Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Motorola Makes Gasoline Powered Cell Phones 242

Posted by CmdrTaco from the fill-er-up dept.
Wister285 writes "Well, now that PDAs are integrated with cell phones, you'll need some extra juice to power that thing. Motorola seems to think that the next generation of cell phones needs to be powered by gas (fuel cells). Supposedly these cell phones can last for a whole month without needing to be recharged. Batteries are not being eliminated since the "power plant" of the phone is located on the user's belt. Seems interesting. Gives a whole new meaning to "Fill 'er up!""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motorola Makes Gasoline Powered Cell Phones More

Motorola Makes Gasoline Powered Cell Phones

Comments Filter:
  • ..which is powered by my own hot-air.

    • Re:I'm still waiting for the cell-phone (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You would have to fart in it to make long distance calls.
    • Maybe the next version can run off your "hot air". After all, it is methane powered, but I don't think I would like to get that intimate with my cell phone just to make a call. But maybe they could run them off pig farts like they cook meals on woks in some remote parts of China. (I saw it on the Discovery channel.)

  • Gas, Not Gasoline (Score:5, Informative)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:22AM (#2383131)
    The first paragraph of the article (which is all I bothered to read, but that's still more than CmdrTaco) clearly says "methane gas-powered", not "gasoline powered".
    • That's what I thought too, you beat me to it... I couldn't remember any news stories showing off a new cell-phone with a big-old gasoline engine strapped to it.

    • Re:Gas, Not Gasoline (Score:5, Funny)

      by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:25AM (#2383159)
      The first paragraph of the article ... clearly says "methane gas-powered", not "gasoline powered".

      Which also explains why the fuel cell is attached to the user's belt. ;-)
    • Gas is not fuel (petrol).

      Gas is a state of matter.
      • Gas is not fuel (petrol).

        Gas is a state of matter.

        In this case, it is both. Methane, a gas, is being used as a fuel.

        -- MarkusQ

        • In this case, it is both. Methane, a gas, is being used as a fuel.

          Actually, from a technical standpoint, the methane being used in this application is not a gas. It has been compressed into liquid form.
    • If they would sell a simple add-on device for it, you could power your cell phone bye eating beans...

    • Re:Gas, Not Gasoline (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Sam Jooky ( 54205 )
      Seeing as how slashdot is "very busy person"-powered, I think we should cut them some slack.
    • um, if you look at the story all of it is the submitter's comments (note the italics). none of it is actually cmdrtaco's comments.
    • The first paragraph of the article [...] clearly says "methane gas-powered", not "gasoline powered".

      While this is true, it's not really all that important - the key item is that it's a fuel cell. Odds are that it could run pretty well on gasoline, natural gas, propane, or a variety of other volatiles with a lot of hydrogen with fairly minor modifications.

      • I'm not sure how minor the variations would be. Last I knew, all fuel cells were based on the 2H+O->H2O, where the -> also produces a current. There was research on other types of fuel cells that could "burn" (e.g. oxidize to produce a current) methane (say) in this same manner, but i don't recall any success. What has worked is a process where a hydrocarbon (like methane or gasoline) is cracked to produce H2 and a residue, usually CO2, but sometimes with a quanity of CO as well.

        That said, the thing that has to change to burn another fuel is the cracking catalyst. I suspect that the methane catalyst is the easiest to handle, since the operating temperature is reasonably close to room temperature, as opposed to gasoline cracking catalysts, which operate at much higher temperatures, last I knew (which was 15 years ago -- much may have changed since I was a Chemical Engineer professionally).

        Does anyone out there have more recent info on fuel cell technology?

      • Re:Gas, Not Gasoline (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SnugBoy ( 147765 )
        Actually, to have a fuel cell run off anything other than pure hydrogen requires a reformate process which takes a lot of power and space. The use of methane is only possible becuase the there are Proton Exchange Membranes avaialable that can extract hydrogen directly from methane using different catalyist loadings on the anode. While it is possible to run a cell from methane the effeciency is much lower than that of a hydrogen fuel cell, and the chances of the PEM fouling are much higher.
        It is so disturbing to see people commenting on stories with so much authority, when it is quite obvious that they have no idea what they are talking about (not particularly you FencePost, its just that I have seen many Fuel Cell realated stories posted here, and people make comments on them like they are experts). I am a Mechanical Engineer deeply involved in fuel cell research, and I would never assume to open my mouth in a forum about Networking protocols and such. Please have the same repsect and do not pretent to be an authority when you are not (again, not directed on you FencePost, your comment was fairly tame, it just so happenes I am responding to this post when feeling this way)
        • Heck, the best way to get good information is to post something just a little bit questionable and wait for the corrections to flow....

          In any case, my assumption was that the cell itself was pretty much running on straight hydrogen - I just hadn't realized that it was that much easier to split the hydrogen out of methane with reasonable conditions (temperature, materials cost, etc.).

          I think it's safe to assume that even pen-refill-sized cartridges of compressed hydrogen aren't going to be considered a widely acceptable option since they'd probably hold as much hydrogen as a balloon. Reportedly a hydrogen-filled balloon will explode nicely if flame is applied.

        • Re:Gas, Not Gasoline (Score:2, Informative)

          by Cougar1 ( 256626 )
          I hate to break it to you and mess up all of these posts about gas, gasoline, etc..., but the ZDNet article is screwed up. The Motorola Fuel Cell uses Methanol, not methane!

          See: http://www.cellular.co.za/battery_technology.htm [cellular.co.za]

          and http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2000/09/09272 000/upi_fuelcell_31950.asp [enn.com]
  • Leaping to the conclusion of 'gasoline powered' was certainly a leap.
  • Will it interfere with my conversations? (I lay this karma upon the alter for sacrifice...)

  • more risks (Score:4, Funny)

    by stilwebm ( 129567 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:24AM (#2383147)
    Great. As if it wasn't bad enough to share the road with people trying to hold on to a cigarette and a cell phone more than they are hanging on to their 3+ ton SUV. Now they are going to be catching on fire too.
  • Great I can't keep my lawnmower working more than half a season. I hate small gasoline motors. It's also wonderful how you can't get the smell off your hands when you spill some.

  • Fuel Cells (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alnapp ( 321260 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:24AM (#2383153) Homepage
    Could this be the "Killer App" for fuel cells?
    They won't get cheaper untill there's a mass market, cell phones could be the answer.

    • Re:Fuel Cells (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dolanh ( 64212 )
      Cell phones are pretty efficient already, IMHO. My Nokia 6185 battery lasts plenty long for me.

      Where this tech will find it's "killer app" is in the gas-guzzlers of the portable market -- the PDA/Cell-phones (as the article states), the color PDAs, and probably laptops eventually.

      I just hope this doesn't create another disposable tech. The article said nothing about any environmental side effects.

  • methane gas-powered (Score:1, Redundant)

    by wiredog ( 43288 )
    So, if I eat lots of chili con carne, I can power the thing myself off of my own naturally occuring emissions.

    Methinks it stinks.

  • ...and should the user ever finds him or herself amidst rioting - viola! Molotov phone!
  • Hrrm. Does it use a pull-cord to start the phone? Does that mean I can wander around asking people to yank my cord to start me up? Heh. "Yank it, baby! Yank it! W000t!".
  • Fuel cells are fine and dandy, but shouldn't we be coming up with things like better batteries or kinetic chargers to charge batteries while we move? They've just given us another way to expedite the depletion of our natural resources.
    • Okay... nevermind... methane is plentiful, but i still like the kinetic charger idea... it works for watches, so some improvement should make it work for cell phones.

    • Re:Wrong Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )

      Methane isn't just a natural resource and can easily be synthesized, hence you can view it purely as a very clean chemical battery: Expend some energy creating a CH4 molecule, and then extract the energy catalyzing with oxygen (or whatever).

    • It's being done -- the Freeplay [freeplay.net] folks are working on a cellphone battery charger.
  • Although others have already mentioned it, I thought I'd rail on CT for making the mistake of calling gas powered phones "gasoline powered". Talk about confusing, until I read the article I was trying to figure out how you'd fit a gasoline pump nozzle into anything I'd want to attach to my belt. Maybe that whole "liberal education" thing isn't such a bad idea after all?
  • So the phone is powered by methane? That sure brings new use to going out for Mexican food during lunch. Now instead of rednecks cowtipping you'll have techies running around the pastures trying to capture some of that "natural" gas!

    (humor)

  • "Sorry Dave, my phone's running low! But I've got some beans in my pocket ... I'll call you back in an hour!"
  • If the power cells start containing gasses... then phones will become much lighter.

    The only problem is with public perception...
    ... images of exploding phones next to my head does not conjure up great feelings of trust.

    Plus they may not be allowed on airplanes.
    (There was this crash not so long ago... so there's a lot of FUD)

    Dom.
  • "OK, who just farted in here?"
    "Oh, that's just Joe using his methane powered cell phone."

    I can't wait to be riding in a car/bus/subway full of these things.

    -S

    • Mercaptan (Re:A conversation in the car pool....) (Score:5, Informative)

      by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:41AM (#2383270)
      Methane doesn't stink. It's basically odorless.

      Natural gas doesn't smell by itself. Distributors add methyl mercaptan to it in order to make it smell, so that leaks can be found. (Walk up and down the street in front of my house any day of the year and you'll smell it coming from the rather porous old Boston Gas/Keyspan pipes. They make repairs when their leak detector shows the concentration getting scary.) Mercaptan was chosen because it, well, has a strong and distinctive smell. Acetylene smell similar but is itself explosive.

      This practice began after a very unfortunate incident in the 1930s. The public school in London, Texas had been heated by gas that was being, uh, skimmed off of a pipeline passing from a nearby well. The connection wasn't exactly professional. A leak sprang, and gas accumulated in the basement, reaching serious concentrations without being noticed. It blew the school sky-high, killing about 200 people, including most of the children, largely wiping the town off the map. (The town, near Tyler, was renamed New London; it now has about 900 inhabitants.)

      People nowadays appreciate methane's properties a bit better. A little cartridge to power a fuel cell should not be a problem.

  • correction (Score:4, Informative)

    by psych031337 ( 449156 ) <psych0@nosPaM.wtnet.de> on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:30AM (#2383200)
    From the link:

    Motorola researchers announced Tuesday that they have successfully demonstrated a methane gas-powered fuel cell, which can provide enough juice between chargings for a month of cell phone calls.

    The way i understand it, it works as follows:

    1. You buy the fuel cell powerplant which is slightly smaller than a standard battery
    2. You keep using you phone as usual - recharging the normal battery when it goes flat.
    3. If you are out in the fields with no electricity or in a hotel without your charger, you hook up the phone with the flat battery to the fuelcell to recharge the normal battery
    4. After charging the devices are disconnected from each other and you keep using your phone like you are used to...

    I kinda like the idea, but hope for flexibility in the fuelcell device. It sure would kick ass if i not only could "refuel" my cell but also my PDA, MP2 player or whatever gizmo is currently hungry.

    • Re:correction (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ghengis ( 73865 )
      One, maybe two problems. If you forget your charger enough to want this as a solution, you'll probably forget the fuel cell. Wouldn't it just be easier to buy a car charger and be done with it? I mean a charger is a charger is a charger...

      • Re:correction (Score:2, Insightful)

        by psych031337 ( 449156 )
        Well... maybe you don't own a car? Maybe you only go with cabs, which have ride times that don't allow full charge? Maybe you are taking part in the Rallye Paris-Dakar and your diesel-generator failed? Maybe you're CNN staff in a rural country where power outlets are rare... Or you travela alot and hate to fiddle with all these different standards for power outlets and voltages? Maybe you just want the UNIVERSAL charger for all your stuff...

        I can see some useful applications for this.
  • im going to put dual exhaust on that bad boy.
  • I just want my phone to work if I drop it, or at least work under normal circumstances for at least a year. Is introducing MORE moving parts going to make phones more reliable? Charging isn't really a problem now. Most batteries can last for days at a time. At works, you go home every night and drop your phone in the charger. How tough is that? What's the point of adding incredible complexity and expense to phones? So that I can put my phone on my desk instead of in it's charger every night? This is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, just what I need. A more complicated phone.

    • Re:Stupid idea. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 )
      I neither need, use, or want a cell phone, but most of the people I know who do have them could use more talk time and less size/weight. The "absent minded professor" type is pretty forgettful about getting the phone on the charger at night, and thus is prone to running out of power mid-conversation. Additionally, if you travel for business, a FC powered phone would also mean that you wouldn't have to carry a charger with you on trips. Lastly, FC's don't have moving parts (but I certainly agree that initially they would be more complicated than current technology).
      • The "absent minded professor" type is pretty forgettful about getting the phone on the charger at night, and thus is prone to running out of power mid-conversation. Additionally, if you travel for business, a FC powered phone would also mean that you wouldn't have to carry a charger with you on trips.

        Point #1: Anyone who can't be bothered or can't remember to plug their cellphone into a charger at night doesn't deserve to own one. Mine is tossed in a cradle on my dresser every night and doubles as my alarm clock. I've never run out of power; even if I don't plug it in, the damn thing will go a week on standby.

        Point #2: This fuel cell isn't built into the cellphone. It's an extra device you have to carry around. Might as well carry a charger.
    • What are the added moving parts to which you are referring? Fuel cells do not use moving parts. Searching on Google took me about 15 seconds to find this page:
      http://216.51.18.233/whatis.html [216.51.18.233]
      It shows a simple diagram of a fuel cell. It has the same number of moving parts as a conventional battery.

      Can someone please change the headline so it doesn't say "gasoline-powered?"

      end of line
    • Fuel cells don't have moving parts. It's a chemical reaction. Why wouldn't you want your phone to last a month between chargings? Charging it every night seems more complicated to me then doing nothing.

    • Re:Stupid person. (Score:3, Informative)

      by trcooper ( 18794 )
      One, this could allow a cell phone battery to last months, not days. Two, it's a clean independent fuel source. Three, how many moving parts do you think there are? Plug it in, you push down a lever that releases an amount of methane into a chamber. Know how long a Bic lighter can last? Certainly longer than most folks keep their phones. Cell phone makers ALREADY consider their devices disposable. Motorola's Timeport with OLED will burn out with regular use in about 3 years.

      Finally, this has more application than just phones. Laptops, PDA units, GPS units, tools, toys could all use this technology. This allows people not to be tethered to power lines to use these devices.

      Fuel cells offer a great alternative to conventional energy sources. They promise a cheap portable and realistic power source. Its not a stupid idea. Its a forward thinking idea that has a lot of potential.

      • Re:Stupid person. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )
        Don't forget the most important propertis.

        -Most of the waste in a standard battery is highly toxic, regardless of which battery technology you choose, with the only differentiating factor being how deadly. The only waste from one of these fuel cells will be a little platic canister that may take eons to degrade, but environmentally will resemble a rock.

        -Buy a pack of batteries and let them sit 6 months before you put them to use. How often do you use that flashlight? Do you check to batteries regularly to make sure that it will work when needed? Assuming a reliable enclosure system, methane cells will easily have a shelf life of something bordering on FOREVER!

        -Batteries are damned inneficient. AC power is produced from burning fossil fuels, travels over miles of cables, gets stepped down through several transformers, converted to a DC and then very innefficiently charges the battery. Even when your not using you device, the charge slowly drains from the battery due to internal currents. Methane cells will deliver all the energy straight to the device, and energy isn't lost during storage.

        There are advantages to miniature feul cells that go far beyond convience.

    • "Stupid Idea"?? Did you bother to read the article?

      What happens when your new cellphone/PDA/wireless net/wristtop starts sucking back 20x the power that your cellphone does? You want to be recharging your device once every 30 minutes?

      Devices are getting a lot more integrated and needing to suck back far more juice. This is more of a proof of concept, soonafter laptops will start using this device as well, and then from there to even more complicated devices. Battery technology is what is holding us back from the really cool stuff that we've been waiting for. Technology is there, it's just that it can't be powered. This is a fantastic step in the right direction.
  • I think we can all agree that the standby time on a modern digital cell phone has gotten to the point where most of us are more then satisfied with it. I can go for three or four days without charging my phone if I only use it a few minutes a day. And how many people go three or four days without being able to recharge their phone.

    Where this will really come into play is the power cell users. The people that for one reason or another spend most of the day on a cell phone. A college student for example that spends all day on campus but in the course of his day talks to his girlfriend for an hour between classes, his work for an hour, his buddies to figure out what bar to go to that night etc.

    One thing that article really didn't get into that I would want answered before I put one of thse on my belt is saftey. If I slip and fall and land on my cell phone I don't want it to erupt into flames. Other then that I can see these doing well even if they aren't needed, for no other reason then the "my cellphone is better then yours" discussion we all get into from time to time.
    • what the hell is it with everybody assuming that if you drop it or slip you'll explode?!!?

      Does anyone out there own a butane lighter? Woah. Bet you're scared of walking around with those things as well. and those are in plastic cases. I'll bet that you've screwed around with those, making flamethrowers and I'll bet that you've dropped them plenty of times, perhaps even whipped them at things. this isn't much different people.

      Have you ever dropped an actual BBQ propane tank? Go ahead. You're not going to do much damage. Those things are designed to be stable.

      And these things have a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of methane in a very thick tank (relatively speaking). You'd need to take a hammer and a nail to these things in order to pierce them. There is no danger from any sort of forseen rational usage. And EVEN IF you manage to break the tank, the gas will release VERY quickly. There's little to no risk of any sort of damage.
  • the radiation of my cell phone and a cell full of methane in the same piece of hardware. I'd start looking at yesterday's story on body powered batteries before I started walking around with methane on my belt. So what kind of emissions do these things put out?
    • the radiation of my cell phone and a cell full of methane in the same piece of hardware. I'd start looking at yesterday's story on body powered batteries before I started walking around with methane on my belt. So what kind of emissions do these things put out?

      Oxygen, heat and electricity. Nothing really hazardous in terms of output...
  • Imagine you are sitting in the board room of the chief shareholders of your company. You stand to make a presentation...

    Your methane fuel cell leaks.

    Now all the shareholders accuse you of nasty farts when they smell you, and you are fired.

    I'll stick to my normal cell batteries, thank you very much!!!

    Note to moderators: This was a vain attempt at some humor. Gimmie a break :-P
  • prrrt!
    hang on i gotta take this call...
    oops anyone got any paper?
    I think I'm revieving a FAX.
  • So when i run out of methane. Not that i personally will ever run out. But when my phone runs out, where do i go? I cant plug it into a car adapter or a wall outlet and recharge it. Are there refills at the grocery store, filling station, or radio shack? The article says they are about the size of a ballpoint pen ink cartrige so I gues could cary a few around. It just sounds crapy to me tho. Especially cuz my phone uptime is almost 6 months now and if i have to take the empty tank out and put a new one in ill have downtime.

  • Wow, the batteries can now outlast my wallet... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ScooterComputer ( 10306 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:37AM (#2383250)
    Ooooh, that's great. The thing can stay powered up longer, but I doubt I can afford to use it.

    I was at the Sprint PCS store the other day looking at the Kyocera and Samsung Palm phones. Pretty cool. I have a Palm VIIx with Palm net, but to have a PIM, a network appliance, AND a phone would just be cool. Anyhow, Palm.net charges not by TIME, but by BIT...and this makes sense, as the data services are low-bandwidth and bursty. Just as it should be for a handheld device. Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39. I can go a whole month on Palm.net for $12, checking my email several times per day. I figured I'd rack up close to $50 on Sprint--and that's not allowing for actually GETTING any mail. I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.

    Apparently, the Kyocera and Samsung phones actually use a digital modem and connect to an ISP, rather than simply talking to the "network" like Palm.net. So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.

    So does anyone know of any providers that actually have a cool phone/Palm/data network worth needing extra battery life--that don't charge by the minute?

    • If I recall from reading about Voicestream's offering earlier this week on /., they charge by bandwidth used, not time.
    • Well, just to prove that they JUST DON'T GET IT Sprint PCS charges by the minute. You check your email and there is none: 16 seconds, 110 bytes, $0.39.

      To be clear. Sprint PCS charges

      • $0.39/minute for "data" calls, plus it uses up minutes accoring to your plan.
        or
      • about $6/month for "Wireless Web" which gives you "data" calls and "WAP" (built-in phone.com browser) browsing which use up your minutes according to your plan (but no extra charges)
      It's not the best, it's not the worst.

      I checked in with AT&T, they charge the same.

      AT&T wireless has free "pocket net" service but you have to buy the worst phones they sell (Ericsson). Sadly the Nokia phones don't do it. AT&T's "pocket net" -- from my understanding -- uses the same BellSouth network that Palm VII (Palm.net?) uses; thus is uses a totally different frequency and stuff to access, it's not just a matter of making a "data call".

      You can pay more (2 other pay levels) to get a pop-box and some other stuff (not sure what).

      ....So you are physically setting up a PPP session with an ISP and running an IP stack. What a bunch of idiots. Wireless data network my ass.

      Yup. It's slow too. But it works. I use Sprint PCS for this data-stuff, and it's functional, but not amazing.

    • If you buy the wireless web service from Sprint, you dip into your regular plan minutes, just like a voice call, which costs much less than $.39 a minute.

      The advantage to the IP based model is it is available in more locations. PCS exists in more places than Palm.net does. Palm.net is available only in major cities, PCS hits a lot of smaller cities, and covers most interstates.

      We're getting closer to unlimitted wireless plans. Two companies are offering local unlimitted usage for about 30$ a month where I am. We'll see more of this as time goes on, and paying by the bit is going to make less sense.

    • So does anyone know of any providers that actually have a cool phone/Palm/data network worth needing extra battery life--that don't charge by the minute?

      Nextel has free incoming calls. I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to hook up a system at home which calls your cell modem and establishes a connection. Alternatively, Verizon has 3000 night and weekend minutes, and mobile office is completely free (only uses up your minutes). I've been thinking about getting nextel after my current contract with verizon runs out. $70/month is a little high, though, and that's besides the cost of the phone line (I don't have one right now), and DSL/Cablemodem (which I do currently have).

  • Now I can have a battery to power ringzilla [bbspot.com]. Happy Happy Joy Joy.
  • Where does the article say the battery emits exhaust? For a fuel cell that size, excessive exhaust could be a huge problem and suggest it was burning pretty hot. A quick search on direct conversion of methane into electricity reveals the preferred technique uses chemical reactions to create free electrons, which suggest it doesn't require combustion of gas. Further, the by product would be water and hydrogen, which doesn't smell. Perhaps some one with more knowledge of fuel cel technology can post more details and clear up the air.
  • 9310 Fart Fone
  • Will you be allowed to bring these on planes?
  • Ballard (the guy who started the Ballard Fuel Cell company) went off on a new direction, and started looking at fuel cells for laptops, and cell phones. It looks like this might be the results of that.

    Personally the sooner we get off the dependancy of heavy batteries, the happier I'll be. Even RC cars for my kids would be cool again. (and maybe last longer then 15 minutes).

  • Finally, a compelling reason to become a vegetarian - I will never have to charge my phone again...

    Yeah, it's lame, but hey.

  • Background Information (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gunnk ( 463227 ) <gunnk@mail . f p g . u n c . edu> on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:50AM (#2383309) Homepage
    This technology appears to be some I've read about previously (as far back as 98). You can see the Los Alamos press release [lanl.gov] or an ABC News article [go.com] (with a pic). Both give a little more background and tech info on the cells.

  • Fuel Cell Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @09:51AM (#2383315) Journal
    here is a links on Fuel Cells:

    http://www.fuelcells.org/ [fuelcells.org]

    Good introduction.

    Strangely enough, I do recall the proposal to use gasoline for fuel cells, say in cars, for pollution control, etc. The idea is that you need to have a cheap source of hydrogen and oxegen. And you do not what to use tap water because of the impurities. (never mind that producing a system that could handle impurities would cut the legs from under the Oil Companies)

    Any number of complex hydrocarbons could be used as a fuel for such a system. Methane is just one.

    And the one that some people like is to derive the hydrogen and carbon from ordinary gasoline. Although this is a wild mix of things, it has the advantadge of that it continues to feed the Oil Companies, and it takes advantadge of the distribution system already in place.

    Technology is partly based on the profit center, after all.

    • The idea is that you need to have a cheap source of hydrogen and oxegen. And you do not what to use tap water because of the impurities.

      Not quite. Distilling water is E-Z.

      The fuel-cell problem is one of storage. A fuel cell basically is a hydrogen burner - all you need is hydrogen and oxygen.

      Oxygen is, fortunately for us with aerobic metabolisms, readily available from the atmosphere. Hydrogen can be easily made from electolysis of water, but how do you store it? The answer seems to be, "with great difficulty".

      It turns out to be easier to store hydrocarbons, and nab hydrogen out of them for the reaction.

      However, the means that instead of

      H2 + O2 -> H2O + power + heat

      you get

      CH4 + O2 -> H2O + CO2 + power + heat

      i.e., you've got greenhouse-effect CO2 as an emission.

      If your source of hydrocarbons is biomass methane, than that CO2 gets absorbed by plants which become the source of more fuel - it all becomes an indirect means of solar power. So long as your biomass is sustainably produced, it's all good, as cheap and clean as you're going to find.

      Using fossil hydrocarbons might be a useful intermediate step, but it's dirty, unsustainable, and results in more greenhouse gasses being released.

      (Me, I want a home unit into which I can chuck vegetable peels, grass cuttings, raked leaves, etcetera, and out comes electricity.)

    • The idea is that you need to have a cheap source of hydrogen and oxegen. And you do not what to use tap water because of the impurities. (never mind that producing a system that could handle impurities would cut the legs from under the Oil Companies)

      No, this has nothing to do with impurities in tap water.

      The energy comes (in lay terms) from combining the hydrogen and oxygen (the latter often obtained from the surrounding air) to produce water. In water, the hydrogen and oxygen are already combined, so to use water, you'd have to separate the hydrogen and oxygen first, which takes as much (actually more, thanks to inefficiencies) energy as you would get from recombining them.

      The reasons fossil fuels are used have nothing to do with an oil company conspiracy, and everything to do with their abundance and convenient chemical and physical properties (and, incidentally, are the same reasons we use them as fuels generally).

  • ...will think of these devices?

    Note that the automotive industry has struggled to make batteries and fuel cells crash-safe. When airlines panic about nail clippers, they're likely to reject anyone boarding a plane with a gas-powered device.

    • Note that the automotive industry has struggled to make batteries and fuel cells crash-safe. When airlines panic about nail clippers, they're likely to reject anyone boarding a plane with a gas-powered device.

      Well, what is the current situation on other gas-or gasoline powered devices? Can you take your BIC disposable lighter onboard? What about Zippos? The final product will most likely be an anonymous black block with wires... The risk of this being mistaken for a bomb is higher than having ir barred from flight because it contains methane, methinks.

      After all, you are allowed to take gameboys and laptops onboard. Ever wondered what hazardous and noxious chemical reactions are going on inside such a rechargable battery?
      • as a quick side note, they weren't allowing butane lighters on when i flew last week. even in checked bags.

        they did allow on batteries, though. and they didn't check my coins to see if i had sharpened them. nor did they check any of my potentially-sharpened metal devices.
  • These fuel cells would be great for all those battery hungry digital cameras that have to be fed batteries a few times a day when in constant use.
  • I was wondering how you would fill it up--
    would there be a great big fitting on the side of the phone complete with gas-cap
    or would you have to drive around untill you found a gas station with the little teeny-tiny nozzles?
  • Methane gas, not gasoline!

    Read the article first!
  • This is not actually the primary battery of the phone. Instead, it is a (semi)independant power source for recharging the primary cell.

    Sure, it may be illegal (or impractical) to use it in certain situations, but then you can just disconnect it, and carry on on the standard rechargable cell.

    Think of it as the nifty little portable power pack Luke Skywalker used to recharge R2D2 on Degoba (spelling?), just smaller, and (hopefully) without the disconcerting glow. ;-)

  • Cool idea (Score:2, Informative)

    by ZigMonty ( 524212 )
    Firstly, to all those making jokes about methane smelling, yes they're funny but methane doesn't smell. IIRC, methane is the major component of natural gas and that is odorless (They add the smell so you are warned of gas leaks). Farts smell because of the *other* gases in them.

    Secondly, this was only a matter of time. I hope we switch from methane to hydrogen soon though. Anywho, Scientific American has a pretty informative article [sciam.com] on fuel cells in mobile devices. It's a bit old (1998) but still relevant. A quick Google search turned up some more:
    CNN: NEC develops fuel cell for handhelds [cnn.com]
    ABCNEWS: Fuel Cell Batteries Could Power Next Wave of Technology [go.com]

  • How would you go about recharging a methane fuel cell? Would you plug it in to the wall? Carry a container of methane gas? How long is the cell life with recharge? Or would you just throw it out and buy a new one?
  • Folks,

    While using these tiny fuel cells may be great to extend battery life of cellphones, you can forget about bringing such a thing onto an airplane (for obvious security reasons).

    Even the equivalent of the volume of ink in most ballpoint pens of methane is enough to cause quite a lot of damage inside the plane, especially inside a pressurized fuselage at altitude.

  • Huh? (Score:2)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 )
    Two things:

    1. Why are they running these off of methane? Methane isn't exactly everywhere, you can't just go to the store to refill it. Thus, you are left with either buying new "fuel cell" units for the phone, or building up a new infrastructure to sell methane in small cans for refill - both which equate to more money (for the corps - yay corps!) out of pocket, and more waste for the environment (if the units aren't recycled, etc). Why not use the obvious - compressed butane? Found in every Walgreens on the planet, cheap, hundreds of refills (and probably at the size they are talking about for the fuel cell tank, thousands of refills), delivery system well established, the units would be refillible eliminating waste - the only downside would be that the corps wouldn't have a steady revenue stream in batteries (wah!!).

    2. Size - 2"x4"x.5" - why does that have to hang off a belt? The thing could easily go on the back of a phone - sure the phone might be a bit thicker, but IMO, I think cell phones NEED to be bigger, as well as more rugged - I have a friend/brother-in-law who is a truck driver, and his fingers on his hand are easily big enough to cover two buttons on his cell phone, making it difficult for him to dial it or pick up calls. This has caused him a lot of problems, not to mention that the phone lasts about 2 weeks in the dirty conditions he works in (his truck is a 10 wheel dump truck - he hauls dirt, rock, whatever pays). He used to have an old Motorola 9000 classic brick phone - rugged, big buttons - had it for years - hell, I have it now, and it still works fine! Today's phones suck for that kind of environment - make them a little bigger, less screen, larger numbers (its a phukin phone, for cryin' out loud!) - and drop this battery on - perfect.

    When are these manufacurer's going to learn that cute != practical?

  • Cell fuels have the potential to truly make PDA and portable computers these semi-magical thingies that SF authors keep raving about. Add an SVGA microscreen in goggles, a yet-to-be invented data entry method to replace keyboards, and wearable computers are suddenly not a mad dream anymore.

    Chemical energy has an energy density (in terms of Watt.hour per kilogram) easily 10-100 times higer than even lithium batteries. And methane is not a neurotoxic, contrary to lithium, cadmium and other nastiums that are used in regular rechargeable batteries.

    Of course, I tend to favor alcohol-based fuel cells. Not only do they present less explosion risks than methane cartridges or tanks, you could also refuel your laptop with a squirt of vodka... :-)

    Now, before long, some journalists will misread that press release and start ranting about revolution in transportation. As a slashdotter, your sacred duty is to thwap them with a physics manual. Or even better, write to their editors and remind them that fuel cells are not a generating but a storage technology.

    In order to produce methane or alcohol, you need either petroleum byproducts (and hence oil) or a lot of energy. And do I mean a lot. Of course, you can produce methanol artisanally, but a sustained production cannot rely on cottage industry methods that, BTW, generate huge quantities of waste. Have you ever been downwind of a still when it's dumped after a batch of fermented molasses has been boiled? Not a pretty smell, believe me.

    So next time you hear a tree-hugger^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H environmentally conscious fluffhead raving about nature-friendly, fuel-cell powered busses, heartily approve and remind them to support the construction of that nuclear power plant we'll need to generate said nature-friendly fuel. That generally does the trick.

    #insert<cynicalsmirk.h>

    -- SysKoll

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close