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!"
"Light on details" (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, that'd be the hydrogen
Simon.
Recharge? (Score:5, Funny)
Tech : No, sir. You should NOT try to recharge them like that...
Re:"Light on details" (Score:3, Informative)
Erioll
Re:"Light on details" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Light on details" (Score:5, Informative)
"Environmental Acceptability - Because fuel cells are so efficient, CO2 emissions are reduced for a given power output. The fuel cell is quiet, emitting only 60 decibels at 100 feet. Emissions of SOx and NOx are 0.003 and 0.0004 pounds/megawatt-hour respectively. Fuel cells can be designed as water self-sufficient. "
The complete reaction is explained there as well.
Early Adopter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the thought of a liquid methanol next to all those hot electronics make me wince.
Akmed to airport security: "I told you, I'm a laptop battery salesman..."
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad state of affairs, but PR and marketing can make all the difference to the acceptance of a nascent technologh.
Changing the name (Score:5, Funny)
Booze Battery?
Vodka Wattsa?
Gin-erator (or En-Gin)?
Re:Changing the name (Score:2, Funny)
I really don't know what kind of words sell products these days.
If we copy current naming conventions for portable electronics, it should probably start with a lowercase 'i', 'c' or 'x' and maybe incorporate the term 'eXtreme'.
It might be best if we can get the advice of the group that decided to rebrand 'jungle' as 'rain forest', 'swamp' as 'wetlands' and 'copy restriction license violation' as 'theft'.
Re:Changing the name (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:5, Informative)
There is zero chance of one catching fire in your pocket too. You can't say that about the LiIon cell in your Tungsten T3.
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:4, Funny)
Well I might, depending on what kind of person you are. But in general I wouldn't.
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:4, Informative)
I think he meant more that it won't catch on fire, rather than you can safely drink it. The ethanol comparison only referred to relative concentrations of the flamable substance (40% served as drinks, vs 20% in fuel cells, neither of which will light on fire).
For a comparison of safety of chemicals involved, modern batteries contain things that will not only will harm you if ingested, but they will burn skin on contact. Methanol might dry out your skin (like an astringent), but comes nowhere near an actual caustic burn.
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:2, Informative)
One problem with methanol is that it easily soaks right through your skin into your bloodstream. According to one MSDS I have read, the potential exposure level through skin absorption can be comparable to that of directly inhaling methanol vapors.
Be careful!
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:Early Adopter? (Score:2)
FWIW, Methanol does have a lower flashpoint (12C) than ethanol (16.6C). Having them in solutions does help to mitigate the flammability hazards, granted.
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:2, Interesting)
See here. [iupui.edu]
Re:Early Adopter? (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, the thought of a liquid methanol next to all those hot electronics make me wince.
I'm sure the though of having 10-20 gallons of GAS! just a yard away from your ass, and forcing the gas into cylinders where it will be mixed with air and EXPLODE thousands of times a second might also make you wince!
I guess I can cross of full cells for the Palm, and cars from your x-mas wish list. :)
Let's do that math, kids. (Score:2, Redundant)
GodDAMN! Let's just do the calculations, there. I'll say thousands = 2000, for arguments' sake. 2000 of times a second for each cylinder firing. So, for a standard rice-burner, let's call it a 4-banger...at 7,000 RPMs, you're talking 14,000 explosions per minute.
Ok, so for 2000 explosions per second, you'd need at least...what? around 60,000 RPMs. (30,000 or so for a V-8)
You
Re:Let's do that math, kids. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good reason to get a clear cased pda (Score:2, Interesting)
which reg link, you ask? (Score:3, Informative)
Gadget Integration Gone Too Far (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gadget Integration Gone Too Far (Score:2)
Is that anything like the cigarette lighter camera? [thinkgeek.com]
Competing Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Competing Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw fuel cells. I want atomic!
didn't you get the memo? (Score:3, Offtopic)
you're supposed to ignore the inescapeable pollution and toxins that fossil fuels and lead-acid batteries dump into our atmosphere, and forget that nuclear power provides at the very least the opportunity for sealed system waste.
nope, we'd rather be 100% certain that we're asphyxiating ourselves and the planet rather than run the risk of irradiating a designated part of it.
any talk of a nuclea
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 fe
Re:didn't you get the memo? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you smoking crack? Alpha emissions are indeed incapable of penetrating our dead outer layer of skin--but that does not make them harmless. If ingested or inhaled, alpha emitters are extremely dangerous. Alpha radiation is a much more effective mutagen (and consequently carcinogen) than beta or gamma radiation, precisely because it has poor penetrating power. All of the energy each alpha particle carries is deposited along a short path, doing significantly more damage--causing things like double-stranded DNA breaks. One mechanism by which cigarettes may cause cancer is mutations in the lungs caused by inhaled polonium-210 particles from tobacco. (Po-210 is an alpha emitter.)
Many alpha emitters are also potent chemical poisons, such that their direct toxic effects on exposure (ingestion) can kill more quickly than their radiological ones. (Plutonium, for instance, falls into this basket.)
People will crush these things inadvertantly, they'll leave them out in the rain, they'll lose them, they'll leave dozens of cells in their office drawers, they'll throw them out with the regular trash, they'll dispose of them by incineration. (All the stupid things that people do with batteries now.)
Power cells containing high specific activity nuclear materials are an interesting concept, but they do not belong in consumer products--because consumers will do incredibly stupid things with them. Radioisotopes require competent supervision.
For the record, I am a physicist.
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 t
Re:Competing Technology (Score:2)
Clicky, clicky [wired.com]
Alternative Reasons (Score:2, Funny)
EtOH (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:EtOH (Score:3, Informative)
Re:EtOH (Score:2)
Nope... it proves my point.
Instead of poisoning the ethanol with methanol, they poison it with 15% gasoline (probably because it's cheaper).
Either way it prevents people from drinking it.
My point is that they won't make something that runs on pure ethanol because they can't sell pure ethanol - the dept. of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms would take issue with that.
Re:EtOH (Score:2)
they sell it all over the place over here.. when finland joined eu methanol started appearing on wiper fluids & etc(because eu allows it) around here.
now.. in the middle europe there is no reason for anyone to be drinking wiper fluids when you can get vodka at the same place at comparable prices.
needless to say that we have ridiculous alcohol taxes only rivalled by even more ridiculous laws at norway..
well what's a poor s
Re:EtOH (Score:2)
" denaturalized ethanol(that's made to taste like crap, like really really crap)."
I wouldn't know... I try to avoid drinking things that cause blindness and death [syndel.com].
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:Why not ethanol (Score:2)
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.
And they'd pay a lot of extra taxes.
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
Re:Why not ethanol (Score:2)
That's just to get the last of the water out of it, to get it beyond the 90ish% alcohol in water you can reach by distilation.
But the fuel cell doesn't NEED water-free alcohol. In fact, it needs VERY DILUTE alcohol - so dilute that they use the water from the reaction to further dilute the supplied alcohol (which is WAY under 90%). So there'd be no need to use benzene on ethanol to make it suitable for the fuel cell.
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 diff
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.
Re:Enough with the marketing speak... (Score:2)
Not at all. I think the problem is there are relatively few people who would know or care about those specs. Most people want to know something to which they can relate, like hours of use. You and I know that it's a relatively useless measure, but the general population knows of no other way.
It's the same reason we get sizes measured in "Libraries of Congress." Nebulous and useless, but people at least think the
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:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, we should ban forks from planes.
Let's be realistic -- there's only so much you can do.
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:3, Funny)
I know you were joking, but they did. About 9 months ago, I was stopped by security when doing the pre-boarding check and given the third degree. It turns out that I had a fork in my backpack that I kept just in case and had forgotten about. They actually made me throw it away before I could get on the plane, and double checked everything I had to make sure I wasn't carrying anything else I could hijack the plane with. (Yeah, because there's no way you could
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
Yep, many bars won't let you have glass beer bottles because of the danger of using it as a weapon, and they don't even have metal detectors on the door, but on an aircraft, glass bottles are no problem.
Don't these guys watch movies?
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
It's amazing how fast a little safety can be sold for a lot of money.
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
Shows how long since you last flew; utensils ARE already banned.
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could all start thinking rationally.... Which one of those is more likely?
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
Oh for just one more point! You'd get a +1 Insight for sure! As it is, I spent the last one this morning...
GTRacer
- Parent makes sense
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
I've a 47WHr battery and my laptop can last me 3 hours on a plane, easy; or roughly 16W is consumed by my laptop...
50 W Laptop of tomorrow (Score:2)
I agree that most current laptops don't consume 50W (your figure of 16 W is more representative). But it seems that laptop power consumption is on the rise, especially with the advent of "desktop replacement machines". It also seems that one rationale for fuel cells would be to provide larger power budgets for smaller devices (to support 64-bit processors, larger displays, and watt-guzzling graphics chips for gaming). Thus, the 50W is an
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:2)
I bet you read the 300 word article and just missed these 30 words:
The water produced by the electricity-generating chemical reaction is used to dilute the fuel down to the right concentra
Weight of dilute fuel (Score:2)
"The water produced by the electricity-generating chemical reaction is used to dilute the fuel down to the right concentration, 3-6 per cent, needed for the reaction to take place."
Yes I did miss those 30 words, mea culpa, I should have RTFA more closely.
Yet dilution creates other problems. One of the articles suggests a 20% MeOH concentration. This suggests that with a 50 W device and a75% efficient fuel cell, the poor traveller
Re:Laptop power consumption & airplane securit (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to bringing any flammable liquid onboard in a soda bottle? People should already realize that the "extra security" in airports an other public places is an absurd waste of travelers' and taxpayers' time and money. It is possible to kill another person with a simple towel after a few weeks training. Glass from picture frames or many other
Cool, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Whoah. You're running CE, aren't you?
I mean, it's a great use for them, but doesn't that get expensive?
CH3OH (Score:5, Funny)
Vague on details (Score:2)
Interesting none the less, but there wasn't much meat
The details (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The details (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The details (Score:2)
Uh... drink it?
Rechargeable? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a hard time seeing these things catch on if they are one time use.
-Pete
Re:Rechargeable? (Score:2, Informative)
story is from yesterday... (Score:2)
Smokey the Bear says... (Score:4, Funny)
Remember what Smokey the Bear says. Only you can prevent your methanol based fuel cell system from starting a forest fire.
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.
Cool photo my slim anus (Score:2)
It'd be a cooler photo if the dude spent an extra 15 minutes in 3DS Max. That is approximately the least realistic product pre-viz I've ever seen. I don't hold it against the Reg, because it probably never occured to them that someone would begin to think that it was supposed to be a photo.
Scuze me.
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: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 rechargi [backcountr...ipment.com]
My only grief... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you think it would be cool to take a sip from your PDA on cold days?
Why would the public want to......... (Score:2)
Or is the industry just ignoring that little question and is proceeding full steam ahead so the manufacturers can make a lot of money before people wake the fuck up?
Fuel Cells Hazard (Score:3, Funny)
Recharging cradle? (Score:2)
Imagine that bugger sitting on your desk. So much for small and compact.
-Pete
Should I be investing in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I don't believe that these fuel-cells will be designed to be customer refillable. Following HP, Lexmark and other printer manufacturers, I would expect the fuel-cells to be designed for just one use (return to place of purchase and buy a factory new one).
Along with this, I'm sure there will be warnings/campaigns stating that home refilling solutions will be dangerous, ruin the fuel cell because of improper chemical ingrediants, have significantly less operating time, void your laptop/PDA's warranty or cause you to grow hair on the palms of your hands.
Most of the posts I've seen in this thread make the assumption that the cells can be refilled by the user. I would be very surprised if this was the case.
myke
Re:Should I be investing in... (Score:3, Informative)
Luckily we'll have ebay, and it'll you'll be able to buy 10 refills for $.99. Of course, it'll cost you $20 in shipping and handling for the 1.5lb package.
Lighters? Oh no! (Score:2)
Coming soon... (Score:3, Funny)
For all those concerned with airport security etc (Score:2)
It's like a stronger wine or quite weak liquor. It just won't burn!
The Real Problem is not the technology... (Score:2)
If the fuel cell depletes after 6-8 hours and you can't find fuel cells or fuel then it's not gonna sell at all!
If the fuel cells cost more then a few cents then they won't sell either. I for one will not buy fuel cells for over $1 that only last 6-8 hours! Also there would need to be a recycling program for spent cells.
Othe
The other side of the portable power crisis... (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as progress may benefit from free markets, this is an area where it is being confined to increments just slightly better than currently available products in order to derive maximum profit. This is a revolution tha
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
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2)
supposely this battery lasts for 7-8 hrs. You can fly almost anywhere (and in most cases, back) in 8 hrs.
Never been to Tokyo from New York, have you? Why not try Australia? The San Francisco-Melbourne flight is about 14 hours nonstop, as I recall.
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2, Interesting)
The question I have is where the water
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2)
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:4, Informative)
GAH!
1. Read
2. Think
3. Post
It's very simple.
It's right in the story. 20% solution. Non-flamable. In fact the device *can't work* with pure methanol. It needs a 3-6% solution. I'd hardly call making it non-flamable the same as making it useless. Making it non-flamable is the *only way* to make it useful.
Look at it from the terrorist point of view (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Look at it from the terrorist point of view (Score:2)
Re:'Terrorist' risk? (Score:2)
Re:Looking down the line (Score:5, Insightful)
The fuel cell industry needs to work on it's terminology to stop the misguided myth generation.
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.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:Lithium Polymer ion batteries are the future (Score:2)
Re:20% solution? (Score:2)
Re:20% solution? (Score:2)
That's why they use 20% instead of, say, 80% (which, was it possible, could last 4 times longer).
Slowing down diffusion is not very hard, just place a ceramic layer around the reaction area.