Supercapacitor energy storage and energy server from KiloWatt Labs - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 01, 2017, 12:28:34 pm
content: Hello everyone. Does anyone know about this site and its products? Has anyone tested them?http://www.kilowattlabs.com/

author: ngjohnson
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2017, 11:19:28 pm
content: I have tested a similar solution and it has a number of issues for vehicle use due to stability issues that leads to low reliability. The ideas phenomena and I hope they get some of the discharge issues worked out. Supercapacitors are amazing!

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 02, 2017, 12:50:03 am
content: Thank you for your contribution

author: Codebird
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 10:58:39 am
content: The site is big on promotion, but lacks much serious technical information. Always something to be suspicious of.Supercaps for energy storage? We all dream of that, but they'll need a real breakthrough in capacitor technology to make that practical and affordable.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 12:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: Codebird on July 03, 2017, 10:58:39 amI agree, something smells. It might be the chargerbecause I'm guestimating that to charge a vehicle battery in 16 to 30 seconds you'd need a charger of about 1MW.Links for further research.http://www.microtrontec.comhttp://www.microtrontec.com/innovations.php?innovID=9http://www.cleanenergybusinesscouncil.com/speakers/waseem-qureshi-founder-miccgreentechttp://www.microtrontec.com/img/media/news/Media%20Release-Microtron%20launch%20at%20WFES%202016.pdf

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 02:52:34 pm
content: Thank you all

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 02:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: Gerardo Gwada on July 03, 2017, 02:52:34 pmSo whats your relationship with this company Gerardo ?It seems to me this posting is simply promotional, am I right ?

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 03:10:58 pm
content: Hello fourtytwo42No, I do not advertise for them.I found this site on the internet and I contacted KiloWattLabs. They seem confident about the quality of their products. I decided to buy a 1,000W output server and a 1 Kwh battery. That's why I put this post, it's to know if someone had tested it. I do not want to throw away my money (I do not have much) so I try to find out as much as I can. Thank you all.

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 03:18:26 pm
content: Ohh okies I didnt understand your reason, now I do, that's interesting because there are no clues to costs on there site at all, may I ask how much you paid for there 1Kwh system ?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2017, 08:37:39 pm
content: Quote from: Gerardo Gwada on July 03, 2017, 03:10:58 pmDo you have intermittent mains power? wind power? solar power? What problem is the1,000W output server and 1 Kwh batteryto solve?

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 05, 2017, 03:48:53 am
content: hello,I don't have public prices for now.I demand 1Kwh storage and 1Kw server for making easy test of charge and discharge.I would test efficiency in extreme situation of 12 charges and 12 discharge in 24 hours, during 30 days (non stop).

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2017, 05:47:21 pm
content: This thread makes no sense.

author: Gerardo Gwada
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 05, 2017, 11:01:39 pm
content: Hi,have you a suggestion for an effectiv valid test ?Thank you

author: Dtec
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2017, 02:53:34 am
content: The batteries will not hold up at full discharge cyclesSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2017, 02:58:39 am
content: Yeah, I have to admit, I really don't see this working out very well. Call me a pessimist.

author: lionellgg
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 30, 2017, 04:24:46 pm
content: Hello Gerardo,I was looking information about the Kilowatt Labs sirius battery & server and found your posts here. I wonder if you have done the test already and will like your outcome about it. Thank you!Quote from: StillTrying on July 03, 2017, 08:37:39 pm

author: macrop
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 03:54:14 am
content: I've been studying this system for the last few days and I'm a little sceptical as it's a little too good to be true. Happy to be proven wrong though. Having said that a company in Melbourne here in Oz have a few of the production ready units. Would love to check them out personally but I'm on the west coast. Everything certainly looks legit from this Arvio lot.The claimed energy density is 10 greater than I've seen before for other supercaps. 70Wh/kg claimed. That's better than lead-acid and better than Ni-MH. That's a massive breakthrough if it's true.Check out the video @ 9:25 for a pic of the actual capacitor. Apparently the individual caps are around 3Wh in capacity. So 2400 caps in the larger unit.They claim there is no regulation inside but a capacitor would normally have a linear discharge profile so I can't see how this can maintain approx 48VDC through 100% depth of discharge. Makes no sense unless they're switching them internally in strings or something.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 06:32:21 am
content: Quote from: Gerardo Gwada on July 05, 2017, 03:48:53 amI assume you mean inverter and not server. Also you will only get 6 charge and discharge cycles per day with 1 kW-hr stored and a 1 kW inverter. Also The power the inverter can deliver as the voltage goes down on will be limited because the current has to rise dramatically at low voltage. I assumed 100 volts max on the cap which is 10 A for 1 kW. But at 10 volts the current has to go up to 100 amps. See the attached plot for an example of current and voltage for 1 kW charge discharge constant power.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 06:54:26 am
content: They do seem to suggest they go from parallel to series, and supercapacitors do have comparatively low internal resistance so that shouldn't become a problem too quickly. The unrealistic part is the density.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 06:54:34 am
content: Quote from: Codebird on July 03, 2017, 10:58:39 amI keep seeing this being posted. If you get a 10x increase on current technology, then you start to have something really, really scary.There seems to be this belief that on failure, the energy somehow just seeps away into the ether. Or you can just put a bit of wire across the terminals to discharge to a safe level. Unfortunately energy doesn't work that way and Supercaps have none of the inherent safety of petrol or battery technology.Lithium batteries can burn. Supercaps if 10x better then the best current capacitors can explode with the force of TNT. Theoretically, Supercaps can store orders of magnitude more energy then the most powerful chemical reaction. It has the potential to be the most powerful non-nuclear explosive by a very large factor.That is the nightmare we will have to live with if people succeed in mastering Supercap technology.Go to any of the sites developing the new technologies of Supercaps, and find the data on safety. Usually, they have forgotten to mention it entirely. Strange.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 06:56:40 am
content: Still far less dangerous than a well mixed fuel air explosion with the same energy.If you do go with the automatic serializing/parallelizing solution, you will have a lot of MOSFETs to disconnect cells during overcurrent/temperature events.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 07:30:16 am
content: Quote from: Marco on February 26, 2018, 06:56:40 amOnly slightly. Even if you can use clever engineering so that in most scenarios a capacitor does not explode, you cannot cover all the scenarios.Also it is a dream come true for terrorists. If you can somehow make the equivalent of 300g of TNT in capacitive energy in your phone mostly safe, an absolutely identical looking capacitor can be made that is designed to explode. All they have to do is to run an app on the phone that will cause the capacitor to heat.It is just not this perfect, safe solution we all dream about.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 08:18:39 am
content: I don't think any capacitor has the potential for detonation. You can obviously get some pressure buildup in an enclosure by evaporating liquids, but you could do that just as easily with Lithium Ion, just slower.To really get a cap to detonate you somehow have to cause charge recombination in a supersonic cascading manner. Even if the shockwave could destroy the insulation on the foil, the electrolyte would become gas long before it could conduct all the charge. After that the foils could touch ... but that's a relatively high resistance discharge path, it wouldn't occur everywhere at the same time, again without any real potential for any supersonic cascade failure.

author: hayatepilot
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 09:59:54 am
content: Those supercap modules from KiloWatt Labs look suspiciously like the modules from Maxwell:http://www.maxwell.com/products/ultracapacitors/48v-modules

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 10:24:14 am
content: Quote from: Marco on February 26, 2018, 08:18:39 amFor a start, there will be a temperature at which the dielectric fails - at this temperature, the energy is released instantly. At the failure point, it could be nanoseconds.Secondly, when you have very high energy stored in capacitors (I am talking at least 10x the current best), there is enough energy when released to vapourise the capacitors materials.It becomes really hard to engineer the capacitor so it doesn't explode.Now why would the capacitor be that hot? Well have you ever heard of a capacitor that goes leaky? When a capacitor like this goes leaky, then energy involved can be more then the mass of the capacitor can absorb. The temperature shoots up and the leakage gets worse.The thing is this. There is just no reason whatsoever to think that this can be safe. The hardest design job will be to make it safe, and you always have to consider the energy has to go somewhere. If the energy in such a battery is released in 1ms, it is a bomb. Exactly the same as TNT.It is impossible to think this is a perfect, trouble free technology. It will be far more dangerous then batteries or petroleum fuel.If there is a way with brilliant engineering to make it safe as long as nothing lets the capacitor gets too hot, what if you end up with a cheap clone version that is not so brilliantly designed?Now here is another scenario. Your house is on fire and your charged capacitor powered car is in the garage. You call the fire brigade. The first thing they ask is "Is your car capacitor powered?" You say yes.The only thing they can then do is to evacuate the block and get all the fire trucks and other cars out of the area. Then let your house and car burn. There is no way they can let anybody near an overheated car that may be storing energy equivalent to a few hundred kilograms of TNT. There is not this problem with petrol or batteries.A fire in a tunnel pile up or office building basement car park? There is just nowhere for released energy to go in a confined space - it has to be a disaster.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 02:48:04 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on February 26, 2018, 10:24:14 amPlasma has a lot higher resistance than electrolyte and it will be plasma long before even a fraction of the energy is turned to heat. Nevermind the fact that the electrolyte will probably boil first any way before the dielectric fails.QuoteSeems fantasy to me.QuoteThe electrolyte first, which will push charges apart rather than into recombination. The plasma will have far higher resistance than the original internal resistance of the capacitor. The whole thing will just get hot, relatively slowly.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 05:54:05 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on February 26, 2018, 02:48:04 pmThis doesn't sound like you are talking about the potential supercaps at all. The theoretical capacitance of graphene is 550F/gram of graphene. An extraordinary number. This is based on sheets of graphene an atom thick. They are still trying to work out what kind of structure can work with this since graphene sheets want to stick together. They are looking at ides like structures with curved sheets. The dielectric gap is about 1 nanometer in this theoretical capacitor. Graphene is extraordinarily strong and so the physical stress is extreme.Do you believe that if the structure holding two opposing charges 1 nanometer apart breaks down, the charges will take their time travelling the diameter of a handful of atoms? I suggested the charge could cross in nanoseconds which is very slow for that gap.Ok, lets say I am wrong.Lets say things like the Graphene supercaps are intrinsically safe."You can hold 10 times the energy density of TNT in your pocket held apart by a 1 nanometer dielectric and it is incredibly safe!. If this capacitor fails, an App will message you to give you warning. ""You can drive you kids in a car with a battery holding the equivalent of 500 kG of TNT and it is totally safe!"."Firefighters can walk up to a burning capacitor powered car battery when the battery is at 250 degrees C with no fear of that the 2000 MegaJoules of energy about to be released is dangerous".(Just using 250 deg C because some of the current graphene caps in development use plastics in the construction.)That is incredible news. It is truly amazing! There must be capacitor developers who cannot stop talking about this.But no-one is talking about it. No flashy website mentions failure modes. If I am wrong, can you find me a single capacitor developer who explains why these future supercapacitors are safe? How it is impossible to make a bomb out of a supercapacitor?I would absolutely love to be proven totally wrong.I would love it if a failing future supercap can just calmly vent a bit of electrolyte and suddenly all the energy is ....where?

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 06:22:49 pm
content: I don't think that Dave would volunteer to perform destructive tests on these units.But there is this crazy Youtube guy who likes to experiment and destroy all things electrical..... I forget his name....he may want to do it and post a video.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 10:08:42 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on February 26, 2018, 05:54:05 pmAnything build and buildable uses graphene as a jumbled bunch of planes, they are not trying to wind billions of flawless layers of nanometer thin electrodes and insulators.My point isn't that the energy disappears, my point is the enemy gets converted to heat slowly. A fire and an explosion can have the same energy converted to heat, with radically different results.hayatepilot, nice catch on that Maxwell relabeling scam.Here'sanother one of their sites.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 10:57:44 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on February 26, 2018, 10:08:42 pmBased on what? Is there anything any researcher has reported to confirm that this remarkable technology that can store orders of magnitude more energy then any chemical reaction will release heat slowly. It sounds like an opinion.As I said, I would love to see proof that this technology is so intrinsically safe that safety does not need to be discussed, and no website promoting its use has to have a page on safety issues and research.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2018, 11:31:19 pm
content: On their website they claim 115 Wh/kgThe first google result for "energy density graphene super capacitor" is a paper claiming 148.75 Wh kg?1"Using a scalable nanoporous graphene synthesis method involving an annealing process in hydrogen, here we show supercapacitors with highly porous graphene electrodes capable of achieving not only a high power density of 41 kW kg?1 and a Coulombic efficiency of 97.5%, but also a high energy density of 148.75 Wh kg?1."It doesn't seem far fetched based on that.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2018, 12:03:22 am
content: Quote from: Marco on February 26, 2018, 10:08:42 pm"Bus energy storage solutions that can charge in less than 3 minutes"How do they charge these things so quickly, or have they just not worked out the currents and Watts needed.I think the fork lift video shows 40A running, and 80A charging.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2018, 12:54:00 am
content: Quote from: macrop on February 26, 2018, 03:54:14 amThey are careful with their wording, making statements such as "the supercapacitoritselfrequires no regulation".However, there is a constant mention of a "small discharge stabilising lithium battery" in some of the videos & the technical literature.The following would make sense:1/ The output of the supercapacitor is connected to a charge regulator;2/ The output of the charge regulator is connected to the "small" 48V lithium battery;3/ The output of the 48V lithium battery powers the forklift motor.The supercapacitors voltage falls as it discharges. As this occurs, the lithium battery's charge regulator compensates for this falling voltage by increasing the charge current.This process continues until the supercapacitors voltage has fallen to the point that the charge controller can no longer provide charge to the "small" lithium battery.This charge controller could well also include some voltage step up circuitry to continue to provide energy to the "small" lithium battery when the supercapacitors voltage has fallen well below the 48V+ required to charge the "small" lithium battery. A well designed step up voltage controller could probably run until the supercapacitors voltage has fallen to just a couple of volts.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2018, 08:55:54 pm
content: QuoteHmm, not very convincingI already drive daily with a vehicle tank holding the energy equivalent of 500kg of TNT and it's more or less safe.But I walk my kid to school, that's much better than taking the car !

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2018, 09:57:54 pm
content: Neither petrol or batteries have the physical possibility to release their energy quickly. Petrol has to be dispersed in a massive volume of air to fully explode. In batteries, the reagents are physically separated. In TNT and supercapacitors, the energy has the capability to be release instantly.With petrol and batteries, firefighters can have strategies to control the danger. There is nothing that can be done to make safe a battery that could be undergoing thermal runaway. In a supercapacitor, the only thing preventing an explosion is a super stressed dielectric that may be as thin as 1 nanometre thick.Why do you think supercapacitor safety should be a taboo subject of concern? No developer wants to mention it.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2018, 10:34:19 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on March 02, 2018, 09:57:54 pmWhat about a divide and conquer strategy? Split it up into small enough units where the explosion can be contained well enough to prevent a chain reaction.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2018, 11:13:59 pm
content: Quote from: hendorog on March 02, 2018, 10:34:19 pmThat is an engineering discussion you can only have once you admit their is a danger. My problem is no one wants to admit there is a danger. If it takes great engineering to make it safe, then that implies that engineering can make it unsafe and we are talking potentially about more energy then any non-nuclear bomb.The ultimate problem is that at a certain temperature, the dielectric will break down. At that point, there is nothing left to hold the charges apart. Also there is a possibility that if the dielectric is near breaking point, a shockwave will cause breakdown. I keep mentioning the danger if a car caught up in a fire. If you break up a single capacitor equivalent to 200 kg of TNT into the equivalent of 100 x 2kg sticks of TNT, do you feel safe now? How would you like to be a firefighter knowing that at any moment one of these 2kg TNT equivalents was going to go off, and that after that, there are 99 more to follow shortly?When you start looking at potential supercapacitors - the ones that could power a car for hundreds of kilometres, you are starting to get energy densities where even capacitor leakage is a major heating problem. Basically these capacitors not only have to be orders of magnitudes higher in their energy density then anything currently available, they basically have to be made so they never get significant leakage. Leakage is a problem that usually increases with temperature so you can get a runaway.If a imminent capacitor failure could be detected, you could design the batteries to eject from the car in fragments, but that assumes you are surrounded by free space where these energy dense fragments can go safely. Not sure how you can eject anything from a phone in your pocket if a thermal runaway was detected.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2018, 11:55:13 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on March 02, 2018, 11:13:59 pmWell you could say the same about petrol or lithium batteries. Any pockets of petrol that didn't go up in an initial explosion could explode at a later time when/if the fuel-air mix reach the correct proportions. If the thing is burning then no firefighter is going to be happy standing next to it regardless of what the fuel is. If it is not burning then engineering needs to be done to reduce the risk of the entire pack going up at once. Damaged lithium batteries can also self ignite without warning.The point is that with proper (rigourous of course) engineering it should be possible to lower the risk to a similar level to current technology.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 12:48:14 am
content: Quote from: hendorog on March 02, 2018, 11:55:13 pmPetrol and batteries are not physically capable of being fractionally as dangerous as capacitors.There is no mechanism in a burning car for the petrol to suddenly be evenly mixed with 588 kg of air. That is about 490 cubic meters of air. If petrol is not evenly distributed, it is not very dangerous - as seen in all the movie car explosions. Lots of fire but not much explosion. When it is mixed evenly before ignition, you end up with one of the most horrific bombs currently available. Kills you even if you are sheltered.The inherent safe of petrol is the reason firemen can approach a burning car and smother the flames. All they have to do is keep air from the petrol and the reaction stops completely.There is no possible way for the reagents in a battery to suddenly become perfectly mixed together. They are physically separated.Petrol and batteries are in one class of safety that is manageable.TNT and Supercapacitors are in a different class. They are inherently not manageble when they become unstable. Once a dielectric is breaking down, there is no intervention that can stop it.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2018, 01:14:10 am
content: Quote from: amspire on March 03, 2018, 12:48:14 amYes I get your point. However I think dicing the super cap up into little, well protected bits solves the problem. And in this way it _slows the reaction down_.Engineering will figure out how big the bits can be given the various constraints.

author: Elasia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 02:32:55 am
content: Dielectric break down on that scale is not fun.. i used to do work with oil cooled motors and supercaps. Seen plenty of mfg defects arc / explode either and it's not something you want to be around. If these guys had something good they would be giving musk a run for the money. More likely someones fodder project that has been ear marked with grants and it working or not isn't really the point.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 02:32:33 pm
content: Quote from: Elasia on March 12, 2018, 02:32:55 amThis.Supercaps are not really useful as longer term energy storage.They can still store only 1/10 of the energy of modern-and-cheap lithium batteries.They are pretty much only useful as short time buffers...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 05:16:59 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on March 03, 2018, 12:48:14 amThere is no mechanism for a sonic shockwave to cause charge recombination in a EDLC fast enough to amplify said shockwave (ie. detonation).

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 07:55:06 pm
content: There is a whole lot of speculation here on things that can go wrong with a new technology that is not yet proven to scale, and a whole lot of assumptions. I don't think they are going to build one giant supercap for a car since the voltage is too low. As soon as you have a lot of stuff in series/parallel combinations, there are a lot of different safety options you can add. This is already done with existing Li-based batteries.Additionally, supercaps are not true electrostatic capacitors - they depend on the motion of ions, and and such do not have a true dielectric, nor are they especially fast compared even to conventional electrolytic caps, i.e. the ions don't move that fast. Hence, they are not recommended even for 50 or 60 Hz ripple filtering, which is on a time scale of 10-20 ms. In contrast, detonation propagation in TNT is about 6000m/s, so a gas-tank sized piece of TNT would completely detonate in 50-100 us, depending on whether it was detonated in the corner or middle. This is at least two orders of magnitude faster than a supercap. If the technology improves the time constant by a factor of 10, that's still at least one order of magnitude below TNT, and that would be for one giant supercapacitor.How about giving them a chance to succeed? Then a lot of us will have interesting work to do to figure out how to best make use of it.John

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 10:49:57 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 12, 2018, 05:16:59 pmThat's great. Can you explain the physical reasons for that statement? I would love to know.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 02:37:33 am
content: It doesn't happen with existing EDLCs. The necessity of the electrolyte to facilitate the charge transfer, which it seems to me to be impossible to maintain stable enough for long enough to do so, instead as far as I can see in an explosion it and the rest of the capacitor simply gets blown into an inhomogeneously charged cloud (with very slow moving electrons) long before it can add any energy.No scientist as far as I can see has ever thought detonation a failure mode worth spending any writing on ... it seems to me utterly outlandish.

author: Elasia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 02:43:10 am
content: Quote from: amspire on March 12, 2018, 10:49:57 pmLookup something along the lines of detonation velocity and examine say plain ol det cordSupercaps on the other hand are made of materials that are much more stable and as such less conducive to a physical shockwave traveling down the substance compressing the material to the point of self explosionSimilar principles to a nuke as well.. the material must first be compressed to the point of reaction and once that point is achieved the reaction is self sustaining.That said a real foe of supercaps is overcharging them or repeated cycling that breaks down the material to the point of arcing which can cause a nasty electrical fire hazard and that can chain to other nearby capacitors and also break them down from the added heat / electrical arcing

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 03:07:59 am
content: Quote from: Elasia on March 13, 2018, 02:43:10 amSupercaps of the type that are being researched do not exist in any large capacitance value yet. Some exist in labs often as a signal layer capacitor the size of a coin, but even these are way down the low end of the target capacitance densities. No-one has yet gone anywhere near the porential energy densities. I am not sure how you can claim that hard materials like ceramic and graphene are not conducive to a shockwave. These are materials that will probably be under higher stress then any existing material in use today.I think you want it to be no problem. I have had some really funny arguments defending supercaps. That does seem to be the approach of the whole industry. I repeat the challenge. Can you find one single research paper that demonstrates the safety of supercapacitors that would be candidates for cars, etc? You are talking about potentially orders of magnitudes more energy density then any known chemical reaction and you have convinced yourself that there is absolutely no conceivable problem. Don't have to study it or talk about it, it is just so safe I gather.

author: Elasia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 03:41:30 am
content: Quote from: amspire on March 13, 2018, 03:07:59 amYou lost me... I just called them out for the fire hazard they are x_xThat said I'd be surprised at a huge explosion type release, more of a giant arc welder that melts / destroys everything in its path including a person would be my own bet if they got that dense. I dont see how this would be too different than dielectric breakdown of large motor windings really. Huge fire/smoke/shock/arc welding concern more so than physical explosion since they would rather all short out and fuse/melt together.Im not keen on lithium either... seen plenty of failed lithium reactions. In the end though if it isnt safe it will never see light of day less fully autonoums and the reward was far greater than risk given

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 04:14:49 am
content: Quote from: Elasia on March 13, 2018, 03:41:30 amAs I mentioned, Lithium batteries are much safer as they have the reagents physically seperated so they cannot release energy quickly. There is no physical reason to think that a supercapacitor fire would be as slow as a lithium battery fire.You are comparing future supercapacitor breakdowns to motor winding breakdowns? There is not even the slightest comparison. Dielectrics in motors are massively thick compared to supercaps, and the energy released in a motor failure is not enough to turn the whole motor into vapourised metal. The difference between current supercapacitors as the ones that can power cars is that the current ones have enough mass to absorb the energy while still remaining a solid. If you have a 200kWh capacity (10 hours highway driving) that weights 200kg, there is not enough mass in the capacitor to absorb the energy without turning into gas.

author: Elasia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 05:03:08 am
content: you do know that lithium air batteries are far more energy dense than your example hypothetical and actually exist right?The same reason supercaps are nowhere nearly as dense is the same reason im more in favor of arc welding and off gassing vs some huge explosion. Short of a nano scale revolution in material science i think this is a dead horse

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:39:12 am
content: In any case, the problem with the EV application is not dependent on the type of storage device. It's a simple question of arithmetic that the number of kWh needed for a sensible range cannot be put through a cable of a sensible gauge for plug connection, at a sensible voltage in a sensible time.Fuel cells with liquid fuel are a more promising line of research.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 04:23:06 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 13, 2018, 06:39:12 amThere are alternatives to plugs. You could have a very high surface area connector on the bottom of the car with a retractable cover which a robotic charging station connects to. You could remove the pack and charge it inside the charging station (where the safety issues of using very high voltages stops being an issue).If ultracaps with these specs are developed in the future you also partly solve the problem of the charge station's grid connection, since it can trickle charge its own supercaps to charge the car at a MW rate.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:29:16 pm
content: Quote from: Elasia on March 13, 2018, 05:03:08 amCouldn't have said it better.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 12:05:56 am
content: Quote from: Elasia on March 13, 2018, 05:03:08 amNot sure what you are referring to. Lithium air are safe as they don't have the reagents at all in the one package. The major reagent by mass (oxygen) is not present in the battery at all. They are in the same class as petrol and are manageable in terms of safety. They would be a huge improvement over current lithium batteries , but there are many challenges. Their porous construction means that even though they have a great energy to mass ratio, the energy to volume is not that great. It may be possible to produce a car battery that has twice the range of lithium ion batteries - if they can overcome all the other problems - efficiency, life, cathode contamination from the air and so on. Probably need complex air filtration so we are not talking about batteries in a simple metal tube.As far as I know, the technology is not here yet and may not be for decades. Some proponents are saying it has more future for mains grid energy storage then for cars.The supercaps being researched have the potential of far more volumetric energy density then any current technology. That is why the research is continuing. It doesn't necessarily need nanoscale technology as there are two paths you can go down - extreme capacitance at low voltages and sub-micron dielectrics or extreme voltages with thicker dielectrics. 10 years ago, EESTOR was all set to release 3.5kV 50F ceramic composite capacitors for cars - that is 85kWh. Relative permittivities of up to around 30,000! They had accepted contracts from car companies. They hit a snag when they found the capacitor self-discharge was really bad and by about 60 degC was disastrous. I think after a a decade of development, they have currently got up to a few days storage and are now pushing the technology for mains grid load balancing rather then cars and long term power storage.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 06:53:34 am
content: Kilowatt Labs Supercapacitor patent has now been published:http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20180315ptan20180076644.php

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 07:06:06 am
content: Kilowatt Labs Supercapacitor patent has now been published:http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20180315ptan20180076644.php

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 11:48:53 am
content: Hey Dave,The guys from Arvio Pty Ltd will be at the Smart Energy Conference (& Exhibition) in Sydney on April 10th & 11th.Perhaps you can go & check out the Kilowatt Labs 3.55KWH Supercap? Admission is free.http://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5486&start=50#p66977Arvio are also throwing open their doors at their offices in Melbourne to members of the Australian Electric Vehicles Association to examine the insides of the Kilowatt Labs Supercap.http://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5486&sid=f5388ebd3525a06f7ced5f081b353c7f&start=75#p67014I'm sure you can convince them to show you the insides too. Fancy a tax deductible trip to Melbourne?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 10:37:54 pm
content: Why does a "supercapacitor" contain batteries?I'm starting to smell someto keep alive their patent for a supercapacitor that didn't work as intended, so hey, lets add some batterieshttp://images2.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20180076644-p20180076644

author: Elasia
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 10:54:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 24, 2018, 10:37:54 pmI still stand by my original thinking on them... if they have grant funding then they already got what they wanted and just bilking tax payers for bullshit---More likely someones fodder project that has been ear marked with grants and it working or not isn't really the point.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:16:43 pm
content: What the hell, a super cap in parallel with Li-Ion cell, with attached electronics. Build an array of all this for the completed storage system.The charge electronics consist of a H bridge driven transformer, rectifier etc, then for the discharge circuit, the same thing again.This thing is going to cost a fortune in electronics.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:28:01 pm
content: Quote from: DerekG on March 24, 2018, 11:48:53 amWaste of time to see the inside of a Maxwell supercapacitor bank ...

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:53:46 pm
content: Disclaimer: I haven't followed the thread. But I noticed Daves comment.The combination could make sense like it make sense to use a MLCC parallel to a electrolytic cap. If your application cangeneratebursts of energy (e.g. recuperation from braking) which might be faster than you can charge your battery cells. You need some short time storage. Also the other way around that super cap could lower the high current burden on the battery cells if the demand can covered by the caps. A kind of temporarily reduction of the battery resistance.This is far from a common use case. And if the battery array is just big enough you can get a reasonably high charge and discharge current.But the idea is old. I think it came from the time before the LiIon was widely available. Other battery types are much slower for charging or discharging. With the result you can't re-use braking energy very well.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 09:22:10 pm
content: Quote from: Twoflower on March 25, 2018, 06:53:46 pmYes. Time will tell whether the patent stands on its own, or if it is knocked down by prior knowledge.A full copy of the patent (without having to register) can be found here:http://images2.freshpatents.com/imageviewer/20180076644-p20180076644ADDED: The patent refers to a capacitor balancing circuit.Many varieties of these already exist. Here is one for starters:https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/T11-6-String-2-7V-100-500F-Super-Capacitor-Balancing-Balance-Protection-Board/322888454631?epid=9009772011&hash=item4b2da6d1e7:g:2VcAAOSwVNxaDqGb

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 12:45:06 am
content: The guys over at the Australian Electric Vehicles Association have some new pictures & believe they have figured it out.It would also explain why the voltage rose again after the load was disconnected.http://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5486&start=100#p67082

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 12:54:50 am
content: Quote from: DerekG on March 27, 2018, 12:45:06 amI don't understand they they were able to take a photo on the capacitor array with no markings and infer that it's that exact Lithium battery? Just by looking at the blue cylindrical case?Have I missed the other evidence?

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 01:12:41 am
content: Dave, I think that the "supercapacitor claims" are not just as they first appear (like you suspected in your post above).A load was applied to the "Kilowatt Labs supercapacitor module" until it was "flat" (the volt meter read 0 volts). When the load was then disconnected, the output voltage rose again to approx 40V. We both know this would not be possible if the module only contained capacitors & contained no DC-DC inverters (which Arvio claim is the case).Maybe the Kilowatt Labs module contains a few supercaps so they are not done for false advertising .................. but it actually mainly contains Li batteries.No doubt more will play out over the next few days/weeks.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 01:41:20 am
content: Quote from: DerekG on March 27, 2018, 01:12:41 amWhy not?Dielectric absorption could cause that.Just playing devils advocate here.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 02:03:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2018, 01:41:20 amI know Dave. All good.Kilowatt Labs is claiming their "supercap array" is 54V fully charged & 44V when flat. This fits the Lithium Titanate model if approx 1150 batteries were used. Arvio claim there are 1200 "supercaps" in the 3.55KWH Kilowatt Labs module ...... which works out to be only 50 "caps" more (4.3%) than when using the Lithium Titanate cells.On this basis, they are claiming that each supercap holds almost as much energy as each Lithium Titanate cell.I suspect that the Australian distributor "Arvio" does not know exactly what is going on. This is why "Supercaps" (the Arvio representative in Melbourne on the Australian Electric Vehicle Association's forum) puts out his cryptic clues, bit by bit).I'm beginning to agree with you. When Arvio decide to find out the truth & cut one of the "supercaps" apart, they may well find a lithium battery instead.

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 03:56:33 am
content: Our AEVA boys are pretty thorough with these types of claims, we get them a lot. ARVIO are doing a presentation here, tomorrow. I'll see if anyof the boys can make it - I have an ATA meeting at the same time, so sadly, I can't make it.https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/home-battery-storage-revolution-registration-41801353975?aff=efbeventWe've had a few claims of supercap breakthroughs this year already, plus other types eg Sodium nickel chloride. When you scratch the surface,however, the paint comes off :-) One day .. but not yet

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 07:18:58 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2018, 01:41:20 amNot at that magnitude, that would mean you lose over half your power on fast discharge and have to let it slowly recover before you can regain it.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2018, 01:34:41 pm
content: According to this poster on the Whirlpool forum, it is likely that the "supercapacitors" are made by Microtron Technologies Inc as"Waseem Ashraf Qureshi is the co-founder of Microtron and CTO and co-founder of Kilowatt Labs."https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2707005&p=7#r128

author: Dave Keenan
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 01:43:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2018, 12:54:50 amGood questions. I didn't really spell it all out in one place before.The main reasons I am fairly confident they are LTOs are:1. I have read extensively about the current state of the art in supercapacitors, and we're nowhere-near this energy density, even in the lab, let alone mass production. And the chance that some lone genius could leapfrog everyone else by about 10 years is negligible.2. LTO cells are commercially available that lookexactlylike the "capacitors" in the Kilowatt Labs unit and they haveexactly* the required voltage, internal resistance, energy capacity, weight, dimensions, linear region of voltage vs charge curve, and (as we've seen most recently) flammable electrolyte. * Within 5%. [Edit: And low enough cost]4 days ago I challenged Arvio to release a 1C voltage versus charge curve for a single cell, that goes outside of the linear region for LTOs. We're still waiting.At this stage, I'm assuming good faith on their part.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2018, 03:24:02 am
content: Quote from: Dave Keenan on March 29, 2018, 01:43:21 amIf Arvio want to sell lots of these things & want to dispel the belief that the Kilowatt Labs unit is not full of batteries, then what they need to do is to send off a complete unit for independent testing.Arvio probably should do this for themselves as it may well be that they are the ones being duped by the mob in the USA/UAE.Melbourne University is not far from the Arvio office in Melbourne. Arrange for the electrical engineering lab there to take it apart for close examination.I would say that if Arvio fail to do this within the next week or 10 days, then the Kilowatt Labs units would appear to be full of fake supercaps.I'm not a member of the AEVA, but if you guys are reading this, put it to Arvio that some independent testing is the only way they will clear their name.

author: DerekG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2018, 01:28:25 pm
content: I have tonight lodged a complaint with the ACCC requesting that Arvio Pty Ltd supply them independent testing results from a certified NATA Laboratory before being allowed to continue their advertising/marketing of the Kilowatt Labs Inc. "Supercapacitor Module".As an electronic engineer, having read the Kilowatts patent, I come to the conclusion that it says very little on how a 100 to 1000 x improvement in capacitor storage has been achieved by them.If this is a scam, it is important that the consumer is protected.

author: Dave Keenan
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 25, 2018, 08:21:42 am
content: If you haven't been following the AEVA thread on the Kilowatt Labs "supercapacitors", you might want to check out the new stuff. Arvio continue to post test videos, and continue to deny the obvious. They also have a new USB-rechargeable AA-sized device. Seehttp://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?p=67234#p67234

author: Dave Keenan
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 09:00:17 am
content: Kilowatt Labs "supercapacitor" fire, before and after photos here:http://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?p=69713#p69713

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 11:17:49 am
content: Dave K, thanks for that. I had an hour or two I needed to kill this evening and that thread over at AEVA was amusing enough to keep me giggling

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2018, 08:20:37 pm
content: I have been away for some months.This turned out pretty much exactly as expected...

author: my2cents2
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 19, 2018, 07:45:57 am
content: Prototype ultra(super)capacitor module builder and tester here. (Not an english grammar major ^_^)This topic is pretty old now but I was reading through it and felt like chiming in a bit.With several years of experience testing full modules, 6-36 cells, 1200f-3000f each cell, capactior banks, I have never seen them explode. Only ooze and leak when overcharged or shorted internally from miss wire. We could charge and discharge these things(full banks) at more than 100A without a problem. Balancing circuits were needed for each cell but the modules themselves were just simple 6 to 36 packs of coke can sized capacitors.Our customers were heavy machines and buses and the these things took a beating a kept truckin. We vibe tested and dropped many modules and fail tests always exceeded our expectations.The dangers came when these things VENTed from being overcharged. When the salt water solution inside boiled and vented, it created some gas which was cancerous on a very small scale so we still had to label that.(without boiling it wasnt cancerous) In an outdoor scenario apparently, no amount of the gas could "harm you" because it disperses quickly.The biggest accident our customers had was with an entire shipping container full of caps. Maybe it was 2-4000V I cant remember but they wired the capacitors in such a way, without the supplied cables from us, that one module shorted and fried an entire rack of caps. Luckily no one was injured or died and they revamped safety measure after that.The biggest non selling point was the weight for mobile applications. We started to fill them with thermal compound to disperse the heat and it made these things even more durable. However you'd break your back lifting them.It was all good tech but the company had trouble reducing the cost lower than $38 per can if I remember.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2018, 04:08:44 pm
content: What an interesting thread.Are the Kilowatt Labs "Super-Capacitors" really based on graphene as in insulator?Are graphene based supercapacitors on the market now?If so, that seems a huge breaktrough technology.Who makes them?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2018, 04:11:12 pm
content: No, no, yes it would be, no one.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2018, 04:39:11 pm
content: So, the whole thing is a hoax / lie ?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2018, 05:12:40 pm
content: Yes, it's a scam ... to not dare to call it that at this point would be simple cowardice.