A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

[MileHigh]

MileHigh   
His average over time charted were .76V and .72mA  and Li Ion I googled appears to be 3.6V avg per cell and I used his 44mA calc so  EESD 73 versus Li Ion 158

What stands out for me is the assumption you can charge this linearly to a higher V / mA per cell than he did.  I will be honest 2.6V is the most I ever got from my cells and RMS cell dropped to 1.69V as soon as he put a load on it. 

I think PIH123 (Pete) also nailed it.  This test was for only 4 minutes.  We should really be testing for 1 hour and we can't just extrapolate this out. It appears EESD will need a lot more cells to produce same mAh.

I put the data here if people want to graph or check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fh_XHSwy2w3UJ6WegG9vwrQbibTzgAjStSeYzTtlf5k/edit?usp=sharing

Added A graph

Nink and Phil:

Please don't miss the forest for the trees.  The clip is clearly a total fail on the measurement side of things.  Therefore for me personally there is no point in really digging deeper into it.  It's more like the slate should be wiped clean and RMS should start over.  At least that's what I would do if I was in his shoes.  I am going to make some more technical comments to Brad for you to have a look at, but not too much.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

OK,so here is some scientific info for you MH

Watching the video ,and taking note of time,volts and current shown on RMS's video,and after many tests using different size capacitors,i can achieve the same discharge curve as RMS shows with his EESD by using a 25 farad cap discharging over a 10 ohm resistor. The voltage and current drop over the given time are within a micky wisker of each other. So it would seem that RMS's EESD capacity is very close to 25 farads. The thing i dont know is to what voltage RMS's EESD can be charged to,where as the 25 farad cap can be charged to 2.7 volt's. At 1.5 volts,the 25 farad cap will store 28.125 joules of energy,but at 2.7 volts,it will store 91.125 joules of energy.

Brad:

Like I just posted I am only going to make some limited technical points to you because the situation is so bad, he really should start over and try to make a credible measurement.

For starters, RMS's response to your comments to him about the problem are not confidence-inspiring:

+TinManPower ok mate - thanks - but i didn't miss it - i just didn't highlight it as we were looking at capacity - but i take on board what you are saying

+TinManPower I was thinking about the voltage issue - but we are looking at electrolyte change i think to resolve that problem - i was thinking of organic carbonates - essentially as long as the capacity is there - we can do something about it - but that's just the way i see it

In fact the comments are bogus.  The man totally failed to make a measurement of the energy output of his device.  "Capacity" means "energy capacity."

For what it's worth, here is what I said to him about a day ago:

+Robert Murray-Smith One more time Robert you have a serious serious problem in one of your clips.  Your measurement of your device in the clip "A Perspective On The B Type EESD" is completely out of whack. It's so bad that it is shocking.  I suggest that you review what you did, take down the clip, issue an apology clip, and then redo the test properly in a new clip.

He did not reply.

For making a ballpark measurement of the energy output of his device, it is an "RMS" thing, root mean square.  It's not the averages of the voltage and the current.

I can't be bothered myself, but here is how I would do it for his clip:  He makes a measurement over 240 seconds, 4 minutes.  You can just do manual integration on his multimeter data.  The test starts, you wait five seconds, and you note the voltage and the current.  You do that at 5 seconds, 15 seconds, 25 seconds, etc.  You will get an integration number for the energy output where every slice is 10 seconds wide.  That will be reasonably accurate.

Important technical note:  You can take every slice above and convert it into an "equivalent amp-10-seconds at 3.8 volts" if you want to.  Then add up all of the amp-10-second rectangles to get the total @ 3.8 equivalent volts over an integration time of four minutes.  To convert that into "real amp hours" you then have to spread out that four minutes of data over one hour.  That means you take your accumulated data over four minutes of data and divide by fifteen to get the real equivalent amp-hours @ 3.8 volts.

Then as a bare minimum you have to look at the error tolerance in his weight measurement for the active materials for his own device.  For one material he measures 0.070 grams for the bare paper.  Then he measures 0.075 grams with the paper and the material.  So let's say that is a +/- 20% error tolerance.  The measurements for the second material are 0.070 grams and 0.080.  So let's say that's a +/- 10% error tolerance.  He would have been much better off measuring both at the same time.  Let's just say the overall error tolerance is 25% for the weighing of the materials.

So, he probably has over measured the energy output from his cell by something like 5x to 8x.  Then throw in the 25% error  tolerance for the measurement of the weight of the active materials in his device and you can see that RMS has proven nothing.  He has not by any stretch of the imagination proven that his active materials have a higher energy density by weight than the active materials in a lithium-ion battery.

The clip should be deleted and he should start over.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

93:

You need to go play with Seychelles.

[Jimboot]

Jim
MH is correct.
I too like RMS and all he has done,but when it come's down to it,he(RMS) is just wrong on this one. His calculations are way out to lunch.

The thing is,he has totally forgot about the voltage-->there is no power with current alone.
So some quick and dirty calculations from his clip.
I see the average current over that 4 minutes of his EESD as being about 74mA,and an average voltage of around .94 volt's<--and this is taking into account that very quick 1.5 voltas at the start that dropped to 1.4 in about a second. So over that 4 minutes we had around 69.5mW of power flowing. Now,if we average that over an hour,we would have 69.5mW/15 =4.63 mWh <--can i do it this way MH,PW ?

Now if we look at the Li Ion battery. RMS states that it is an 1.1 amp hour battery=or something close to that. The voltage of those batteries is around 3.6v. Now,because we dont have a discharge time or current for that battery,we cant be to accurate with the amp hour discharge rate. But we can safely assume that it will be higher than the 74mA average that RMS discharged his cap at. So now we can calculate the power output over time for that Li Ion battery.
This will be 3.6 volts @ 74mA=266.4mW. Going by battery specs at the 1.1 amp hour rating,and the fact that we are only drawing 74mA,we could expect to draw that much power for around 14.8 hours.

So we have RMS EESD providing 4.63mWh for 1 hour,and the LI Ion providing 266.4 mW for say 14 hours. So for 1 hour,RMS EESD only provides 1.73% of that of the Li Ion battery-->over the 14 hours that is only .12% of the energy the LI Ion battery could supply.
Things dont look so good now.

Edit: In saying all this,i have to admit that the capacity per weight volume is still very good.
Please see my next post

I did not question mh calculations.

[Jimboot]

You don't have the guts or character to admit that you are wrong when it is as plain as day.  And you damn well know that I know what I am talking about and if I make a mistake I will freely admit it.  Then you play a silly straw man game.  You are clearly the one that is trolling me.

I have made no claims. I simply object to the way you tear people down and asassinate their character because they made an error. And as he said all through the video the numbers don't matter because the numbers are still amazing.


Why not just point out the mistake as Brad has done and then let's get on with it. I don't object to your knowledge, just the way you deliver it sometimes.