CNT battery

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Desertstraw

Texas, don't try to confuse the issue. In your post, which I quoted, you cited an ecolocap website not an mbt site. MBT is 100% owned by Ecolocap, moreover "Michael Siegel, President of EcoloCap Solutions Inc. and CEO of Micro Bubble Technologies Inc." To use an old expression, there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.

So, your answer is - MBT Inc. does not have a web site, just a few pages on their parent’s site.

We here call that Mickey Mouse.

Of course, that is just more evidence, because we have no prototype or third party verification, that they are just a fund raising arm with no beef. Again, I want to be wrong! I beg to be wrong.

Until we have third party verification, I am not wrong. You can wave your hands in the air in angry dispute but it's all smoke an mirrors until we have something to work with.

I am not even asking for a product to purchase! Just respected verification of their technology. Is this bad to want this? Excuse us for be a bit skeptical because we deal with "breakthroughs" just about every day here at GM-Volt.com

Maybe you should ask yourself this about MBT Inc. before you defend them so strongly. Where's the beef?!

[Desertstraw]

Texas, how many times do you need to be quoted to yourself? You wrote:

"OK, they are a working subsidiary of EcoloCap Solutions. Here is their website:
http://www.ecolocap.com/site/index.php?action=intro
There is also a YouTube video of their technology posted in June, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQgTGij0J5o
Funny, absolutely no information on the website. I could not find their website. Anyone? "

When I went to both of these websites and found information that you said was not there, your response was that you would not believe them until their was third party verification of their product. What has that got to do with the issue?

I do not know whether they have what they say or not. But your comments are not related to this issue and are factually wrong.

[Innovator]

This may not apply to MTB but...
GM would certainly not sign a NDA with anybody, i.e. EEStor. They will wait untill there is an actual product to buy before puting any resources into evaluation. IF MBT asked for a NDA then they would get nowhere.

[excess_3]

CNT batteries
5x the energy density of lead acid (and reasonable cycle life)

is 5x, even conceivable?

what about vibration,
that goes along with an electric car?

[wtiger]

From everything I've read the energy density is more like 94 wh/kg; which if true isn't too shabby when compared to say LiFePO4 batteries. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

[pdt]

Originally Posted by wtiger

From everything I've read the energy density is more like 94 wh/kg; which if true isn't too shabby when compared to say LiFePO4 batteries. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

If that is really true, it would be pretty amazing given that the theoretical capacity of lead-acid batteries (just in terms of the active lead and sulfuric acid) is ~170Wh/kg (http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/faculty/i...20seminar.pptx). If someone produces a lead-acid battery that can be deep-cycled thousands of times at 94 Wh/kg, they really will have achieved something amazing. I am not aware of any other battery technology using any chemistry that achieves 55% of theoretical capacity. The best lithium-ion batteries are around 40%, most far lower.

[Mohsen]

Originally Posted by wtiger

From everything I've read the energy density is more like 94 wh/kg; which if true isn't too shabby when compared to say LiFePO4 batteries. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

A123 is now claiming 160 Wh/kg prismatic. Of course only a few people have seen this, but that is what they are saying.

However cost is another matter altogether. There is room for a 94 Wh/kg LA. But I have to see it first. Why is this company with such a breakthrough shipping only golf carts?

[e-bike]

Originally Posted by wtiger

From everything I've read the energy density is more like 94 wh/kg; which if true isn't too shabby when compared to say LiFePO4 batteries. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

Actually, EcoloCap did the math wrong in the preliminary test results for CNT battery:
http://www.ecolocap.com/site/en/pres...g-results.html

They confused "kg" with "lb". So basically, the ED of CNT battery sample should be 94.12wh/lb instead of 94.12wh/kg; and for the lead acid battery, its ED should be 17.44wh/lb instead of 17.44wh/kg.

The actual ED for this CNT battery sample should be 1200x12x1.25/153*2.2 = 259wh/kg, which much better than ED of lithium battery.

[hermperez]

The only problem is that you have to recharge it 4 times to get this 259wh/kg

[wtiger]

I find that number a little hard to swallow. Bring on the independent testing results.