And true... low voltage at the end may be less useful in certain applications so they can only take the top 10%


I don't really know the full rating of power on laptop batteries... do they exclude a minimum margin?


My Chevy Volt only uses the top 60% of the charge as 100% of what it can use to drive distance... so if they say the Amp-Hours for that is that the 60% used/useful?  Or the 100% of the battery?


Even giving a margin of limiting to useful range.... it's pretty good. 


and if in a process it can be stacked thinner yet, it might have potential... and yes; maybe RMS does present an overly energetic excitement?  Maybe he IS that excited? Maybe just easily excited?  It's certainly more enterintaining to learn his progress from that than a dull somber monotone voice.


------------
edit: I hear echos ' but it's not supposed to be entertaining, if it's valid scientific presentation submitted for peer review' which it can't be; and should be?

Quote from: d3x0r on July 06, 2016, 01:09:09 AM

Ended after several edits with...

You've got the gift of gab don't you?  Somehow you find the longest way to put the fewest words together?  Maybe they become numb like glancing over paragraphs in a book that drones on? *shrug*  Just taking shots in the dark, nothing personal, I don't even know you.[/size]


*Shrug*


-------------
Edit : Uhmm... he takes the high current and high voltage and low current and low voltage and makes a trapazoid and yes it's a better guess because there is a dip in the middle... but with just a few subdivisions it's pretty close to the integral even minus a chunk, which is missing less in that sum than what he's chopping off the end of it would fill....

No he doesn't make a trapezoid in the clip I am talking about.

Here is the clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM

"A Perspective On The B Type EESD"

My comments:

Robert Murray-Smith In your clip <A Perspective On The C type EESD> you encourage your viewers to make a proper energy measurement by multiplying the current times the voltage times the time slice. In your clip <A Perspective On The B type EESD> You make the totally unbelievable error of measuring the current but not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.

You actually have not made a case for a higher energy to weight ratio for your compounds as compared to the compounds in a lithium-ion battery.  Your measurement error for the weighing of your materials is roughly +/-25%.  You have exaggerated the amount of measured energy in your cell by perhaps 5X to 8X.   Combine the exaggeration in the energy content with the error tolerance in your weight measurement and you have nothing.   You make the almost unbelievable error of not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.  So your clip is no good and you should take it down and redo it properly this time.

-----------------------------------------------------

So why don't you take the time to watch the clip and tell me if Robert Murray-Smith is making a mistake or not.  I would like to hear your opinion.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 01:22:29 AM
No he doesn't make a trapezoid in the clip I am talking about.

Here is the clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM

"A Perspective On The B Type EESD"

My comments:

Robert Murray-Smith In your clip <A Perspective On The C type EESD> you encourage your viewers to make a proper energy measurement by multiplying the current times the voltage times the time slice. In your clip <A Perspective On The B type EESD> You make the totally unbelievable error of measuring the current but not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.

You actually have not made a case for a higher energy to weight ratio for your compounds as compared to the compounds in a lithium-ion battery.  Your measurement error for the weighing of your materials is roughly +/-25%.  You have exaggerated the amount of measured energy in your cell by perhaps 5X to 8X.   Combine the exaggeration in the energy content with the error tolerance in your weight measurement and you have nothing.   You make the almost unbelievable error of not measuring the voltage output of your cell over time and then calculating the total energy output and then converting that into equivalent ampere-hours at 3.8 volts to put yourself on a level playing field with the lithium-ion battery.  So your clip is no good and you should take it down and redo it properly this time.

-----------------------------------------------------

So why don't you take the time to watch the clip and tell me if Robert Murray-Smith is making a mistake or not.  I would like to hear your opinion.

"by perhaps 5X to 8X. "  you have presented no basis of that[/size]

ya until back at the math... https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s  ... "that allows us to make a straight line at the top" which makes it a trapazoid.

Quote from: d3x0r on July 06, 2016, 01:35:23 AM
"by perhaps 5X to 8X. "  you have presented no basis of that[/size]

ya until back at the math... https://youtu.be/W-aOPQ9_MyM?t=20m11s  ... "that allows us to make a straight line at the top" which makes it a trapazoid.

Watch the clip properly.  That graph where he does the trapezoid approximation is for the current only, and he is ignoring the voltage.

The basis for my estimate that he is exaggerating the energy content by 5X to 8X is that he ignores the voltage completely and the voltage is continuously decreasing.  When the voltage is low the power output is low and he completely ignores this fact.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2016, 01:42:45 AM
Watch the clip properly.  That graph where he does the trapezoid approximation is for the current only, and he is ignoring the voltage.

The basis for my estimate that he is exaggerating the energy content by 5X to 8X is that he ignores the voltage completely and the voltage is continuously decreasing.  When the voltage is low the power output is low and he completely ignores this fact.

voltage decreases linearly with the amperage; exactly proportionate to R ... so I'm sure there's jsut ..


E = I R
P = I E
P = I I R
and I2-I1




------------
Ya okay well...


Way late now; but ya... mAh is a a rating only when you can say it's at X voltage.  Your 'b-type' EESD iddn't maintain a voltage curve very long, and fell of very linear with the current...   so you end up with a sqrt(I) on the output...  think you're about breaking even; sorry I'm not very clear....

E = IR
P = IE
P = IIR

but your R is a motor that's variable resistance depending on RPM (contact time of the brush determins time current can flow; windings have their own limitation, plus the work lost to charge and discharge the magnetic field; so definatly a variable resistance.

But you have E and I so... it's forget R

1.5 * 178  on the start (instantanous power of 267mw)
0.3 * 31 at the end (instantanous power of 9mw at the end)
138mw average...

138mw at 1.5V would be great and would give you 92mAh  ( I = P/E)
but 138mw at 0.5V is  276mAh

but in any case not sure how you would get 697mAh (at what voltage by the way? 0.3? )


(and some more musings)
(end power over end voltage to give end mah oh- right it's 31...)
9mw / 0.3V  = 30mAh

-------------
so ya pretty high estimate... but is it even if it was also 100mAh ; it's 1/45'th the sample weight?