Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables Hardware Technology

Toshiba to Demo New Fuel Cell MP3 Players 172

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the ipod-and-a-gas-can dept.
virgil_disgr4ce tells us The Register is reporting that Toshiba recently unveiled a fuel cell based mp3 player. The pump-less fuel cell technology was first discussed about a year ago but Toshiba said not to expect the fuel cell players to hit the market any time soon. Toshiba, however, does hope that the players running off the fuel cell prototypes, and their methanol cartridges, will get their public debut at CEATEC JAPAN 2005.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Toshiba to Demo New Fuel Cell MP3 Players More

Toshiba to Demo New Fuel Cell MP3 Players

Comments Filter:

  • Great but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Andy Gardner ( 850877 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:03PM (#13591262)
    when will I be able to buy a cat powered mp3 player?
  • I wonder how well its sealed from the picture it almost looks like a flap, if thats the case I wouldn't want one leaking all over my backpack/jacket pocket. My mp3 player now gets throwen all over the place, I would hate to have to worry about if it will leak on my work papers.

    • Re:does it leak (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      I'm more worried about the 99.5% methanol being combustable. It seems to me you are powering an mp3 player with lighter fluid. (And yes, I do realize methanol is harder to ignite)

      The 3.5ml and 10ml configurations contain quite a bit of fluid.
    • ever have one of those pocket butane solering pencils?

      They are considered safe.

  • Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by republican gourd ( 879711 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:07PM (#13591292)
    Why are they wasting their time on mp3 players? An mp3 player that can run for 35 hours (per the article) is not much more useful than an mp3 player that can run for 12 hours... but a laptop that could run for 12 hours instead of 4 hours (assuming a 3:1 payoff when compared to traditional batteries) would be incredibly useful.

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Rob_Ogilvie ( 872621 )
      How could a fuel cell really replace a traditional battery in a laptop? If I go on vacation with my laptop, will I need to take my gallon of ethanol with me instead of a tiny power brick?

      I could see fuel cells augmenting traditional laptop batteries, but to replace them entirely we'd need to make recharging a bit more feasible.
      • I can't see how carrying a gallon of ethanol while being on vacation is a bad thing. Though I'd prefer it to be somewhere around 40%, and I probably wouldn't use it to power my laptop :)

        On a side note, it's methanol, not ethanol. Oh well.

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Propagandhi ( 570791 )
      I'm guessing they run into weight issues. Their flash player prototype for instance, weighs 78.5g. Compare this to a standard flash player (Shuffle=22.112628 grams, Nano=42.5242847 grams).

      So if we stick with the linear relationship, you're increasing the weight of the gadget by 2-3 times, and that's probably not acceptable in the case of laptops...

      • Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 )
        That's some pretty ridiculous math. Firstly, you're comparing their flash player to one that's completely non-equivalent, seeing how the iPods are made by a different company, have different features etc. If you compared it to an equivalent player by Toshiba that was powered by LiIon batteries, you might have been off to a reasonable start.

        Then you're assuming that the weight of the device is going to grow by the same fraction... the batteries of most laptops form a much smaller fraction of the overall weig

      • Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That's not an entirely fair analogy, the majority of the weight for an mp3 player (especially a flash based one) is the battery. A laptop however has many more components that contribute to its weight. For instance an inspiron 9300 laptop weighs 7.9 lbs, of that a mere .88 lbs of it is the battery. (According to an ebay seller selling inspiron 9300 replacement batteries). If your analysis of 2-3 times the battery weight per unit is correct that would put the laptop at anywhere from 8.78 lbs to 9.66 lbs.
        • Yeah, totally agree. I was just throwing the limits out there, obviously there's no way it adds 10-20 lbs to the weight of a laptop, but given how much weight they needed to get such a tiny output I think there would be a 2-5 lb addition due to the fuel cell.

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cr_nucleus ( 518205 )

      Why are they wasting their time on mp3 players?

      Easy, they're going for something simple and small to limit the potential sources of problems. When it works fine, they're ready to go for more challenging products.

      And one of the whole point of fuel cells is the time it take to recharge (actually refill). Even if it lasts just as long, being able to refill in seconds is a benefit. Problem is, you now need a reserve of whatever you fill it with :)

    • Not to mention the flash based iRiver (ifp-799) can run for 40 hours on a single AA battery (and -way- longer than that with a Energizer Lithium AA).

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by krunk4ever ( 856261 )
      I'm assuming the fuel cell would be in conjunction with an AC adapter.

      Fuel cell can't replace batteries. Even in fuel cell powered cars, there's going to be a battery in there no matter what. The one thing fuel cells can't do that lithium, nicad, or nimh batteries can is that they can be recharged with a conventional AC outlet. Also, by supporting AC outlets, I can conserve battery power and even recharge it as I use it.
  • what to do with the water?
    • Memo from the Marketing Department:

      Old and busted: underwear showing above your belt
      The new hotness: looking like you just peed yourself
    • One might benefit from reading the article.

      "The methanol reacts with water in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen ions and electrons. The ions and electrons pass through the membrane to react with the oxygen to form water - which can be used to dilute the methanol. Besides power, the only byproduct of the reaction is carbon-dioxide."
      • My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!

        You realize that she does finger herself, right?
  • ....to go from "will be released in 2005" to "will be released in 2007" between 2004 and now.

  • Is it just me that I don't find this appealing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by X43B ( 577258 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:13PM (#13591332) Journal
    While I am excited to see fuel cells advance, I don't see the draw for this type of application beyond the niche of people with too much money.

    As a poor college student, I avoid recurring costs as much as possible. Rechargeable batteries may suck in terms of energy density compared to this cartidge/fuel cell combination, but the cost of electricity is relatively cheap to the point of being free. Does anyone really want to run out and buy catridges constantly if they want to use their mp3 player every day?

    Beyond cost, the fact that outlets are much more convenient than running to the store (or carrying around a bunch of spare catridges, negating the smallness of your mp3 player) is big turnoff for me.

    • Re:Is it just me that I don't find this appealing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ByTor-2112 ( 313205 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:24PM (#13591386)
      I think the same thing every time that I read about some silly "fuel cell powered device" replacing existing rechargeable devices. I don't want to carry fuel cells with me, and I don't want to purchase them. I can always find a free or nearly free outlet to plug in to. All of these fuel cell researchers need to realize that if we a device doesn't already physically consume fuel, no one is likely to migrate to a device that does. How dumb can these incredibly smart people be!
      • They have to keep the charade going. Fuel Cells were the "switch" in the "bait & switch" con Automakers played to get out of California's Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. The California Air Resource Board wanted automakers to sell Batery Electric Vehicles (BEV). GM was going all-out to meet the mandate, but then GM's visionary engineers got kicked out, and then they spent some $600 million lobbying against ZEV.

        "We can't do BEV 'cause the batteries aren't good enough and people won't want a car that the
    • Well, all is relastive.
      How much does a replacement battery for an ipod cost again?

      Dont underestimate the energy density of liquid fuel. 2 or 3 liter of ethanol could be enough for years of use, and cost only a few $

  • 99.5% methanol (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:15PM (#13591344)
    Has anyone else here ever had exposure to 99.5% methanol? Nasty stuff. Toxic, and readily absorbed through the skin. I really can't imagine this being approved by any governmental agency. How about flying on an airplane with 150 or 200 methanol powered fuel cells? No thanks.

    • Re:99.5% methanol (Score:3, Informative)

      by alienw ( 585907 )
      Sheesh. It's not that toxic, unless you drink it. It's not "readily absorbed through the skin"; the MSDS [bu.edu] for it says it is only a skin irritant, which is the case with any alcohol. It can be absorbed through the skin, or course, but only with prolonged contact. It does not seem to be significantly more dangerous than most household chemicals. Considering that it will be in a sealed cartridge, I don't see the big deal.

    • Re:99.5% methanol (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Has anyone else here ever had exposure to 99.5% methanol? Nasty stuff. Toxic, and readily absorbed through the skin.
      This technology was originally developed to use ethanol but that was not considered politically acceptable because they didn't want people drinking the contents of their mobile phone - so we have the tamper proof methanol cartridge idea which has slowed adoption by a few years. It is being down this way purely to get approval from government agencies.

    • Re:99.5% methanol (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HermanAB ( 661181 )
      Hmm, how about flying with 50 tons of jet fuel? Not at all dangerous huh?
    • Nasty stuff. Toxic, and readily absorbed through the skin.

      Ummm...so kind of like, gasoline? Or how about lead and sulfuric acid?
    • Actually, the real danger of methanol's ability to permeate the skin is when it acts as a carrier for other highly toxic substances. You would be hard put to absorb a toxic quantity of methanol through your skin. However, if you spilled a significant quantity on your clothes then it could leach out toxic dyes and carry them through your skin causing a potentially serious poisoning.

      There is an apocryphal story (which unfortunately I cannot find any hard evidence for), of a man who died after using a home-rem

  • Toshiba Announces Methanol Recall (Score:5, Funny)

    by Helpadingoatemybaby ( 629248 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:15PM (#13591345)
    "Toshiba Announces Recall Methanol Powered MP3 Players"

    In a surprise announcement today, Toshiba Japan announced that it was recalling it's Methanol Powered batteries from the market after users reported missing limbs, including fingers, hands, and chunks of leg.

    Toshiba spokesperson Udai appeared shocked, "We really thought mixing electricity and methanol was a good idea" he stated. Initial reports of these small explosions from the MP3 players appear to be caused by the music pop sensation Brittany Spears. Estimates to this point indicate that over 50% of her fan base has lost at least one finger up to the knuckle rendering the frustrated users incapable of using the mp3 player. Cries of "dammit" could be heard from Junior High Schools across the nation.

  • I haven't studied the technology enough to understand it but I have heard some people say that Fuel Cells have a short lifespan.

    Is this true, or is this just rumours, or a problem that will eventually be solved?

  • Don't get too enthusiastic now... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:19PM (#13591366) Journal
    How would you recharge this ? Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff [wikipedia.org]. (Flamable, toxic, etc.)

    So instead of some form of battery acid leaking if you somehow manage to kill your battery, you get methanol leaking which easily absorbs through skin. Aye.

    That's ignoring how you would get whatever to refill it with anyway. Imagine having to buy a special methanol pack - which, of course, wouldn't be standard any more than current cellulars' batteries are standard. (Imagine the prices they could charge here - and they would have to, as transport to stores, putting it on shelves, etc. is much more costly than...) . But you don't have to buy a new battery each time, you recharge it (...than transport of electricity - factoring everything in.)

    So perhaps you could refill using a bottle/can, much like cigarette lighters. Well yes, perhaps so... but consider traveling with this (think FAA regulations and whatnot)? And taking it with you everywhere ? Because unlike electricity, you can't just get this out of a wall 'hose' like you would electricity out of a wall outlet - and that's a good thing.

    Of course if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, it would be easier to take a bottle of methanol with you than it would be to find a wall outlet. On the other hand, if you're going out to the middle of nowhere, perhaps your cellular isn't going to do you much good anyway. And if you're going to be in the middle of nowhere with your laptop, I'd imagine you'd have a car to charge off of, or at least a second battery, and probably a base camp where you -do- have some form of electricity available to you.

    Some may claim that methanol is better for the environment - it burns clean after all... but from the source of the methanol down to the end-user, is it really that much cleaner ? Think extraction, purification, packaging, distribution, etc.

    Don't get me wrong, it can be wonderful technology - but for cellulars ? I have my doubts. For laptops ? Maybe if my laptop would run for 16 hours straight on it instead of 2.5 hours (my laptop is not often idle). But that appears doubtful, and I'd still have all the above issues.
    • In other articles, it's shown as having a bottle next to it, and showing pictures of the bottle being poured in. So no worries about special methanol packs or anything. Besides, you can make your own methanol, after all...
      • I saw another refill method on a motorola 'prototype' (just some mockup i think), where the methanol would be stored in a pen cartridge, you know, the one that are pierced when inserted.

        I think you could still get some methanol on your finger but that would be as rare as getting ink on your fingers when doing refills for your pen. As far as i can remember, it was a very clean operation (I'm not using refillable ink pens anymore these days)
    • Methanol isn't too common a substance. . .

      You can obtain it in any convenience store under the guise of "dry gas."

      . . .if you're going to be in the middle of nowhere with your laptop, I'd imagine you'd have a car to charge off. . .

      You do not appear to understand the concept "middle of nowhere."

      KFG

    • Re:Don't get too enthusiastic now... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're scared of absorbing methanol through the skin?

      Hmmm. You need to learn a little more, and stop worrying so much. For starters, you could take some college-level Chemistry and Biochemistry to learn how methanol is formed and detoxified within the body (yep, you actually get some methanol formed in the body...shocking!!!).

      Then you could look at common spirits and wines to learn about the levels of methanol present in those!

      Finally, you should stop worrying, because the level of methanol in the fuel cell
      • Seconded. I've spilled worse things on myself while in lab. Methylene chloride, hexane, ether, chloroform. I've gotten a nice whiff of nitrogen dioxide (and if you live in the city, you've gotten your share also). Like a famous toxicologist said, "the dose makes the poison." If you're getting a couple drops of the low concentration stuff on yourself, you should be okay. Besides, Toshiba isn't that stupid, they probably have some kind of easy system that makes it difficult to expose yourself to the che
    • I think it's about 30 bucks for a gallon of methanol. Any decent model shop will have it as this is what is used to power IC (internal combustion) radio controlled cars.

      I bet this stuff isn't real pure, but it doesn't seem like methanol would be super expensive.

      The thing that might kill this is the reaction of the airlines. I'm not sure they will want people carrying laptops full of flammable methanol onto airplanes. In fact, I'm still surprised that lithium batteries haven't been outlawed. They are pretty
      • Any decent model shop will have it as this is what is used to power IC (internal combustion) radio controlled cars.

        Used to be sold under the trade name "Thimble-Drome", the stuff that taught us how to bruise fingers on tiny propellors and all about simple high-RPM two-stroke engines. Nitromethane and methanol, pretty much the same mix used in Top-Fuel Dragsters. WoOT!! Gimme some music FAST!!

    • The mods these days have a strange sense of humour...
    • How would you recharge this ? Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff. (Flamable, toxic, etc.)

      It says in the link you provide, "Methanol is used on a limited basis to fuel internal combustion engines, mainly by virtue of the fact that it is not nearly as flammable as gasoline."

      So instead of some form of battery acid leaking if you somehow manage to kill your battery, you get methanol leaking which easily absorbs through skin. Aye.

      Again from the link you provide, "Dan
    • The charging is actually one of the really cool things about fuel cells. Instead of charging your Ipod for 8 hours, you can place your ipod into a charging station (which would be publically available and/or sold in stores) that would charge it in about 2 seconds. If the technology takes off, methanol (or whatever fuel will be used) will be easily available.

      You may be right about methanol being dangerous. This is one of those things that will be worked on, and when/if it is fixed, will be available.
    • Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff.

      You're joking, right? Methanol is an ondinary alcohol from methane (CH4) just like ethanol is an alcohol from ethane (C2H6). Ethanol is alcohol 'as we know it' of course.

      Indeed, methanol has somewhat of a bad reputation because it makes you blind, but it is FAR from difficult to get. As far as I know it is easily manufactured and a common by-product of fermentation of beers, wine etc. Apparently its effect is limited when mix

      • Re:Methanol hard to come by? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You are correct about the ethanol - methanol and ethanol are broken down by the same enzyme (alcohol dehydrogenase), so by increasing ethanol concentrations, you outcompete the methanol, and slow the formation of the toxic element (formaldehyde then formate) which interferes with the mitochondrial respiratory chain.

        The mitochondria are what "power" your cells, and it is damage to these which kill susceptible cells, like optic nerve, and retinal cells (which is why methanol causes blindness in high doses).

        So
    • Methanol isn't too common a substance, partially because it is some nasty stuff.

      Methyl Alcohol (Methanol) Oral rat LD50: 5628 mg/kg; inhalation rat LC50: 64000 ppm/4H; skin rabbit LD50: 15800 mg/kg; Irritation data-standard Draize test: skin, rabbit: 20mg/24 hr. Moderate; eye, rabbit: 100 mg/24 hr. Moderate. Investigated as a mutagen, reproductive effector.

      Not much to worry about, really.

  • First step (Score:3, Informative)

    by Trip Ericson ( 864747 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:20PM (#13591372) Homepage
    I have held off on buying an MP3 player because I can't find one that supports OGG, has a radio in it, and gets good battery life. Assuming Toshiba puts one out that meets the first two specifications and has generous amounts of storage, I think I would look into this one.

    Right now, I have a Sony ATRAC3 MP3/CD player. It gets 50 hour battery life on 2 AA batteries, and has virtually unlimited storage (as many 700MB CDs as I feel like carrying), plus it only cost $100 or so when it was purchased. Granted, it doesn't support OGG, but when I got it I didn't know about OGG.

    In addition, I bought my laptop that I'm on right now from Toshiba Labor Day weekend 2003, and I've already decided I'm not buying a new one until Toshiba releases their new laptops that (according to the article I read a while back) charge 80% in 15 minutes with little discharge.

    I also recall an article about a fuel-cell based laptop, lasted something like 15 hours on one fueling. Don't remember if it was Toshiba or another company.

    Where are all these things? I've heard so much about them and I'm sure I'm not the only one anxiously awaiting them. Toshiba and any other companies need to hurry up and get these things out the door, as they will solve many of the biggest battery-related problems.

    • Re:First step (Score:3, Informative)

      by DoubleRing ( 908390 )
      If you want a mp3 player that supports OGG you should check out the iAUDIO M3 and X5 [iaudio.com]. They support FLAC [sourceforge.net] too!

      They also have a quite a few flash players that support OGG.
      • RockBox [rockbox.org] comes highly recommended, with ports to quite a few newer players being underway, including the iAUDIO ones; it supports Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, and even ReplayGain iirc (features page is down atm) which is great for keeping volume sensible. I'm gonna wait and see how far these ports get before investing in a player.
  • Problem arises with a Variable. Batteries you just plug in, and go. Fuel Cells you refill? Half the public would be clueless. Some might even drink this fuel, or use it for their car.
  • That's cute and all, and I'm sure the science is fascinating to some, but the question I have is how much will this cost?
    If I can pay less to recharge my 6h-capacity battery 10 times than to fill up my 60h-capacity fuel cell, then there's no point in switching technologies.
  • "Battery" technology takes a lot of incremental improvement. Especially to improve its performance under many varied environmental conditions, including heatup/cooldown and storage in mobile devices. That's why mass-market devices are so important. Mass marketing MP3 players with fuelcells offers reinvestable profits and even more important feedback to revisions. Toshiba is paving the way for fuelcells to offer superior performance and convenience. While rolling out slick devices that generate demand. Takin
  • I read that at first as a METHANE powered fuel cell If my laptop or MP3 player dies, I'd just pull my finger...

  • Play Times (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Jeet81 ( 613099 )
    The play time according to the article is
    35 hours for the smaller model and 60 hours for the larger HDD device


    So that means refilling methanol every week. I think I will pass and stick to my Ipod as it recharges itself when I plug it into the USB port to change songs.

  • Pity they couldn't make it run on butane instead. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Sunday September 18, 2005 @04:55PM (#13591542) Homepage
    On average, a butane refill cannister (for cigarette lighters) runs around $2-$3 for around 300 ml.

    Judging from the yields, you could refill the fuel cell at the cost of one of those butane bottles for a month (and $2 a month is pretty danged cheap).

    Would it take any major doing to redesign the fuel cell to process butane?

  • Biggest problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Sunday September 18, 2005 @05:01PM (#13591574) Homepage
    They lock you into buying stuff. Ok, it lasts longer, but you cant plug it into the wall when you get home and have it good for another 12 hours... you gotta go out and buy more fuel canisters.
    • Oh yeah, I can see a new profit plan arising:

      1. Create really cheap mp3 player
      2. Add a propietary methanol battery pack
      3. Give away mp3 player (ala Lexmark)
      4. Fuck buyer's ass with expensive battery packs.
      5. profit!
  • Ref ( Here [japaninc.net] Here [kbla.com] And Here [pcworld.com] )

    Essentially this is just a word of caution, Toshiba has in the past had faulty designs on overpriced hardware and screwed over the people who buy their products. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, Toshiba claimed guilt on both of their laptop design class action law suits.

  • "3.5ml for the 100mW unit and 10ml for the 300mW cell. The 100mW cell can generate sufficient current for 35 hours of playback time, while the larger unit can operate the HDD-based device for 60 hours."

    (100mW * 60s:min * 60min:h * 35h) / 3.5ml [google.com] = 3600j:ml
    (300mW * 60s:min * 60min:h * 60h) / 10ml = 6480 j:ml

    In other words, 10:3.5::35::60? If these cells differ only in their fuel capacity, how come the 10ml version gets almost double the power efficiency? And how come they're getting (at most) only <2% the e
    • Well....
      there is a difference between fuel cell spec and actuall running times.
      I would guess that the 300mW cell is specificated to power the spin-up of the hdd-based player, but wont run at peak power for most of the time during playback...
      • That just makes the performance worse. Methanol has about half the energy density of gasoline, fuelcells get at least 50% efficiency. So, of the 25% theoretical maximum, they get <2%, or about 7% of max (or 4% of max on the smaller tank)? Something's wrong with those numbers, as confirmed by the huge difference between the efficiencies of the models that supposedly differ only in their fuel capacity.
  • Methanol has 35% the energy content [hawaii.gov] of gasoline. Ethanol has 59%. Ethanol's two carbons yield double the CO2 (Greehouse) gas product as methanol's single carbon, but it ultimately produces only 85% the CO2 as does methanol [doe.gov], per "vehicle mile traveled" (95% of gasoline).

    However, that table shows that ethanol produces 130% the "CO2 equivalent" (overall Greenhouse effect) waste gases as does gasoline per VMT. Considering the larger volumes of less-potent fuel to be produced, transported and filled into tanks,
    • Yes, more carbon emissions are bad, but it depends on the souce. Carbon from gasoline has been locked in the ground absent from the carbon cycle for millions of years. Wheres plant alcohols from plants which are scrubbing the carbon out of the atmosphere in a closed system.
      • These "Greenhouse budget" systems are complex. How much CO2 is produced in the agriculture industry per liter of alcohol consumed by the fuelcell? True that the alcohol CO2 is recycled from the atmosphere in the energy cycle. But I'd still prefer to net-sink carbon in the cycle. Maybe alcohol->gasoline is better off at the big plant, and the (ironically cleaner) gasoline better in the actual vehicles. Of course, it still depends on the efficiency of the hypothetical gasoline fuelcell I mentioned. But it

  • Stop and think. Do we REALLY want this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sbaker ( 47485 ) * on Sunday September 18, 2005 @07:06PM (#13592274) Homepage
    This is *such* a good idea - but I guarantee it'll get screwed up by the big corporates:

    IN UTOPIA:

    In an ideal world, there would be an industry-wide standard for the little container of fuel - there would be 50 manufacturers of them world-wide and they would be easy to find, interchangeable and CHEAP (just like AA batteries).
    Their life is much longer than batteries and they pollute much less.

    HOORAY!

    IN THE REAL WORLD:

    In the real world, they will be like ink cartridges. Locked up to the wazoo with encrypted interfaces - unrefillable - unique not only to one manufacturer - but perhaps even to one model in their range. They'd be impossible to find in any store anywhere in the world - and they would cost an absolute fortune. Since there is no way to replace them with regular batteries, you're completely screwed.

    GACK! Give me back my battery-operated devices!

    Which do you think we'll end up with?

    The pressure to sell portable consumer items like MP3 players, PDA's, etc for bottom dollar will cause manufacturers to give away the players for much less than they cost - then do the 'bait and switch' trick and charge 100x more for an ethanol cartridge than they actually cost to make.

    Consumers don't like that in printers - let's not let that happen for MP3 players, etc.
  • A solid state player runs a whole month on a single AAA cell. How is a fuel cell going to be any better?
  • if they were talking about a laptop/table PC power source then this might be interesting. But an MP3 player ?

    What on earth is the point of a portable MP3 player, camera, or other such device, that can;t take standard batteries (usually AA or AAA) ?

    By using standard batteries it means that you can use rechargeables when you can and failing that (or for when you're in a remote area with no charging facilities) you can bung in some standard batteries.

    All these iPod/Zen type MP3 players with their propeitary r

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close