plate area, and the voltage it can safely handle depends on the thickness of the insulation betwen the plates. Most large capacitors have two strips of foil with a thin layer of insulation between them, rolled up and stuffed into a canister. An electrolytic capacitor has a larger capacity because the insulation may be an oxide layer on one foil, or a liquid in the can, or both, reducing the sandwich thickness and allowing more area to be jammed into a given container. A thicker insulation will allow a higher working voltage, but the extra space between the plates reduces the electrostatic effect and therefore the capacity. Like almost anything else, it involves a lot of compromises. Experiments were done years ago using huge cpacitors to try to store the electricity from lightning bolts. Didn't work; the amount of current was so huge and the voltage so high that the capacitors wouldn't take it. It would be neat if it worked; there's an awsome amount of electicity in one lightning bolt. Unless there's been a major breakthrough in capacitor technology, I doubt that a capacitor-powered car will go far at all. Maybe in and out of the driveway :-) So far it's been pretty hard to beat chemical cells. Too bad they're so heavy and expensive and full of nasty stuff. Dan On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:54:58 -0700, Dan_Thomas_nospam wrote: >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Unless there's been a major breakthrough in capacitor > technology, There has! See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=% 2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7033406.PN.&OS=PN/7033406&RS=PN/7 033406 > I doubt that a capacitor-powered car will go far at all. > Maybe in and out of the driveway :-) > So far it's been pretty hard to beat chemical cells. Too bad > they're so heavy and expensive and full of nasty stuff. A 31 Farad capacitor charged to 3500V holds about 52kWh of energy. Eestor claim to have built such a capacitor from doped Barium Titanate, with plates separated by a few um. It weighs 336 Lbs. The self-sicharge rate is 0.1% per month, and can be charged and discharged with very high currents without wearing out. This is not an electrolytic capacitor, and is really could be a storage breakthrough to trigger change in several industries. You could have one at home to store your solar/wind energy. Or the utilities could use them to supply peak demand. Now you just need gas stations to offer 10MW charging points. -- Anon > Experiments were done years ago using huge cpacitors to try to > store the electricity from lightning bolts. Didn't work; the amount of > current was so huge and the voltage so high that the capacitors > wouldn't take it. It would be neat if it worked; there's an awsome > amount of electicity in one lightning bolt. Wow, those capacitors must have been huge indeed. Like the size of a grain silo. Interesting idea. I'll have to read up on that. I guess the other problem is that lightning strikes are a bit unpredictable, and a 200ft steel tower on a hill with a huge "kick me" sign on it isn't very moveable. -phaeton Lightning contains much power but very little energy. Do some research on that one. The difference is, lightning is a huge surge of power but it doesn't last very long. You may have millions of watts but when you muliply that by the milliseconds it lasts you only get about $0.20 worth of energy. >> Experiments were done years ago using huge cpacitors to try >> to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -phaeton > Experiments were done years ago using huge cpacitors to try to > store the electricity from lightning bolts. Didn't work; the amount of > current was so huge and the voltage so high that the capacitors > wouldn't take it. It would be neat if it worked; there's an awsome > amount of electicity in one lightning bolt. I'd be very curious to learn how large the capacitors were that were supposed to hold the lightening bolt's charge, but serious I suspect it they would need to be as large as a house at least area-wise, and so many would need to be place in parallel that they'd be as high as a house! >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > wouldn't take it. It would be neat if it worked; there's an awsome > amount of electicity in one lightning bolt. -------------- There isn't an awesome amount of energy in a lightning bolt. Estimates range from 55 to 250KWH -(lower one is more likely ) -possibly enough could be collected to supply the clearance lights on a collector tower (Not exactly good from a cost benefits viewpoint) but even this is doubtful as it would take far more than a supercapacitor to do the job. At an isokeraunic level of about 40 thunderstorm days per year, you might get 60-100 strokes per 100 sq km (40 sq. miles) per year.  SignatureDon Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer ---------------------------- > Unless there's been a major breakthrough in capacitor > technology, I doubt that a capacitor-powered car will go far at all. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dan Read about Maxwell Technologies boostcap modules..... they stack up their 2600 Farad 2.7V caps into 12, 24 and 48V modules. > Read about Maxwell Technologies boostcap modules..... they stack up > their 2600 Farad 2.7V caps into 12, 24 and 48V modules. http://maxwell.com/ I have not heard of anyone using these instead of batteries, but rather with batteries to keep surge currents from shortening battery life. A capacitor voltage goes down with the charge level, this could make motor control a lot different. With capacitors and batteries, that is not as much of a problem. Have you tried a FLUX capacitor? I have seen them take a direct hit from a lightning bolt. :) sorry in advance.... I couldnt resist. More seriously though, hydrogen power is promising once they get the cost of it down. I am experimenting with a supplimental device but it's no where close to running exclusively on hydrogen. <long story deleted> Capacitors yes ,are two polarities contained therein but they dont have to just be two plates. 10 Plates, alternating + and - but connected together, would make a stackable system and so on, or in other applications two parallel foils rolled up and stuffed into a tube are used. Ya'll probably know all that but I just like the whole idea of alternate energy sources and had to chime in. good thread. >> Read about Maxwell Technologies boostcap modules..... they stack up >> their 2600 Farad 2.7V caps into 12, 24 and 48V modules. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > capacitors > and batteries, that is not as much of a problem. > More seriously though, hydrogen power is promising once they get the cost of > it down How will 'they' get it down ? It's already hugely subsidised. Graham >>More seriously though, hydrogen power is promising once they get the cost of >>it down > > How will 'they' get it down ? It's already hugely subsidised. > > Graham They will buy cheap power from the Iranians and North Koreans and use a million surplus carbon electrodes from D cell batteries...... ;) >I have not heard of anyone using these instead of batteries, but rather with batteries >to keep surge currents from shortening battery life. A capacitor voltage goes down >with the charge level, this could make motor control a lot different. With capacitors >and batteries, that is not as much of a problem. Actually, the ultracapacitors have pretty much replaced batteries for many applications that have long charge/discharge cycles. You will see them in a lot of things like battery backup for clock radios and computer motherboards. They can't dump a lot of current out fast at all, however, so if you need rapid discharge, batteries are still a big win. But the idea is a good one, and the things get better every day. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>I have not heard of anyone using these instead of batteries, but rather with batteries >>to keep surge currents from shortening battery life. A capacitor voltage goes down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually, the ultracapacitors have pretty much replaced batteries for >many applications that have long charge/discharge cycles. That sounds backwards. >You will see them >in a lot of things like battery backup for clock radios and computer >motherboards. They can't dump a lot of current out fast at all, however, >so if you need rapid discharge, batteries are still a big win. But the >idea is a good one, and the things get better every day. >--scott There may be a difference between supercapacitor and ultracapacitor terminology. Cars use ultracapacitors because they can be charged and discharged very fast. Joe Fischer > >>I have not heard of anyone using these instead of batteries, but rather with batteries > >>to keep surge currents from shortening battery life. A capacitor voltage goes down [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cars use ultracapacitors because they can be charged > and discharged very fast. Scott's referring to smaller ones. Horses for courses. Graham Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> writes in article <7c2ri2dblc96n162lrk9djh8v89rsf6ssg@4ax.com> dated Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:20:54 -0400: >>Actually, the ultracapacitors have pretty much replaced batteries for >>many applications that have long charge/discharge cycles. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There may be a difference between supercapacitor >and ultracapacitor terminology. The words are synonyms. In a nutshell, capacitors have a better power/weight ratio, and batteries have a better energy/weight ratio. Supercapacitors span the range between the two. On the other hand, fuel cells can hold even more energy than batteries. > Cars use ultracapacitors because they can be charged >and discharged very fast. Nobody wants to stop every 10 miles for a charge, even if it only takes a minute. If the claims of longer ranges seen on blogs around the Internet prove true, the manufacturer has made some kind of breakthrough. -- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. >Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> writes in article <7c2ri2dblc96n162lrk9djh8v89rsf6ssg@4ax.com> dated Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:20:54 -0400: >>>Actually, the ultracapacitors have pretty much replaced batteries for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> There may be a difference between supercapacitor >>and ultracapacitor terminology. >The words are synonyms. >In a nutshell, capacitors have a better power/weight ratio, and batteries Power is pretty irrelevent. A plain wire can carry a ton of power yet you're not going to get any work done with it. >have a better energy/weight ratio. Supercapacitors span the range between >the two. On the other hand, fuel cells can hold even more energy than >batteries. Supercaps have the worst of both worlds: Poor power handling and poor energy storage. Fuel cells don't hold energy. Don't you know the difference between a fuel and an energy converter? AZ Nomad <aznomad@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes in article <slrnej07uq.p8o.aznomad@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net> dated Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:23:32 GMT: >>Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> writes in article <7c2ri2dblc96n162lrk9djh8v89rsf6ssg@4ax.com> dated Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:20:54 -0400: >>>>Actually, the ultracapacitors have pretty much replaced batteries for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Power is pretty irrelevent. A plain wire can carry a ton of power yet you're >not going to get any work done with it. I'm talking about available power when not charging. For example, in an electric car, more power = better accelleration. With a radio transmitter, more power = longer range. >>In a nutshell, capacitors have a better power/weight ratio, and batteries >>have a better energy/weight ratio. Supercapacitors span the range between >>the two. On the other hand, fuel cells can hold even more energy than >>batteries. >Supercaps have the worst of both worlds: Poor power handling and poor >energy storage. Supercapacitors provide better energy storage than capacitors and better power than batteries. That makes them a compromise. If it was the other way around, it would make them superior in every way and the traditional tech would be obsolete. >Fuel cells don't hold energy. Don't you know the difference between a fuel >and an energy converter? I know I wouldn't call something a "fuel cell" unless it held energy. If you like, you may read my use of that term as meaning fuel-cell-system-including-the-dang-fuel-storage-tank. -- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer. >AZ Nomad <aznomad@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes in article <slrnej07uq.p8o.aznomad@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net> dated Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:23:32 GMT: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>Power is pretty irrelevent. A plain wire can carry a ton of power yet you're >>not going to get any work done with it. >I'm talking about available power when not charging. For example, in an >electric car, more power = better accelleration. With a radio transmitter, >more power = longer range. Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. >Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. I don't know what terminology you are using, "ultracapacitors" have very little internal resistance, isn't that what allows them to be charged faster than batteries without harmful heating? Joe Fischer >>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. > I don't know what terminology you are using, >"ultracapacitors" have very little internal resistance, >isn't that what allows them to be charged faster than >batteries without harmful heating? So you assert. Care to provide a citation of a cap capable of supplying 100 amps for 60 seconds and what its internal resistance is? >>>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > supplying 100 amps for 60 seconds and what its internal resistance > is? Did you just make those numbers up? http://www.wima.com/EN/article_supercap.htm Their 300F part has an internal resistance of 6milliohm. .006 ohms is terrible compared to what? Now, give it a rest... >> ... Care to provide a citation of a cap capable of supplying 100 amps >> for 60 seconds and what its internal resistance is? > >Their 300F part has an internal resistance of 6milliohm. .006 ohms is >terrible compared to what? ... 100A for 60 seconds is 6000 coulombs = CV = 2.5C, so we need at least C = 6000/2.5 = 2400 F, ie 8 of these 300 F caps. They would store 1/2CV^2 = 7500 joules. Discharging them at 100A would waste 60x12.5^2x0.006 = 56 joules, for a discharge efficiency of 100(7500-56)/7500 = 99%. Not bad, even when multiplied by some charge efficiency. Nick .Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: >>>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >supplying 100 amps for 60 seconds and what its internal resistance >is? http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/ultracaps.htm tells about what he is doing, maybe you can convert the numbers to amps. I have been seeing numbers like 4 watt hours per kilogram, and that can be compared to a car 12 volt battery of 50 amp hour. The needed feature of the ultracapacitor is the high rate of charge without damage, not too much storage is needed, just enough to absorb the energy of braking, and some resistor circuitry to let the capacitors hold the DOD (Degree Of Discharge) of the batteries as small as possible to protect them. The charge on the caps from braking down a hill could be allowed to bleed to the batteries over time so the energy will be available to climb the next hill. Joe Fischer Joe, I have only recently become aware of this thread. Since I have been looking for answers to the problem of regenerative braking in a 144 Volt DC system, I have hit the brick wall for ways to harness it. I am ignorant to a controller that can adequately control a converted S10 pickup with regenerative braking while using an Advanced DC motor at 144 volts. In the alt.energy.renewable group we have been discussing the subject within a thread named: Hybrid cars and how come they do that? Using the supercapacitors as you suggest may be the key! Maybe a relay that kicks over to the "save" mode when you push the "save button, or when your brake light switch is engaged. I can see a pot attached to the brake pedal to variably dump the energy into the capacitor before it hits the brake light switch. The idea of trickling it back to the batteries really needs to be investigated. I read the statistics about the 300 F capacitors, and one thing bothered me. Please forgive me if I propose a concept that is undoable because of my ignorance, but... The capacitors seem to be 2 volt. OK -- I can live with that, but (as I understand capacitor theory) if we put these in series to accept 144 volts, our capacitance will be divided by 72 (or .0416 Farad) - not a good deal. Another problem -- if the capacitor voltage doesn't exceed the battery voltage -- I believe that no charge will transfer. Will >.Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: >>>>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Joe Fischer >Joe, >I have only recently become aware of this thread. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a converted S10 pickup with regenerative braking while using an >Advanced DC motor at 144 volts. The bad news is, there may not be one off the shelf, but the good news is, it can always be added later, the cost of motor and controller make the project expensive enough. >In the alt.energy.renewable group we have been discussing the subject >within a thread named: >Hybrid cars and how come they do that? At least part of that thread was crossposted here. >Using the supercapacitors as you suggest may be the key! I think they are common on newer EVs and hybrids. >Maybe a relay that kicks over to the "save" mode when you push the >"save button, or when your brake light switch is engaged. I can see a >pot attached to the brake pedal to variably dump the energy into the >capacitor before it hits the brake light switch. The batteries should be able to handle some braking energy, I think the big danger is overheating with fast charge. Fifty years ago it was common to jump start a car and take it to the gas station for a $1 fast charge, but 30 minutes would not be fast compared to braking time. >The idea of >trickling it back to the batteries really needs to be investigated. I suspect that is part of what the circuitry may do, but only down hill charge, if the controller can sense that. It is something to study until production lowers the price and makes them available in quantity. >I read the statistics about the 300 F capacitors, and one thing >bothered me. Please forgive me if I propose a concept that is >undoable because of my ignorance, but... The capacitors seem to be 2 >volt. It varies, but modules will be available, when your ship comes, check the last item in the last chart at http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/modules/bmod0083-48-6v.asp 48 volts and almost 8kw per kilogram punch, but less than 4 watt hours per kilogram storage per module. >OK -- I can live with that, but (as I understand capacitor >theory) if we put these in series to accept 144 volts, our capacitance >will be divided by 72 (or .0416 Farad) - not a good deal. >Another problem -- if the capacitor voltage doesn't exceed the battery >voltage -- I believe that no charge will transfer. >Will I think you did the math wrong, the 48 volt module is supposed to be 165 Farads. There has been a car profile supercap offered on ebay listed as 2900 farad, but it may be better to just use the manufacturer listing of watts and watt hours for power and storage. Most braking can be started sooner and last longer, spreading out the charge over a longer period of time, but I don't know to what extent that will help the heat and fast charge problem. That is why flywheels, compressed and hydraulics with a trapped air accumulator have been considered for regenerative braking. I thought I saw a kit for an S10 that should have a user's manual, maybe not. Have you seen http://seth.drivexc.com/S10/Conversion%20and%20Tour/S10%20Conversion.html or (possibly not timely) http://www.phoenixeaa.com/classifieds/main.html http://www.phoenixeaa.com/classifieds/sold/030623/main.html http://www.geocities.com/mathenybrian/s10.htm http://www.coate.org/jim/ev/et/ and up to 750,000 more; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=s10+e lectric+conversion&spell=1 Joe Fischer > Joe, > I have only recently become aware of this thread. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > voltage -- I believe that no charge will transfer. > Will 300 farads / 72 = 4.167 Farads. >>.Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: >>>>>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is terrible. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >>Joe Fischer > Joe, > I have only recently become aware of this thread. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > voltage -- I believe that no charge will transfer. > Will It might be added that folks have been using 338F electric motor starting capacitors. And they are not far off what you would pay for a Diehard on IC's. The starter only runs 5seconds before the engine hits and the alternator takes over. Actually see auto stores selling them things for a batteryless jump start kit. 50years after custom car and chopper builders first installed them things as battery eliminators. If you cruise by a power substation many of those babies start out out at 1megF and run all the way to 100,000megF at 100,000volts for 7ft x8ft x 7ft oil filled capacitors. And many of the standard industrial DC motor are 300V and 600V....not 148volt....never saw a printing press,locomotive,or drilling rig traction motor that wasn't 600V. Many of the machine tooling DC motors are 300V out to about 75hp. Some of your ceramics used on radars and high freg. applications are water cooled.,but smaller than utility power capacitors. >If you cruise by a power substation many of those babies start out out at >1megF and run all the way to 100,000megF at 100,000volts for 7ft x8ft x 7ft >oil filled capacitors. Unbelievable. Are you confusing "meg" and "micro"? :-) Nick > I read the statistics about the 300 F capacitors, and one thing > bothered me. Please forgive me if I propose a concept that is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Another problem -- if the capacitor voltage doesn't exceed the battery > voltage -- I believe that no charge will transfer. ================================================== With 144V peak avail for accel, one might cruise at 72V or less... when you start to coast, is the unloaded back emf going to be 72V? If you start to pwm this into a cap bank, it will start charging towrad 72V, but presumably, the car will slow down before it gets charged up. A DC to DC converter could boost the captured low voltage on the cap up to a voltage that could be used for battery charging. Might be easier to use the regen to recharge the 12V accessory battery thats running the fan and lights and windshield wipers etc. I asked if you could use a 2.7V boostcap to catch the regen from a 12V motor on the sci.energy newsgroup. The experts over there went into orbit. They thought I was a doofus from Mars. I guess I just couldnt ask the question in a way they understood. Go read the thread for a hoot. Forgive me - I came late to the party, and I apologize for the intrusion. Will >> I read the statistics about the 300 F capacitors, and one thing >> bothered me. Please forgive me if I propose a concept that is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >doofus from Mars. I guess I just couldnt ask the question in a way they >understood. Go read the thread for a hoot. > .Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: >>>>Supercaps don't offer more power. Their internal resistance is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Joe Fischer If the hybrid is setup right with IC equaling cruise HP.... then the high power is only for a few seconds as you accelerate from a stop. Now someone is going to say they need storage for a Pike Peak run... if not then battery is only needed to crank the IC. And the capacitors carry the surge to the electric motors during acceleration. > A capacitor voltage goes down > with the charge level, this could make motor control a lot different. Not with a modern switching motor controller. Graham "EEStor's technology is, based on their patent filing, a ceramic capacitor that can store approximately 50 kwh of electricity, about enough to go 250 miles with current electric cars." http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/about_eestor.html As far as I can see this would be a much higher capacity ultracap than anything Maxwell has. They have a patent on it and a venture capital firm has invested $3m, so who knows? > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. > "EEStor's technology is, based on their patent filing, a ceramic capacitor that can store approximately > 50 kwh of electricity, about enough to go 250 miles with current electric cars." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They have a patent on it and a venture capital firm has invested $3m, so who knows? Their sums seem questionable. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1 &Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7033406.PN.&OS=PN/7033406&RS=PN/7033406 Graham > Hi all, > > Recently it was announced that a company called EEStor > plans to replace batteries in electric cars with supercapacitors, > which hold more charge, charge faster, and contain no > hazardous toxins. This was addressed on sci.energy last week. It seems EEStor has inflated the BS by at least three magnitudes.... >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This was addressed on sci.energy last week. It seems EEStor has inflated > the BS by at least three magnitudes.... What what the thread subject line? All I can see is "2700 FARAD Ultra Capacitor.", which talks about regular ultracapacitors (2.7V electrolytics), not 3500V ceramic supercapacitors. The only mention of EEStor technology was when you wrote: > Dan Bloomquist wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. -- Anon >>>Hi all, >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > regular ultracapacitors (2.7V electrolytics), not 3500V ceramic > supercapacitors. It was called 'UltraPowerBattery'. Today's ceramic technology may yield a few joules/cc. These guys are claiming like 7000 joules/cc. It is a ludicrous claim that if there were any truth to would be huge news in material science. They are claiming a 100,000% improvement of energy density. This ranks right up there with Newman's dynamotor. > I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and > dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher > energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. BaTiO3 ceramic and multilayer capacitors have been around for decades. Smart guys at universities and in the industry would have done this by now if it were possible. The only thing supporting EERstor _is_ believers. And as human nature goes, there will be plenty of'm lining up. >I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher >energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. That is right, and I think they mention using the silkscreen printing process to apply the active layers. There can be many processes that can apply the active layer thinner and more precisely, which is what happened to the electronic chip, so there is a chance that the 50 KWH ultracapacitor weight could be down to 10 pounds within 5 or 10 years. Early electronic integrated circuit boards started out with hand drawn stencils, using silkscreen or other method to apply a mask to a substrate, then the copper was applied by some means over the area not covered by the mask. They were crude looking, the first had very few components on them, now I don't even know how many components they can put on one board or chip, it is in the Billions. The secret will be cost per unit, and the profit to be made will be on small units up to 100 KWH, for vehicles and home backup systems. They can almost completely replace all other types of batteries when they are developed better and marketed properly. I have a good gel cell, 12 volts at about 60 Ah, which might store 1 KWH, but if it were run down all the way 4 or 5 times, it would be destroyed. So ultracapacitors are the biggest storage breakthrough I know of, the flow battery may not be useful for automotive use for some time. There might be big front money for big installations for power plant or industrial use, by the profit money will be in the little guy market. I think MIT and others also have developed different methods to make high capacity ultracapacitors, so the technology could move very fast. Joe Fischer >>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher >>energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. > > That is right, and I think they mention using... I'm sure EEStor is looking for investors. You sound like the kind of believer that would invest without understanding the technology. Send them a check...... >>>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >believer that would invest without understanding the technology. Send >them a check...... It looks like they already have more business than they can handle. http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm There are some wild tales and supposed claims, but the truth is likely somewhere in between their dreaming and your pessimism. Chances are any production would be taken by the military for quite some time. And first use would more likely be for hybrid regenerative braking rather than plugin. But this company seems to only be interested in offering plugin vehicles. http://www.feelgoodcars.com/ This all seems too tame and isolated to be as great as it should be if true, although it might even be difficult to sell a gold bar for cash on Wall Street. http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/17/2238472.html I reserve the right to not read the response. :-) Joe Fischer >>>>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>>>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Joe Fischer Everyone reserves that right. If the responses can not be factual, then they are not worth reading. > There are some wild tales and supposed claims, > but the truth is likely somewhere in between their > dreaming and your pessimism. Somewhere in between? They have made a claim, see the patent. They claim three magnitudes the storage density with a technology that has been beat to death for decades. You call it pessimism, I call it being realistic. >> There are some wild tales and supposed claims, >> but the truth is likely somewhere in between their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >three magnitudes the storage density with a technology that has been >beat to death for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor They are being used in hybrids, and a 12 volt car battery profile is being sold on ebay. >You call it pessimism, I call it being realistic. My concern is more about the danger of high voltage modules. Any capacitor with 1000s of amps punch are a hazard to humans. Joe Fischer > My concern is more about the danger of high voltage >modules. Any capacitor with 1000s of amps punch are >a hazard to humans. This is the problem with automobiles that use self-contined fuel sources. If you think the capacitor is a possible hazard, just imagine the same amount of energy stored in a flywheel! Or even worse, what if cars ran on gasoline? Could you imagine sitting on top of a huge tank of explosive liquid every day on your daily commute? One small fender bender and it could all go off right there! That's why the only SAFE vehicles are electric cars that get their power off the overhead catenary wire like God intended. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> There are some wild tales and supposed claims, >>>but the truth is likely somewhere in between their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They are being used in hybrids, and a 12 volt car battery > profile is being sold on ebay. Is it that you are not paying attention or that you have no clue what the issue is here? EERStor is _not_ claiming a patent on a supercap. There's is a HV BaTiO3 cap. What I wrote stands. I have been a proponent of supercaps to buffer the cycles and surges on the batteries of an EV for years. Go to Maxwell's site, calculate the energy density of a back seat full of their caps. Supercaps are limited to around 3 volts and E=CV^2/2. If you can't do the math, you will never understand why caps can't be used for primary EV storage. >>You call it pessimism, I call it being realistic. > > My concern is more about the danger of high voltage > modules. Battery packs for an EV will run several hundred volts. Don't touch the terminals. > Any capacitor with 1000s of amps punch are > a hazard to humans. You are clueless. It isn't voltage, it isn't amperage. It is Energy as a total quantity that counts. > I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and > dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher > energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. If their patent application is true they'll make billions. Graham >>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher >>energy density than the puny Ultra Capacitors. > > If their patent application is true they'll make billions. It's that sticky "true" part that is the catch. I'm all for it but as I grow older it becomes harder to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Anthony > >>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and > >>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's that sticky "true" part that is the catch. No doubt. I find it tricky to believe. > I'm all for it but as I grow older it becomes harder to believe > six impossible things before breakfast. LOL ! >>>>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>>>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No doubt. I find it tricky to believe. Not what you were posting a little while ago.... > >>>>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and > >>>>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not what you were posting a little while ago.... Who said I believed it ? I just took their numbers and crunched them. Graham >>>>>>I believe EEStor is on to something here. The breakdown field and >>>>>>dielectric constant of the doped Barium Titanate support a *much* higher [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who said I believed it ? I just took their numbers and crunched them. No, you did not. At the least, you never posted such numbers. > > Dan Bloomquist wrote > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No, you did not. At the least, you never posted such numbers. Their numbers are readily available. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1 &Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7033406.PN.&OS=PN/7033406&RS=PN/7033406 Graham > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. No, nobody has done anything close to this and its doubtful that EEStor has done it either. They have a patent on their unit which describes how it is allegedly put together but some simple calculations illustrate that the claimed energy storage causes internal voltage gradients that are way beyond what anybody has done. This makes the whole thing dubious at best. Most likely it is a scam designed to bilk investors. It wouldn't be the first time that outlandish claims have been made for that purpose. There's more on this whole subject a couple of weeks ago in alt.energy, sci.energy and sci.energy.hydrogen including reference URL's and a discussion of the patent. > No, nobody has done anything close to this and its doubtful that EEStor has > done it either. They have a patent on their unit which describes how it is > allegedly put together but some simple calculations illustrate that the > claimed energy storage causes internal voltage gradients that are way beyond > what anybody has done.... Thanks Bob. But don't expect the believers to understand. >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > sci.energy.hydrogen including reference URL's and a discussion of the > patent. I would wait for independent tests. I can recall the phrase, "Orville it will never fly". > I would wait for independent tests. >I can recall the phrase, "Orville it will never fly". I think there is a lot of criticism because a stacked unit was described, and that stack may have been made to test the voltage rating of the separators. I think the actual modules were only an inch or so square and 2230 or so were stacked, possibly all in series, specifically to test the density and the rating. Production modules of 120 and 240 volts would be much more useful and marketable, plus maybe 12 volts and the new auto voltage of 42 volts. Ultracapacitors will be improved, and they are already amazing. Joe Fischer |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.