Hitachi Readies Fuel Cell for PDAs 205
Anuj Jain writes "The Register is reporting that Hitachi and Japanese cigarette lighter maker Tokai will ship a direct methanol fuel cell system for PDAs in 2005. The prototype has already been built. The two companies believe they can develop the prototype into a device the size of a AA battery. Hitachi first demonstrated its fuel cell system back in March. NEC is also known to be working on a similar system of its own, as is Toshiba. Unlike Hitachi, they are targeting the notebook computer market. In October, Toshiba showed off a PDA-sized version of its fuel system that can recharge a mobile phone. Another article here. Light on details, but cool photo in the Reg article!"
Good reason to get a clear cased pda (Score:2, Interesting)
'Terrorist' risk? (Score:1, Interesting)
I can just imagine a business traveler trying to argue his way into letting security let him take a 'recharge' of pure methanol onboard the plane.
EtOH (Score:5, Interesting)
Enough with the marketing speak... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's meaningless! Give me some hard data! What's the voltage, the peak and average current ratings, the amp-hours? Can it blink a handheld LED for 6 hours, or run a 400Mhz ARM core with a backlit color display for 6 hours? Is the power density higher than an LiIon battery of the same size? How much does it cost? Can it be refilled in place without turning off the device?
Seems to me that if this was actually signifigant progress, they'd be telling us all this.
Laptop power consumption & airplane security (Score:5, Interesting)
Something tells me that airlines and security people won't like the idea of people carrying 4 ounce cartridges of flammable pure methyl alcohol onboard flights. Even in a "secure" cartridge form factor, the liquid would seem to pose a hazard if a terrorist learns how to open the cartridge and set fire to the liquid.
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2, Interesting)
and mind you, that's 8 hrs *continuous use*. The battery on my palm will last for 4 hours on continuous use, but if I don't actively use it, it could last for months.
My point is, that if the battery does last this long, then there would be no use to take a recharge on the plane with you (at least not in your carry-on luggage).
Even if you were on vacation or something and you needed to recharge, I'm sure (by the time this technology is viable) that it would be fairly redily available at a specialty store (like radio shack). If other markets start using this tech, there will be a higher demand for availability of methanol.
Just my $0.02
/nova20
The details (Score:2, Interesting)
Rechargeable? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a hard time seeing these things catch on if they are one time use.
-Pete
Re:EtOH (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple, you can't drink methanol.
If they made it run on ethanol, moonshine would have to be legalized.
This is why, when you go to Home Depot to buy a gallon can of alcohol for cleaning or fuel, it's denatured (ethanol mixed with methanol to poison it).
No, you can't run it on cheap vodka, whiskey, or any other kind of legally sold consumable alcohol, as there's far too many impurities - it would destroy the cell.
Now making it run on denatured alcohol would be ideal, since it is readily available and extremely inexpensive. I'm not sure it won't run on it, in fact it probably will.
Answer: (Score:1, Interesting)
Why not ethanol (Score:5, Interesting)
If they use ethanol, they have to treat the refills just as they would have to treat vodka - they cannot sell it to anybody under-age, they have to have a liquor license to sell it, they got to prison if they violate the rules.
That is why you don't see pure ethanol at the gas pump, that is why you won't see ethanol fuel for fuel cells.
Now, the COULD try to design the fuel cell to run on ethanol, as well, and leave the fact as a "back door" sort of issue, but any fuel they sell will have to be denatured in some form. The easiest way is to use methanol.
Re:The details (Score:2, Interesting)
Hurry up damnitall! (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the airplane problem, first, I don't think there will be any regulation or rules on this until it actually becomes a problem. I mean, they still let you carry a cigarette lighter and a bottle of booze onto a plane and that is no worse. The first second someone sets fire to the inside of a cabin, though, how long do you think before no liquor or fire-making devices are allowed as carry on's?
Now, follow this idea here -- If fuel cells actually exist and are cheap and great AND they have been around long enough and are ubiquitous enough that the airlines have a problem with them it would be highly likely that EVERYONE is walking around with one or more of these things in all manner of electronic gadget they posess. It's also likely that the gadgets have grown increasingly more demanding power wise after the dependence on batteries is freed. Thus, using batteries is really kind of a non option. In order to keep business, airlines would have to do something such as provide reliable and universal alternative power supplies on the airliners or lose business. It's not a problem I'm worrying about. I don't see why people feel the need to keep bringing it up. It's not like we'll even be flying around in planes anymore once these things come to market in about 200 years.
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
The fuel is non-flamable. It's 80% water.
it doesn't change the fact that conventional batteries will probably still be safer.
You are wrong. These are safer in every way. The real question is wether they hold enough power to be better than what we already use.
as per usual (Score:4, Interesting)
Then what? Do I buy more cells? Can I plug them into the wall and recharge them?
At least with my AA's and my Laptop I can just charge them when they die. I've used my AA's [GP1600s] since May 2001 quite a bit and they're still going strong [I'd say they count as environmentally friendly considering if you estimate I would have gone through 4AAs a week for two years that's 416AA batteries or roughly 27lbs of waste].
Anyways make a "fuel cell" I can top off with tap water or by plugging into my wall and then maybe I'll consider it [a 1.5v/3Ah AA battery would be nice
Tom
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, even if a security guard understands your reasoning, I doubt that you can still get on with "chemicals".
Re:EtOH (Score:3, Interesting)
My educated guess is that it's more desirable to strip hydrogen off methanol than ethanol to get hydrogen for the fuel cell operation than ethanol. (Desirable here could be cost, package size, efficiency, whatever - I'm no expert.) I do know that you get *slightly* more hydrogen per mass of ethanol (6/46 vs 4/32) than you do per mass of methanol - so i'm not sure. But, methanol is easier to vaporize, might have different corrosion properties...*shrug*
This is all entirely speculation, but it sure sounds like I know about the topic on which I'm speaking.
Re:Competing Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw fuel cells. I want atomic!
My only grief... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you think it would be cool to take a sip from your PDA on cold days?
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:2, Interesting)
See here. [iupui.edu]
Re:as per usual (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say they count as environmentally friendly considering if you estimate I would have gone through 4AAs a week for two years that's 416AA batteries or roughly 27lbs of waste.
As opposed to the 27 lbs. of carbon dioxide created from the coal-burning power plants that provided the energy to your house required to recharge those batteries.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Of course, that's just a rough estimate and doesn't take into account whether you've got one of those funky solar-powered recharging kits... [backcountr...ipment.com]
Re:didn't you get the memo? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Nuclear energy is *cleaner* than fossil fuels and battery chemicals.
2. "Nuclear waste" is a misnomer as that stuff can be reused in devices such as RTGs, SRGs, medical applications, and industrial equipment! The stuff that can't be reused can be reprocessed pretty easily. Currently, the government has shut down nuclear reprocessing for fear of "terrorists" getting ahold of nuclear materials.
3. Most nuclear materials are either not useful to terrorists, or can be found fairly easily. There are only a few materials that are good for Fission. These materials are carefully guarded by controlled by the nuclear capable governments. Most of the resulting byproducts of fission cannot be used for fission. Some can be used for "dirty bombs", but so can a lot of more common materials (such as naturally occurring Uranium). "Dirty Bombs" can also be cleaned up, and much of the radiation would be absorbed or blocked by buildings and concrete.
4. Some forms of radiation (e.g. alpha and beta) are not even a serious threat! Alpha radiation is incapable of penetrating the skin. Beta radiation can only do so in large quantities, and then it's akin to getting a strong electric shock. (i.e. Lots of burns and such.)
The truth of the matter is, the more power a material puts out, the more dangerous it is. Lithium Ion batteries, NIMH, NiCad, etc. all contain extremely poisonous materials. Circuit boards often have strong carcinogens. Lubricants, radiator fluids, cleaning supplies, etc. are all dangerous too. You can't say that a few grams (or even pounds) of a radioisotope sealed inside a shield (that isn't even all that dangerous unshielded) is going to cause more damage than all the chemicals we use today. Poppycock, I say!
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2, Interesting)
The question I have is where the water is going to go? All of the fuel cells that have been demoed, including the mini-methanol ones the size of 3 quarters stacked, pump out a fair bit of water for the size. Where is it going to go? Is there a resevoir where this water is going to slosh about that you have to empty periodically? or is your PDA just going to be peeing in your lap as you read your emails?
Re:didn't you get the memo? (Score:3, Interesting)
YES, people do stupid things. That's called pollution. Haven't you heard all the commercials about properly disposing of your chemicals and batteries?
Besides, the amount of radioisotope scales with the application. A cell phone would need barely a few grams. A laptop might need a hundred grams. Seal these in the proper container (e.g. Lead), and you'll have an efficient heater. The heater powers the engine, which powers the device. And if you use an isotope like Strontium-90, the few idiots who do grind up the lead container wouldn't add much more radioisotope pollution to our groundwater than already exists from the cold war. (Look up the EPA documents if you don't believe me.)