1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Re-engineered Battery Material Could Lead to Rapid Recharging of Many Devices

Discussion in 'News' started by malware, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Every energy transfer/conversion has a loss and in the case of mechanical-to-electrical one that loss is big. Alternators and dynamos are very innefficient and suppose a big energy loss. Of course it's better than anything when there is no other option, but as long as there is an alternative, like just using electricity or just use the combustion engine, then that's better.

    You say that when idling the engine consumes less. That's, of course, true. They procuce less energie/power too. An idling engine can't produce enough power to drive a car satisfactorily, so after a conversion and its attached energie loss, much less. The batterie would be charged with less energie than the one that the fuel engine was capable of produce, hence it would be able to produce less movement.

    A combustion engine converts chemical energie into mechanical energie (movement). There is a loss.
    An electrical engine converts electrical into mechanical. There is a loss.

    Your suggested setup would follow this conversions and subsequent losses:

    - Chemical to mechanical.
    - Mechanical to electrical.
    - Electrical to mechanical. (I obviated the chemical to electrical one, because it will happen in any case)

    The second one is just totally unnecessary, you can just swap wich engine does the work and that is much more efficient.

    Dont they teach you these things in school?? This is 4th grade science.

    Sorry to use your words against you, but it just made me laugh the way you acted as an authority above him, while being so wrong.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  2. MTnumb New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    41 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    this is scary. if you run the numbers on a standard 3.6V phone battery that needs to be charged in 10 seconds assuming an efficiency of 75% you will need something like 1500W of energy and you will also get something like 390W of heat. i wouldn't like to think of the explosion if something went wrong and the ions wont pass threw the tunnels..1500W of heat....again.....this is scary :twitch:
  3. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC

    Me being wrong? I'm not the one designed Electrical or Mechanical Engines in the first place. I just simply explained to him why at idle engine uses less fuel.

    Dont they teach you how to read in school these days? This is 4th grade level English.


    And it wasnt an authority action, it was a shocking surprize. You do know what they say about assumption?
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  4. spearman914

    spearman914 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,339 (1.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    502
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York 11223
    yea coal is a bad idea to produce electricity. It's fcking up the ozone layer and letting more Ultraviolent rays from the sun which are cancerous rays. And we all know about global warming right, the more CO2 the hotter the temp.
  5. R_1

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    449 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    39
    ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is my hope.
  6. Haytch

    Haytch New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Messages:
    510 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Australia
    Thats why they make 1ms response-time wireless mice now. Oh my bad, they dont all make it, only the top mice companies, such as Razer's Mamba.

    I look forward to seeing what we utilize this concept for. My only concern is loosing the charge quicker then actually charging the battery. Hybrid vehicles are the way of our transportation future over the next 25 - 50 years, but we cant have a motor at idle because the constant rev will cause physical damage, besides they addressed that issue with VVT, AjC & some crazy lubricant that i forgot the name of.

    Heat ? I think heat will also play a vital role in the adoption of this technology. Same for stability and safety.

    We should savour the porn/vibrator talk untill they install MCP's into them that can support A.I features.
  7. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Eh, I know very well how to read, thank you very much. That's why I said what I said. I'm spanish anyway, so anyone talked about assumption? 4th grade? :roll:

    You were speaking about using the gas engine to charge the battery and he said:

    To which your response was a crap load of wrong information, finished with the infamous "Dont they teach you these things in school?? This is 4th grade science."

    Tell me where in his message he talks about idling cars consuming the same as working ones or whatnot. He doesn't, he just said that a gas engine alone would be more efficient than your suggestion. Which it is, but instead of assuming it, you came up with the BS, finished with the infamous sentence. I wouldn't have replied if your message finished in a proper manner. But telling him he missed some classes or something, after what you wrote?!!?? No, man.

    So you could learn a fact or two before attacking people eh? And maybe notice that my natural language is not english before telling me anything about english, eh? After all, it's not the first time I say it and you could have read my info to the left and know that I'm NOT from the US or any english speaking country, but ey I guess it requires some geography knowledge. Anyway, you could have noticed something by the fact that I wrote energie so many times, instead of its correct spelling. Something I myself noticed when I saw my message quoted in your post...
    LoneEagle70 says thanks.
  8. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    Its not, thats why we have hybrids.. and we did not have rapidly rechargeable batteries.


    Im from Russia, but i see things in my head on how things work 10 steps further. I had to take Chemistry and Physics in 4th grade and i went to public school. Not because i was smart, but because it was a requirement of public schools.

    I suggested using small diesel engine, because it has more torque at lower RPM, in my original post. And diesel engine is more efficient then regular gas engine.

    Thus if you implemented this new battery material in to batteries to drive the car it self, then the small diesel engine can recharge it in less time, lets say x10 times faster for the sake of argument, because we dont know exact figures at this time.

    Thus less fuel is used in the end.

    Or even if small Honda generator used that can power half the house, it is very efficient, and can run on 6.6 gallons of fuel all day, at the same time providing enough energy to recharge a fast rapid rechargeable battery. 6500 watts (54.1/27.1 A) 120/240V, Operates 10 hours @ 50% load on 6.6 gal.
    In the end you would still be using less fuel while doubling your millage. This will work if we know for sure that the batteries with new material can sustain same amount of charge for same amount of time that a current batteries do in today's hybrid cars.

    In the end of this argument, if you combined all my posts, bits and pieces of information, aside the once where i was joking about vibrators. You will clearly see all the answers, even to his question/s.

    So my idea is not crap or BS, because no one else came up with a better one even your self. Even light bulb was a pipe dream, or home computers, and people thought that Bill Gates was crazy. And look where we are now. All it took imagination and inovation and it became real.

    Speaking of Gas Engines, if you still think im full of BS and dumb ideas. Look at Audi racing team, they made a race car using diesel engine. And now, many race car companies are going in the same direction.
    Find a video on Top Gear, where a Twin Turbo Charged Audi A8 with a diesel V8 engine, drove 800 miles on 19.7 gallons of fuel. Show me any gas car that has done that with same or similar engine size. I doubt Prius can even do that, but i have to look in to it further.

    So you still think my idea is BS? Because this is basic knowledge now days. All you have to do is combine peanut butter with jelly and BAM! you have something new and tasty.

    Now i know you may ask your self; why dont companies do what i suggested. Well, we dont have fast rechargeable batteries, thus a gas engine on todays hybrid cars still used to drive the car it self.

    edited;

    Here is a curve ball for you. If you watch Top Gear episode, where they drove a Toyota Prius around the track for 10 laps as fast as it can go, it got 17MPG. At the same time a newer BWM M3 with a v8 engine, that had to follow Prius for 10 laps, got about (if my memory serves me right) got 23 MPG.
    Something to think about, but you will get your answer if you watch the episode.

    p.s.

    Its too bad you cant reply often, because i enjoy this types of discussions.


    edited for grammar and spelling errors or lack of it, additional thoughts and information.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  9. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    Not true at all. Engine will not cause physical damage to it self if it constantly operates at same REV/RPM. It has nothing to do with VVT or crazy lubricant.

    I ran my truck idling for +6 hours straight many times with out any damage what so ever.
    I have driven it to Florida (1300 miles) and Canada (600Miles) many times at constant speed and constant REV/RPM with no side effect what so ever. Its a Dodge Durango, 5.2L V8 engine. With over 132,000 miles on the odometer it still runs like new. It takes about half a turn of the engine to start it up, and i never used any crazy lubricant.

    Just a small example. Lawnmowers operate at constant RPM for years with out any side effect what so ever.

    Nascars, that go in a circle for 6 hours at a time, their engine pretty much stays with in same REV/RPM range with no side effects at all.

    If you ever read used car adds, many people will say; "all highway miles". Thats because on highway, engine most of the time stays with in same REV/RPM range, thus less wear and tear on the engine it self.

    How ever, when an engine is new, it is best to be driven in a city condition during its break in period.

    A BMW engine, takes about 20k-30k miles till it is fully broken in.


    A small tip.

    If you were to buy a used car that has same millage and is in the same condition. Dont buy it from a guy that been delivering pizza, buy it from the guy that drove his car long range most of the time.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  10. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    OMG you don't understand that using a gas/diesel engine to charge a battery is MUCH less efficient than using that same engine to drive the car?? You know anything of the law of conservation of energy?? It seems not. Using better batteries, the ones that are shown in the OP would only make the energy transfer more efficient, BUT will never make it more efficient than the engine that is providing the power. You just can't CREATE energy from where there is not. "We use" hybrid cars because they are cleaner and because they lower the emissions, not because they are any more efficient. Just because they use less fuel doesn't mean they are more efficient, the ammount of combustible required to create the energy sufficient to charge the batteries to work is way higher than what it would use the car engine to perform the same work. A simple electric car, with just an electric engine, is much more efficient than hybrids, but it requires bigger and more expensive batteries to achieve the same mileage, so they normally don't have the same mileage. That doesn't mean they are not consuming significantly less energy.

    And to respond to your last question. Of course I still know you're wrong. LOL. Don't worry you are not the first one that thinks he has discovered the next best thing since sliced bread. :laugh:

    What I'm explaining is certainly not 4th grade physics, but I can guarantee you that you are wrong with that.
  11. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    They are more efficient. Thats why they get better MPG. Even the new Hybrid Escalade gets better MPG in the city. 20MPG, vs 15MPG.

    Yes they produce less emissions, but they do get better MPG in the end. Other wise whats the point of having hybrids in the first place??

    Standard gas powered Honda Civic gets about 35MPG. Hybrid Civic gets almost 60MPG. Thats right there is increase in efficiency it self.

    If you are thinking that gas engine it self has not improved on gas efficiency. then i do agree. Because gas engine on its own has 33% efficiency by the time the energy is put down in the road.

    But the whole argument is MPG, and not out put efficiency of a gas/diesel powered engine.

    Todays fuel powered engine is flawed in many ways do to too many moving parts/components, i do agree there. But we are talking only about the final MPG.

    Thats why they are working on having electrical motors connected directly to the wheel it self. Because there is less energy loss through drive train. It was posted on Engadget few weeks ago.


    I know what you are thinking, but you are over think it in this discussion.

    If that is true/fact, then hybrid cars today would not be getting better MPG in the first place.

    As i said earlier, a standard civic gets 35MPG, a hybrid Civic gets 60MPG. The numbers speak for them selfs.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  12. h3llb3nd4

    h3llb3nd4 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,323 (1.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    307
    Location:
    Durban, South Africa
    Why not hydrogen powered cars??
  13. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Erm, and the gallons that were spent to create the energy that recharged the batteries??? Again take a look back at your school notes in physics, because you missed something.

    And what's the point of using hybrids? Once again, because they are cleaner than standard cars and have better mileages than pure electric cars. The news in the OP will make pure electric cars a much better option, but will not enable better hybrids, except for the better electric portion. And to finish with this nonsense about hybrids: hybrids don't use the combustion engine to charge the batteries and will never do, because it's much more efficient to have it powered off and just kick n when it's necessary.

    As a side note, hybrids if not very expensive compared to a normal car, could indeed make you save up a bit of money, because power plants obtain much better deals in combustible thatn what we do, and at the same time 10000 liters of fuel in a power plant can create much more energy than the same ammount of fuel distributed into many cars, plus there are many other and more efficient ways to obtain electricity. That's why electric cars are a better long term solution. In any case the worst solution of all of them, with a good margin, is a small engine feeding the batteries in a car.
  14. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Hydrogen poses the same problem as fuel, as any fuel, it's a combustion engine and those will always have two problems:

    - Emissions. Although hydrogen emissions are much better, the would still be bad in a large scale.

    - It's a limited resource and only happens to be cheaper ecause it's not widely used. It's a good stop gap solution, but we have to start looking for better and definitive solutions. Efficient electric cars with fast charging batteries like the ones in the OP are a good place to start IMHO.
  15. h3llb3nd4

    h3llb3nd4 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,323 (1.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    307
    Location:
    Durban, South Africa
    doesn't hydrogen cars produce h2o after combustion??
  16. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    Hydrogen cars are very clean, all you have is h2o come out their gas pipe. But they are not efficient. BMW has a 7 series that is powered by hydrogen but at this time it gets almost the same if not lower MPG then its brother 7 series that is powered by gas fuel.

    DarkMatter.
    The argument is about gas vs hybrid, and not gas vs electric cars. Learn to read.
    Gas engine in to days hybrid cars is used to recharge the batteries and to work side by side with electric motor at the same time if a vehicle requires more power in order to go up hill or to carry more load.

    Electric Engine and Gas Engine in todays hybrids it connected to the main drive train. They work together.
  17. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Yes primarily. Wait, hydrogen does ONLY produce H2O after combusion, but AFAIK the hydrogen used as combustible has many accelerators* and primers*, just as gas or diesel's have.

    Anyway water is guilty of 90% of the greenhouse effect, believe it or not, and there is controversy to whether if the ammount of water that would be thrown into the atmosphere would be harmful for the ambient or not. Maybe not globally, but it could certainly create ugly and permanent clouds/fog/vapor in very populated areas and create a butterfly effect from there. Think that although only water would be emitted, it would be much more water ammount than the ammount of CO2 that is emitted nowadays. It would be less harmful in any case IMO, just not an ideal solution.

    *sorry if the terms are incorrect, I just don't know them in english, thank google translator if they are wrong or you can't understand them or what I mean
  18. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    That is not true at all. Take a look at the rain forest. Constant rain and constant evaporation. Yet it has the cleanest air on the planet. Rain forest produces about 30% of worlds oxygen, yet it covers the least amount on the planet.
  19. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    And that is the best way of using an hybrid car. Certainly not the one you suggested earlier.

    The fact is you are arguing against yorself, because no one said that an hybrid doesn't use less fuel than a normal car from your tank, but it certainly isn't more efficient cientifically speaking. As I said, it does save you money in fuel, because what I said above, but it doesn't save in spent energy. IF all the energy is going to be generated from the car (and not an external source), as you suggested using the gas/diesel engine to recharge the battery, then there's a big waste of energy and in that particular case, fuel. Period.

    I don't remember where but I read that they have made a much more efficient hydrogen engine somewhere. I'll try to find a link.
  20. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Please stay away from this conversation if you are not going to provide anything useful. Clean/dirty air has nothing to do with greenhouse effect. Reflection/refraction of light does.

    EDIT: I didn't explain it well. If the air is dirty, it does contribute more to the greenhouse effect, but not because of the fact is contiminated or that it has more/less oxygen, but because it's more reflective.

    From the wiki:

    My 90% figure came from a more recent study which said that older measures were wrong (I'm not going to discuss which study is wrong, take the nmbers you prefer) and/or it could be because they included the importance of the clouds mentioned here in the last sentence, but were not taken into account for the above numbers...
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  21. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    Do you know for a fact that my idea will not work? Can you seen 10 years from now?

    Greenhouse effect? So we should raise pollution to lower natural green house effect? Greenhouse effect is mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and changes in the use of land.

    You are jumping all over the place now.


    The original debate was about MPG, now you are jumping all over the place.
  22. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Man, yes I know for a fact. It's called physics. 10 years? I'll give you 10.000 if you wish. It's like saying "wait 100 years and apples will fall upwards".

    Increasing ANY emission will increase the greenhouse effect. Who said, and where in hell do you read that I said that increasing pollution would reduce the greenhouse effect? LOL you are just so clueless at this moment...

    Just to begin with, greenhouse effect is not created by humans, it's been increased by humans which is not the same. GHE (abreviated) is been happening since long before there was life in Earth. In fact, is one of the main factors that led to the creation of life in our planet. Without the GHE that is primarily created by water vapor, and in those ages the emissions from volcanic activity, our planet would have a surface temperature of -80C IRRC and wouldn't be able to sustain any form of life.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  23. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    For a fact huh. Then you should know the wining numbers to the next lottery...LOL:laugh:

    So what are the wining numbers? Do share. I have 5 kids to feed and could use extra million or two.

    You did say that increase in h2o from cars is bad. So according to your theory, to compensate for it, the only right thing to do is pollute more.

    Too much oxygen is bad for us or this planet. No?

    Raised by humans, created by humans, its all the same. We are here and we are polluting this planet.


    Now back to MPG. You have yet to provide solid facts and or prove that my idea wont work.

    You do know that idea is, well is almost the same as my own opinion. And you do know what they say about opinion? Im always right.:laugh:
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  24. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    HUH don't be stupid. You need any extrasensorial powers to know that an apple will fall to the ground? No? Yes? Tell me, because maybe I have powers and those were trained in an arcane school without me being aware of it. Maybe what I have always called basic physics knowledge, is some sort of magic only at the disposal of a few... :rolleyes:

    Again... :banghead: I didn't say that pollution will lower the greenhouse effect. FFS where do you read that?? Increasing the ammount of water in the air WOULD increase greenhouse effect, there's no doubt of that. If at the same time pollution completely dissapears then GHE would get lower than today, but pollution will not dissapear in two days, not even 50 years, so throwing high ammounts of water would probably increase GHE even further. NOT more than if we contnued with current CO2 emissions, but yes much more than if we stopped ANY emission for once.

    By raised I meant increased (fixed). Sorry God, oh sorry, because I don't always use the proper term in a foreign language. Please shoot me on the head.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  25. BOSE

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    271 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Wash DC
    The Arcane School, an occult organization founded by Theosophist Alice A. Bailey and her husband, Foster Bailey, was designed to bring in the New Age by the Great White Brotherhood, the spiritual hierarchy of masters who are believed to guide human destiny.

    Sounds like a cult, and it has no place in this discussion at all. Religion has nothing to do with science or MPG a hybrid car can get.

    So do please use your magic and tell me what the wining lottery numbers are.

    You havent provided any substantial evidence/facts that i am wrong and or that my idea wont work in the first place.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page