Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 EEStor's storage capacitor: Breakthru or baloney?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  11:58:32  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
If it's real, it will swiftly and profoundly change the face of our planet. It would allow a car to be charged in 5 minutes for $9 with enough power to go 500 miles (804 kilometers). Essentially the patented invention by EEStor would function as a near-perfect electrical storage battery.

This article in Treehugger gives further details of claims about the capacitor.

This would be the key invention required for replacing the internal combustion vehicle with a green vehicle that would be superior in all ways to the fossil fuel burner it replaces.

So, is it real? Too early to tell for sure to tell, but in my opinion, the combination of remarkable claims and secrecy surrounding EEStor are sending out some of the classic signals often seen before cranks or hoaxers are exposed. Meanwhile CNN Money is listing the EEStor invention as one of the "11 Big Ideas that will Change EVERYTHING." Clearly, some folks are going to make -- or lose -- a lot of money.

Shazam -- or scam? What's your take, folks?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/21/2006 12:23:21

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26002 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  12:27:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Here is the patent.

I'm no electrical engineer, but can 17 Kwh of power be delivered by, say, standard house current in 4-to-6 minutes, or are we going to get super-cheap high-energy-density batteries but super-expensive, large and smelly charging systems?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  12:43:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Here is the patent.

I'm no electrical engineer, but can 17 Kwh of power be delivered by, say, standard house current in 4-to-6 minutes, or are we going to get super-cheap high-energy-density batteries but super-expensive, large and smelly charging systems?

Thanks for the patent link, Dave. I think the answer to your question would be distributed charging stations, many of them probably located in present-day gas stations. Though it might be possible to do some kind of trickle-charge at home.

The patent info mainly baffles me, but it appears it's something like a huge capacitor using soldered-together ceramic dust particles. (I do NOT want to be employed as a dust-solderer!) Jeeze, I hope some engineers here can make further comments about this thing!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  15:01:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Here is the patent.

I'm no electrical engineer, but can 17 Kwh of power be delivered by, say, standard house current in 4-to-6 minutes, or are we going to get super-cheap high-energy-density batteries but super-expensive, large and smelly charging systems?

Not in 4-6 minutes. We're talking several hours, in European home 230V at 16 Amps.
50KWh stored in 30x30x30cm that's getting close to chemical energy storage.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  15:49:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
This would be the key invention required for replacing the internal combustion vehicle with a green vehicle that would be superior in all ways to the fossil fuel burner it replaces.



Yes and no. Although you would not be burning gas or diesel directly, you still need a fuel to produce electric power. And the one we have in greatest abundance is coal.

Still no free lunch.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  16:57:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
Nuclear Powerplants...

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  17:12:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Here is the patent.

I'm no electrical engineer, but can 17 Kwh of power be delivered by, say, standard house current in 4-to-6 minutes, or are we going to get super-cheap high-energy-density batteries but super-expensive, large and smelly charging systems?



Not here. We've got 240V @ 10A for a standard power circuit. The 17 KWh is going to take a little over 7 hours to deliver.

I haven't read the article or the patent properly yet. But I am, shall we say, skeptical at the moment. Their news-release style smacks of sensationalism, but of course it could just be savvy marketing.

From the patent summary:
quote:
the capability to store electrical energy in the range of 52 kWh. The total weight of an EESU with this range of electrical energy storage is about 336 pounds.


52 kWh is around 187 MJ. 336 pounds (damned imperialists) is 152 Kg.

That's an energy density of 1.2 MJ/Kg, which is quite high, better than most battery technologies, but around the same order of magnitude. (it's about 10 times better that a standard car battery). It still doesn't quite compete with fossil fuels with respect to this parameter, conventional petroleum/gasoline is typically rated at around 40-50 MJ/Kg.

I'd like to see something like this, but am not quite prepared to hold my breath yet.

John's just this guy, you know.
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  17:25:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
This article in Treehugger gives further details of claims about the capacitor.

...

Shazam -- or scam? What's your take, folks?

Hmmm. From the article in Halfmooner's link:
quote:
the EEStor technology has been tested up to a million cycles with no material degradation

I suppose they could be testing much smaller versions. Lets say they're testing a unit with 10% of the capacity they're advertising. Thats 5kWh. Assuming they can charge the thing in an hour (that's not possible with an Australian domestic supply, as per my earlier calcs, but only out by a factor of two, so I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt). Lets say they need another hour to discharge it. 2 hours per cycle, that's still 228 years worth of continuous testing.

A million full cycle tests in a year is a full charge-discharge cycle in around 30 seconds, so I'm a little skeptical of this too. Any tests performed at this rate may not scale very well, or be at all representative of real-world performance.

All in all the claims aren't entriely ludicrous, so I wouldn't necessarily say, "Scam", however, does anyone smell IPO?

John's just this guy, you know.
Go to Top of Page

Randy
SFN Regular

USA
1990 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  17:52:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Randy a Private Message
Hm....a CNN article states the company is in Cedar Park, Tx, north of Austin. That puts it about ten minutes west of my house. I'll have to check it out sometime...see if the place exists or if it's a ten gallon tall tail.

"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."

"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Edited by - Randy on 09/21/2006 18:11:51
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26002 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  17:53:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS

Not here. We've got 240V @ 10A for a standard power circuit. The 17 KWh is going to take a little over 7 hours to deliver.
Oh, if it's as simple as capacity divided by (volts times amps) then we'd need about 9.4 hours with our 120V, 15A circuits. Actually, if we use the circuit powering the central air unit, we can get four times that power, cutting charging time to 2.36 hours. This is still over 28 times longer than the 4-6 minute figure, so maybe they're charging with 1,700V at 120A (with no transmission losses, anyone know where I can get a resistance-free wire to go along with my nifty frictionless surface?).

As I suggested before, I imagine the best scanario is that we're going to get cheap batteries, but be billed up the wazzoo for a monthly lease on a big, ugly charging unit.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  18:33:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck

Yes and no. Although you would not be burning gas or diesel directly, you still need a fuel to produce electric power. And the one we have in greatest abundance is coal.

Still no free lunch.

Correct, but in turn, also incorrect in essential implications. No free lunch, but a much, much cheaper one. First, quite a lot of electrical power on the grid comes from hydro power, some from fission, and with more and more each year coming from wind and other renewable sources, such as solar. Even the burning of fossil fuels for conversion to electricity can be done much more efficiently employing the economies of scale available in huge, centralized power plants, than it can be done for conversion to work through the internal combustion engine ICE). And for what people need and expect from their cars, no other technology presently comes close in terms of enough of these practical factors: Initial capital investment in the vehicle, range on one charge/fill-up, speed, cost and availability of charge/fill-up.

In effect, both hydrogen-burning ICEs and fuel-cell technologies are simply forms of batteries, since the power they deliver is created elsewhere. The cheapest batteries for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are still lead acid. They are also the heaviest, which is a major problem in a vehicle. The best present batteries are probably lithium-based. These come close to the storage needs of long-range BEV's, but they are extremely expensive.

For e-bikes, one of which I intend to get, the efficiencies and economies are already so great, even with lead-acid technology, that one can make a five-mile round-trip on a flat tarmac (just what I need for grocery shopping) for less than 5 cents of electricity bought over the grid. Of course, I will sacrifice comfort and some safety in doing so, and I will not be able to venture over the San Mateo hills to make longer trips on my e-bike. It would also be miserable to ride in bad weather. On the other hand, since it is legally a bicycle, it requires no license, and no insurance, only a helmet. (One writer even showed, breaking down the inefficiency of fueling a human beast of burden, how it is more "green" to propel a bike by electricity than by human power!)

Clearly, the development of a practical BEV will make CO2 and other pollution primarily a matter for power plants. By removing the necessity of fossil fuel burning in vehicles, it would allow focus on electrical generation as the one big remaining greenhouse pollution problem to solve.

In addressing the holistic "lifecycle" environmental costs of BEVs vs. ICE vehicles, Wiki says:
quote:
Production and conversion BEVs typically use 0.3 to 0.5 kilowatt-hours per mile (0.20.3 kWh/km). Nearly half of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. The US fleet average of 23 miles per gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 1.58 kilowatt-hours per mile and the 70 MPG Honda Insight gets 0.52 kWh/mi (assuming 36.4 kWh per US gallon of gasoline), so battery electric vehicles are relatively energy efficient.

When comparisons of the total, well-to-wheel energy cycle are made, the relative efficiency of BEVs drops, but such calculations are usually not provided for internal combustion vehicles. Generally well-to-station efficiency is left unstated (e.g. the energy used to extract & transport petroleum, produce specialized fuels such as gasoline or electricity, and then transport finished products to market). Normally only the station-to-wheel efficiencies are provided.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are useful for comparison of electricity and gasoline consumption. [9] Such comparisons include energy production, transmission, charging, and vehicle losses. CO2 emissions improve in BEVs with sustainable electricity production but are fixed for gasoline vehicles. (Unfortunately, such figures for the EV1, Ford Ranger EV, EVPlus, and other production vehicles are unavailable.)

. . .

Many factors must be considered when comparing vehicles' total environmental impact. The most comprehensive comparison is a "cradle-to-grave" or lifecycle analysis. Such an analysis considers all inputs including original production and fuel sources and all outputs and end products including emissions and disposal. The varying amounts and types of inputs and outputs vary in their environmental effects and are difficult to directly compare. For example, whether the environmental effects of nickel and cadmium pollution from a NiCd battery production facility are less than those of hydrocarbon emissions and petroleum refining is unknown. Similar comparisons would need to be addressed for each input and output in order to make fair judgement of relative total environmental impact.

A large lifecycle input difference of BEVs compared to ICE vehicles is that they require electricity instead of a liquid fuel. When the electricity is provided from renewable or nuclear energy, this is a considerable advantage. However, if the electricity is produced from fossil fuel sources as most electricity is the relative advantage of the electric vehicle is substantially reduced. So, developing additional non-CO2 emitting energy sources is necessary for electric vehicles to further reduce net emissions. Still, the environmental impact of electricity production (indirect emissions) depends on the electricity production mix, and are usually considerably lower than the direct emissions of ICE vehicles.
The key is, this kind of battery breakthrough would be what will make an overall solution to fossil fuel CO2 emissions possible.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/21/2006 19:00:43
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  19:45:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Here is the patent.

I'm no electrical engineer, but can 17 Kwh of power be delivered by, say, standard house current in 4-to-6 minutes, or are we going to get super-cheap high-energy-density batteries but super-expensive, large and smelly charging systems?



Not here. We've got 240V @ 10A for a standard power circuit. The 17 KWh is going to take a little over 7 hours to deliver.

I haven't read the article or the patent properly yet. But I am, shall we say, skeptical at the moment. Their news-release style smacks of sensationalism, but of course it could just be savvy marketing.

From the patent summary:
quote:
the capability to store electrical energy in the range of 52 kWh. The total weight of an EESU with this range of electrical energy storage is about 336 pounds.


52 kWh is around 187 MJ. 336 pounds (damned imperialists) is 152 Kg.

That's an energy density of 1.2 MJ/Kg, which is quite high, better than most battery technologies, but around the same order of magnitude. (it's about 10 times better that a standard car battery). It still doesn't quite compete with fossil fuels with respect to this parameter, conventional petroleum/gasoline is typically rated at around 40-50 MJ/Kg.

I'd like to see something like this, but am not quite prepared to hold my breath yet.

The Energy Blog has this to say:
quote:
None of these claims except construction and cost are significantly better than other ultracapacitors. Although they sometimes refer to the technology as a battery, it is clearly an ultracapacitor.



Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  00:53:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
The ability to accept high charge rates might make it a good power storage unit for a regenerateive braking system in a hybrid car.

Alhough powering an electric car with remwable energy or even nuclear generated power sonuds nice, in reality nearly all the extra power generation required by electric cars will come from fossil fuesl, mostly coal. This is an advantage howver in having the CO2 emmsions concentrated in one place. It may pe possible to find other usses cor the CO2 - for example this already being done with enhanced oil recovery using CO2 from a cola fired powerplant. Not ony is the CO2 injected into the ground but increasing recovery from an existing reservoir reduce the need to drill more wells. It would mean less work for this guy.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  04:36:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Nuclear Powerplants...



Egads----- Please not in the US....... Nuclear power is one of those things that we have proven incapable of handleing with the completely uncorrupt, no limit for costs-for-safety that it demands.

Peace
Joe
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  06:28:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
For e-bikes, one of which I intend to get, the efficiencies and economies are already so great, even with lead-acid technology, that one can make a five-mile round-trip on a flat tarmac (just what I need for grocery shopping) for less than 5 cents of electricity bought over the grid. Of course, I will sacrifice comfort and some safety in doing so, and I will not be able to venture over the San Mateo hills to make longer trips on my e-bike. It would also be miserable to ride in bad weather. On the other hand, since it is legally a bicycle, it requires no license, and no insurance, only a helmet. (One writer even showed, breaking down the inefficiency of fueling a human beast of burden, how it is more "green" to propel a bike by electricity than by human power!)



I will have to re-read your post more thoroughly when I get some time because it addresses many things that I have "researching" at somewhat less than full intensity.

Regarding an e-bike, check this option out http://www.revopower.com which uses a two-stoke motor instead. The inventor provides his reasoning on an environmental basis.

I have also been considering one of these (the C2 or the 959) for my 17-miles-one-way commute: http://www.worldclassexotics.com/Electriccarconv.htm

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  06:55:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp

quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
For e-bikes, one of which I intend to get, the efficiencies and economies are already so great, even with lead-acid technology, that one can make a five-mile round-trip on a flat tarmac (just what I need for grocery shopping) for less than 5 cents of electricity bought over the grid. Of course, I will sacrifice comfort and some safety in doing so, and I will not be able to venture over the San Mateo hills to make longer trips on my e-bike. It would also be miserable to ride in bad weather. On the other hand, since it is legally a bicycle, it requires no license, and no insurance, only a helmet. (One writer even showed, breaking down the inefficiency of fueling a human beast of burden, how it is more "green" to propel a bike by electricity than by human power!)



I will have to re-read your post more thoroughly when I get some time because it addresses many things that I have "researching" at somewhat less than full intensity.

Regarding an e-bike, check this option out http://www.revopower.com which uses a two-stoke motor instead. The inventor provides his reasoning on an environmental basis.

I have also been considering one of these (the C2 or the 959) for my 17-miles-one-way commute: http://www.worldclassexotics.com/Electriccarconv.htm

Thanks, Fripp. I think the "Wheel" inventor is just wrong, or being disingenuous. I truly don't believe his two-stroke ICE is as non-polluting as he'd like us to believe.

I also don't like the front-wheel design. Though it's the easy place to put the engine or motor on a bike, it also causes inherent problems, such as the torque creating steering problems, less weight on the power wheel, and the power itself causing slippage in the critical front tire's ground traction. A lot of e-bikes are also built with front-wheel drive, and I plan to avoid those, too.

Those electric cars, however, look beautiful. A daily commute of 17 miles each way is too much for an e-bike, for sure. If you test drive them, expect these electric sportsters to surprise you with their torquing power and fast, smooth starts! I, for one, would love to read your report on them.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000