Sony Develops Buckyball Fuel Cell 188
Jonny Marx wrote to mention a post over at Digital World Tokyo detailing Sony's latest fuel cell technology, which uses Fullerenes (Buckyballs) to achieve a lot of power in a little space. From the article: "... The technology looks like a significant step in the right direction toward the development of DMFCs powerful enough to supplement or replace lithium batteries for handheld gadgets. Methanol leakage and power output have been the devilish details that have stopped DMFCs becoming widespread, along with regulations that are still being hammered out to allow methanol to be carried aboard passenger aircraft, and a methanol fuel infrastructure, i.e. being able to pick up refills at Japan's ubiquitous konbini (convenience stores) for example."
Carry a fuel can with you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Realistically, I think they'll have to develop some kind of disposable delivery system, maybe something that looks like batteries, that you jam into your gadget and throw away when it's out of fuel (or maybe it could be refillable). Question would be, how much fuel do you need to give you, say, 15 hours of play time? Would it fit in one or two double-A size batteries, or would you need to carry around a jug of the stuff?
I'd buy when it becomes available... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, this is the Sony I once knew and loved, when it did things like this all the time. Maybe those of us boycotting the entire company because of last month's debacle should adjust things a bit?
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rice University hasn't been the same without him. He was sort of a big deal around here.
Re:Carry a fuel can with you? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most likely this technology would be rechargeable; soak it in a special bath and it "recharges". Of course, in order not to deal with volitale chemicals at home, you'd send it off to have that done (or maybe it'll even be disposable; the chemicals don't sound too bad, but I dunno about that fullerene). And I'm certain if it's even being considered as a fuel, it's going to have a decent charge cycle.
What about the weight? (Score:4, Interesting)
The article was really scant on details, does anyone know approximately what the weight of this device will be? Will fuel cells be able to replace typical LiPo batteries in RC aircraft?
PS, typing this live from my Karaoke show [7bamboo.com], stop by and say hi
Re:Carry a fuel can with you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sam says, "Is it just me, or is anyone else weirded out about driving around while sitting on top of a tank of gasoline?"
"No, partner, it ain't just you. Flicker may gave me trouble at times, but at least I know he's not going to explode," replies Dusty.
Sam, thinks and says, "It's not like I'm I'm afraid or nothing, but it looks like those things can go pretty damn fast, and there are more and more of them every day. Can you imagine the things running into each other, each loaded with gasoline? Can you imagine the fires and such?"
Re:Carry a fuel can with you? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe if they can scale it up for automobiles the technology will be worthwhile, but for consumer devices? No way.
How much power does this have? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How much power does this have? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'd buy when it becomes available... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but how likely is the company to actually change its spots?
On a related issue, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle_boycott [wikipedia.org] about a boycott of a major (probably bigger than Sony?) company that has been going on for nearly 30 YEARS. For many years (in the UK at least) you did not see Nestle written on any consumer products because they just would not sell - in recent years they have reintroduced the name (in small writing at first, getting bigger each year) on many chocolate products (KitKat, Yorkie, ...) which I welcome because it makes it easier to not buy them, heh. I know the Wiki article seems to indicate that Nestle has changed, but then the tone of the article seems to be treading delicately and I took that to imply that it has been influenced by lawyers from the big corp..
cynically,
plunky
Re:Carry a fuel can with you? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I can see the benefits of using them as top-up devices for an internal battery, for example you dock your PDA and it charges the Li-Ion using standard mains. When you're out and about, it drains the main battery first and when that runs low(ish) it uses the fuel cartridge to top it up. You then have say a half full main battery and an easily swappable fuel cartridge which can be bought at any store, much like AAs nowadays. However, if you have mains available regularly (Like I dock my PDA every night) then your fuel cell is only used as a backup.
Empty cartridges could perhaps be traded in for a discount on full ones, and then be refilled and repackaged externally.
Warp and Weft Speed Ahead (Score:3, Interesting)
The buckyfilm offers a flexible material, which combined with tactile sensor fabrics [slashdot.org] and flexible displays [google.com] will make mobile computing even more convenient. With this early effort already within 20% of the efficiency of inflexible DMFCs, we might be very close to smart clothes and upholstery, integrating computing into all common devices without transforming them into "computers". That might sound pretty dull, but "pedestrian" has come to mean both "completely ordinary" and "conveniently mobile". Fabric is one of the older technologies on which our civilization is based, and revolutionized us when we became smart. Maybe its time to do it again by returning the favor.
God and Buckyballs (Score:1, Interesting)
in Chemistry, Dr. Richard Smalley, rejected evolution
and championed the theory of Intelligent Design. The
following is a link containing the remarks of Dr. Hugh
Ross at Richard Smalley's memorial service:
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/richard_smalle
The "unamed" Nobel Laureate in the following article is
Smalley:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives
For background on Dr. Hugh Ross see here:
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml [reasons.org]
Any time the subject of Intelligent Design comes up here
on Slashdot we are bombarded by people who insist that
Intelligent Design is only for stupid people who are
not "real" scientists. The above two are very much real
scientists and are only two of thousands of real scientists
around the world who see Intelligent Design as the most
plauseable, and scientifically correct view of humans,
the earth, and the cosmos.