All things being equal, a battery or other electric source is going to be better than your typical ICE, because it needs to carry less (dangerous/explosive) fuel. We just need batteries with better stability.
High wh/kg is not conducive to stability.
Re: fires. Batteries are mixtures of fuel and oxidizer. The greater the peak output the more closely they have to be mixed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The greater the peak output the more closely they have to be mixed.
Agreed. I would restate your original as high w/kg is not conducive to stability. Agreed batteries carry both an oxidizer and a reducer, which makes them marginally less safe than a fueled vehicle (and heavier). The trick is to have appropriate rate controls. A full battery vehicle requires maybe 2C or 3C discharges.
Is it that we're concerned that EESTOR might be a scam because we don't have any information or prototypes showing that it works, even though mass production starts in a matter of months?
The EEStore folks are scamming folks who know nothing about dielectric saturation.
i.e. the dielectric constant is lower for high voltage vs low voltage.
If you have to use a bunch of low voltage caps you need equalizing resistors or electronics. A continuous power drain. The only advantage you would get is peak power. Otherwise batteries would be about the same.
As I understand it, KPC&B and Lockheed are providing a certain amount of funding. To suggest that they've overlooked something so basic, or have failed to have a PhD level physicist and chemist look over it strikes me as naive.
If there's something wrong with this it won't be merely a scam. It will be interestingly wrong- to paraphrase RNebel.
I read it. It includes test results that appear to be taken from manufactured components. (Not a full EESU) The tests show among other things, 1,000,000 charge/discharge cycles with no degradation. I suggest that the EEStor doubters should read it to pick up on claims that they think are not real.
Betruger wrote:New patent. Supposed to match EESTOR's claims (dont have time to read it myself, sorry).
It reads more like a sales pitch than a patent application.
And why does the material need to be polarized? Are they making electret microphones?
And 10 um thick PET films? Produced by screen printing and hot pressing?
No mention of the variation of dielectric constant with voltage. A well known problem with barium titanate. In electronic circuits where this is a problem it is suggested that capacitors of this composition be used at 1/10 or less of their rated voltage. And then there is the variation of capacitance with temperature of high dielectric constant barium titanate.
And don't forget the aluminum oxide. The heart of electrolytic capacitors. Which may explain the poling. Their variation of capacitance with temperature and voltage is notorious as well.
Notice that all the capacitance specs are given at 23C.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
A new Lockheed Martin patent published last week by the World Intellectual Property Organization gives us a glimpse of the miltary contractor’s relationship with Cedar Park, Tex.-based EEStor. It could also explain why EEStor has been reluctant so far to reveal its progress.
Lockheed’s patent details plans for “body armor having an electrical energy storage unit formed as ...
Soylent wrote:Won't that bullet proof west go off like a bomb if the "ESU" takes a direct hit?
Based on the two patents and various press releases, the EEStor units contain thousands of electrically issolated units in the greater capacitor.
The idea is that each capacitor is directly linked to ground and no individual capacitor contains enough juice to disrupt the one next to it. This distribution "should" allow you to do things like drive nails (or bullets) through it without causing it to blow up. If you need to fend off more than that then you have bigger issues than the ESU going off.