Lithium Batteries are SOOO yesterday

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Leo Ticheli

......Remember "Tomorrow Land?" By the time it could be built, it was a history museum. Same reason Kubric could never figure out how to make AI. Change is happening so fast, your computer is a generation behind as soon as it goes on sale. I don't think we had the same desire for the new model Smith-Corona.



We are surfing a logarithmically swelling wave of tech change; exciting times indeed.



Fair winds,



Leo

As a person involved in technology , developing systems ,software etc. I don't share your " popular mechanics " view of the future.

I don't accept we are in a period of logarithmic tech growth either. If anything we are now struggling with various physics issues in the search for greater IC density for example.

Equally the software engineering dilemma is increasing, its becoming harder and harder to properly implement the complex software needed to realise this " future concepts "

Further more we always underestimate the resistance to new technology

I fully understand the technology behind driverless vehicles. But unless we are prepared to build separated freight only roads. ( we have those they are called railways !! ) we are a long long from resolving the liability issues around being plowed into by a google controlled 40 ton truck !

I see driverless coming in first in more controlled environments , like high speed rail and high density commuter rail etc.

I think we are a very long way from the point where passengers will board a plane that has no human pilot in control ( even if the computer does most of the flying )


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[zboss]

A battery to solve the energy density issue:

08/2014 Sakti News

http://www.cartalk.com/blogs/jim-mot...eight-and-cost

[hellosailor]

zboss, you've got to stop reading these things.


Sakti's "solid" battery is currently applicable only to small designs like cell phones. Dyson (vacuums, etc.) has just invested in them, but has no timeframe or certainty that they can even scale them up to power hand-held vacuums, it is all speculation at this point.


" they already have developed solar panels that have a layer that picks up on infrared wave lengths so they have produce power at night." Ah, no, can't be done. The only IR source at night is heat reflected back down by heavy cloud cover, if that's present, and incredibly small amounts from the rest of the universe.


"different wave length of light.. I think it tops out at 40 or 50%. " Yeah, that one too. Claimed about five? Six? years ago by a mysterious south African company that was looking for (hmmm) investors, but hasn't come through with any commercial products yet.


You'll find that most if not all of the amazing new tech claims are based on weak projects designed to part fools from their money. Not just long shots, but incredibly long shots, best taken at a unicorn ranch. Nothing new here, flim-flam men have been at it for centuries.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

zboss, you've got to stop reading these things.


Sakti's "solid" battery is currently applicable only to small designs like cell phones. Dyson (vacuums, etc.) has just invested in them, but has no timeframe or certainty that they can even scale them up to power hand-held vacuums, it is all speculation at this point.


" they already have developed solar panels that have a layer that picks up on infrared wave lengths so they have produce power at night." Ah, no, can't be done. The only IR source at night is heat reflected back down by heavy cloud cover, if that's present, and incredibly small amounts from the rest of the universe.


"different wave length of light.. I think it tops out at 40 or 50%. " Yeah, that one too. Claimed about five? Six? years ago by a mysterious south African company that was looking for (hmmm) investors, but hasn't come through with any commercial products yet.


You'll find that most if not all of the amazing new tech claims are based on weak projects designed to part fools from their money. Not just long shots, but incredibly long shots, best taken at a unicorn ranch. Nothing new here, flim-flam men have been at it for centuries.

You have the last paragraph right. Invest in Elio. or go back to the salad oil scam of the late sixties. There ain't no free lunches.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by zboss

Well, this is not a family forum. I'm not sure where you got that idea There are plenty of pirates, whisky, and wenches to go around here!

I'm not so sure storage density is going to be problem in the future, they already have developed solar panels that have a layer that picks up on infrared wave lengths so they have produce power at night. They also have a new panel that uses layers of cells, each that react to a different wave length of light.. I think it tops out at 40 or 50%.

When you combine power generation possibility with new materials like graphene (so efficient at conducting electricity that physics is having a difficult time coming up with a way to stop the flow) you end up with a future of almost unlimited cheap energy production with nearly perfect transmission of that energy, so you don't really need to store that much power.

I'm relative new here so forgive me for not realising this forum is full of degenerates

Graphene. Now you are talking. I'm currently using graphene in an unrelated R&D project and it's properties are off the charts. Yes it has the ability to revolutionise many industries. Good for you on picking up on it.

[Leo Ticheli]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

As a person involved in technology , developing systems ,software etc. I don't share your " popular mechanics " view of the future.

I don't accept we are in a period of logarithmic tech growth either. If anything we are now struggling with various physics issues in the search for greater IC density for example.

Equally the software engineering dilemma is increasing, its becoming harder and harder to properly implement the complex software needed to realise this " future concepts "

Further more we always underestimate the resistance to new technology

I fully understand the technology behind driverless vehicles. But unless we are prepared to build separated freight only roads. ( we have those they are called railways !! ) we are a long long from resolving the liability issues around being plowed into by a google controlled 40 ton truck !

I see driverless coming in first in more controlled environments , like high speed rail and high density commuter rail etc.

I think we are a very long way from the point where passengers will board a plane that has no human pilot in control ( even if the computer does most of the flying )


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

There's quite a difference between purely technical progress, such as making faster chips, and changes in everyday life from tech that is here now or coming on line in the future. Even if we maxed computing power in the near future, what we could and will do with that power is virtually unlimited.

Did you imagine doctor visits via internet? Or medical diagnostic software beating the hell out of human docs? Or running practically everything from your iPhone? I just got a new camera system and was disappointed that the package did not include a remote control, then my engineer showed me that it was all right in my phone; every parameter a click away. The old hardware remotes cost between $500.00 and over four grand. I've also done away with all my cinematography tools, even the chunky director's finder; everything I need is right in my iPhone.

I never advocated for driverless passenger aircraft; we should not equate consumer acceptance of air travel with sharing the highway with driverless trucks that go a constant speed, don't block traffic trying to pass slower moving vehicles, don't have drivers falling asleep, or using alcohol or drugs, or just plain being stupid. Perhaps you drive in a state when the average IQ is above 90; I don't. If I could choose a driverless highway environment, I would do so without hesitation; I trust Google a lot more than Bubba.

I believe the litigation cost from accidents involving driverless vehicles will be significantly less than from human drivers.

I recently shot a couple of films for the Auburn Engineering school, and seeing what those genius kids are coming up with makes me very excited. I don't think any of them were reading Popular Mechanics, but I could be wrong.


Fair winds,

Leo

[luciarose]

An interesting quote from Thomas Edison comes to mind: "The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies. The storage battery is one of those peculiar things which appeals to the imagination, and no more perfect thing could be desired by stock swindlers than that very selfsame thing. ... Just as soon as a man gets working on the secondary battery it brings out his latent capacity for lying. ... Scientifically, storage is all right, but, commercially, as absolute a failure as one can imagine."

There are many claims for new battery technology every year but the actual growth in energy density creeps along at a predictable rate. A lithium ion battery works due to chemical reactions within the individual cells. Looking for large scale overnight (or multi-year) increases in capacity is quite unrealistic as you cannot easily overcome the chemical and physical reactions within the cells.

Putting more and more energy into the same space creates the potential for catastrophic results. I would be very leery about considering high energy density batteries in the confined space of my boat. The energy density of today's lithium ion batteries used in small electronics is much greater than what we can get in large format cells/batteries and it is bound to stay as such for a long time to come. The correlation between energy density and rate capability is difficult for manufacturers to overcome. The basic internal design of high rate batteries is quite different from those designed for high rate capability (which we typically use on a boat - both as house and starter battery banks.)

What we typically see as lithium ion chemistry in 12V marine power are iron phosphate batteries. They are inherently safer than other chemistries but that is largely due to the fact that they are much lower in energy density. If they had the capability to match the energy density of a cobalt or nickel based li-ion cell, they would not be considered anywhere near as safe as they currently are. These iron phosphate cells also typically suffer from self discharge issues and require expensive cell balancing within the full battery pack. The costs compared to a very high quality lead acid battery are still much higher. There are many other areas on my boat where I would spend the additional money before I would 'upgrade' to an iron phosphate house bank.

One thing of note: This thread should NOT be called Lithium batteries but Lithium Ion batteries. There is a significant difference between a lithium battery and a lithium ion battery. There is NO lithium in a lithium-ion battery!

[hellosailor]

Leo-
I think we all have a reasonable suspicion, based on past behavior, that Google's driverless cars will be pretty good right out of the box. And, if we're driving past a Walgreen's, they'll offer us a dollar discount on the ride if we stop to make a purchase over five dollars. Or perhaps, they'll stop a quarter mile away, and insist they are in the right place despite evidence to the contrary. (Reporting errors in Google Maps is always fun. Sometimes, they even rewrite history and geography, like the USSR did.)
Then when they've gotten the kinks out, they'll tell us that a more streamlined car is only possible if we lie down in the trunk, no choice about it.
But it still may be better than the average driver today.


"It's a green light ! A green light! What do I do what do I do ?!"

[Leo Ticheli]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Leo-
I think we all have a reasonable suspicion, based on past behavior, that Google's driverless cars will be pretty good right out of the box. And, if we're driving past a Walgreen's, they'll offer us a dollar discount on the ride if we stop to make a purchase over five dollars. Or perhaps, they'll stop a quarter mile away, and insist they are in the right place despite evidence to the contrary. (Reporting errors in Google Maps is always fun. Sometimes, they even rewrite history and geography, like the USSR did.)
Then when they've gotten the kinks out, they'll tell us that a more streamlined car is only possible if we lie down in the trunk, no choice about it.
But it still may be better than the average driver today.


"It's a green light ! A green light! What do I do what do I do ?!"

Ha! That reminds me of all the car/computer jokes, but I don't think we'll be asked to reboot and reinstall the software PC style.

I'm pretty sure the functionally of "driverless" cars will be limited at first, fixed routes for commercial vehicles, cruising after entering and before leaving the highway for passenger cars, so no danger of the Apple Maps fiasco.

The pro side is safer travel, much more efficient "taxi" service, and lower cost of transporting goods; the con side is displacement of many thousands of commercial drivers and some of the businesses that cater to them. This is just one sector of the economy; we're going to face existential challenges as tech eliminates jobs. The hope that high tech would actually produce more jobs than it destroys is proving to be false.

Fair winds,

Leo

[hellosailor]

Leo-
If Google Cars are based on the Android OS, we can probably expect the same minor inconvenience when the OS "goes out to lunch" from time to time and the entire system simply locks up. That may be problematic if the car is in motion at the time.(G)


But the Apple maps fiasco, was nothing new. Google did it for years, and still does it. They had a major league stadium in Sunrise, Florida, near Fort Laud. And for over two years the mayor of Sunrise tried to contact Google, because Google Maps was directing people four hours away, near Tampa on the west coast, when they asked for directions to Sunrise. He finally took it to the Nooze, and Google managed to change that. But they still would put a REAL cartographer to shame. AFAIK every computer cartography company (except NOAA(G) has botched their mapping, from DeLorme (who use intentional errors as a means of checking copyright theft) to ESRI, who used to route trucks over "no commercial traffic, limited access highway" in their early routing projects.
Mapping the globe: Big project. Mapping the globe on the cheap? ROFL! sigh.


But I really think driverless cars are a "simple" matter of programming, plus legislative support, once you can get enough cpu power into the car. Insurance? Right, we have the courts to figure that out after the fact, and whoever is running (making, programming) the cars will have to carry the usual commercial/taxi insurance wherever they are operating. I really look forward to it.

[goboatingnow]

If you examine the current state of driverless cars you realise there is a significant amount of work needed to make these devices applicable to real life. I'm also waiting for commercial fusion , I think I will see that before I see lots of driverless cars passingly door !

I'm long enough in this game to remember ehternet being introduced. I remember how long that took to become mainstream too.

Kids today have tech memories about 5 years old. When that's the case sure everything looks new and shiney

( sheesh I sound like my dad !!!)

Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[mrm]

Originally Posted by Stumble

[...] assuming that a fossil fuel engine converts 30%of its possible power to heat[...]

Unfortunately, Diesel cycle engine converts only approximately 25% of available heat energy to mechanical work. The rest is a waste heat.

Diesel cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles

Still much better energy density than batteries, though.

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by mrm

Unfortunately, Diesel cycle engine converts only approximately 25% of available heat energy to mechanical work. The rest is a waste heat.

Diesel cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles

Still much better energy density than batteries, though.

The efficiency is vastly improved when you factor in the calorifier in the system that uses the waste heat from the engine to give you the tank full of hot water for your shower and the alternator that converts some of that rotational energy back into electrical energy to charge your batteries. So in that respect the humble marine diesel is more energy efficient than it's land based cousin.

Keiron

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by appick

I'm excited to see the Chevy Bolt come out in 2016 200 all electric range $30k price tag.

You are about the only one excited based on the money they lose per car on the company side and the low number of Dolts...oops...I mean Volts sold per year.

[jimbunyard]

This guy makes some good points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=