AutoblogGreen

"just doesn't exist" right now Eh'

I'd like to know how Sebastian Blanco would interpret this statement. Is it still just an idea or a working concept in his opinion.

Reply

35 Mile Range for a Zenn Car, a 4x increase is not something to brag about.

Reply

Thanks a lot for posing the EEStor questions to the ZENN folks, Sebastian. (Very cool having a "remote control" correspondent! J/K)

Mike - the little I've read about the ultracapacitor sounds intriguing on points of cost & durability: If true, $1000 for 140 electric miles (in the LSV application) using an energy medium that doesn't effectively wear out would certainly be worth bragging about (when you compare it to ranges/battery durability of other vehicles used in similar applications).

Also, in the audio clip, Clifford claims they're looking at scaling up the technology to mid-size, higher speed cars with *IC range*.

All that said, I'll remain respectfully skeptical until the "imminent" 3rd party test results are released. Until then, it's no more than vaporware.

Also, until hearing this interview, I wasn't aware of ZENN's rights to EEStor's technology for conversions of existing ICE vehicles to EV's. As someone currently in the middle of a low-buck conversion of an old Metro to an LSV-comparable EV, I'm curious whether those rights would theoretically preclude use of the technology by private, non-commercial EV converters.

It'll be very interesting to watch this play out. I for one hope they can pull it off.

Reply

It's great that Mr clifford has snatched a worldwide exclusive non-existent technology that may or may not ever live up to the hype. Here's hoping it does for your companies sake Mr Clifford. I hope your pipe dream technology wasn't dreamed up by some one smoking a crack pipe.

I hope you really get this down and change the world, lord knows batteries have a long long way to go before they are going to make a dent in the automotive power source market.

Reply

EEStor? Hmm, I seem to remember someone using that moniker about a year ago pestering the newsgroup alt.energy.homepower about an idea to put "grooves within grooves" on a capacitor plate to increase surface area, thus increasing storage. When others pointed out that current supercapacitors already use a highly textured surface for their plates, yet stored less power per Kg than lead acid, the poster ignored the evidence and continued spamming, much to everyones annoyance. And now we have these wild claims, with nothing to back them up. Makes me highly suspicious.

Unless this "EEStor" actually comes up with a working product that does what they claim, I'll remain highly skeptical.

Reply

If they could actually produce a decent electric car that has a 140-mile range, that would be perfect for some of us living in Hawaii. I could drive all the way around the windward side of O'ahu with range like that. This may be an answer to a question that was asked some months ago about Hawai'i being a good place to test the suitability of full electric cars.

That said, we in Hawai'i need to stabilize our electrical power grid. We didn't need the multi-hour (and in a few instances over 36-hour) power outages following the earthquake in October 2006. Luckily it didn't happen on a work day; if a bunch of electric car drivers had to charge their cars at that time, they'd have been out of luck.

Maybe this kind of unreliability of the electrical grid in times of crises added a possible new demand for electrical power for full electric cars will further encourage us to install of solar panels on peoples' houses to relieve the strain.

Nature can only hope...

Reply

Zenn or Feel Good Cars?

This indicates Feel Good Cars has the exclusive and they manufacture the ZENN.
http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=588932

Reply

Peter,
Feel Good Cars was the old name. Now it's ZENN Motor Company.

Reply

Thanks for the info on the name change.

EEStor is revolutionary if it lives up to the hype. If there were a real high energy density,quick charge battery equivalent that lasted the life of the car, it would kill hydrogen fuel cell IMO.

I remain skeptical until they deliver something.

Reply

very disappointing to hear they have exclusivity on conversions. how the fuck could EEStor do something that stupid. and last we heard of that contract it was up to 1200kg and now he's saying 1400. that's maybe half the cars in the world. wtf!!
a break through product given to a pis ant company before it ever comes to light. this better not be true

Reply

As a materials research engineer in Li-ion batteries and Ultracapacitors, I would be cautious to EEStor's claims.
I would say ,"Show me the moner"

Reply

why james?

Reply

Another new-old battery is the "revived battery" idea which we are going to use (should be the world's first electric pickup powered only by 'dead' batteries) for the all-electric GMC Sierra S-15. So, the battery cost is NIL, or pretty close to zero.

Here's the link to photo blogs..
http://electric-pickup.blogspot.com/
http://towing-s15.blogspot.com/

Reply

I agree with James. After 30 years in the ceramic capacitor business, and a couple dozen patents, I think I can smell "fake". Their patents have technical, mathematical, and format errors that would be humorous if people were not losing money or "hitching their wagon" to a pretend horse.

Reply

Hmm... There have been many fraudulant claims in the area of electric vehicles and power sources. I'll probably always remember the "Aluminum Battery" supposedly being developed by "Europositron" in Finland. http://www.europositron.com/
Thing is, aluminum-air batteries are very power and energy dense, but not rechargeable. Here we have a company claiming immense power and energy densities from a RECHARGEABLE version of the aluminum battery. But in the many months since I happened accross this "technology" online, there have been no reports anywhere of the breakthrough Europositron has made. I'm now a little more than skepticle.

As for carbon-nanotubes enhancing surface area to effectively increase energy/power density, there's not much to hide there. With some basic research it becomes evident that nanotubes can help batteries and capacitors alike. But how much? That's the part that remains to be seen. I'd be skeptical of carbon-nanotube capacitors and batteries; not just because the technology seems so obviouse that it should have existed years ago, but because there are the ever-present "energy corporations" who's members have squandered many an oil-alternative. You can bet your ass that they use the best (or worst) tactics to close any threatening technology, or even implementation of technology. It isn't all leftist-fiction when we hear of men's families being threatened in order to shut some people up.

However, I admit there is still the possability that this Europositron or carbon-nanotube technology could be real. And if it is, let's just hope we can get it into production. And then let's hope we can keep it, rather than have it slip away like the EV1.

-C

Reply

I'm also skeptical of ceramic capacitors for anything other than a short burst-assist, from Byron Wong's experiements on his ebike.

That's why IMHO lead acid batteries are the way to go. Lithium can be bottled up quickly by a large corporation, and comes from only a few countries.

Furthermore, I've never been able to get any reply from the Toronto company that's been partnered by EEstor. As far as I can remember, that e-car builder hasn't displayed an e-car at any of the Vancouver electric club's expo's, either.

I hope its real though. We, as a people, need more options, to replace gasoline.

Just in case anyone here is interested in something more traditional than EEstor's capacitors, here's links..

http://electric-vehicle-article.blogspot.com/
http://www.changeeverything.ca/ev_diary_part_one_march_27_07
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1091


BTW, I have photos of the last EDTA conference in Vancouver. Should be easy to find with a googly search. Wasn't anything exciting at that conference. Same old.

Reply

I have to say, any new claim to new battery or ultra-capacitor technology has to be met with skepticism but also with intrigue and hope. Let's not be overly skeptical just because we have been burned in the past. Eestor Inc, even if they don't have what they claim, are on the right track.
I have thought for some time now that the best choice for research should be some type of battery/capacitor hybrid.

Also, a small company based out of Peoria, Illinois called Firefly Energy (www.fireflyenergy.com) has a very promising technological breakthrough. Using a carbon graphite foam grid to replace the heavy lead in batteries. This could dramatically reduce weight and cost, while increasing performance. And no sulfination, so the battery should last much much longer. They are a branch off company of caterpillar, so they must be somewhat legit.

See you all on the E-highway,
Anderson

Reply

I really hope that this capacitor is everything that they say it is but I think it is a big mistake to grant exclusivity to a little company like ZENN. There is no way they can handle that kind of business. After 17 years all bets are off. Duracel my have to wait but they could get the technology for free. EEStor could be cutting their potential for profits in a major way. They should be either building a plant for mass production in China or licensing their technology out as much as possible so they can make further developments. And think about more than just cars ex. cell phones, laptops, anything with batteries. I would like to see these batteries compared to storage, weight, and size of a lithium Ion. If these Capacitors are really something great they should be used in the Tesla to show the difference. It also seems strange that given the investment backing the website looks like it was thrown together in 5 minutes with most of it being empty on the eestor.biz website and not even a professional construction page for the eestor.us website. Until I see these batteries come out there is just a lot that doesn't sit right.

Reply

Below is a detailed discussion clearly demonstrating the invalidity of EEstor’s claims and targets.

EEstor does not report either a new material, or any data that indicates the ability to store more energy than known titanate dielectrics. EEstor calculates the amount of energy they expect their capacitor to store. A fundamental oversight results in an invalid calculation that is inaccurate by more than a factor of 100! The error is uncomplicated. Simply, energy does not equal ½ CV2 for a capacitor made from a nonlinear dielectric. For all high permittivity ceramics, the dielectric permittivity (K’) decreases markedly with increasing electric field E (dielectric saturation). Energy increases roughly linearly with voltage for these materials, as opposed to with the square of the voltage (ref 2).

Importantly, this is not a case wherein EEstor claims to have made some specific breakthrough regarding this issue. No such breakthrough is reported. There are no energy storage measurements, no permittivity versus field data, and no mention of eliminating or reducing dielectric saturation. Their patent and presentations indicate a complete lack of awareness (or lack of acknowledgment) of this issue. EEstor simply purports to make (or aspires to make) high K barium titanate based material, with a K of 18,000, and ultimately with an incredibly high breakdown strength of up to 300V/um. They then calculate the energy stored as ½ CV2 without comment on the use of this equation.

How large of an error does this cause? Calculated energy density is ½K’E2 when calculated total energy is ½CV2. For K = 18,000, and a field 100 V/um, this invalid calculation gives 800 J/cc. (½K’E2 = (0.5)(8.85×10-12 F/m)(18,000)(1×108 V/m) = 8×108 J/m3 = 800 J/cc). Eight references describing actual studies of energy storage in high permittivity ceramic dielectrics (including barium titanate and BST) are noted below. All of these studies indicate a maximum energy density ranging from about 2 to 12 J/cc, depending on the exact material and the maximum breakdown voltage (which is on the order of 100V/um in most cases). Notably, for the studies involving very high K materials, if the authors had simply calculated energy storage using ½ CV2, as EEstor does, it would have similarly resulted in reported values on the order of 100 times greater than the actual measured values!

Hence there is no basis for concluding EEstor has made any advance in the field, and clear evidence that the sole basis for their claim of unbelievably high energy storage is the simple, invalid calculation. Their aspiration (with no reported results) to triple the breakdown field to 300 V/um in combination with the invalid calculation adds an additional factor of 9, giving an absurd 7200 J/cc (along with all of the corresponding hype and speculation about a new miracle material).

Below are notes regarding the references noted above that clearly substantiate the analysis above (one report of personal measurements, the other seven directly from a Google search on energy storge in ceramic dielectrics). .

1. (My work, unpublished), 1987 – Report to Maxwell Corporation on energy storage potential in high permittivity ceramics. Measurements were made on thin films up to 100V / um on barium titanate and PLZT based dielectrics. K varied as ~ 1/E over much of the voltage range, resulting in an approximately linear increase in energy density with field. Maximum energy storage was 4 – 8 J/cc.

2. Love, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1990 – Also observed a linear increase in energy with voltage for several classes of high permittivity (up to 12,000) thick film ceramics (barium titanate, PLZT, PMN). Reported up to 5 J/cc at 80 V/um.

3. Triani, et.al, (ANSTO and CSIRO – Australia, 2001 – J. Materials Science and Engineering. They reported 8 – 10 J/cc for PbSr titanate, and noted that the energy densities were similar to those of the best BaSr titanate materials for a given field, but the maximum fields of up to 100V/um (100KV/mm) were superior for the PST.

4. Kaufmann, et.,al, Penn State and Argonne, 1999. DOE Contract Report. They report sputtered BaSr titanate thin films with a K of 500 and a breakdown field of 100 V / um. K decreases to 120, and the energy storage is 11 J/cc. Also reported are data for hot pressed AFE/FE lead zirconate. These had a maximum K of 12,000, and a breakdown strength of 12 V/um, resulting in an energy storage of 3.2 J/cc.

5. Fletcher, et.al, 1996 Journal of Applied Physics D. They report a theoretical analysis based on Devonshire theory of ferroelectrics. Optimal energy density is predicted for materials with Curie Temperatures well below the operating temperatures. Applied to BaSr titanate, the model predicts an energy density of 8 J/cc at 100 V/um. The model was verified in actual materials.

6. Randolf, et. al, (Austria, 1996) – IEEE Annual Report - Studied dielectric energy storage for powders embedded in polymer matrices. They reported using a PbTitanate-PbZnNiobate material with K = 5000, and reported energy densities of 1 – 10 J/cc.

7. Lawless, et. al., Ceramphysics Inc. 1992 report a high permittivity ceramic (K = 8000) for which a maxium energy density of 6 J/cc was observed for samples with optimum breakdown strength.

8. Freim, Nanomaterials Research Corp NASA SBIR Proposal 1998, reports reduced dielectric saturation for nanocrystalline microstructures, and states that “Commercial coarse grain dielectric based ceramic capacitors are ineffective for use in high energy storage and delivery applications since the dielectric’s permittivity decreases sharply when the applied voltage is increased.” They target 5 – 10 J/cc for the proposed new improved materials.

If you aren’t familiar with dielectric saturation, or even if you are and you don’t think back to where ½ CV2 comes from – you miss it. And until you collect information and compare with the calculation, you have no clue it makes a factor of 100 difference in this case. People don’t even realize what EEstor is asserting. If they said, “we are going to use barium titanate based materials, which up until now how only been able to store 8 J/cc, but our barium titanate will store over 1000 J/cc – people would ask themselves how is that possible and what is the basis for that claim.

Then you would find out it’s not just a case of them not providing data or proof of their claims. They don’t even claim to have observed or measured a property indicating their barium titanate would be different. There is nothing left but the calculation. The sole origin for their high numbers is that they simply start with the K of high permittivity modified barium titanate (eg., K = 18,000 not a new achievement), and simply calculate energy = 1/2CV2. Anyone could have done that at any time for any high K material and gotten the same outrageous numbers.

So at that point, one should ask why people get a factor of 100 less when they actually measure it. The answer is well documented and obvious – dielectric saturation. So the only justification for using 1/2CV2 which gives a factor of 100 higher than known and understood measured values, would be if you made a measured observation that you have a fantastic new material that doesn’t saturate at all and stores 100 times the energy.

EEstor has never made any such claim or reported to have made any such obvservation. They just did the calculation. It’s just a mistake.

Reply