Researcher of new battery accepted my invitation for interview in this website.

[oil pan 4]

Nickel iron has low energy density, they are expensive, I think they have a fairly high self discharge and their efficiency sucks.
The only thing they have going for them is that they can be abused and still last 25 years.
Their efficiency is pretty bad, 60 to 70%.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There's no interest because it isn't efficient. I can make a light bulb last 10,000 years. It would be like 2% efficient at putting out light and cost a fortune.

Describe how that would work.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polemic+meaning
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dialectic+meaning
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=debate+meaning

You could do a similar comparison in Portuguese . I'd go with dialectic.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Just a small correction, it was a incandecent (not LED) bulb that lasts 100 years, but had no interest from manufacturers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longes...ng_light_bulbs

The world's longest-lasting light bulb is the Centennial Light located at 4550 East Avenue, Livermore, California. It is maintained by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department. The fire department claims that the bulb is at least 117 years old (installed 1901) and has only been turned off a handful of times. The bulb has been noted by The Guinness Book of World Records, Ripley's Believe It or Not!, and General Electric as being the world's longest-lasting light bulb.
....
Thomas Edison designed a bulb that was supposed to last forever, called the Eternal Light, and turned it on on October 22, 1929. The bulb is located in the Memorial Tower at the Edison Memorial Museum in Menlo Park, New Jersey. The tower fell down in 1937, but the bulb's power was supposedly uninterrupted, according to General Electric, and the bulb continued to burn while a second tower was constructed. However, according to museum curator Jack Stanley, the bulb is fake, consisting of a hollow bulb illuminated by a series of automobile headlights mounted in the display's base.[2]

Maybe that electric axle was in the wrong thread?

[All Darc]

Got a new web camera today, simple just for video chat.
Tomorrow I will have a nice help to install, set, and check the system (camera plus software to record the video from SKYPE).

I hope I can make it up to you forum members, for the delay and for had failed at first attempt.

But now I want to make a question for all you. Some are skeptical, some are not so much, but I ask that for a moment you put these feeling, the controversy, by side and tell me :

What is the thing that would would most impress or most make you desire, if a super-battery would became true and reached the market ?

(10x more power, 32000cycles, no hazard, low cost). What do you imagine could be done with such thing?
How it would change the world in many areas, from transport, to ecologic approachs, to leisure, entertainment, sports, quality of services, confort ?

Let the imagination run and then tell me. Please, I'm curious about what each one of you would imagine for such thing.

[Daox]

The most important thing to make vehicles viable is cost. The current technology will already do pretty much whatever we need performance wise.

[All Darc]

Tesla, for example, require a lot of space for their battery pack. And recharge took hours.

https://www.cars.com/articles/2013/1...attery-charge/

Using special expensive devices it tooks 4,75 hours to 9,5

Without special device (that can 50% of the battery price) it take 52 hours to recharge.

One problem I see is that industry don't want to lose money. If electric technology reach a level of be less expensive than gas engine, maybe they will try to find someting else, as excuse to increase price, just to keep selling by the usual prices.

What is the cost of electric motor for electric cars, in comparison to the cost of combustion engines (engine plus the obrigatory things like radiator, distributer, carburator, gear system) ?

Originally Posted by Daox

The most important thing to make vehicles viable is cost. The current technology will already do pretty much whatever we need performance wise.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Let the imagination run and then tell me. Please, I'm curious about what each one of you would imagine for such thing.

My priorities for improving battery technology in order of importance:

Cost
Rate of charge/discharge (quick charge means you don't need as high capacity)
Durability
Power density
Efficiency

Seriously, if batteries were half the cost they are now, EVs would be a no-brainer, at least for local driving. Make it charge quickly, and you'd only ever need a 200 mile range, because stopping for 10min to charge would be no big deal. The rest of the things are already pretty good on modern battery technology. I suppose higher power density is always nice, but isn't necessary.

[All Darc]

Interesting, But I had imagined that electric cars cost more than twice the price of gas cars of same/similar standart (power&confort).

One question I have for Maria Braga, it's about discharge capacity.
Electric cars in most cases still uses a supercapacitor form the initial trust, since most electric motor during the first seconds require more energy then the batteries could discharge, so the supercapacitor would work just in these initial moments. Am I right ?

But let's supose we get a battery 10x more energy denser, and to save a lot of money we decide to use just 10% of battery weight than a usual electric car (old batteries) would use, and so reducing the battery weight to just 10%, and keeping the resultant range as the same of the standart actual EVs.
Well, as result we would have just 10% the number of batteries. Would they have enough discharge power to the initial trust of electric motors ?

So, my doubt it's about the discharge capacity compared to the energy density evolution. If the eneregy discharge capacity don't also increased a lot, we may end needing even more supercapacitors for the initial trust, in case we decide to do not extend the range of the car in order to reduce weight and cost even more.

Anyway taxi drones (very near future I presume) will demand these proposed 10x more energy density.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My priorities for improving battery technology in order of importance:

Cost
Rate of charge/discharge (quick charge means you don't need as high capacity)
Durability
Power density
Efficiency

Seriously, if batteries were half the cost they are now, EVs would be a no-brainer, at least for local driving. Make it charge quickly, and you'd only ever need a 200 mile range, because stopping for 10min to charge would be no big deal. The rest of the things are already pretty good on modern battery technology. I suppose higher power density is always nice, but isn't necessary.

[redpoint5]

EVs don't use supercaps that I know of. They cost twice as much because you're spending $15,000 on what is essentially a fuel tank. That's exactly my point that the battery needs to become cheaper. If it wasn't for the battery cost, EVs would be much cheaper than comparable ICE vehicles.

If this new battery technology is actually a capacitor, then going to a smaller capacity shouldn't affect the rate of charge/discharge much since the mechanism is in storing static electricity rather than changing a chemical state (a question which I had, to clarify if this is chemical or static).

Cost is far and away the biggest priority for battery technology with regards to EVs.

[All Darc]

Strange... in one article there was reference of EVs using supercapacitors for stronger imediate trust. Maybe it's just for models with very impressice aceleration, like Tesla. EVs can hace acceleration even more impressive than a powerful gas engine car, but it demands a lot of energy discharge.

Well, I will wait her response, but I understood your point.

EVs can not so economic in case they opt for high power density (power/kg) electric motors with also very high efficince (95% to 98%).

Originally Posted by redpoint5

EVs don't use supercaps that I know of. They cost twice as much because you're spending $15,000 on what is essentially a fuel tank. That's exactly my point that the battery needs to become cheaper. If it wasn't for the battery cost, EVs would be much cheaper than comparable ICE vehicles.

If this new battery technology is actually a capacitor, then going to a smaller capacity shouldn't affect the rate of charge/discharge much since the mechanism is in storing static electricity rather than changing a chemical state (a question which I had, to clarify if this is chemical or static).

Cost is far and away the biggest priority for battery technology with regards to EVs.

[All Darc]

If cost was the only priority for EVs batteries, they would use lead acid batteris.
Weight and energy density are also important.

Anyway, if for example, you have a 18650 battery cell for Li-Ion battery, for 3 dollars and a X value em Wh/g, and have a 18650 battery cell of sodium, with 10 times such X value in Wh/g for 3 or even 4 dollars, you are still paying a lot less money per watt using the sodium "turbo" battery.

Weigh of batteries also increase cost of EVs, since they are forced to go with lightweight materials to compensate the battery heavy load (for actual Li-ion batteries).

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Cost is far and away the biggest priority for battery technology with regards to EVs.