Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Laptop Fuel Cells Approved For Air Carriage 247

Posted by timothy from the how-much-will-refills-cost dept.
gilgsn writes "According to reports in BusinessWeek, the US Department of Transportation has ruled that a new fuel cell developed by US company Polyfuel can be taken on airplanes. The announcement clears the way for the commercialisation of fuel cells as an alternative to batteries in notebook computers. The use of direct methanol fuel cells on aeroplanes has been questioned as they contain methanol, which is flammable. According to Jim Balcom, Polyfuel's CEO, the US DOT said that a fuel cell designed by his company could be taken into aircraft cabins when it goes on sale because it contains a relatively low concentration of methanol. Fuel cells are viewed as a promising power source in notebook comptuers as they are instantly refuellable (using fuel cartridges) and will power laptops two to three times longer than standard batteries. Full Story." This will be more exciting news when the fuel cells are actually available.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Laptop Fuel Cells Approved For Air Carriage More

Laptop Fuel Cells Approved For Air Carriage

Comments Filter:

  • Cell Phones and More (Score:5, Informative)

    by pgrote ( 68235 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:09PM (#4406660) Homepage
    A Wired article [wired.com] touched on this previously.

    The neat thing are the carbon nanotubes used to drive these things. NEC is working on fuel cells for phones [itworld.com].

    ---
    Interview with GoDaddy President Bob Parsons [compunotes.com]

  • Just one? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:10PM (#4406667) Journal
    Jim Balcom, Polyfuel's CEO, the US DOT said that a fuel cell designed by his company could be taken into aircraft cabins when it goes on sale because it contains a relatively low concentration of methanol.

    Just one might have a small amount, but what about the person who carries a bag full of them? Initial excuse being that there will be only a few places to get these when they first hit the market.

    • Re:Just one? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bmwm3nut ( 556681 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:34PM (#4406799)
      it's not the amount of methanol that matters, it's the concentration? can you ignite a bottle of beer that's only 4% (i know beer's ethanol, but same idea)? can you ignite a keg of beer? can you ignite a vat of beer at the brewery? it doesn't matter how much alcohol you have, the fact that it's diluted in water will keep it from burning. i think (at least for ethanol) you need something around 50% before it'll burn.

  • Methane gas? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spy4MS ( 324340 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:11PM (#4406675)
    Maybe they can be refueled at the lavatory.

    33 years old and still making potty jokes. It's sad, really.

  • Better than Li-ion? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:11PM (#4406677)

    Li-ion isn't the safest technology, When Lithium Ion batteries were first released 4 years ago(Sic!) they were actually banned from transportation on aircraft. Unsolved problems with batteries exploding violently resulted in the ban. [transair.com] [transair.com] Let's hope that some lessons has been learned and this won't happen this time around. Though, Li-ion batteries are still used today because of better safety regulations [nec-tokin.net] [nec-tokin.net] and even built in microprocessors to protect from overcharging. Lithium will still explode or overheat if charged at a too high voltage and if it catches fire, don't try to put it out with water!



    The advantages of Li-ion obviously outweight the hazards and since fuel-cells don't seem any worse they will probably get accepted too. Apart from
    better performance they might find a niche already because of normal batteries abysmal heat specifications. My laptop battery is not to be operated at temperatures higher than 35 degrees celcius, which really is impossible to achieve if you are using the computer standing on a desk. Not considering people in hotter countries or scientists at the southpole...



    [extremetech.com]
    Look here for a more balanced story on battery technology [extremetech.com]

  • Sounds cool, but not for my laptop. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stoutlimb ( 143245 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:12PM (#4406681)
    I'll buy a laptop that has a methanol fuel cell in it when I can plug my laptop into any wall socket to recharge my methanol supply. Sure methanol may last way longer, but the readily availiable supply of electricity far outweighs the benefits of the longer lasting fuel cell.

    Bork!
    • When there's a plug in my coach seat flying intercontinental then prehaps I'll see the benefit of large, heavy, long time to recharge, heavy metal laden, short usage time capacitors.
    • Gee, I guess you drive an electric car too 'cause you have to travel far from your electrical socket to get gasoline?
      • I would LOVE an electric car! Here in Canada, because of the need for block heaters, there are out door plugs almost everywhere there are private parking stalls. This includes most downtown parkades. I could then refuel my car when I got to work, visit friends, or even better yet, suck power from my lawyer's parking lot when I go there. Just the idea of that sends a thrill through me!

    • Re:Sounds cool, but not for my laptop. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Erpo ( 237853 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @07:08PM (#4407009)
      I think the idea is that once the fuel cell is depleted, you empty out the waste product (water) and refill it with weak methanol solution. If it's that simple, then recharging your laptop means going down to the drug store and picking up a bottle of wood alcohol. Of course, efficiency comes into play here. You wouldn't want to have to buy a bottle every few days, but depending on the concentration you get one bottle could be diluted to give quite a few recharges.
    • recharge my methanol supply

      That gives me a thought...instead of using methanol, how about using methane? Sure, it's a gas, but methane can be used as a fuel, and hey, it's easy to come up with a refill for it.
      • Compressed flammable gasses on airplanes are just an all-around bad idea.

        I'd prefer Ethanol as a fuel, at least if it can tolerate a small amount of water rather than requiring anhydrous. Airplanes could start carrying the full-strength Everclear (apparently the 192-proof is illegal in California, so we can only get 151 here, but I assume the real stuff is available.) (For non-US readers, this is 96%-pure ethanol, with the other 4% being water.) And unlike methanol, it's relatively non-poisonous. So while you wouldn't have a fuel line feeding directly into your laptop from the airline seat, it'd still be convenient, and you could drink the leftovers....

    • Sure methanol may last way longer, but the readily availiable supply of electricity far outweighs the benefits of the longer lasting fuel cell.

      Probbably, after all either the ZDnet verion of the article [macnn.com], or the maker said inital laptop uses would most likely have both a normal batt and a fuel cell!

  • it seems the guy in front of me has been bringing gas on airplanes for years... did this really need to go to court?
  • We already allow people to accidentally carry on more dangerous materials such as containers under pressure, pocket knives, knitting needles, and illegal MP3s. What is the harm with someone finally having enough battery power to operate their laptop for the duration of a flight from LA to Hong Kong? Nothing.
    Hydrogen is much less dangerous than everyone in the pro-oil community is saying. It wasn't even the cause of the Hindenburg fire, as the mythical tale of why hydrogen is bad says. If we are going to fly on planes with tonnes of flammable material under our butts, then what is the harm of having some flammable material in a much smaller quantity on our laps? If we outlaw everything that might catch fire, then we shouldn't allow fat people on planes, because their fat may liquify, and they would spontaneously combust.

  • Victorian machinery (Score:3, Funny)

    by Metropolitan ( 107536 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:13PM (#4406692) Journal
    I can see it now - all those busines-class air travelers sitting with their laptops open, little puffs of steam bubbling out every few minutes...

    That being said:
    This could be a boon to the more adventurous computer users. Instead of having to drag a solar pack around, and a bag of spare batteries, a jug of methanol and you'll be set for weeks!

    What will the new measurement be - MIPS/liter?
    • all those busines-class air travelers sitting with their laptops open, little puffs of steam bubbling out every few minutes...

      Whoa, hey, did somebody step on a duck?

  • A few questions. Battery size. Actual times? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:15PM (#4406702) Journal
    One thing to ask is, how much do these suckers weigh, and how big are they? If they're huge and huge they're not going to embraced by laptop users. The PDF file has a picture of a fuel cell (p8) that's the length of laptop. Some laptops still use big ones like that but many have made more compact batteries. Another page shows an external-type cell (p14), which might be nice for airlines, etc, but at the size given isn't anything hugely innovative.

    The article also states that they power laptops 2-3 times longer than standard batteries. So what's standard? Between different laptops, and depending on activity, there can be a significant difference how long batteries last. A hard estimate of how long they last under normal conditions (no CD's etc running all the time) would be a lot nicer. Call me suspicious but they also say 2-3 times longer than standard batties. My laptop doesn't run very long at all on a few AA's (insert smiles here).

    Lastly, just a poke at the article because I hate lazy editors:
    also -notebook comptuers- it would be nice if the reporter could spell

  • What Safety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hirsto ( 601188 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:15PM (#4406703)
    Why the heck are they worried about flammable alcohol in my computer when the stewardess will give me two shots of 100 proof vodka that burns quite nicely?

    • Re:What Safety (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:45PM (#4406858) Homepage
      why are they worried about box cutters when i can twist my aluminum soda can apart and make 2 sharp as hell circular 'cans of death'?
      • wow... just got the moderation email on my previous comment... hopefully the meta-mod system will work. i'm dead serious about the soda cans. i have a habit of finishing a soda and twisting the can apartment... it could be a very viable weapon. it could be that an FAA member modded me down because they understood that i was right and didn't want 'terrorists' reading my comments.

        • Re:What Safety (Score:3, Funny)

          by gvonk ( 107719 )
          i have a habit of finishing a soda and twisting the can apartment...

          Ah! It was you who twisted my can apartment! I can't live in it any longer because someone twisted the damn aluminum roof right off! *sniff*
          I just hope you stay away from my Can Airplane [gcwoodworks.com]
      • Why? Because people are stupid and think it makes them safer.

        I've said it before and I'll say it again - box cutters, nail files, really sharp paper, these are not the problem. This is sort of like saying iron ore causes handgun deaths, so we should ban iron ore. Repeat after me, a nail file is NOT the problem. The problem was that some schmuck with a box cutter managed to cow a few hundred people into giving him an airplane.

        Now, what *should* have happened is that some schmuck with a box cutter stands up and starts screaming; the two people next to him, two people in front, and two people behind stand up and jump the asshole, take his knife, and beat him senseless with it. Or maybe one of those idiots who can't read "your carry-on baggage must fit in this box" should hit him with the small cars they try to cram into the overhead compartments and under their seats.

        One more time, everyone together now: Nail clippers do not throw airplanes at buildings. People throw airplanes at buildings.
      • The best comment was when a pilot cracked a joke on going through security that taking nail clippers of him was kind of pointless if he is sitting at the controls. True, but security got upset and the pilot was fined/suspended.

        As regards your soda can, there are still glasses on some flights (and some metal cutlery). Given the quantity of not so dilute Ethanol on board (frequently cited as a major fire risk), a couple of hundred grams in a few laptop batteries is neither near nor there.

    • 1) The stewardess will not give you excessive vodka. Though they'd worry a wild drunk more than a glass of burning vodka. :)
      2) You can bring high concentration of methenol as long as they are stored in form of a battery - unless, of course, they open it and take a sap of it. :)

      It's YOUR safety to care about, really. I DO worry. Call me lamer. :)
  • This could turn into a big cottage industry for local stores. For $10 a month you could have a pair of fuel cells out, and once they are gone you drop them up and pick up two more. I sure as hell would pay the extra for the longer battery life.

  • aggh. (Score:4, Funny)

    by crea5e ( 590098 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:20PM (#4406725)
    First cars are going to electrical motors, now laptops are using fuel cells. Why not a diesel powered cell phone ?

    Next thing you'll tell me is that there is like a tenth planet or something.

    Damn slashdot. I used to be a normal person.

  • obligatory simpsons quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by K. ( 10774 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:20PM (#4406728) Homepage Journal
    "One for you, one for me. One for you..."

    One way or another, today's young go-getters are going to end up high on meths. Oh the canadian irony.
  • I hope that some one comes up with a smalll enough package that it can be designed to fit into the variouse packaging design that diffrent Laptop makers have for there batteries. I would certainly purchase a fuel cell for my laptop.
    • I hope that some one comes up with a smalll enough package that it can be designed to fit into the variouse packaging design that diffrent Laptop makers have for there batteries.

      Just use palladium hydrogen storage [fys.uio.no] for the fuel cells. Palladium has an interesting property of being able to absorb about 800 times it's volume of hydrogen. It is experimentally being used for fuel cell cars.

      Palladium is quite expensive, however I don't think you would need very much for a laptop fuel cell.

  • Flammable? (Score:4, Funny)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:26PM (#4406763) Homepage Journal
    The use of direct methanol fuel cells on aeroplanes has been questioned as they contain methanol, which is flammable.


    Screw the airplane--what about my lap? I mean seriously, an airplane is a lot harder to set aflame than my cordurouys.

  • Is this necessarily a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:33PM (#4406797) Journal
    Jim Balcom, Polyfuel's CEO, the US DOT said that a fuel cell designed by his company could be taken into aircraft cabins when it goes on sale because it contains a relatively low concentration of methanol.
    So are the security personnel going to sample your methanol before you board the plane to make sure it's not a higher-concentration or some other fuel? I know they make you start up your laptop, but a terrorist could presumably pass that test with a modified fuel cell.

    As much as I'd like to run my laptop on fuel cells, this sounds like a potential loophole for carrying far more-flammable fuels onto airplanes. Not that there are people who would go to the trouble of implementing something like that when they could just fill their shoes...

  • A little off-topic... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:37PM (#4406814) Homepage Journal
    ... but this post doesn't excite me as much as it might have a year ago. The problem is that I fear laptops will sooner or later be banned from airplanes due to wireless interference concerns.

    I've been looking at laptops lately, a lot of them have built in 802.11 and bluetooth. Problem is: how do you know if they are on or off? The average business user who has no idea what his/her laptop is capable of is expected to know to turn the wireless stuff off. Because of this there has been chatter about banning laptops all together.

    It seems to me that air-travel should be a larger concern for mobile devices these days. My cell phone that has all these organizer and game features doesn't have an 'airplane' profile that shuts down the transmitters on it. Should laptops have 'Airplane' profiles too?

    In any case, I know it's a little off topic. It's nice to see a company saying "we'll get this approved for use in the air", but arguably air travel is their target market. Personally, I wouldn't invest in them until I knew more about what the future holds for computing devices in the air.
    • I remember a dicussion once about using Bluetooth to create zones that enable macros to happen. For example, a movie theater would create a bluetooth access point that says "This is a theater, act accordingly" and a BT enabled Cell Phone would read that and automatically go into silent mode.

      If the airplane can handle a predictable bluetooth beacon like that (seems feasible), then somebody who's laptop conformed to an airline specification would know to listen to that signal and shut down all dangerous output.

      On a side note: This is a better solution than trying to jam cell phones. For one thing, you could turn the beacon it off if the need arises.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • News of November the 16th, 2009 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @06:46PM (#4406869) Journal
    London, United Kingdom
    At 07:00 this morning, a newly comissioned methanol based airliner made by the Boeing corporation crashed near London Heathrow airport due to what seems to be a fuel shortage. Rescue personel is currently attempting to find and rescue any survivors in the wreckage of the crashed plane.
    The tragedy started at 22:00 in Ney York's LaGuardia airport where 850 individuals boarded the newly comissioned and experimental plane. The majority of the passengers was bound for a Open Source meeting in Hamburg, Germany. The first signs of trouble came about Ireland, when the reports of fuel loss came in. Initially, these were disregarded as anomalies due to the new fuel system. This simple human mistake proved to cost about 700 human lives later in London.
    While the most likely cause is a spantanous depressurization of the fuel compartments or a large leak, authorities have found evidence pointing in a different direction. Here we have a recording of the passenger area voice recorder. Were now playing it back live to you:
    Geek 1 : I'm bored, how much longer does the flight last?
    Geek 2 : Much longer, I wish we hadn't drained our fuel cells in the departure halls...
    Geek 3 : Tell me about it. So, this is one of those new Boeings, right?
    Geek 2 : Yeah, it is, it's based on a new kind of engine concept that works on methanol! It's really great stuff if you're into engineering...
    Geek 1 : Methanol!?
    Geek 3 : Brethren, I have just found a solution for our boredom! Tell me where the main fuel conduits are and get me a Dremel from the casemodders department!

    *** Sound of several minutes of apparent use of tools ***

    Geek 1 : We did it! Everyone got their load of methane?
    Geek 2 : First post at slashdot!
    Geek 3 : Damn you, Stallma- ... Hey, are we losing altit-

    *** Static (or various moans and cries with a dark voice rambling "Liberate Tuteme Ex Infernus"(sp?) if you're in a marcabre mood.) ***
  • i was thinking a little while back: "man wouldn't it nice if we had atomic power, like minature tokamacks or whatnot for cars, cd players, laptops, etc etc.

    and then it hit me -- no way man, it would suck ass. when you can store enough energy to run a car for 50 years in the size of a gas tank, what happens if something goes wrong (as it obviously will) with the storage? if somebody *intentially* sets it off, etc?

    there are all these scientists out there who are striving for higher and higher power density in energy storage -- but i think there is an end; not necessarily the "diminishing returns" end, but a "maybe it's not a good idea for a AA battery to have enough juice to power a cadillac" -- because when you get enough power density in everyone's hands, everyone will have the power to blow a whole lotta stuff up.

    this will probabbly become the next great hurdle in energy storage -- and ironically it's not even a technical challenge, but rather a socialogical one.

    • Just because there's a high potential energy stored in a battery does not mean that there is a very catastrophic failure mode. Consider a lead-acid battery. These explode when they are shorted. Now consider a tokamak (to use your lame example.) This needs to continuously feed back into itself to keep the hydrogen fusing. If it fails somehow, then you have about a millionth of a gram of hot hydrogen, which will promptly expand with the force of a popping soap bubble.

      Just remember, a hydrogen-bomb does not get its destructive power from fusion. It uses fission to set off a fusion reaction, which sets off a very large fission reaction, which contributes the lions share of the destructive energy in the explosion.

    • It's going to happen at some point; better that we be prepared for it, rather than adopting the ostrich defense.

      I blame the wheel, myself; oh, and fire as well. It's a slippery slope from that sort of technology to ICBMs, etc.

    • no way man, it would suck ass. when you can store enough energy to run a car for 50 years in the size of a gas tank, what happens if something goes wrong (as it obviously will) with the storage? if somebody *intentially* sets it off, etc?

      You clearly don't understand the first thing about fusion. The fuel is deuterium, which is commonly found in seawater. If it leaks, sure it's inconvenient, but it's no more dangerous than say butane if you're worried about it exploding. Certainly it is far less dangerous than a tank full of gas.

      That's why we aren't running our whole society on fusion power right now: because starting a fusion reaction (at least, without a nuke to kick it off) is hard and sustaining it, even in perfectly controlled conditions, is even harder.

  • direct-methanol fuel cells (Score:4, Informative)

    by Erpo ( 237853 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @07:00PM (#4406954)
    I can't see direct-methanol fuel cells not making it to production and widespread use in all sorts of things from laptops to cars. They have all the positive qualities of regular (hydrogen) fuel cells, but they have a few more really significant advantages:

    1. They're easily rechargable. Anyone can pour a weak methanol solution from a bottle into a fuel cell's reservoir, but not everyone has the equipment (or desire) to store compressed hydrogen in their home or car.

    2. They're stigma-free. Mention hydrogen and the first thing many people think of is the hindenburg. While it's true that hydrogen was _not_ the cause of the disaster (entire thing was covered in flammable paint), many people think it is and will shy away from hydrogen-powered cars and appliances for that reason. As far as I know, there have been no significant disasters for which methanol has been blamed. (Disclaimer: I may be wrong.)

    3. A weak methanol solution really is safe - it's not going to hurt you unless you drink it. (Methanol isn't drinkable alcohol, that's ethanol. Methanol is converted by the body into formaldehyde, the stuff you use to preserve dead things.)
    • They're stigma-free. Mention hydrogen and the first thing many people think of is the hindenburg.


      For what it's worth, I really think the above is a non-issue. The people who are technically savvy will understand the truth of the matter easily enough when it is told to them (if they don't know already), and the non-technical types will become comfortable with hydrogen in a few years, once they have seen enough people using it with no major accidents. Remember how things went with air travel -- initially people were afraid of it, but now most people don't give it a second thought.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • If this is any more than vapor, this is excellent news for alternative transportation.

    Here's why: People have been working hybrid electric vehicles and decent batteries for decades. It was ONLY AFTER the cell phone and laptop boom that there was any significant advancement in rechargeable battery technology. So now we can make HEVs (and hopefully real electric vehicles).

    If the idea of using fuel cells in laptops, cell phones, etc. takes off, we might end up with a generation of very useable fuel cells that we can apply to vehicle technology.

    Of course, Detroit, Evil Oil Companies, and Starbucks will probably conspire and prevent this from happening :)
  • ...of Osama saying "Hrblt k jethig Beowulf ad og" (Imagine a Beowulf cluster of thóse...)

  • OK on safety--what about oxygen consumption? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phr2 ( 545169 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @07:56PM (#4407265)
    Some laptops use as much as 70 watts of power. That's not much less than a human being uses at rest (such as sitting in an airline seat). Airlines barely circulate enough air into the cabin now to keep people from passing out. With fuel cells sucking up more of the available oxygens, airlines may have to provide more air--and they might not get around real soon to doing that. I hope it doesn't cause anyone serious breathing problems.
    • Plane A carries 100 people. On an average flight, only 75 people are actually on. Of those 75 people, 5 brought laptops, but only 3 people intend to use them. Of those 3 people, 1 is in first class and could actually afford a laptop with this. So, now we have to pump out enough air for 76 people instead of 75. I really don't see a problem. I would also guess that they probably have to have enough air to keep about 125% of maximum capacity alive or more.
    • As long as there are babies and children wailing on planes, there's too much damn oxygen in the plane as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps the drain of oxygen by my laptop will keep everyone around me quiet, and I can use my laptop in peace.
    • I wouldn't call the atmospheric pressure at 5000 feet anything near thin. Sure if you fill a 2liter with air at that pressure and drive to the sea the bottle dents noticeably, but its nothing like 10,000 feet which I've backpacked through.

      Planes are pressurized by the engines forcing air into the cabin. Its not like there are tanks of O2 in the cargo area that have to last the entire flight. I'm not referring to the oxygen masks. I don't know how those work.
    • With fuel cells sucking up more of the available oxygens, airlines may have to provide more air--and they might not get around real soon to doing that. I hope it doesn't cause anyone serious breathing problems.

      Uhh, dude, with 4 bloody great turbofans on a typical airliner, the last thing you need to worry about is running out of air, short of a catastrophic cabin breach. Or electrical power for that matter. The only reason there aren't power sockets on every seat is the weight of the cabling. Oh, and that you can wire a few seats in business class and charge $$$ for them. Or not, if everyone has days worth of power in their laptops anyway.

  • It's all about the profit model... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Monday October 07, 2002 @08:32PM (#4407421) Homepage
    I'm starting to see how this is all going to pan out. Apologies to those who already figured it out.

    so HP makes most of its money off of proprietary inkjet refill carts. It's the disposable razor model, where you get the printer for a song, but the supplies suck you dry. now with fuel cells, for the sake of 'safe transferrance' of fuel to the cell, the fuel cell supplier will sell you fuel packs in proprietary cases (probably with microchips (ala Epson ink carts) to deter 'piracy' (ie third parties)). The batteries will go for a song, and at $10 each the refills won't seem prohibitively expensive. heck, you could get a 10-pack for $70 at costco, most likely.

    But use them day after day for your commute to work, use them on planes, on vacation so you don't have to lug a power supply (since you'll be able to buy them on demand all over the world, like film) and suddenly a huge new industry emerges, because we're too clumsy to put methanol into a compartment without NASA-level safeguards.

    Yeah, I'm bitter, but this is how the world works. Things don't come to market because they're better; things come to market when people figure out how to get rich off it.
  • Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most laptop batteries flammable - most seem to have all sorts of warnings plastered over them warning not to dispose by fire, etc...

    Then again, my laptop gets hot enough to fry an egg, but has yet to burst into flames... Speaking of which ,it's time to pour more liquid nitrogen over the CPU......
  • I can't quite remember how the refills worked, but I had the feeling they came in disposable bottles - are these bottles also OK'ed for taking on planes, or are we back to square one when they realize we have to check luggage to have spare power for the laptop when we arrive?

    I'm personally not convinced it's going to be more convienient to find a fuel cell refill than a power outlet for the next 10 years or so. Even if the battery life is longer (which is great), when you're out, you're out and I don't want to have to play parent to my laptop and take a thousand bottles of "laptop formula" with me on trips to feed the thing.
  • An article in Sci Am in 1999 (which doesn't appear to be on the internet version, unfortunately) went into considerable detail on the technology needed for this type of fuel cell.
    The small quantities of methanol, and the dilution with water, means the risk is pretty low (you could cause more trouble, I guess, breaking out the lithium from your batteries and adding it to water - don't try this at home,folks).

    For those who are asking, that article also explains why it is difficult to scale these cells up to automotive use.

    One problem for the automotive industry is that methanol attacks many of the components of the current fuel distribution system, which is quite sensitive to the chemical composition of what it carries. At one time you could find carburetor conversion kits for some British motorcycles which included gaskets of different materials to handle this problem, and I tried this during the 1970s fuel crisis. Handling pure methanol without a standard fuel pump is not much fun, but it surely cleans out the carbon from the engine and the experiments were worth it just from that point of view.

    And btw, rubbing alcohol WILL NOT WORK in your methanol fuel cell, neither will vodka.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close