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

[MileHigh]

RMS responded to Memoryman's posting and it's not good.

Memoryman:  There are two huge flaws in the way that you interpret your calculations; one is in the weighing of the active materials, the other one is in the energy measurement method of your cap.

RMS:  fair enough - thanks for that. - though i wasn't measuring energy rather capacity

What the hell is he meaning when he says measuring "capacity?"  That's a meaningless statement.  For a battery, "capacity" means "energy capacity."

The man is not looking good on this at all.

[Nink]

  You have no choice but to agree with me if you agree that power = voltage x current.

Even if you forgive the fact he didn't include the 1.69V to 0.35V in 240 seconds versus a sustained 3.6V for 3600 seconds  (that is worse case usually 3.7V to 3.8V for Li-Ion but he did not measure) we still have a another major gap. The other major gap was he didn't allow for total time.  He was comparing his EESD cell going from  178mA to 31mA in 240 seconds versus a sustained 44mA (actually 44.23mA he rounded 1150/26 down?) for 240 seconds when he should have compared to 3600  seconds as the  Lithium Ion battery cell would continue to run for an hour not 4 minutes. 3600 / 240 = 15 times longer.  Now add the voltage aspect back in and he was out by a factor of 28.  ie he needs  to have approx 28 EESD cells to every Li-Ion cell so he would need 28*26 =728 EESD cells to = 26 Li-Ion cells to deliver 3.6V at 1150mAh.

This is an additional 702 EESD's Cells to deliver the same power as the Li-Ion Battery.

He will also need an appropriate circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 1150mA @ 3.6V.

In terms of weight the EESD is 1g for active material but this did not include the weights of the separator, cathode, anode and electrolyte for for the EESD versus the Li-Ion. Since we don't know these weights all we can say is we need to add the total weight of 702 more EESD + a circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 3.6V 1150 mA to the comparison.

[MileHigh]

So now you want others to prove it for you.. Man just delete this thread and get lost. I mean really you claim he is doing something yet you want others to do it for you to find out.. Just delete the thread and get over it already. The tedious part is your responses with the failed calculations. Yet you don't know a damn thing about those values. Then you ask for others to do it for you. Wow.

When you recognize the data is junk, then you move on.   There is no point in proving how junky it is.  I made a rough estimate that he is exaggerating his energy calculation by somewhere between 5X and 8X, and then you throw in the tolerance of +/-25% for the weighing of the materials.  That is the proper preliminary analysis and you can then move on.

You are the one that is pushing the issue.  So you crunch the numbers, if you really can, or get lost yourself.

The failed calculations are in the RMS clip - he is broadcasting his failure to all that care to watch his clip.

[jbignes5]

No it isn't what you think. He doesn't like all the attention for you guys and I mean that your group of like minded bible thumpers.


I shall post this again, egads...


His device is a hybrid capacitor.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_capacitor


And you are misleading him to think otherwise now with your cronies...


It is not a battery but a mix of the two technologies.

[MileHigh]

Even if you forgive the fact he didn't include the 1.69V to 0.35V in 240 seconds versus a sustained 3.6V for 3600 seconds  (that is worse case usually 3.7V to 3.8V for Li-Ion but he did not measure) we still have a another major gap. The other major gap was he didn't allow for total time.  He was comparing his EESD cell going from  178mA to 31mA in 240 seconds versus a sustained 44mA (actually 44.23mA he rounded 1150/26 down?) for 240 seconds when he should have compared to 3600  seconds as the  Lithium Ion battery cell would continue to run for an hour not 4 minutes. 3600 / 240 = 15 times longer.  Now add the voltage aspect back in and he was out by a factor of 28.  ie he needs  to have approx 28 EESD cells to every Li-Ion cell so he would need 28*26 =728 EESD cells to = 26 Li-Ion cells to deliver 3.6V at 1150mAh.

This is an additional 702 EESD's Cells to deliver the same power as the Li-Ion Battery.

He will also need an appropriate circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 1150mA @ 3.6V.

In terms of weight the EESD is 1g for active material but this did not include the weights of the separator, cathode, anode and electrolyte for for the EESD versus the Li-Ion. Since we don't know these weights all we can say is we need to add the total weight of 702 more EESD + a circuit to deliver the power at a sustained 3.6V 1150 mA to the comparison.

I think you are missing something here.  Even though he considered the cell to be "effectively discharged" over 240 seconds with his "triangle" simplification, he then took his "fake energy" or "fake ampere-240-second" calculation and then stretched it out over a full hour by dividing by 15.  So if you "forget" his atrocious ignoring of the voltage discharge curve for his device, he did generate a "correct" "fake ampere-hours" number.

MileHigh