New Membrane Battacitor May Be For Real - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2011, 05:36:14 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--"A team from the National University of Singapore's Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiative (NUSNNI), led by principle investigator Dr Xie Xian Ning, has developed a novel energy-storage membrane."--Only time will tell, but the claims made for this technology are nothing short of astounding. This may possibly be the fabled "quantum jump" in battery technology. 0.2 Farads per square centimeter, and 62 cents per Farad rather than $7. [Added Note: The $7 per F is for electrolytic technology, and thus is not really a valid comparison] Possible Wind, Solar, and Automotive applications. The mind boggles. See below link for the Science Daily article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929074021.htm"I am no poet, but if you think for yourselves, as I proceed, the facts will form a poem in your minds." Michael Faraday 1791 1867Best RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2011, 07:53:40 pm
content: I started to get really interested in ultra capacitors that could approach or even exceed battery capacities a few years back.There was a company called Eestor that developed ceramic with a dielectric coefficient of 20000, and they were planning to make 3000 V caps that could replace batteries in cars.Then then went strangely quiet.You then sit down and do the calculations. If a capacitor can store enough power to be useful in cars, you get an energy density that starts to approach nitroglycerin.There is no possible failure mode for either petrol or batteries that allow for an instantaneous release of all the energy.Unfortunately there is for capacitors. Basically if the capacity is enough to power a car, then you are sitting on a massive bomb. At the moment, no solution is in sight.Richard.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2011, 10:44:58 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on November 03, 2011, 07:53:40 pmWell, there were lots of cases were even good old Li-Ion batteries caught fire and if you ever saw a LiPo with a about 40Wh (for RC planes etc.) explode, you don't really want to imagine what kind of fireball you'd get if a LiPo in a car with maybe up to 100kWh would explode.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2011, 11:26:09 pm
content: Batteries can catch fire and that is pretty bad, but it is nothing compared to the energy release if it could instantaneously release all its energy - like an explosive. Lithium fires are relatively slow - we are talking minutes to even hours. Not sub milliseconds.The chemical reaction in both batteries, and involved with the petrol-air reaction just cannot happen instantly. Even the Hollywood fireball where petrol in big plastic bottles is atomised by explosive into hundreds of square meters of air and is then ignited still takes seconds, so you just don't get the shockwave that an explosive delivers.In the imagined super capacitors, the only thing stopping the charges recombining is an extremely thin, extremely physically stressed solid dielectric. Anything that causes a dielectric failure like heat or a shockwave will mean instantaneous recombining of the charge and the energy must go somewhere. If the energy stored in a 100kG super capacitor is the same as the energy stored in 100kg of nitroglycerin, then a dielectric failure in the capacitor would be equal in results to the 100kg of nitro exploding. We are talking a really, really big bomb.To make it worse, if you look at the kind of leakages we get in familiar capacitors and scale it up to a super capacitor, then the leakage alone will cause the capacitor to heat up and fail (explode). So somehow the super caps have to be much better capacitors then anything we have right now.The current ultra caps store enough energy to be scary, but a bank of them could only power a car for seconds. They are nothing compared to the energy density stored in the type of capacitors that could power a car for several hundred km.I am sure you can get today a 30uF 3v ultra cap. Eestor's initial car storage capacitor was going to be a 30uF 3000V capacitor - a million times the energy. If that was where they were going to start, you would have to assume that even higher energy density was possible.Richard.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 07:21:34 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Herein I answer point by point some of the accusations made against this new technology. The article which is the subject of this post, concerns a new type of capacitor, which is composed of "a polystyrene-based polymer ... foldable membrane that, when sandwiched between and charged by two metal plates, could store charge at 0.2 farads per square centimeter." See below for a link to the original article.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929074021.htm--To Richard: I want to thank you for your interesting post. I hope you will not take it amiss if I politely, disagree, Sir. You compared capacitors to "nitroglycerin" and referred to "sitting on a bomb". Could you please provide some links, so that we could verify this assertion. Now, Erik Sofge" has stated in his article on the MIT Super Capacitor (see link below) that:"by avoiding the chemical reaction that drives traditional batteries, there's no real danger of a capacitor suddenly overloading--or exploding like a laptop's lithium-ion battery pack."http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/4252623--I freely admit that, just as with gasoline and batteries, Super Capacitor fires can occur. Please see the below link for pictures of a Super Capacitor Chinese Bus that caught on fire. No only does there not appear to be any supersonic shrapnel damage, it would appear that the fire was much less dangerous than a typical gasoline conflagration. Your comments are humbly solicited.http://shanghaiist.com/2011/07/19/bus_explosion.php#photo-1--You also stated:"In the imagined super capacitors, the only thing stopping the charges recombining is an extremely thin, extremely physically stressed solid dielectric."--I am not sure whether you have a point here or not. You see to be responding as if I had mentioned the EStor Ceramic Super Capacitor, rather than the membrane capacitor mentioned in the article. Please tell us why the membrane would be extremely physically stressed.--Of course if you are correct, it means that PHD Scientists at prestigious Universities are trying to sell us a horribly dangerous technology, and have deliberately overlooked the incredible risk inherent in these devises. Also if you are correct, it may turn out that a new and unusually powerful explosive has been invented."I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done." Henry FordBest RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 08:34:32 am
content: Of course the patent holder talks up their technology - they want money coming in, just like Eestor did before they stopped talking. They want absolute buckets of money for their invention.It is not a matter of me proving anything.If they are storing energy in extremely high density, and there is no change of chemical state that (like batteries) that prevents explosion, they have to explain how it can possibly be safe. It is the first consideration.I know the membrane has dielectric that is very highly physically stressed as they say it is a high density capacitor - that is they way energy is stored in a capacitor, and the physical strength of the dielectric sets the absolute maximum possible voltage.Energy has to go somewhere, and there will be a temperature at which this membrane fails. Energy can't just quietly fade away. Where are you saying the energy will go? It cannot be dissipated as heat since with this energy storage density, there is not anywhere near enough mass to contain a fraction of the heat. It cannot somehow continue to safely store charge at elevated temperatures - it is just impossible to retain a highly stressed dialectic structure at over 1000 degrees.If it is a capacitor, it is a bomb, unless the inventors can explain a very exceptionally safe controlled explosion that somehow leaves most of the structure still storing charge. It will be incredibly hard for them to prove it is safe, and if one out of a million are not safe, it will never happen for cars. It might still happen for short and long term mains power storage (like storing solar power), if the capacitors are in a bunker that can safely allow an explosion without collateral damage, so it is still useful technology.If you look for balanced comments on research into nanocapacitors, you see these comments:QuoteQuoteQuoteAlfred W. Hubler is the Director of the Center for Complex Systems Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinoishttps://netfiles.uiuc.edu/a-hubler/www/DigitalBatteriesSimplyComplex.pdfThis is a potentially much safer technology then the membrane technology since all the nanocapacitors cells are electrically isolated from each other. These comments are in relation to very small batteries for appliances - not car sized batteries that are much more dangerous.If you don't believe me, do the numbers. That is exactly what I did with the Eestor numbers, and the numbers look really bad.Richard.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 09:09:09 am
content: I have to agree, the danger is a real possibility, unless they are designed to release energy slowly... somehow.. I mean, you don't have to look far, there are plenty of demonstrations floating around the net with HV caps destructively shorting out a chunk of metal. Now can you imagine those super caps with higher energy density doing the same?

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 12:28:36 pm
content: The most likely initial use of these capacitors is for explosives and military weapons. There is real interest in that are as they are totally inert when discharged. This is huge for the military as they could transport armaments without having to carry any explosives.Also after charging, they can be made safe again by discharging.It will also be very scary that such a new explosive exists. Horrendous security problems. In a way, it would be better if they never exist.There is no way they can be designed to release energy slowly as it would be just too slow to be any use. You are talking days or weeks. And that is no help at all in any of the catastrophic failure modes.When I first saw this class of capacitors, I was excited. I really wanted to believe that they were the future and would eventually replace batteries. These could potentially last for the life of a product, never leak, charge incredibly fast. Potentially almost the perfect energy storage.I just wish there was a way to make them safe, but I cannot find anyone with a solution yet.Richard

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 07:07:58 pm
content: Honestly I'm not sure if calling a super-capacitor a bomb is completely justified. Explosives have such a destructing effect because of the blast wave, not so much because of the heat of an exothermic chemical reaction.If a large amount of electrical energy is suddenly released, this will create a lot of heat for sure, under the according circumstances a plasma and a sonic bang, but no blast wave. Of course the heat might be used to trigger a secondary reaction that creates lots of hot gases, but the discharge alone can be hardly called an explosionOr to put it in other words: even if you're hit by a lightning, you will get burnt for sure, but there is little chance the you or the air around you will explode and shatter a crowd of people to pieces. The same amount of energy set free in a chemical reaction that creates a lot of hot gases in a very short time will create a real mess though.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 08:35:10 pm
content: I wish that were true. But we are talking about perhaps 100kg of capacitor exploding with an energy that can vaporize much of the capacitor mass instantly. It is truly a bomb.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 11:04:32 pm
content: Dear Richard:--I only ask for links so that I might be better informed, and so that I might revise my understanding, if necessary. You stated "It is not a matter of me proving anything." Please understand that my remarks were not of a personal nature, and that I meant no offense. Your claims seemed extraordinary to me (ignorant as I might be). And as Carl Sagan (1934-1996) has said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I was merely requesting additional knowledge, and by no means was I calling into question the sincerity of your assertions.--You, also stated: "they have to explain how it can possibly be safe. It is the first consideration."--I am pretty sure that if and before the Membrane technology comes into general use in Electric Vehicles, the producers will by that time have a pretty good argument that it is not a nitroglycerine bomb. You might also note that gasoline has a fairly high energy density, and has been involved in numerous fatal fires, probably more often than one per million vehicles.--You stated: "I know the membrane has dielectric that is very highly physically stressed"--At first I thought by "physical stress" you meant mechanical pressure, which could shatter a ceramic capacitor. But now I am not sure what you meant by physical stress. Did you mean electrical charge? If so, I think we already knew it was subject to electrical forces.--You stated: "Energy can't just quietly fade away."--I do not recall having made any statement even similar to this. Again I refer you to the fire in the Chinese Super Capacitor Bus, which looks no worse, and possibly better than a typical gasoline fire. Again please note the absence of supersonic shrapnel damage as would result from a nitroglycerine like detonation blast wave. Inasmuch as we are only talking about a 4 to 5 time increase in energy density, I cannot see the results as being very different in kind. Bus fire link re-posted below:http://shanghaiist.com/2011/07/19/bus_explosion.php#photo-1--I do want to thank you for the links to Dr. Hubler's statements with regard to nanocapacitors. Certainly the Membrane technology would involve roughly similar amounts of energy, but whether the failure modes would be the same, and as likely, is as yet unknown. Although I am unsure as to how much these concerns apply to the very new Membrane technology, let us grant for the moment that they do. I am very sure that the designers of these devices will be taking these considerations into account as they proceed. We shall see.--You stated:"This is a potentially much safer technology then the membrane technology since all the nanocapacitors cells are electrically isolated from each other."--I do not recall the article stating that the Membrane technology would be restricted to just building just one single giant capacitor. And, likely one single giant capacitor would not fit in a vehicle very conveniently. Perhaps they might break the design up into cells for safety and, consideration for ease of placement in a vehicle.--Finally please see the below link for an article about how those clueless morons at MIT are trying to blow themselves sky high with a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor. This is a very interesting short article about energy density and capacitor vs battery discharge.http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/mit-move-over-batteries-here-come-the-nanotube-enhanced-capacitors.html"I were better to be eaten to death with a rust than to be scoured to nothing with perpetual motion."William Shakespeare 1564 1616Best RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2011, 11:55:37 pm
content: Clear Ether,I looked at the two links. If the car guys are using current ultra capacitors to test their ideas, the energy density is low enough that it is relative safe. They may be able to get that car to drive around the block without running out of electricity.You will notice that safety is not mentioned in the article. No-one working on these super capacitors ever likes discussing safety, and as long as the media bases their stories on the press releases rather then investigative journalism, these feel good stories will keep coming out. Every single one of these projects needs a lot of funds, and they have to put a positive spin on it in the hope that someone in the future will find a solution to the safety problem. They are researchers discovering how to make much better capacitors, and in the lab, they will test on a minute scale.With the bus "spontaneous combustion" photo, it looks pretty bad, but fires are relative very slow. If that same energy was releases in less then a millisecond rather then in a slow fire, we would be looking at a photo of destruction in the whole block, not the bus. The bus wouldn't even be there anymore.It is more of what I am not comfortable even saying about this technology, rather then what I am prepared to say in this forum, but lets just say that if the super capacitor technology is successful, it will be a 21st century analog to nuclear power in the 20th century. I am not going to try and justify that in anyway, but from what I learn't looking into the potential of the technology, I believe on very many levels that the statement is true.Richard.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 01:06:44 am
content: There is also the electromotive component that makes them dangerous too. The instantaneous current would create a fairly powerful magnetic field that would tear conductors apart into hundreds of projectile fragments.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 01:14:59 am
content: I just scanned through this thread. I have to say that Richard (amspire) is absolutely right in the doubts he raises. No literature references are required; this is just basic science.Conventional batteries store a fair amount of energy (for instance, the humble AA alkaline battery contains more energy than 5 NATO standard rifle bullets--and you can imagine the damage done by one of those bullets when it hits something). Now think about a battery big enough to drive a car for 100 miles (how many AA alkaline batteries is that?). Now imagine all that energy being released in a fraction of a second.In a conventional battery there are rate limiting steps, primarily ionic diffusion and chemical reaction. People try really hard to get high power output from batteries, but even the best battery takes minutes to release all its energy. A capacitor has no such limits. It can release all its energy in a fraction of a second and there is nothing to stop it.Concerning the question of physical stress vs. electrical stress. They are in fact the same thing. All physical forces we experience in the world are the result of electric charges attracting or repelling. The floor you stand on is 99.999...% empty space. The reason you don't fall through the floor is electric charges repelling each other. Conversely, when you place large electric charges close to each other as in a capacitor, the forces they generate are physical as much as electrical.The short answer is, you really don't want capacitors storing enough energy to run a car. You really don't.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 06:27:32 am
content: Dear IanB:--You might note, Sir, that I ask Richard if by physical stress, he meant mechanical pressure, because the oblique phrasing left me in doubt as to exactly what he meant. Simple question, yes? I even mentioned that I understood that a ceramic could be crushed. Had I received a comprehensible answer to this question, I would have further stated that the membrane is likely much more resistant to the crushing and shattering failure mode than the EStor ceramic formulation.--Believe it or not, I do understand that the dielectric material between the "plates" is subject to compression because "opposite charges attract". But, you lecture on electrostatic repulsion 101, was very informative for anyone completely unfamiliar with the electron.--Assuming that all the negative comments are correct, why would top rated University be working on something that obviously has no chance of ever being useful in more than milligram amounts? I hardly think they are working on something that they think has no possible practical use, even if they are getting funds, when is the last time you heard of Scientists working on something without getting funds. I do not think the "Greedy Rich People" defense will work here. By your lights it could not even be used as a weapon; you would not dare put one in an airplane, and you surely could not put one in the barrel of a gun, yes?"There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 06:54:15 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on November 05, 2011, 06:27:32 amThat is exactly the question. Given the known dangers of these devices illustrated in the link I posted, it is something they should be talking about.QuoteWeapon - very much soPut One one Plane - Not intentionally. But the proponents are talking about using this technology for phones and computers.Gun - you could, but powder is cheaper.QuoteYou mean one of the guys who said that it was absolutely impossible to use nuclear energy to make a bomb?Even if this technology has serious problems, there are imperatives to develop it. It is the most likely solution to long term storage of solar power, so that solar power (and other alternative energy power sources) can be used for base power all year round. As I said, in this role, cells could be put in multiple concrete bunkers so they one can explode safely which could make it a workable risk.Also, they are learning how to make a better capacitor. What we are talking about is a 10,000uF power supply capacitor in a 1206 SMD chip. We are also talking lower leakage then any current electrolytic capacitor technology. Nanocell capacitors put out a constant voltage until discharged. All sounds really great!If your are a researcher and you have a solution to 10 of the 11 main problems, you have done really, really well. Pity about that 1 problem.Richard

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 08:58:59 am
content: 1) ultracapacitors currently have much lower energy densities than batteries. The 2600F 2.5V caps you could recently buy from Electronics Goldmine (about $20, IIRC. They sold out) hold about the same amount of energy (8+KJ) as a 1.2V 2200mAH rechargable NiMH AA battery. And it's MUCH bigger. Li-Ion cells have somewhat higher energy density than NiMH.2) $7/Farad is not an accurate estimate of current supercapacitor prices. I can buy a 1000F capacitor from Mouser for about $100.http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Nichicon/JJD0E108MSED/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMuSK2mCDyT9cj2jCNT7nxiWIt may all depend on what voltage they're talking about, of course. All those 2.5V supercaps are ... annoying.3) You don't need to assume that there is an "instantaneous discharge" possibility just because the technology is a capacitor rather than a battery. Caps have limitations just like batteries. Early supercaps had such high internal resistance that they couldn't do much more than back up low-power memories.4) A new supercapacitor technology that is "no better than LiIon" (energy density or discharge rate) would still be very interesting if:It was significantly cheaper to manufacture.It was safer by virtue of having less noxious ingredients (Lithium is flamable. The electrolyte in LiIon batteries is flammable and contains fluorine, possibly releasing HF gas (which is NASTY) when it burns. The Li-metal plus Cobalt Oxide used in most LiIon batteries in a combination similar to thermite.)There were significantly better charging/discharging behavior (like being able to dump regenerative braking directly into the caps, or charging faster, or not being subject to overcharging or over-dischargingThere are plenty of reasons to be excited about new supercap technology, but the enthusiasm portrayed in the article goes beyond what seems appropriate given the information and mis-information that they quoted. (it could just be bad reporting, of course. Reporters seem to be particularly bad about extracting the pieces that researchers actually think are interesting about their research. That includes the marketing folks that write the university (or industry) press releases.)

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 09:10:06 am
content: Dear Richard:--My comment about the "capacitor weapon" being put in an airplane or a gun, was referring to the delivery method, assuming arguendo that your arguments were correct. Since by your own admission this technology is as explosive as nitroglycerine, and inherently dangerous, it seems unlikely they would load it aboard an aircraft which might crash or catch fire. Nor would they be likely to subject it to 30,000 Gs of acceleration like a 9mm slug. If its likelihood of being used as a weapon is "very much so", pray tell, how would you deliver it. I guess that leaves it to missiles and torpedoes for which they already have good stable explosives, which can be cast and machined. How then (again assuming arguendo that your argument is correct) could a high energy density capacitor ever be used as a weapon?--In referring to Enrico Fermi you stated:"You mean one of the guys who said that it was absolutely impossible to use nuclear energy to make a bomb?"--Please see the link below for the NY Times obituary of Enrico Fermi, who also named the neutrino, bumbling fool though he was. The NY Times obituary is headlined:"Enrico Fermi Dead at 53; Architect of Atomic Bomb"http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0929.html--No doubt you carelessly concluded that Dr. Fermi must have been one of those clueless morons, like the ones at MIT and the University Of Singapore.--You also stated:"Even if this technology has serious problems, there are imperatives to develop it. It is the most likely solution to long term storage of solar power, so that solar power (and other alternative energy power sources) can be used for base power all year round. As I said, in this role, cells could be put in multiple concrete bunkers so they one can explode safely which could make it a workable risk.Also, they are learning how to make a better capacitor. What we are talking about is a 10,000uF power supply capacitor in a 1206 SMD chip. We are also talking lower leakage then any current electrolytic capacitor technology. Nanocell capacitors put out a constant voltage until discharged. All sounds really great! "--Now, I get it. You've been having me on. Well done, Sir. You really had me going, for a while. You had me laughing so hard I nearly inhaled my coffee. Cough, cough, wheeze.--By the way, your typing, spelling, grammar and syntax are excellent."But answer came there none"Charles Lutwidge Dodgson 1832 1898Better known as Lewis CarrollBest RegardsClear Ether Dear Richard:--My comment about the "capacitor weapon" being put in an airplane or a gun, was referring to the delivery method, assuming arguendo that your arguments were correct. Since by your own admission this technology is as explosive as nitroglycerine, and inherently dangerous, it seems unlikely they would load it aboard an aircraft which might crash or catch fire. Nor would they be likely to subject it to 30,000 Gs of acceleration like a 9mm slug. If its likelihood of being used as a weapon is "very much so", pray tell, how would you deliver it. I guess that leaves it to missiles and torpedoes for which they already have good stable explosives, which can be cast and machined. How then (again assuming arguendo that your argument is correct) could a high energy density capacitor ever be used as a weapon?--In referring to Enrico Fermi you stated:"You mean one of the guys who said that it was absolutely impossible to use nuclear energy to make a bomb?"--Please see the link below for the NY Times obituary of Enrico Fermi, who also gave the neutrino its name, bumbling fool though he was. The NY Times obituary is headlined:"Enrico Fermi Dead at 53; Architect of Atomic Bomb"http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0929.html--No doubt you carelessly concluded that Dr. Fermi must have been one of those clueless morons, like the ones at MIT and the University Of Singapore.--You also stated:"Even if this technology has serious problems, there are imperatives to develop it. It is the most likely solution to long term storage of solar power, so that solar power (and other alternative energy power sources) can be used for base power all year round. As I said, in this role, cells could be put in multiple concrete bunkers so they one can explode safely which could make it a workable risk.Also, they are learning how to make a better capacitor. What we are talking about is a 10,000uF power supply capacitor in a 1206 SMD chip. We are also talking lower leakage then any current electrolytic capacitor technology. Nanocell capacitors put out a constant voltage until discharged. All sounds really great! "--Now, I get it. You've been having me on. Well done, Sir. You really had me going, for a while. You had me laughing so hard I nearly inhaled my coffee. Cough, cough, wheeze."But answer came there none"Charles Lutwidge Dodgson 1832 1898Better known as Lewis CarrollBest RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 09:32:54 am
content: Dear Westfw:--Thank you for your interesting and informative post. I am in agreement with nearly all that you said. The $7 per Farad citation as per the article is for electrolytic technology. I failed to notice this. I do not know what I was thinking, as I already knew that supercaps do not cost anything like $7 per F. I guess I was typing instead of thinking. And, thus I should not have quoted it as it is misleading and unhelpful. I will add this fact to my original post. Thanks for pointing it out.--Like you I am taking a "Wait and see." to this technology, but it is fun to speculate (dream)."It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. " Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2011, 01:53:21 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on November 05, 2011, 09:10:06 amI was being a bit unfair perhaps, but prior to the '30s, Fermi, along with almost all the other top physicist believed that fission was theoretically impossible. Even when Ida Noddack suggested that the results of one of Fermi's own experiments should be (correctly) explained by the fact that fission had occurred, he rubbished the idea as not possible.He was of course one of the first to discover he was wrong, and decided that fission was possible after all. It took guys like Einstein a lot longer. The point is here is one of the greatest scientific minds who said at the infancy of atomic energy that it was pretty safe stuff. He was sure he was right and he was wrong.At the birth of new technologies, it is really easy for the best minds to be a bit blind.You were asking how top academics could have got it wrong?QuoteYou should be in politics twisting my words like that. Ouch!When I said "All sounds great!" I meant it sounds great. Sounds great unfortunately does not mean it is great.I sincerely think it is a technology we are better without. I think we should be asking the right questions, rather then hoping these very clever people can do something impossible, and by a mere touch of their brilliant essence, turn a bomb into something safe.This will be a disaster for electronics as we have known it up till now, as there will be an electronic component that is extremely dangerous. It will look the same as every other part. It will be the end of the days of innocence, when just about any piece of electronics can be shoved into a planes cargo hold with little care.We will become weapons grade material handlers, and the rules will change.QuoteI laughed at that - I struggle. ThanksI have probably bored people enough with this, but thanks for the good counter arguments.Richard

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 10, 2011, 07:43:10 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see below email from Dr. Xian Ning, of the National University of Singapore's Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiative (NUSNNI), regarding his new "Membrane" capacitor design, and the accusations that it could suddenly release energy in a nitroglycerine like fashion, and in the case of Bus, we "would be looking at a photo of destruction in the whole block"."Dear Dan,Thanks for your email.Do not worry. The membrane would not be any nitroglycerine bomb. The membrane has its own charge-discharge characteristics, and will be made into safe energy storage devices and modules. We will be able to announce such devices soon.RegardsXian Ning"--While not conclusive, "the pudding yet to be et", it seems to me that this answer is at least dispositive."It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. " Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2011, 08:28:15 am
content: I wish that email made sense. But it doesn't, and he is not talking about the circumstances of a failure - he is just talking normal operation which is of course safe.QuoteThis is pure, 100% gobbledy-gook waffle. Unless the stored energy safe because it is transformed into a parallel universe, then the energy is sitting in the capacitor, and no discharge characteristics can make that charge dissipate in a harmless way. We are used to capacitors we can discharge in a fraction of a second. With these proposed capacitors, you lucky if you can discharge in 10's of minutes without sending the capacitor into catastrophic failure. The discharge currents are just so huge.Lets just do some numbers, I don't know what what working voltage they are planning, but say it is 60V. The Tesla has a 56 kWH battery, and it claims about 250 miles range. To match a 50KWH battery, the capacitance for a car would be 25000 farads. If I want to remove the energy from that capacitor in 1 minute, that means a dv/dt of 60v/60s = 1 v/sec.Now I = C*dv/dt, so to discharge the capacitor in 1 minute, you have to discharge at about 25,000 amps, and you have to put that power somewhere. You cannot discharge using a short circuit, or the capacitor will blow.To discharge in 1 second (externally or internally) , we are talking 1.5million amps.If a discharge occurs in 10uS, as it can in a catastrophic failure, the current flowing inside the capacitor is 150,000,000,000 amps for the 10uS.So you can see how reassured I am that the capacitor "has its own charge-discharge characteristics". I can sleep easy.QuoteThis is the key to what I was saying. They have to say they can make it safe. If they say they cannot make it safe, then the project ends. They are out of a job. Their patents are from which they are hoping to make billions at least will sit not earning a cent. Everything depends on finding a way to make it safe.With every person working on these type of capacitors, it is an intention to somehow make it safe. It will not be a bomb once someone discovers how to make it safe - the only tiny problem is that they don't know how to do yet.I will await to see a real technical response from someone, but thanks for passing this along to us. It is very interesting to see.Richard.

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 07:24:16 am
content: I say we wait for them to produce a 10KWh device and then do a nail test, if the nail make it out the other end without vaporizing it's cleared for automotive use.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 08:02:30 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see below a copy of the latest Email from Dr. Ning.Dear Dan,Thanks for your feedback. Actually, the membrane represents an entirely new class of materials which are super-polarizable with a polarization approaching 1.0 C/cm2. Its energy-storage mechanism is significantly different from that of conventional double-layer supercapacitors. More details on the membrane will be published soon in the journal ADVANCED MATERIALS. Upon its publication, I will send you a softcopy of our paper, such that you may have a more complete understanding of the energy-storage membrane.RegardsXian Ning“I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application”Heinrich Rudolf Hertz 1857 1894Best RegardsClear Ether

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 10:20:56 am
content: QuoteAn ordinary 12V car battery fails this test...

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 11:24:35 am
content: Quote from: westfw on November 11, 2011, 10:20:56 amWell I didn't say how big the nail would be.Or let's do it another way: The dude doing the hammering has to live for more than 10 sec after the hammer goes down without running away.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 01:29:16 pm
content: Well a bit more information. Still very vague.It doesn't say what voltage the capacitor can work at, and it doesn't say how thick the sheets are - it mentions area but not thickness.If it could work at 20V, and the membrane sheets were 0.1mm thick, then at 1C/cm2, we are looking at seriously impressive energy storage. We are talking about a capacitor that could possibly fit into a car with a range that could be extremely competitive to petrol. It may be possible to make up to 200 kWH energy storage which is 720 MJoules. This could drive a mid-sized car for perhaps 600+ miles reliably. That would be very nice.Now TNT is 4 MJoules/kg, so 720 MJoules is equivalent to 180 kg of TNT.So that is 180kgs of TNT explosiveness that will not blow as long as the capacitor never overheats, never has an insulation breakdown, never is overloaded or shorted, and never goes leaky, and never has an eevblog tester saying "Let's hammer a big nail in and see what happens!".If you assume that it would be unsafe for the capacitor to have more then 50W of continual heat from leakage, then a 200kWh capacitor cannot be allowed self discharge in under 4000 hours or 166 days. So to not blow up, these capacitors must have far better leakage then any electrolytic capacitor ever made. If even one goes leaky, then we have a problem. Does anyone know of any current capacitor (excluding the ones in memory IC's) that reliably would hold a charge for 166 days? That will never go leaky in their whole working life?Batteries can also have high energy densities, particularly the new ones being designed. Petrol has an incredible 48 MJ/kg. Aren't they dangerous too? Not even close, as there is absolutely no physically known way that the energies in petrol or batteries can be released in a true explosive way (ie near instant full energy release). Believe me, both petrol fires and lithuim battery fires are really bad news, but that is nothing compared to a true explosive release. If it were actually possible for 10 gallons of petrol to fully explode in a car, it would be the equivalent of 330kgs of TNT. We are really, really lucky it cannot explode.So I will wait to see of anyone developing this class of capacitor actually is even allowed to talk about the safety issue. So far, they all seems to be silent, and that is not what you expect of scientific researchers. I will be very interested to see if this coming paper in ADVANCED MATERIALS talk about safety, or if it will follow the past practice of unsubstantiated comforting reassurances that "all will be well - we use a different process to those other nasty exploding ones".Richard.Note: the petrol energy density figure of 48MJ/kg is misleading. To release that energy, one part petrol has to combine with roughly 2 parts oxygen. All chemical explosives include both the fuel and the oxygen in the one compound or mixture.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2011, 06:57:24 pm
content: What's needed in a high energy density storage system is not pure charge storage, but some physical-chemical system. For example, if you had a membrane where molecules twisted into a different configuration when charge is stored you would have a rate-limiting step required for safety. It could presumably be engineered so that the molecules can only twist and untwist at some physically limited rate, and thereby limit the rate of energy release.

author: seattle
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2011, 06:54:00 pm
content: An electric car requires energy at a rate that is practically indistinguishable from an explosion. Under hard acceleration, the Tesla requires 200KW of power for several seconds. So, as general rule, a car battery pack must be able to produce this amount of energy on demand. Routinely. And herein lies the rub: anything that can deliver that much instantaneous energy for desired purposes can also deliver that much energy for undesirable purposes and often fire/explosion will be the result.But, consider Tesla has opted to use some of the most dangerous cells we have today: LiIon (cobalt). They have smartly managed the risk on a larger system level. And the battery industryy has learned a lot about managing the risk of very thin membranes at the cell-level. The Sony battery fires of years back were due to impurities puncturing through the membrane, causing localized heating which enlarged the hole in the membrane, which caused more heating, and an even bigger hole, and eventually a spectacular fire. The solution was to either reduce the impurities (tough to do) or to make the membrane tougher. Thicker membranes hurt energy density, so instead solutions where found such that the membrane could fail in a localized fashion, and the first heating that was generated caused the membrane to seal itself and just quit working in that area.The work over the last decade in managing the risk (and improving the energy density) of lithium-based batteries has been a huge benefit to all other chemistries. And battery vendors have told me that lithium-based cells can theoretically see another 10X improvement in energy density in the coming decades (contrast that with Lithium-iron-phosphate, which is very near its theoretical limit).The turning point for cars is about a 2X, maybe 3X improvement in battery energy density. In other words, if batteries today get 3X better (kwh/kg), then it is the nail in the coffin for gasoline. And since the world spends trillions annually on oil, whoever comes up with the battery technology (assuming it is unique and protected) that will unseat gasoline will likely also create an annual US$1 trillion revenue stream for themselves. Think about that: Some kid in a college toiling away could come up with a technology that could launch a company that has higher sales than Walmart, Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch, BP and Sinopec--the 5 largest companies int he world today.Regarding the Korean university announcement. If this is still at the university level, then it's 10-15 years away from limited commercial roll-out (phones, laptops), and probably 15-25 years away from cars.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2011, 08:43:52 pm
content: Quote from: seattle on November 13, 2011, 06:54:00 pmIf 1 kg of TNT is exploded, it releases energy at a rate of approximately 200 GW (the energy is about 4 MJ and it is released in approximately 20 microseconds). To put that into perspective, the entire power output of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California is a little over 2 GW at full capacity. There is honestly no comparison.QuoteThis, again, is completely incorrect. Gasoline is an energy source; batteries are an energy storage system. The issue with vehicles is not merely storing power, but transporting and delivering energy. The comparison you have to make is with the rate of energy delivery (power) when you fill the tank of a car with fuel. If you fill your gas tank with 12 gallons/45 liters of gasoline in 3 minutes (say), you are feeding energy into your car at a rate of 8.5 MW. To make a valid comparison with electric vehicles, you have to consider how to feed electricity into cars at similar rates. How many cars are filling up with fuel in gas stations at any one time? How many GW across the energy infrastructure does that represent? (Referring back to the numbers above, a few hundred people filling their cars with electricity at once would use up more than the entire output of the San Onofre power plant, even allowing for the inefficiency of gasoline engines.)In short, the idea that battery powered electric vehicles will displace gasoline in any foreseeable future is quite foolish.

author: seattle
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2011, 09:20:07 am
content: QuoteI am referring to explosions in the context of what it takes to kill a person as the topic was wondering about the safety. When something is designed to pump out 350V at 500A for several seconds under normal conditions, it is inherently dangerous and there isn't much you can do the technology to make it inherently safe.A 0.22 LR bullet has a muzzle energy of just 160J, and it's the most lethal bullet in the country.QuoteCharging a 100M Teslas 200 nights per year is about 1.2T KWH. The US currently has about 3.6T KWH of generating capacity. Thus, if every household had a high performance electric car, it'd tax our electric grid by about 33%. Given a 15 year build out, this is not a problem as our currently trajectory will take to 50% growth in that time (assuming no electric cars). A second battery could live in your garage and trickle charge all day and night (based on grid load), and then fast charge the car when needed.I think if 100 years ago someone said that almost every single house in America would have a hose running to it for natural gas, two thick cables to carry electricity, a bunch of other cables for TV, computer and phones, satellite linkups to outer space, etc, people would question the logistics there too and proclaim it impossible. And yet, when people stand there with money in hand, amazing things always happen and what seemed so impossible then somehow just gets solved.Today, people pay $60 to fill up their car. An electric car costs $6 to fill up. With battery amortization, it's about 3X that. In 10 years, I'll bet that $60 figure has gone to $90. If batteries capacity triples as I suggested, then it means the cost of the battery has dropped by 1/3 to go the same distance. Concurrently, battery lifetimes will triple from about 300 cycles today to 1000 cycles. they are doing that today in cellphones. Again eroding the cost by another 1/3. Combined, that is a 10X improvement to the economics which are already at parity with gas.All told, the reason for going to electric will be operating cost.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2011, 05:03:43 pm
content: QuoteI dunno. Don't forget that the average car (especially in the USA) is vastly "overbuilt" for the tasks it normally performs.A former co-worker of mine recently bought a Chevy Volt (and upgraded his garage to do the overnight charging.) Used mostly for commuting, of course. Two months and 1850 miles later, he put gas in for the first time...So better batteries could do a lot of good.That said, Electric cars were originally a solution for urban pollution issues. That was a great idea. Except gas and diesel cars got a lot cleaner, and now the electrics are marketed as a carbon-emissions ploy, which is a lot more questionable.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2011, 05:55:12 pm
content: What seattle says about operating cost being a reason for shifting to electric vehicles makes sense; however the push towards renewable and carbon neutral sources of electricity will inevitably push the price of electricity higher in the future. Electricity is less expensive today because of the relatively low cost of fossil fuels used by power plants.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 14, 2011, 10:51:33 pm
content: Shortage of fossil fuels will also push the gas prices up, however, so maybe this will cancel itself out. Especially since alternative electricity sources are likely to increase and become relatively cheaper as the fossil fuel price goes up. Higher oil prices don't cause a proportional increase in wind mill and solar cell prices, plus the economy of scale should help. Energy doesn't has to be cheap, it just has to be cheaper than the other source.

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2011, 02:46:37 pm
content: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/Good documentary over the global energy crisis. Check it out. A lot of the points brushed upon here are brought up in it. If you have Netflix streaming its on there.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 16, 2011, 01:46:18 pm
content: Dear IanB:--You stated""In short, the idea that battery powered electric vehicles will displace gasoline in any foreseeable future is quite foolish."--Now, while I agree completely with you statement, I do not think that is the question. The reason I posted the link (which I re-post below) is that Dr. Ning's Membrane Capacitor may (or indeed may not) be useful for an Electronic Vehicle.--To my mind, the question is, can a practical electric car be produced for which there is a (Government Free) marketplace. Government interference in this part of the marketplace has completely confused the matter. The willingness of the "Global Warming Crowd" to use government policy to subsidise "loser" EVs, and loser PV factories, and loser Wind Power installations, and loser Ethanol production, indeed shows that their scientific beliefs are politically derived.--With the exception of small research grants, I would like to see the governments get completely away from interfering in the energy marketplace, and let us pick our own losers. Just look closely at the impending collapse of a majority of Western economies. This has been caused by irrational beliefs on the part of the Statists. The Statist answer to this is "It was the marketplace's fault. Just give us more dictatorial power""I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."P. G. Wodehouse 1881 1975Best RegardsClear Ether