Try to remember recharge times are limited by physicist not technology: in any battery or ultracapacitor system to recharge it in minutes requires several megawatts, the electronics to handle this would have the be intense even superconducting in order to prevent a complete melt down! Even at a capacitor efficiency of 85-95% the heat build up would be horrific!

High School Physics hypothetical rejoinder to hypothetical criticism of hypothetical technology:

OK, I remember that heat build up is due to electrical resistance, so I guess we’re assuming all that energy has to be routed through one in line?  If you were to spread the inlines several each around several of these capacitors, wouldn’t that reduce the heat at any one point?

Imagine stopping your car in for a recharge and hooking up huge cables as thick as your wrist, several of them!

Most electric car design today revolve around recharging at home during the night for several hours (6-9hr), or at a plug station at work using conventional 110-240V systems at about 1-4kw, any high requires significant modification to the building’s electric grid. For comparison gasoline pump fuel into a fuel tank at a equivalent energy amount of ~5Mw!

So convert some gas stations to full service charging stations.  The real estate has to be repurposed anyway.

Ok who is going to stop by at a “charging” station for several hours!?!? the advantage with charging is that you don’t need a charging station you can charge your car at home (or if your job’s building has external sockets you can charge at your job). In a day most Americans don

OK, but we were talking about the aleged EEStor system, not contemporary electric hybrid technology.  Your objection there was that it couldn’t function on one input to charge in 3-4 minutes w/o melting the input, so I suggested it would need specialized input.  You countered that this would make it unfeasible for home recharging in 3-4 minutes since the electrical system would have to be rewired.  So I suggested that the EEStor car could be charged in 3-4 minutes at dedicated locations in the now obsolete gas stations, which would be specifically equipped for that purpose.

So from where I’m reading the conversation, it isn’t germane that nobody would wait hours to charge a car at a station since that wasn’t the time frame I was thinking of anyway.

Sorry about the confusion.  :(

ok ok I get you now, so your saying we make fusion powered recharging stations. The fusion reactor has got to by like within 50m of the recharger because you don

transmute, I’m not trying to municipal waste on your Fusion oil idea, I think it’s a very good one, I just feel that we need to throw everything we have at taking emissions down to negative levels before any other priority.

Well we can’t just leave garbage to decay and throw up CO2 and CH4 instead can we? My goal is to solve the energy problem first: peak oil is going to hit us harder and faster then global warming. With fusion oils we already net negative CO2 by making most of it into asphalt and plastics (assuming hydrogen, batteries or some other electrochemical storage substance takes up most of gasolines place) and make a profit at the same time. This is how people think: there not going to do something unless it benefits them in the short term (money) because there to stupid or selfish to care about the long term, at least this way everyone wins: they get money, a stable economy and reverse global warming.

You ever heard about the strategies of Parmenion and Alexander?

The point about heat generation during recharging is right. Basically, the ultracapacitor people have to get the chaging voltage up to a reasonable value so the cross section of the chaging cable is not excessive. 

Let

Transmute - 15 January 2007 09:13 PM

You provide every extraordinary claims with no evidence what so ever to back them up. What your suggesting is an ultracapacitor with energy densities 10X+ existing ultracapacitors, if you can provide proof that this has been achieve and is marketable as claimed then I

Just a quick point, Glenn: If we do get global warming via CO2 emissions largely under control, then it makes real good sense to keep global dimming around a bit longer to let the ice build back up where it needs to be.

Duke Leto - 24 January 2007 02:19 AM

Just a quick point, Glenn: If we do get global warming via CO2 emissions largely under control, then it makes real good sense to keep global dimming around a bit longer to let the ice build back up where it needs to be.

That is true. In fact, global dimming is probably helping us more than its hurting us at the moment. But as time goes along we will need to address this issue. Given that most life on Earth is based on photosynthesis-created chemical energy, I wonder what the impact of a century or more of greatly reduced sunlight will have on the already stressed ecosystem.

Glenn Millam,

Confidence no matter from whom does not mean something is likely. Like I said the claims from your products sound vary impressive and if they are proven someday I