Jeff Peachman wrote:I'm a little suspicious, though, because it seems too good to be true.
But if they're not looking for investors, why would they be trying to scam us?
Well clearly they're not trying to scam us. They couldn't care less what we think. If they're trying to scam someone, it's their current investors, who probably have the power to pull the rug out from under them if they believe there is no product.
As for being committed to shipping units by the end of the year ... that's the same thing they said in January of last year. It was more credible then than it is now.
But I do understand that production schedules tend to slip. Hopefully I'm wrong and they really will be rolling out amazing capacitors that people outside the company can actually see, touch, and measure. I hope so, but from what I've seen so far, I'm not optimistic.
Unfortunately, it reminds me entirely too much of the kinds of press releases Gary Hudson had Rotary Rocket putting out for most of the late 90's..."Processes certified! Progress is being made! First increment completed!" (unstated was that it was the only increment they could afford given that they were about 15-20x too lightly funded to accomplish their stated aims).
If they were really shipping anything production this year you would expect a prototype to already be completed, and you can bet that would be newsworthy..but they still appear a few "breakthroughs" away from that. In fact, although they talk a lot about what they're doing, I've never seen a solid number on what kind of energy density --per weight or volume -- that they're actually claiming. That's pretty basic supporting info if you're really claiming you've made a "breakthrough".
And the fact that LockMart bought into it for possibly no or very little cash (an IDIQ costs nothing until a unit's delivered), isn't in any way reassuring. Let's not forget X-33. Lockmart spent a billion of NASA money on that and never came close to a flying prototype.
Tom.Cuddihy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
cuddihy wrote:Let's not forget X-33. Lockmart spent a billion of NASA money on that and never came close to a flying prototype.
That was because some dumbass decided that the point of building an SSTO was so it could have a composite fuel tank, and when the composite tank cracked and Al-Li turned out to be lighter anyway (it needed less bracing), the plug got pulled...
...well, that and the aerospike turned out to be heavier than they thought. I don't think it was a showstopper; my impression is that they should have kept going.
It's true that they may have simply signed on to minimize risk, just in case EEStor has something they might wind up kicking themselves for not grabbing early. I don't want to believe that, but I may be forced to...
Hey people, lets step back and look at this. The first question I have is, what is our beef? 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? I would be concerned about that if I had any right to the information, but I don't have. Its similar to the situation with the Polywell. I would be concerned over the lack of information, if I had any right to the information in the first place. The situations are similar, not the same. Polywell is brand new cutting edge stuff (even if it was conceived over 20 years ago.) EESTOR is not so new, only the ultra high performance is new, almost everything else about it is mature art. That means that Richard Weis has a problem. He has documented his process in patents, but he cannot patent the fundamental capacitor, that's public domain. The result is that the patent really only says that no one can use the same raw materials to make his device in the same way that he makes it. I've read some of his patents and clearly, his manufacturing process is not innovative, except to the extent that he has put it together and it should work. With the Polywell, Dr. Nebel has the ONR contract and its non-disclosure agreements that are muzzling him. (I'll bet you a nickle that he would just love to have us all over for a beer just to shoot the breeze about the Polywell, to tell us their experiences and listen to our ideas. It'll never happen, but its fun to think about.). Similarly, Dr. Wier must be responsible to those who have funded his efforts. They invested to make money, and the sooner someone else decides to make a knock-off, the less money the investors are going to make. Sure, a knock-off might cost a little more, but I ask you, is that going to make a big difference in the rate of sales of the first 100 million units? I don't think so, I think "availability" will be the main consideration, so EESTOR is not stirring the pot, because there are a lot of players out there with a lot more money than EESTOR and ZENN who could knock-off the product and mass produce it in volumes that EESTOR can only dream about for the time being. Better for EESTOR that they be quiet for as long as they can, its a financial thing.
gblaze42 wrote:
If my calculations are correct 10 gallons (us) of gasoline has an energy equivalence of approximately 377.778 kilowatt hours or roughly 1,360,000,000 watt-seconds. I estimate at 200 V we get roughly 453,334 A per minute for 15 minutes! Of course the voltage and amperage are variable, maybe it's me but I find this to be an incredible amount of energy! I'd hate to be standing in a puddle if I dropped that cable.
1. You missed the watt-SECONDS and used MINUTES. This makes the calculation ~7,556 amps.
2. The efficiency of internal combustion is notoriously low. Think 20%. Modern electrical conversion systems can approach 80%. Divide by 4 gives ~1,889 amps.
3. I don't think anyone is designing a 300 mile unrecharged range. Try 100 miles. ~630 amps.
4. Now go higher (but still practical to work with) voltage, say 500V. Now we are looking at a very practical 252 amps. Connectors, breakers and everything else is off the shelf for these voltage and current levels.
Re: the X-33. I was curious, so I looked it up. The end of this is amusing:
In particular, the composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing in November 1999. The tank was constructed of honeycomb composite walls and internal structures to lower its weight. A lighter tank was needed for the craft to demonstrate necessary technologies for single-stage-to-orbit operations. A hydrogen fueled SSTO craft's mass fraction requires that the weight of the vehicle without fuel be 10% of the fully-fueled weight. This would allow for a vehicle to fly to low earth orbit without the need for the sort of external boosters and fuel tanks used by the Space Shuttle. But, after the composite tank failed on the test stand during fueling and pressure tests, NASA came to the conclusion that the technology of the time was simply not advanced enough for such a design. This conclusion is heavily disputed in the alt-space community, who blame the program's failure on NASA's preference for researching new materials and technologies rather than using older more reliable ones—for example, use of composite hydrogen tanks instead of aluminium-lithium. While the composite tank walls themselves were lighter, the odd hydrogen tank shape resulted in complex joints increasing the total mass of the composite tank to above that of an aluminium based tank. [5]
...
After the cancellation, engineers were able to make a working liquid oxygen tank out of carbon fiber composite.
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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Polywell is brand new cutting edge stuff (even if it was conceived over 20 years ago.)
Nope. The current design was conceived about 3 years ago.
I believe you've made my point. Polywell has been under R&D contract for much longer than 3 years, yet the current design is only about 3 years old. It's new stuff. Thanks.
This differs from capacitors, even super and ultra capacitors. They are based on broadly known, old science, only the technology and its application remains to be improved.
In both cases, for financial, for strategic, or for other gain, it behooves the holder of the Intellectual Property to keep their mouths shut, but much more so for the holders of IP based on older, more broadly known science.
gblaze42 wrote:
1. You missed the watt-SECONDS and used MINUTES. This makes the calculation ~7,556 amps.
2. The efficiency of internal combustion is notoriously low. Think 20%. Modern electrical conversion systems can approach 80%. Divide by 4 gives ~1,889 amps.
3. I don't think anyone is designing a 300 mile unrecharged range. Try 100 miles. ~630 amps.
4. Now go higher (but still practical to work with) voltage, say 500V. Now we are looking at a very practical 252 amps. Connectors, breakers and everything else is off the shelf for these voltage and current levels.
1] Yes I did thanks!
2] I realize that, but efficiencies are not the only thing to take into account, there's approximately 59.65 Kw-H's for a 80 horsepower-hour, assuming some form of acceleration for a very light vehicle. Add 20% for efficiencies, approximately 71.58 Kw-H to drive a 80 Hp motor for an hour.
3] No not a 300 mile range, a 250 mile range though, see here;
4] Supposedly it's at 3500 V stepped down for use. That makes me wonder how there is no breakdown of the dielectric with such a high voltage?!
My mistake was that I was making a 1 to 1 comparison between an ICE and electric motor, thanks for helping me clarify that.
I just believe EEstor has a lot to live up to, I don't believe they are breaking any laws of physics but they are sure pushing the technology limitations!
Look at the Wikipedia information on EEStor where it gives links to the patent descriptions. A screen printing process to make the 'Electrical Energy Storage Units' has been patented. The world patent is described here: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo= ... SPLAY=DESC
EEStor claims that by using suitably uniform Barium titanate powder in their ink (read as 'dielectric'), and with proper post processing, they can obtain breakdown voltages over 5000 volts. Then I guess the (iirc) ~3000V operating voltage leaves a safety margin. Considering that electrical circuits are quite repeatable, a 50% margin seems enough to me. The major concern seems to be the elimination of voids within the dielectric, which cause leakage and breakdown. The process to eliminate voids is described in the patent, but I can think of at least two other ways to control and eliminate voids both of which are more expensive than the process described, but one of which is 100% effective at the nano-scale.
As for EEStor, they are banking on fully-dense nanocrystalline barium titanate to provide the needed performance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_titanate
Check this link. It seems that EEStor is banking on a known 40% improvement in performance, if they can achieve full density. That being the case, it seems to me that the recent certification of very high uniformity of the basic raw material for their ink is a significant step. I don't know, and probably won't know if it is enough until I, like the rest of us, see an operating unit, or read a report from an independent observer reporting on an operating unit.
MSimon wrote:Batteries are going to be a problem in accidents since they can release a significant fraction of their energy in under a second.
That is explosive.
It's all chemical reactions, whether it's gasoline or lithium. Gasoline vaporizes, whereas lithium ...
The problem with lithium batteries (at least most of the current bunch) is unstable separators (iirc) and cathodes made from metallic oxides that break down at relatively low temperatures. A lithium battery fire is self-sustaining, and resists being put out. My understanding is that the industry is moving away from cobalt-oxides.
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. If you have a stable, low surface area of interaction between cathode and anode, you don't have problems with explosions.
I did want to agree with you about the problem with EEStore -- the apparent "misunderstanding" of the dialectric constant in different e-fields. I'm not looking for miracles from EEStore.
Aero wrote:
EEStor claims that by using suitably uniform Barium titanate powder in their ink (read as 'dielectric'), and with proper post processing, they can obtain breakdown voltages over 5000 volts. Then I guess the (iirc) ~3000V operating voltage leaves a safety margin. Considering that electrical circuits are quite repeatable, a 50% margin seems enough to me. The major concern seems to be the elimination of voids within the dielectric, which cause leakage and breakdown. The process to eliminate voids is described in the patent, but I can think of at least two other ways to control and eliminate voids both of which are more expensive than the process described, but one of which is 100% effective at the nano-scale.
As for EEStor, they are banking on fully-dense nanocrystalline barium titanate to provide the needed performance.
5000V per what dimensions? centimeters? inches? nanometers? After reading the patent, I don't understand why they could not make a prototype single cell capacitor to at least show their concept works. It sounds to me their are actually making micrometer size capacitor cells and combining them to get the overall power and energy density they need. Another odd fact, EEstor is using Barium Titanate as the dielectric, they are not going with newer materials like aerogels and CNT's that give lots of surface area.
Maybe it's the cost, who can tell. hopefully I'll be proven wrong and they'll have something, someday.