Electric Batteries for Cars

Wot?

OK.

Why not make parts of the road system "Scalextric", with a pick-up system that charges the vehicle while it is moving? The driver merely aligns the vehicle with the slot in the road, drops a steering/pickup skate into the slot, and picks up enough wallop for another N miles/km while travelling. Instant solution to range anxiety!

I seem to recall a system that Buick (under GM) was doing this for their smart highway system or something like that. They had several cars running along a test strip following inches from each other and being powered by a system like the maglev.

A maglev system has no moving parts as far as energy transfer goes. It would be hellaciously expensive to do this on a scale as large as the US interstate system though.

No, any and all transportation systems must have at least one moving part for obvious reasons.

I believe the smart highway test bed did not power the vehicles but permitted intelligence to be transmitted between vehicles so that an auto-pilot drafting scenario could happen where the lead vehicle could control all in the train of self powered cars. This is completely different from what Gordon Danby and James Powell pioneered.

The usual slot-car system would be a bit problematic at useful power ratings. I'd put the power rails on the back side of the side crash rail. To engage, you'd just steer over, and a roller would keep you off the rail, while flipping your pickup arm underneath to grab the rail and hook up. Fortunately, carbon brushes are compact and efficient at higher voltages, which would be safe from casual human contact there. Once hooked up, you'd have a bit of compliance from the trolley arm, and could enjoy automatic steering, spacing, and braking. Thus the space taken up between lane pairs with rails would be quickly repaid with denser traffic seeking better economy.

Good system but why bother with the battery?

I also like the idea of easy to change batteries, one or two charging one in use. Not necessary to have complex equipment to change them if they and the vehicle are designed with some ergonomics around battery swaps.

So a good design might include some of this:

• allow Joe Average to charge the batteries at home (as easy as filling a vehicle with fuel)
• supply a solar/wind/whatever charger (these might also be available at remote locations such as parking lots, fuel stations)
• The batteries will be standard shape/power etc. and compatible across all EVs (not like laptops and cellphones where every make and model is different - it's FUEL it should be compatible across all EV vehicles!)
• Be designed such that Joe Average can easily remove and replace the batteries (again as easy as filling a vehicle with fuel)
• Upgrades/future improvements to the batteries should be backwards compatible (again it's FUEL it should not require a major change to the vehicle to use the newer improved FUEL!)

What about the 80 year old grandma that can't pick up the battery? Do we go back to the "good ol' days" and have gas station attendants?

Just thought I'd pose the question.

Your are assuming the battery is a one-piece heavy unit. No reason they could not be designed to be multiple units that weigh less. Just load up as many as you need for the trip.

"I also like the idea of easy to change batteries, one or two charging one in use. Not necessary to have complex equipment to change them if they and the vehicle are designed with some ergonomics around battery swaps."

Many people have restrictions on what they can lift say 2-3 lbs (prescribed by their Dr.) How many would you need to change out to get a days driving in?

OK so it's one or two "sets" of batteries. I'm just suggesting some ides that could help if it were designed to be "easy as filling up with gas". Before any of this could come to be there would need to be improvements in technology, which is what this string kind of started out to discuss.

How do you think Stephen Hawking changes the battery to his wheel chair?

That's just wrong but had to laugh anyway. Thanks I needed that one.

Obviously its done by voice command!

_{He is one of my vary favorite people.}

Once again you've shown a grossly inaccurate use of technical terms, but have stumbled onto a new concept being researched today. There is a team at MIT that is working on a liquid battery that can be refueled.

I agree that rapid refueling will be the answer to the electric vehicle. What I do not understand is why all EV batteries are so difficult to remove? With the possible exception of a liquid battery, I expect that the EV of the future (if there is one) will have a standard battery pack that can be either recharged in-situ at home or swapped out at recharge stations with fully charged batteries. One could even own two battery packs, one re-charging at home while the other operates the vehicle.

WOW! So finally somebody (MIT) is working in just the same direction that I propose!.

They are using slurries of metal particles. Aluminium has an enormous potential, it is extremely cheap, and extremely nontoxic or dangerous. Plus its extreme light weight.

I hope they are using it solving all the problems previously found..

The battery swap system is not as good as this.

Think of the poor litle "Electric Gas Station" in your neighborhood that needs to have a complex swapping machine, plus a certain amount of batteries for peak hours, instead of a simple pump and a storage tank.

Most, even small, refueling station have several pumps in a row. Imagine the cost of several Swapping Machines, plus the space they would need around.

No match.

chorete

"... instead of a simple pump and a storage tank."

No, two pumps and two storage tanks (keeping it simple).

The electrolyte must be drained/pumped out of the vehicle and stored.

Or, will unscrupulous dealers mix de-energized 'juice' with the good 'juice'? How would you know?

Well actually if you look at the MIT diagram I would expect at least four storage tanks (new anode, old anode, new cathode, old cathode) and a minimum of two pumps. All of the plumbing would have to be non-reactive.

I think electric cars are a great idea... but today there are simply too many operational restrictions to them... Not enough range; too slow to recharge; won't work well in cold weather, and won't go at all in the snow; underpowered; initial expense... blah, blah, blah, we have had these discussions at CR4 before.

When electric battery (or maybe some version of Mr Fusion) powered fire apparatus (a fire truck) is the norm, I will know that the electric vehicle has evolved into full bloom. These small steps of discovery will get us there... maybe... eventually.

I thought that torque was strong in an electric vehicle. Wouldn't that be what you would need in the snow? The cold weather problem has been partially solved by Leaf and Volt engineers.

Why not just invent something that sucks electrons out of the air and shoots them into your battery.

Picture a bunch of fly swatters stuck all over the body of the car (and underneath, too) that magically extract all that wasted power just waiting to be used.

I thought that was the 'Ionacceleratorencabulator' (automotive version) someone was talking about?

But what happens to all the leftover protons anyway? Do they have to be gathered and stored, creating huge proton mountains (or lakes) that the EU has to subsidize, eventually selling off cheap to third-world nations or using taxpayers money to dispose of them in oceans or outer-space?

Silly boy. You've heard of carbon sequestration, right?

Well LynDoor™ Industries has just patented a proton sequestration system that will revolutionize the generation of power. These sequestered protons will strip an electron off of carbon atoms, or dirt, and will rise to the surface to be recycled by the next passing vehicle equipped with LynDoor™ Swattergetter technology.

At night when you get home, just plug it into your household wiring and power the house all night.

LynDoor™ Industries, your window to the future.

OK, this is at least as believable as some of the stuff our friend has proposed.

You never forget lyn.

I cant quite figure out where your numbers are coming form but from what I understand of battery technology over the last 30 years the battery's based on the lithium variants are pushing at least 10x the storage power per volume as what the common lead acid battery's did 30 years ago.

Thirty years ago the first real production EV's like the Ford Electrica, I owned, where even then able to run 20 - 30 miles on a single charge at typical 55 MPH highway speeds and even further in low speed stop and go situations on nothing more than 16 deep cycle golf cart batterys.

What seems odd to me is that some 30 years later and a 10x plus gain in battery energy storage density only gave us a 2 - 3x increase in rage on average despite the supposed efficiency gains on the drive trains and the additions of such energy savers as regen braking ability and light wheight composit body structures.

So how do these supposedly super efficient drive trains and 10x more capacity battery's only gain a marginal increase over what is basically nothing more than electric forklift drive tech from 30+ years ago?

If I had taken my old original design 1984 Ford Electrica and doubled its motor and controller capacity and then had changed to a lithium based battery system it could have easily ran at 65 MPH average speeds for well over 100 miles between charges or possibly close to 300+ in stop and go traffic which would make it practical and competitive with the vast majority of daily inner city and suburban driving situations.

So where did the EV tech spiral out of control at to end up giving us what is available today which are little more than fashion statements and expensive golf carts for rich tree huggers to stroke their ego's with?

OFF TOPIC:

Let me express my anger with the fact that, being a poor man, I cannot have access to the article from MIT. I find this extremely injust (unjust). Science is for the advance of the whole Mankind. If an article HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, I do not see the reason why it cannot be made accesible to everybody, including poor people, that may have something to add. Please do not use the argument that poets need to put a price to their books. Scienists get paid otherways.

chorete

That is odd. MIT has also made it free to audit any of their courses on-line at one time. Perhaps a student can help out. The Sustainable Tech field will always have skilled workers who choose to stay low-budget in all things.

Dear Redfred. By your comments it seems that you got access to the MIT paper.

Would it be possible to get a copy from you?.

Thanks.

chorete

While my work does grant me access to the MIT paper, I have not read any of the scholastic paper. All that I did read came from a search on the name MIT gave their fluids. I got the name from another search using the words "liquid battery". I will not give you a copy of the original paper because this can quickly get me fired with the latest tracking software available at work. Giving away another person's work is highly frowned upon at work.

If it's a "published" paper available in the public domain, wouldn't it be the same as giving someone your old newspaper? Is it illegal if I paid for the access and then passed it on to someone when I was done with it? Is this akin to piracy?

I don't see it as giving away someone's work...more like sharing a book.

It's intellectual property. Not the same as a newspaper.

More like a computer program... what happens if you share those?

[edit] The MIT link doesn't have a price for the paper; you have to place an order (I guess) to find out how much. I have ordered a few of this type of thing in the past, they were something like $35.00. Saved me WEEKS of investigation. How many months/years of someone's work can Chorete (in this circumstance) gain for $35.00?

Some researchers, thankfully, also publish their intellectual property to the net after it appears in "print" somewhere.

I would assume, however, that the authors would rather have their information out there for everyone to use. That is the entire purpose for the research being released to begin with. The institutions they work for are the ones who make it a pay-to-play issue.

Congratulations, you just reinvented the flow battery.

I envision another system

steam powered

the boiler is fired with stacks of $100 bills

You might be interested in this:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-energy-storage-device-recharge-electric.html

The article on graphene batteries is very confusing. It is suspicious that they refer to the battery capacity in kW/Kg (Wrong unit).

It appears that the battery does not have more capacity but it is able to take a full charge very fast due to the enormous surface of the graphene.

May be,it is possible to have a capacitor that stores energy by capacitance and also by an electron exchange reaction at the electrodes.

So I was wrong when I said that the maximum energy you can store in a battery depends only in electronegativity of the electrodes used. Independent of the type of design. NO if you use the same electrodes as a capacitor too.

I do ot know if this is possible, but it looks like this is not what the graphene battery is intended to do.

chorete

The article states ..."except that it's not a battery".

It also states "...power density of 100 kW/kgcell". This is the power delivery as if it were a power generating apparatus, such as a generator, which it is.

Actually this is more like a super duper capacitor* and not a generator. Maybe one could relate this to a gyroscopic flywheel and generator/motor combination of inertial energy storage that won't have the complication of rotational inertia to the handling of a vehicle.

_{*Since there are already super capacitors and this new technology will likely exceed a super capacitor (if successful) I had to use this silly term.}