# CNT battery - real?



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

I called that co. and they said it would be the fall before available retail.
About the price you have there for 250ah 12 volt.
http://www.next-alternative.com/


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

alvin said:


> I called that co. and they said it would be the fall before available retail.
> About the price you have there for 250ah 12 volt.
> http://www.next-alternative.com/


I have been bugging this company and one of its oem over the past year getting a tidbit here and there. It appears that if you want to get a battery you will need to find an OEM or reseller willing to sell you one as the company won't help.

When I called and emailed in september I was told it would be $450 per battery (including lower 48 shipping) for a 520ahr 12v battery in September, I have the so called spec sheet and will post a digital copy.

I was told initial production had begun and that oems could order and sell some starting early in the year but that all current production was sold at that time and there was a waiting list. They would take a purchase order but not bill until they had the batteries in stock.

The initial production batteries have dimensions similar to a trojan 1275 and are nominal 520ahr, when I figured out the specs it appeared that they really would only have about 400ahr or so usable in an ev. I told roger at capital golf that my ev required the 10 3/4" 6v battery dimensions not the longer 12 1/4" dimensions and he said early february there would be other lines of batteries available in different dimensions.

Anyway supposedly (I can't verify) these batteries have been floating around for inspection since september and many batteries were sent to OEMs early in the year around February.

When I asked on some other EV forums I was told that these batteries have been sold under a different name in Canada since 2005 for wheelchairs but had issues with the included charger burning up the battery.

This is what I could dig up all 2nd hand hearsay from folks involved, I remember that roger is more or less gone this time of year but I will keep bothering him until I can find out if Its possible for me to place an order now and what lines and type of batteries they are selling at the moment.

I was most interested in getting a battery that would fit without refabbing my boxes so I am not in line currently to purchase.

Perhaps I will still be the first on this group to find out one way or another what these batteries are like? I planned on buying 4 even if they were the wrong dimensions to test but lost the req form and fax number. Will give a go again when roger is back in canada.

Also the last time I tried to post the spec sheet here from korea it got all messed up and unreadable, I will repost. Its not real informative 

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

subscribe button pushed


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

http://theeestory.com/topics/3997

Interesting read start to finish. I was on the bandwagon back in 08 where were they?

Shows the typical arm flailing that happens when a claim without a product or proof shows up, I wouldn't mind being a ginea pig to do the tests though if the place isn't yet another con  Good reason to insist on buying products and testing and not investing.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Well I got a hold of Roger. I maskeraded as the defense company I work for and he was willing to prototype new CNT lead acid batteries per our application in 6-8 weeks, but stated all stock sales & engineering samples are discontinued as one company has bought the rights to the first 6mo of production or about 435,000 units. He wouldn't say who it was but I did get out of him that they made recreational vehicles, atvs, golf carts and will be starting an ad campaign in a few months. I then asked if the batteries could be sold to individuals and a flat NO, not until September.
He was pushing for me to buy CNT Lithium batteries instead since he has no contractual obligation on those.

Ah well. Wait and see again. I would assume if he is correct, replacement batteries could be purchased from the OEM involved, I have a feeling I know who but will find out later if actually true.

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

aaaagggh :choke: its the smoke..... no, :blink: its the mirrors! Those evil overseas OEMs printing spec sheets based on our wishes.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> aaaagggh :choke: its the smoke..... no, :blink: its the mirrors! Those evil overseas OEMs printing spec sheets based on our wishes.


What always surprises me is that people loose money on these places, I have dealt with dozens of scam companies and gotten good product from most that I took time to deal with (that had it to give anyway), just more pain in the arse and one time I had to call police but so long as they are in the US or Canada they can't rip you off too bad on physical product if they agree to sell.

He was willing to send engineering samples of CNT Lithium mind you, just not their flagship product, more kindling to the fire.

And obviously 2 months from now I will post their excuse erm... reason why the golf cart manufacturer using the batteries doesn't materialize 

But like all things, let them run their coarse, in the end we shall see.

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Their Lithium X battery supposedly undergoing third party testing:


> EcoloCap Solutions Inc. (OTCBB: ECOS) today announced that it is has delivered its first Lithium X batteries to Halo Renewable Energy of Seattle, WA months ahead of the original schedule. Halo will conduct preliminary testing in collaboration with a major potential customer, which plans on using the battery for energy storage in multiple US locations. The first test results should be available within a month, followed by the certification necessary to abide by safety and transportation regulations.


http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0578185.htm
http://theotcinvestor.com/ecolocap-delivers-on-cnt-battery-promises-593/


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

Lithium? what happened to their acid-nanocarbon?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'd guess they've made advancements.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I'd guess they've made advancements.


Or lead carbon isn't working as well as they want, by the sounds of it the CNT Lithium wasn't even their product but something they were offering interim because according to them a company X bought the rights to their CNT FLA.

I am still curious how the canadians are doing with the diesel emulsion system, wouldn't mind an on car version for myself. Sadly we will probably end up going to the pump one day and pay $4 a gallon for emulisified diesel that isn't labled as such  Nothing like early 70's tech repurposed today.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Actually, quick development of a Lithium CNT makes good business sense. I've heard people on the forums here asking, if these batteries are so amazing, why aren't they all over the national news? I think it's because marketing takes a lot of time and money (and lots of companies aren't any good at it), and because all the major automakers and battery makers have spent SO much time and money to get lithium to work, that they would never even consider putting a lead-acid battery in any of their products. That would just be backward, no matter how good the battery is.

The reason they started with the lead-acid battery is because what they've really invented (or have claimed) is a way to cheaply manufacture carbon nanotubes, which are normally quite expensive. So with that, they could literally buy an off the shelf LA, open it up, apply their CNT tech to the anode and cathode, and put it all back together. It made for simple testing, and presumably, easy reverse-engineering for their own product. Lithiums are apparently more complex, and so required more ground-up production.

I fully hold that I could be wrong on any of those points, but that's what I remember reading somewhere XD


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

the question remains.... why are results still unpublished? If they've been testing for a month in the US lab now, there ought to be at least preliminary data on capacity.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> the question remains.... why are results still unpublished? If they've been testing for a month in the US lab now, there ought to be at least preliminary data on capacity.


The announcement that they were delivered for testing was made Jan 14. The article about their CNT Li said that testing would take 30 days. So wait until Feb 14. Then we can all start whining together (I'll lead the whining, believe me).


----------



## Wirecutter (Jul 26, 2007)

dtbaker said:


> aaaagggh :choke: its the smoke..... no, :blink: its the mirrors! Those evil overseas OEMs printing spec sheets based on our wishes.


Thanks, Dan. Very well put.  
-M


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Can anyone explain how nanotubes can improve Lead and Lithium batteries. I know the surface of a with nanotube coated material increases tremendous. But it's carbon.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Jan said:


> Can anyone explain how nanotubes can improve Lead and Lithium batteries. I know the surface of a with nanotube coated material increases tremendous. But it's carbon.


Apparently it has to do with nanotubes being highly conductive, thus increasing the conductive surface area. Beyond that, someone much smarter than me would have to elaborate.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Jan said:


> Can anyone explain how nanotubes can improve Lead and Lithium batteries. I know the surface of a with nanotube coated material increases tremendous. But it's carbon.


Generally the main constraint in any battery is surface area, nanotubes increase surface area exposed to electrolite into the cathode/anode and they decrease resistance inside the battery


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Frankencar said:


> Apparently it has to do with nanotubes being highly conductive, thus increasing the conductive surface area. Beyond that, someone much smarter than me would have to elaborate.


Let's hope someone can explain it. Can't find it on any CNT advertising website.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

rmay635703 said:


> Generally the main constraint in any battery is surface area, nanotubes increase surface area exposed to electrolite into the cathode/anode and they decrease resistance inside the battery


As far as I understand it -and that's not much- lead and lithium batteries work due to a chemical reaction on the cathode/anode. Coating them with carbon wouldn't do much good. In my very humble opinion they wouldn't work at all.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Here's what wikipedia says about CNT's in Ultracapacitors:

Ultracapacitors
MIT Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems uses nanotubes to improve ultracapacitors. The activated charcoal used in conventional ultracapacitors has many small hollow spaces of various size, which create together a large surface to store electric charge. But as charge is quantized into elementary charges, i.e. electrons, and each such elementary charge needs a minimum space, a significant fraction of the electrode surface is not available for storage because the hollow spaces are not compatible with the charge's requirements. With a nanotube electrode the spaces may be tailored to size—few too large or too small—and consequently the capacity should be increased considerably.[95]

Presumably the same effect in batteries.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Jan said:


> As far as I understand it -and that's not much- lead and lithium batteries work due to a chemical reaction on the cathode/anode. Coating them with carbon wouldn't do much good. In my very humble opinion they wouldn't work at all.


??? The nanotubes are embedded into the material and operate very similarly to fireflys carbon FOAM battery, the plates aren't "Coated" but impregnated, the electrolite can interact through the nanotubes.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> ??? The nanotubes are embedded into the material and operate very similarly to fireflys carbon FOAM battery, the plates aren't "Coated" but impregnated, the electrolite can interact through the nanotubes.


Nice. Thanks for the clarification. Impregnated...makes batteries sound dirty


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Frankencar said:


> Presumably the same effect in batteries.


I'm a bit afraid that's what they want you to think. A capacitor are very different from batteries. Capacitors function due to surface. Surface that can collect a lot of electrons. Batteries are chemical factories.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

rmay635703 said:


> ??? The nanotubes are embedded into the material and operate very similarly to fireflys carbon FOAM battery, the plates aren't "Coated" but impregnated, the electrolite can interact through the nanotubes.


I don't understand a word. Can you please explain it a little simpler to me? I've never heard of embedding or impragnating materials in this way. I will look up fireflyes carbo foam batteries in wikipedia now. never heard of that to.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

In a chemical reaction, the speed at which the reaction can occur is a direct function of surface area. An example: Spray a chemical into a factory exhaust which reacts with the exhaust to reduce odor. With large droplets, you must have a very tall / wide smokestack in which the spray rains down, providing a long time for the reaction to occur (this was the subject of my final paper in Mathematics). When the size of the droplets is reduced, the amount of surface area goes up as the cube of the reduction of size. As expected by my statement above about surface area, if the surface area is increased by a factor of nine then the same amount of odor can be removed from the smokestack in 1/9th of the volume of smokestack - saving money.

In a battery, on the other hand, the theoretical amount of energy can be determined by the volume of chemicals to react (lead plus acid). Less surface area will slow the reaction down, but presuming the reacting chemicals can remain in contact (e.g. the lead plates don't get completely coated with residue) then eventually all of the energy can be released.

What does this mean? It either means that in a typical lead acid battery over 80% of the energy never gets released, or else it means that the claims of this battery maker are just silly because you cannot get energy out of a chemical that wasn't in it to begin with. I don't know which one is true, or if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But, more surface area never HURTS...


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> But, more surface area never HURTS...


Why not? If this surface is mainly carbon, how will the lead react better/more with the accid?


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Jan said:


> Why not? If this surface is mainly carbon, how will the lead react better/more with the accid?


My, again limited, understanding is that it has more to do with the NANOTUBE part than the CARBON part. Carbon is used because of the particular structures it can be shaped to on a molecular level. What it seems like from what I've read is that the nanotubes actually have an effect on the electrons on a subatomic level, which is what makes them highly conductive and able to store energy. Like I said, it's a dumbed-down explanation, but I don't know the smarted-up one.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Frankencar said:


> My, again limited, understanding is that it has more to do with the NANOTUBE part than the CARBON part. Carbon is used because of the particular structures it can be shaped to on a molecular level. What it seems like from what I've read is that the nanotubes actually have an effect on the electrons on a subatomic level, which is what makes them highly conductive and able to store energy. Like I said, it's a dumbed-down explanation, but I don't know the smarted-up one.


That nano tubes can store energy is something I understand. that's how the capacitors based on it work. How you shape them doesn't change the fact that they're made of carbon. You do not increase the surface of the lead, nor the amount of acid. And electrons are subatomic particles. 

Maybe rmay635703 can explain it on a simpler level to us. Us, because I don't really think you understood what he wrote too.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Jan said:


> That nano tubes can store energy is something I understand. that's how the capacitors based on it work. How you shape them doesn't change the fact that they're made of carbon. You do not increase the surface of the lead, nor the amount of acid. And electrons are subatomic particles.
> 
> Maybe rmay635703 can explain it on a simpler level to us. Us, because I don't really think you understood what he wrote too.


I know electrons are subatomic particles. Thanks. Like I said, I'm no battery inventor. Maybe it's like PhantomPholly said, and the CNT acts as a catalyst to the chemical reaction.

As far as rmay635703's explanation of the impregnated anode/cathode, I honestly don't think it can be simpler than that without getting more complicated. What I mean is, think about it for a second. He's telling us that somehow the CNT and the anode/cathode material can be (to put this simply and probably incorrectly) merged together in such a way that it has the effect of increased surface area of the lead. To explain the process further would probably require a deeper understanding of chemistry and subatomic physics than many of us have, myself included. Maybe an analogy would be be better than trying to dumb it down.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

I think you are making it more complicated than it really is.... 

A 'mesh' simply has more surface area than a flat plate. so more electrons can find a spot to migrate to.... and if the anode/cathode material can be stuck onto a nano mesh, you get lots more surface area, and lots more electrons have a place to go/come.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

dtbaker said:


> I think you are making it more complicated than it really is....
> 
> A 'mesh' simply has more surface area than a flat plate. so more electrons can find a spot to migrate to.... and if the anode/cathode material can be stuck onto a nano mesh, you get lots more surface area, and lots more electrons have a place to go/come.


So you think the lead is coated on to a layer of nanotubes?


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

Jan said:


> So you think the lead is coated on to a layer of nanotubes?


I THINK so... like the glass mat, but finer....


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

dtbaker said:


> I THINK so... like the glass mat, but finer....


What I can find, it says that the nanotubes are coated on to the lead. But those sources could be wrong.

http://theotcinvestor.com/a-closer-look-at-ecolocaps-ecos-cnt-battery-technology-469/

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3916

Maybe you're onto a real working idea...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Jan said:


> Why not? If this surface is mainly carbon, how will the lead react better/more with the accid?


I really don't understand it, unless it acts as a catalyst. I do know that lowering internal resistance = faster charge / discharge capability in a battery, and more surface area WILL lower internal resistance.

They are not claiming that they are actually storing energy in the nanotubes, as one might in a nanotube capacitor, so I can only guess that the nanotubes facilitate the chemical reaction.

If I am correct (and beware, I am speculating), then the nanotubes should not be increasing the theoretical storage capacity of the battery at all. But, I have no idea what percent of that theoretical capacity is currently achieved today, and thus have nothing on which to base a guess as to whether a 7-fold increase in total capacity is possible.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> I really don't understand it, unless it acts as a catalyst. I do know that lowering internal resistance = faster charge / discharge capability in a battery, and more surface area WILL lower internal resistance.
> 
> They are not claiming that they are actually storing energy in the nanotubes, as one might in a nanotube capacitor, so I can only guess that the nanotubes facilitate the chemical reaction.
> 
> If I am correct (and beware, I am speculating), then the nanotubes should not be increasing the theoretical storage capacity of the battery at all. But, I have no idea what percent of that theoretical capacity is currently achieved today, and thus have nothing on which to base a guess as to whether a 7-fold increase in total capacity is possible.


We'll have to be patient, I guess. Till then I stay skeptical like allways.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Carbon nano tubes coated with TiO2
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01/cntti02-20010131.html
Basically tiny coax cables.



> _While the carbon nanotubes assist the storage in TiO2 by providing electrons, the nanoporous TiO2 sheath assists the storage in the carbon nanotubes by enabling rapid access of Li+ from the liquid electrolyte._


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

More testing, still no results:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EcoloCap-Solutions-Inc-iw-1857531599.html?x=0&.v=1



> BARRINGTON, ILLINOIS--(Marketwire - 02/11/10) - EcoloCap Solutions Inc. (OTC.BB:ECOS - News) today announced that it has signed an agreement with Exponent Inc. Engineering and Scientific Consulting of Phoenix, AZ to test EcoloCap's newly announced Lithium X battery. Exponent Inc. is a multidisciplinary organization consisting of 900 scientists, physicians, engineers and regulatory consultants. Furthermore, the company is certified for battery, energy storage and compliance testing and is certified to ISO 9001


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Just received an Email from Ecolocap stating testing should be completed Monday  Let's hope it's as good as claimed


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

holding my breath....


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Just received an Email from Ecolocap stating testing should be completed Monday  Let's hope it's as good as claimed


Woohoo! Glad someone got through to them. Their contact form was all buggy on their website, and I think they got tired of me pestering them (they responded to about the first four emails I sent them...and then stopped responding to me, heh).

Also excited to hear that they're already testing the Lithium version...wicked cool! (Maybe).


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

@#[email protected]%@##[email protected][email protected][email protected]#!!*&[email protected](*#&%)($#*[email protected]%)&@#)*$$&%[email protected]^#[email protected]#[email protected]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just got this email from Michael Seigel:

"The batteries will not be for sale to individuals for at least 9 months. Our entire production has been sold for industrial UPS applications."


I'm not pleased. What a waste of an advanced technology. Well, time to look for a holdover battery. Any suggestions?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Were they talking about the Lithium X or the lead version? I can't imagine needing Lithium for a stationary UPS.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Were they talking about the Lithium X or the lead version? I can't imagine needing Lithium for a stationary UPS.


Definitely talking about the lead (I asked specifically). Anyway, I think I'll be going back to LA for now, and wait for CNT on my next pack. Looking at the US12V XC.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

How much do those weigh? You could go with 100 ah SE or TS for a much lighter pack with similar usable amp hours. A bit more than twice the price but probably more than 5 times the life cycle, maybe up to 10 times.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> How much do those weigh? You could go with 100 ah SE or TS for a much lighter pack with similar usable amp hours. A bit more than twice the price but probably more than 5 times the life cycle, maybe up to 10 times.


Yeah, but I don't have that kind of money right now. I'd rather build one with racks for LA, then upgrade to the CNT LA's in a year or two.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Frankencar said:


> @#[email protected]%@##[email protected][email protected][email protected]#!!*&[email protected](*#&%)($#*[email protected]%)&@#)*$$&%[email protected]^#[email protected]#[email protected]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Just got this email from Michael Seigel:
> 
> ...


Oddly enough that is a 3rd flip flop, I was told in july testing was to be finished at the end of september, called back was told September 28th, called recently told 6months production sold to golf cart manufacturer.

He should keep his story straight.

So I wouldn't hold my breath, did they happen to say WHAT UPS manufacturer? If so you can buy them at inflated cost from that place.

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

You are right, I thought about waiting to see which UPS maker had the batteries, see how they were configured...but I figure, I've been waiting on these long enough, may as well just get me a good ol' classically built conversion and hold off until it's a little easier.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The lead acid would tip the scales for cars. If they have a similar 7-fold gain with Lithium, it might even make it feasible for aircraft. WhooHoo!!!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

They won't, you should know by now that batteries never live up to the hype. Of course they are already flying electric planes with today's cells.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

You should probably start a build thread since that's a little off topic for this thread. What is on topic, some actual data from Lithium-X testing. Seems as if they are testing two cells in series, very large format cells, and did only limited C rate testing. 





















Interesting discharge curve, it would make voltage a good indicator of SOC once again.
http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Interesting - how do these number compare with other Lithium Ion batteries, and are they for sale to the likes of us?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Compared to most LiFePO4 cells these look pretty good. TS, SE, A123 I think are around 100 wh/kg and 170 wh/l, these are showing 176 wh/kg and 232 wh/l, significant improvements. However, these cells are for stationary storage at 720ah and 960ah each cell! Looks like the 720ah cell is 36 lbs, 72 lbs as packaged. They seem to be packaged as 2 cells in series, not sure if that was just for this test or if that's how they will come. In any case, I don't see these fitting into many vehicles other than a van or full sized truck. So we will have to wait, as usual. The good news is they are supposed to be price competitive with TS and SE.


----------



## e-bike (Mar 5, 2010)

rmay635703 said:


> Well I got a hold of Roger. I maskeraded as the defense company I work for and he was willing to prototype new CNT lead acid batteries per our application in 6-8 weeks, but stated all stock sales & engineering samples are discontinued as one company has bought the rights to the first 6mo of production or about 435,000 units. He wouldn't say who it was but I did get out of him that they made recreational vehicles, atvs, golf carts and will be starting an ad campaign in a few months. I then asked if the batteries could be sold to individuals and a flat NO, not until September.
> He was pushing for me to buy CNT Lithium batteries instead since he has no contractual obligation on those.
> 
> Ah well. Wait and see again. I would assume if he is correct, replacement batteries could be purchased from the OEM involved, I have a feeling I know who but will find out later if actually true.
> ...


The golf cart maker is probably E-Z-GO, the largest in the world:
http://www.brandsuarez.es/small-cap-stock-investment-next-alternative/

E-Z-GO's parent company is Textron, a Fortune 500 company who also makes Bell helicopters, etc.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Cool, please keep us informed!


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

e-bike said:


> The golf cart maker is probably E-Z-GO, the largest in the world:
> http://www.brandsuarez.es/small-cap-stock-investment-next-alternative/
> 
> E-Z-GO's parent company is Textron, a Fortune 500 company who also makes Bell helicopters, etc.


Hmm that would make it childsplay to go buy a set


----------



## SPARKY (Aug 15, 2008)

Well the CNT Lithtium batterys have proved up, what about the CNT Lead Acid Batteries? Sparky


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

SPARKY said:


> Well the CNT Lithtium batterys have proved up, what about the CNT Lead Acid Batteries? Sparky



??? Link, please - if they have really "proved up" then there would be batteries 7 times more effective than current Lithium-Ion.

Only ones I know of that have been submitted for testing are the lead-acid variety.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> ??? Link, please - if they have really "proved up" then there would be batteries 7 times more effective than current Lithium-Ion.
> 
> Only ones I know of that have been submitted for testing are the lead-acid variety.


Actually the only ones submitted were lithium

he is refering to this
http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html

which shows about a 30-70% capacity increase depending on who you are comparing to


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Actually they have both been tested, but the only results so far are for the LithiumX.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

I must have missed something then. What were the results for the Lithium X? Are they 7 times better than, say, Altair Nano batteries?


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

so.... assuming the have greater capacity AND 3C+ output, the question is when they will be availabile to 'the public', and cost per ah? actually, never mind, I ent and looked at the discharge curve and specs....


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> ... some actual data from Lithium-X testing. Seems as if they are testing two cells in series, very large format cells, and did only limited C rate testing.
> 
> 
> Interesting discharge curve, it would make voltage a good indicator of SOC once again.
> http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html


wow, the size, weight, voltage and voltage sag over discharge would look to make them completely UNsuitable for EV use....


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Actually the wh/kg and wh/l are better than SE,TS, and A123. The format of those cells are for stationary storage, no reason they couldn't be made into a smaller format. The voltage drop looks more linear, like lead acid, and makes voltage a better gauge of SOC as I mentioned earlier. Higher C rate testing needs to be done to see what they would really look like under EV use. When you have a 720 ah cell it's not so easy to test at high C rates.


----------



## SPARKY (Aug 15, 2008)

Well, I am impressed, At least one of the 3 usual suspects (companys) proved up something. I was happy with 30-40% improvement, over existing technology, that I still can't buy here. China, has all kinds of EV's populating their roads. Its sad to understand that mainstream solutions will come from other countrys. Man, just look at the talent exposed in the threads. It looks like I'll have to buy my extended range CNT's from EZGO when regular people can buy em. I thought my only out was, to buy a couple of pre-2004 junk Priuses to get the 100 mi. batterys for my EV. I was under the impression that the, FLA CNT's, would only cost 30% more. Sparky


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

SPARKY said:


> I was under the impression that the, FLA CNT's, would only cost 30% more. Sparky


Than what?

Also they are not producing FLA CNTs yet only the sealed AGM like CNTs. I would much prefer to see FLA CNTs and the associated lower price.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Here we go 


> EcoloCap Solutions Inc. (OTC.BB:ECOS - News) today announces it has received preliminary results of the independent tests of it Nano Lithium Battery conducted by Exponent, http://www.exponent.com/about/, a leading engineering and scientific consulting firm of Phoenix, AZ. The initial results demonstrate that EcoloCap's advanced technology fills a void in the market for low cost, high-powered batteries. A single cell of EcoloCap's Nano Lithium Battery, rated at a minimum of 200 Ahr, can replace hundreds of existing lithium-ion battery cells, making it smaller, lighter and more powerful than traditional lithium-ion batteries. And by employing low levels of powdered Lithium, the Nano Lithium Battery can be produced at a lower cost than the competition. Michael Siegel, President and CEO of EcoloCap Solutions Inc. stated: "The preliminary test results show that the EcoloCap Nano Lithium battery performs better than we had predicted. The testing has demonstrated the efficiency of the battery as greater than 99% which is unique for any kind of battery. Testing has also demonstrated an actual increase in the power densities previously calculated. I believe that the Nano Lithium battery is the highest energy density battery to date. We will publish the full test report within the next week, and these will be posted on our web site."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EcoloCap-Solutions-Release-iw-3690769607.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

efficient yes, but did you look at the voltage, size, and weight of the 200ah battery? and the voltage curve?! not well suited for EV methinks.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> efficient yes, but did you look at the voltage, size, and weight of the 200ah battery? and the voltage curve?! not well suited for EV methinks.


Where did you find the test data for the 200ahr battery? Linky would be nice

Also I don't think size constraints or weight will affect the sucess of a battery of this type. If it did FLA wouldn't be available on every streetcorner.

I believe 2 things are needed
1. Low Cost
2. Reliability

There have been hints that CNT lithium batteries are more difficult to overcharge, couple that with a lower cost per watt/hr and an easier to determine SOC you might well find their winners.

Way to early to know but if lithium could become affordable and easier to charge it would be a nice step in the right direction

I still rather a CNT FLA battery at the specs in their teasers though 

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> Where did you find the test data for the 200ahr battery? Linky would be nice


from earlier in the thread, I was looking at:
http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html

pretty huge physical format for a low voltage cell.... impossible to build a high voltge pack in an EV from the looks of it, and massive voltage sag as the cells discharge.... perhaps good for off-grid storage, but not so hot for an EV.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> from earlier in the thread, I was looking at:
> http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html
> 
> pretty huge physical format for a low voltage cell.... impossible to build a high voltge pack in an EV from the looks of it, and massive voltage sag as the cells discharge.... perhaps good for off-grid storage, but not so hot for an EV.


Perhaps I am being dense but...

??? All I see are 720ahr and 960ahr no 200ahr ???

Anyway the "sag" doesn't bother me much a linear discharge would make them more like FLA and easier to guage your SOC. Also a linear discharge means you are using all available capacity so if they really can use much less lithium powder perhaps the cost will come down drastically making them a real option over lead.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> Perhaps I am being dense but...
> 
> ??? All I see are 720ahr and 960ahr no 200ahr ???
> 
> Anyway the "sag" doesn't bother me much a linear discharge would make them more like FLA and easier to guage your SOC. Also a linear discharge means you are using all available capacity so if they really can use much less lithium powder perhaps the cost will come down drastically making them a real option over lead.


thats part of the problem for me as an EV... I don't need a giant 720ahr cell, I want a 200ahr cell.... The voltage sag is a darn steep curve, and would give noticeably crappier performance right off the bat, and worse and worse as you go..... doesn't look like what I would want.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

dtbaker said:


> thats part of the problem for me as an EV... I don't need a giant 720ahr cell, I want a 200ahr cell.... The voltage sag is a darn steep curve, and would give noticeably crappier performance right off the bat, and worse and worse as you go..... doesn't look like what I would want.


That is why you should always choose a voltage that is high enough at all points of discharge to drive you along at an acceptable speed.

Anyway...
As we push the envelope to higher and higher capacity batteries that discharge "curve" you see is the ONLY way it can work, getting closer and closer to a linear capacitor like discharge.

Thats why I strongly believe controllers for EVs need to have a much wider operating voltage range. This business of only working within a 12v range or so in my book is unacceptable for many reasons. Upgradability being one of them.

If a true capacitor like storage medium were to be introduced most vehicle controllers would be almost useless since you could only draw current over one narrow range and miss all the capacity on down to 0v.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm sure the cells can be made any size so I wouldn't be too concerned about the large cells that Haloenergy tested, they focus on large scale storage. The recent testing was done by Exponent so they may very well have tested a different cell. As for voltage range, the better controllers can handle a large range of voltage. Fairly common practice to have a higher voltage pack than the motor can handle and have the controller set lower, thereby avoiding voltage sag, as well as easing C rate demands on the pack.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

A little write up from a stock investor viewpoint
http://theotcinvestor.com/ecolocaps-ecos-lithium-x-could-make-big-waves-in-battery-market/



> Compared to its competitors, the Li-X battery has numerous advantages. The unique battery has the highest energy density of any commercially-available battery with only 1/5 the weight and 1/7 the measurement.


 Those numbers don't exactly fit with the numbers from Haloenergy, I really want to see the Exponent results. I think they should release sometimes next week.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

More discussion of Ecolocap with some insights from people who have spoken to Haloenergy about purchasing batteries:
http://theeestory.com/topics/5320


> I actually spoke with Halo Renewable Energy over the phone about purchasing a new battery bank for my off-grid summer home.
> The salesperson told me that they have indeed tested Ecolocap's batteries. They are taking pre-orders for these batteries now.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Stock trading volume for Ecolocap is up by almost 10 times average and price is up over 40% today. Either someone knows something or there are a lot of people jumping in on the hype. I think with results coming next week some people have seen them already.


----------



## octagondd (Jan 27, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> A little write up from a stock investor viewpoint
> http://theotcinvestor.com/ecolocaps-ecos-lithium-x-could-make-big-waves-in-battery-market/
> 
> Those numbers don't exactly fit with the numbers from Haloenergy, I really want to see the Exponent results. I think they should release sometimes next week.


I think the otcinvestor based some of that on differences of Li-X from the best lead acid and not Li-X and the latest LiFePo4 batts. IIRC, Ecolocaps had an announcement about CNT Lead Acids, but mixed in Li-X data at the same time so it was a bit confusing.

Heres to hoping this is for real. I want to get my car on the road this summer, but may have to wait a bit if these are coming and are reasonably priced. I may have to up the voltage on my DIY controller though so the voltage sag doesn't hurt me too much.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Even assuming these work out in the real world I doubt we'll be able to get our hands on them in less than a year, probably two. I wouldn't wait.


----------



## e-bike (Mar 5, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> Here we go
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EcoloCap-Solutions-Release-iw-3690769607.html?x=0&.v=1


Ecolocap claims that their single cell Lithium X battery can be at least as large as 200 AH. As fas as I know, A123's largest single cell LiFePO4 is 20 AH (used to be 2 to 3 AH), while BYD's largest single cell LiFePO4 is 200 AH. Obviously, larger cell can improve overall energy density of a battery pack by using less packing materials, and can reduce packing cost quite a bit too. What other advantages this can have?

Regarding Lithium X battery's >99% efficiency, do they mean charging/discharging efficiency? I heard A123's LiFePO4 has efficiency up to 98%, while other LiFePO4 manufacturers' efficiency can be as low as 92%. How significant is this? Does this mean that thermal management would become a trivial task for Lithium X battery? Thanks.


----------



## octagondd (Jan 27, 2010)

e-bike said:


> Ecolocap claims that their single cell Lithium X battery can be at least as large as 200 AH. As fas as I know, A123's largest single cell LiFePO4 is 20 AH (used to be 2 to 3 AH), while BYD's largest single cell LiFePO4 is 200 AH. Obviously, larger cell can improve overall energy density of a battery pack by using less packing materials, and can reduce packing cost quite a bit too. What other advantages this can have?
> 
> Regarding Lithium X battery's >99% efficiency, do they mean charging/discharging efficiency? I heard A123's LiFePO4 has efficiency up to 98%, while other LiFePO4 manufacturers' efficiency can be as low as 92%. How significant is this? Does this mean that thermal management would become a trivial task for Lithium X battery? Thanks.


I believe these are larger prismatic type cells, not cylindrical cells. The advantage is powering large vehicles for longer distances at higher speeds. I think thermal management could be much less of an issue.


----------



## octagondd (Jan 27, 2010)

I think I misunderstood your first question. The advantage of large format cells over a bunch of smaller cells is lower weight, easier trouble shooting and for the time being, lower cost.


----------



## e-bike (Mar 5, 2010)

octagondd said:


> I believe these are larger prismatic type cells, not cylindrical cells. The advantage is powering large vehicles for longer distances at higher speeds. I think thermal management could be much less of an issue.


Does less thermal management mean much smaller internal resistance/impedance? I heard that this "psycho battery" did not generate noticable heat during charging/discharging - which may be pretty unique for a lithium rechargable battery?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

e-bike said:


> Does less thermal management mean much smaller internal resistance/impedance? I heard that this "psycho battery" did not generate noticable heat during charging/discharging - which may be pretty unique for a lithium rechargable battery?


The rate of discharge was likely not high enough for such a large battery to heat up significantly. Same on the recharge large heatsync needs large heat source to be exercised.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Exponent results out, PDF on Ecolocap website. Quick thoughts: Discharge curve does not seem as steep as what Halo showed, and looks more like standard lithium. Unfortunately they shipped one battery of 9 cells arranged for 12 volts and 720 ahs instead of individual cells, so high C rate testing was impossible, once again. Apparently there was a problem with the terminals on the test cells during the higher amp tests, so results probably don't show the best possible results. 


> The battery employs low levels of powdered Lithium, enabling it to be produced at a lower cost than all other types of lithium cells. At the same time, no other technology can match its performance. While typical lithium-ion batteries require hundreds or thousands of small milliwatt to single watt cells in most applications, EcoloCap's batteries are far more efficient and cost-effective, with each cell rated at 4.2 volts at 240 Ahr.
> 
> Energy Density Comparisons
> 
> ...


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Apparently there was a problem with the terminals on the test cells during the higher amp tests, so results probably don't show the best possible results.


And only one battery tested. Seems to me a very limited test. I also don't understand why they state it's a battery of 3 cells, and the photo shows 9 cells? Why thos terminals are so tiny? And why all their discharge graphs suggest that the capacity grows? Odd mistakes. What kind of company is Exponent?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The battery must be 3 cells in series and then 3 of those in parallel. That gives 12 volts and 720 ahs. Apparently this specific configuration was requested to be tested by a customer, or potential customer. Obviously this is for a stationary storage battery so high C rate is not necessary. Exponent looks to be a fairly well established testing company, having recently done testing for Toyota among others.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also, capacity does not "grow", as time goes on the test shows the total capacity of amp hours put out, hence more at the end than the beginning.


----------



## CroDriver (Jan 8, 2009)

First thing I notice - the terminals and the whole battery look very poorly made

Also, the battery can't be that efficient as they claim it to be if it's heating up by more than 30*C at very low C rates (C/3)

And I don't see any weight figures

Seems like it isn't very suitable for EVs


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

CroDriver said:


> First thing I notice - the terminals and the whole battery look very poorly made


It's a test battery, not production.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The battery must be 3 cells in series and then 3 of those in parallel. That gives 12 volts and 720 ahs.


Yes, and they state in their report 3 cells. Odd.



> Also, capacity does not "grow", as time goes on the test shows the total capacity of amp hours put out, hence more at the end than the beginning.


In dutch capactity means that what it's capable off, not what it produced. That's called power or energy. Capacity is the unused potential energy.

I find such a way of plotting very odd.



JRP3 said:


> It's a test battery, not production.


That's no reason to equip it with such small terminals. I would give such an important test version serious attention. And according to Elocaps website this was a important test.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Jan said:


> Yes, and they state in their report 3 cells. Odd.


Yes, it's oddly stated.




> In dutch capactity means that what it's capable off, not what it produced. That's called power or energy. Capacity is the unused potential energy.


Yet the only way to measure that potential energy is to see how much is produced, which is what they did, hence the amp hours. Power is amps x volts or watts.


> I find such a way of plotting very odd.


Odd but still valid.


----------



## e-bike (Mar 5, 2010)

CroDriver said:


> First thing I notice - the terminals and the whole battery look very poorly made
> 
> Also, the battery can't be that efficient as they claim it to be if it's heating up by more than 30*C at very low C rates (C/3)
> 
> ...


This 9-cell test unit should be very similar to the 6-cell and 8-cell units shown on Ecolocap's distributor Halo's website:
http://halorenewableenergy.com/id92.html

Each cell is rated at 4.2V, 240AH.

The 8-cell unit weighs about 43.5 kg, so this 9-cell test unit should weigh about 48.9 kg. The actual capacity of this test unit is roughly 750 AH, and the average working voltage during discharge was about 11 V, and assuming a factor of 1.1 for the projected total capacity, then we got 750 x 11 x 1.1 / 48.9 = 186 wh/kg, which is very close to their claimed energy density.

However, their claimed ED in wh/l is likely mis-calculated.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Ecolocap seems to be responding to the recent scrutiny, or maybe it's my constant emails to the CEO requesting more tests










EcoloCap Solutions Provides Shareholder Update on Battery Technologies - Yahoo! Finance



> "Our immediate plan is to produce 65 hand-made Lithium-X batteries to deliver to testing facilities and customers for destructive and lifecycle testing. Subsequently, we plan to begin the construction of a manufacturing facility to produce Lithium-X batteries within the next three months, which will be followed by CNT battery manufacturing lines within the next nine months. We are also actively seeking joint ventures or other partnerships to quickly bring these products to market.


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

sure would be nice if USBattery or some other us plant partners to build'em in the us....


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Ecolocap seems to be responding to the recent scrutiny, or maybe it's my constant emails to the CEO requesting more tests


 Looks like investors aren't convinced based on the stock price over the last 4 years. 
I just kind of ignore this stuff until a product becomes available. I kind of store them in the category with EEstor. Hope any/all of them come through some day.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Looks like investors aren't convinced based on the stock price over the last 4 years.


Actually the present form of this company is rather recent. Basically the Korean company MBT Inc. bought the Ecolocap company as a US based "front end" for the company. I'm not a finance guy but I think it was a reverse merger. Basically I don't think the old Ecolocap has much in common with the present version.


> I just kind of ignore this stuff until a product becomes available. I kind of store them in the category with EEstor. Hope any/all of them come through some day.


I'd have to put them way ahead of EEstor since independent companies have actually tested and reported on the cells. No one outside of EEstor has even seen a device.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

I think you I and many others are constantly pestering the company to get something out there to test. I have offered to test batteries for them several times.

I think there is a real posibility with these batteries, likely not exactly as originally claimed but still a great deal of possibility on other fronts.

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> I think you I and many others are constantly pestering the company to get something out there to test. I have offered to test batteries for them several times.


Ganging up on them seems to be working  All we need is to see what a single cell is capable of at higher discharge rates. Can you test to 1000 amps or so? I doubt they'll send any of us a cell in any case.


----------



## e-bike (Mar 5, 2010)

This is Next Alternative's April 2010 newsletter:
http://www.next-alternative.com/pdfs/APRNewsletter.pdf

Summary:
1. To build M-Fuel production plant in Michigan. Shows some nice M-Fuel machine/blender pictures. Looks like M-Fuel is getting real.
2. Working with U.S. Congressman Mark Schauer of the 7th Congressional District and his associates. This means that Ecolocap/MBT is not a scam.
3. Received some electric cars (see photos) that will be used to test CNT lead acid batteries. Obviously, Next Alternative really wants to push CNT lead acid batteries for use in EVs.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm very sad as of late with the Ecolocap batteries. FIRST, the CNT Lead Acids seem perfect for EV's, but they sell out AT LEAST nine months of production for UPS systems...so no way to get that for nine months and then it's still a big IF.

Second, the lithium X battery, if you take it at their word and the word of their testing lab, is TOO good. What do I mean by too good? Well the unit is 12V, 720Ah (and the label on the pic says 9 cells...someone was saying 3...not important just noting) and they price it by KWh. So, ONE 12V battery will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000. Which is cheap PER KWH. But consider that for a minimum useful voltage in an electric car, say 72V using some kind of advanced, low-voltage motor (in other words MAYBE powerful enough) would be a $12,000 pack. For the usual motor fare, we're looking at $20,000-$25,000 if you want useful speeds out of your car. Granted, the range would be spectacular, and for some this may be well worth it, but think about this:

From a production standpoint, this makes the LiX battery prohibitively expensive for use in mass-production EV's. While these batteries increase the range, the per KWh price model is NOT lowering the cost of the battery pack whatsoever. This would only be useful in bringing down the cost of a Tesla-like vehicle, an expensive, high-end, long-range EV, but it does nothing towards what I envision the EV movement as a whole needs... a lower-cost, medium range vehicle (say $16k-22k, 100-200 mi/chrg).

Makes me happy and sad at the same time. After all, I can't deny as I've said, the price per KWh is fantastic. Just not practical for EV application.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

As has been mentioned, the 720 and 960 ah batteries are not intended for EV applications. The tested batteries are made up of 9 cells, 3 in series for 12 volts and then 3 of those paralleled for 720 ah. There is no reason their 240 ah individual cells can't be hooked up in series for higher voltage in an EV.


----------



## Frankencar (Nov 17, 2008)

Indeed, but in my emails to Michael Siegel, he didn't really seem to be grasping WHY anyone would want that, so it remains to be seen if they release lower AH models. His replies make me think not.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Honestly, I'm not sure MS really understands batteries that well, but hopefully the Korean scientists from MBT Inc. do.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

In some sense the volts are irrelevant. Although it imposes a small penalty, in another thread it was discussed how you can easily double voltage by halving amps, no practical limit. Thus kilowatt hours rule.

The real killer battery will be if we can get lithium density at lead-acid cost per kilowatt hour. It sounds like they are claiming that for the Pb acid CNT; we will have to see.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Hmmm, their latest press release indicates that the batteries are only 10-25% more powerful (WH/Kg) than their best competitors. That isn't that impressive, but if the price really gets cut in half that would be.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Hmmm, their latest press release indicates that the batteries are only 10-25% more powerful (WH/Kg) than their best competitors. That isn't that impressive, but if the price really gets cut in half that would be.


Thats the trouble because of their own previous claims, a true achievement becomes a disappointment.

Unless they get a cheap CNT FLA out there, the only place they could improve lithium is on C rates and on cost. Assuming of coarse they don't improve the tech so you can't overcharge/undercharge, if they can pull off a Lithium that never needs a BMS then people will buy them.

I would use lithium if I did not need a BMS to realistically use them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2010)

At this point in the game I would be tickled if I could shave at least 300 lbs of my battery pack and maintain the 30 to 40 miles and performance I get now within the price range I am paying now. I wouldn't even mind the charge time being the same as now. It really bums me to see all these new battery break throughs and nothing to show for it. The Firefly fiasco is the latest let down. My hat is off to those of you that have sprung for the lithium batteries. Now that’s pioneering. No joke. I have been married forty plus one blissful years now but it starts to go on the rocks every time I mention the possibility of buying some lithium’s. I can only hope Ecolocap gets a better battery at an affordable price on the market before they start giving all their production money to the CEOs.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> I would use lithium if I did not need a BMS to realistically use them.


You do realize that some of us are using them without a BMS? I'm just starting but Tomofreno and Jack Rickard have many cycles and miles on BMS-less packs.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> You do realize that some of us are using them without a BMS? I'm just starting but Tomofreno and Jack Rickard have many cycles and miles on BMS-less packs.


Without a BMS or a LV cutoff I would basically be sitting there monitoring it as it approached full charge to unplug since my charger would be a dummy, I would also have to watch a more complex display so I could see if any in my pack were dropping while driving. I would have to monitor my ammeter to avoid too much C.

Realistically this isn't something I want to be doing, not saying I couldn't (and don't already on occasion), just that I don't want to enter in the lithium crowd until those requirements are nill.

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Another company working with Ecolocap, no mention of this on Ecolocap's website. The Wh/L numbers don't make any sense. 
http://www.enersolinc.com/Documents/PressRelease.htm


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Ecolocap announces a joint venture to build batteries. Unfortunately it won't benefit any of us for a long time since they are going after the stationary storage market. Unless you can fit 720Ah 12 volt batteries 

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=MW&date=20100526&id=11544711



> We're very enthusiastic about the proposed agreement with EcoloCap Solutions Inc. for us to assemble and distribute their Nano Lithium X Battery in Western Europe and Russia. Over a few days of testing in our facility, we realized right away the net superiority of the battery over any other in the market today. Part of our motivation is that we have an established customer base representing and immediate market of some 500,000 battery cells in the first year and we intend to set up a marketing plan to grow exponentially from there," said Roy Visser of MEGES BV.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Unfortunately it won't benefit any of us for a long time since they are going after the stationary storage market. Unless you can fit 720Ah 12 volt batteries


I guess we have to wait for the FLA Carbon nanotube batteries or

Hope that the 720ahr batteries are constructed with simple bus bars and 16 individual cells we can take apart and rearrange.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

12 cells actually, 3P 4S. My hope is that some of the 240Ah individual cells will "fall off the truck", or boat, between Korea and the battery assembly plants.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Not sure how to interpret this one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20100602/bs_prweb/prweb4082934


> “Next Alternative felt that severing our agreement with EcoloCap was a necessary step in ensuring that our progress and goals of creating and promoting viable avenues for the use of CNT technology are kept on track.”


Next Alternative couldn't develop the CNT technology fast enough so had to bail out of the agreement?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Not sure how to interpret this one:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20100602/bs_prweb/prweb4082934
> 
> Next Alternative couldn't develop the CNT technology fast enough so had to bail out of the agreement?


NExt alternative is dissolving the agreement, yet ecolocap is marketing lithium CNT and microbubble, makes no sense, both seem to have lost nothing?

Also one is in Canadia the other in the US of A

Very strange.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Probably NExt Alt. couldn't deliver and Ecolocap let them out of the agreement. This is just a face saving press release.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

CNT battery is officially dead, killed by the Lithium X battery. Basically the CNT lead battery was more expensive to build than the Li-X battery and the Li-X battery has a larger market. Still no plans for automotive sized batteries


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Possible good news for EV's, Ecolocap might be building EV batteries for India: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ec...tery-in-india-2010-07-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp


----------



## vpoppv (Jul 27, 2009)

Wow, the 12v battery they tested was 720 Ah!! No BMS either. Wonder what the dimensions/weight are? We'd have to fly to India and smuggle it in luggage to get it in the US though....


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

There are details on the battery in this thread. The tested battery is intended for large scale stationary power, not EV's. The EV version will be smaller.


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

Here is another potential distributor of CNT batteries...
http://american-motor-products.com/Contact.html


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

http://american-motor-products.com/Prototype_launch_AMP.html

Hmm they have a prototype, now how to get some photos and information extracted on it. 

Maybe a few CNT Lions will fall off the bus here instead of in india?


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2010)

It's garbage. They only SAY they have a prototype. Don't waste your time or breath. It's a scam.


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

I agree the american-motor-products.com guys seem like a scam. "Atomic-Forged Brake System" Pfft....."nanomizing process" of 20% water and 80% heavy diesel.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The brake rotors are apparently a real product, from another manufacturer:
http://rayguntechnology.com/
I see no mention at all of the Li X battery so not sure of the implied connection there.
However, the nanomized diesel fuel is a product that ECOS has developed and is in the process of being tested by the EPA: http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...EO-Siegel-OTC-Bulletin-Board-ECOS-1307006.htm


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

On the brakes....Hardens the shit out of the rotor and next forces you to use a soft set of pads for the warranty. The whole Atomic-Forging™ looks a hell of allot like gas deposition system. So again whats the magic? Ceramic rotors seems a hell of allot better to me.

Still reading about this "nanomized" diesel, but fail to see the point as from what I see major engine changes are needed. OTCBB:ECOS seems like a pump and dump stock outfit to me. 52wk Range:0.04 - 0.60. Micro Bubble Technologies Inc. is the same company the so called makers of the Carbon Nano Tube Battery (CNT-Battery) 


american-motor-products.com = marketing whores.
EcoloCap Solutions Inc. = pump and dump stock whores.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Where did you read about motor changes to run the nano fuel? I thought it was supposed to be a direct replacement for diesel. As for pump and dump scam, would they really submit their M-Fuel for EPA testing if it was a scam? That would expose the scam, doesn't make sense.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Yeah I don't really know where some folks make up their info from.

Anyway as I have said elsewhere emulsified diesel fuel has been around a VERY long time and it is not new, unique or even very novel.

Also it DOES NOT REQUIRE a special diesel to use, although it may not be entirely compatible with a CAT equip diesel as the CAT won't reach optiminal temp but then again it doesn't need to as the amount of emissions is reduced.

There are very old government tests of emulsified diesel from somewhere in the early 70's and before on city buses, look around and you might find them.

The claim that the fuel is shelf stable emulsified might be questionable; from the sounds of it they are using a burnable form of an HD soap  to keep it mixed. The other claim I have seen floating around is that they can emulsify gasoline, I haven't seen it on their sites directly but it was implied elsewhere, now a spark ignition engine with a burnable water mix I find far fetched. But you never know, diesels on the other hand have never had issue with emulsified fuels as long as the water didn't separate. First mention of that idea of water emulsified fuel, I think came in WWII but I can't remember the source.

Ah well
Ryan


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

EPA is not testing it. Just some new formed company (EMTECH FUELS) will get some "m-fuel" and send it out to an "accredited lab" from those lab reports it hopes to get the EPA ok to sell it as a fuel. Just a random sample for tests. EMTECH FUELS has a stake in selling m-fuel. No research into how the fuel was made. So for all we know EcoloCap could just send real off the shelf diesel and pass the tests and get EPA ok. I bet all those guys are doing is making e-diesel and the magic additive is ethanol.

As for the comment about motor changes. 30% water in the fuel will kill many a current high psi injectors. It also claims/wants to use waste water to do this. So what happens with the waste in "waste water"?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Picasso said:


> As for the comment about motor changes. 30% water in the fuel will kill many a current high psi injectors. It also claims/wants to use waste water to do this. So what happens with the waste in "waste water"?


Actually waste discharge water typically has no particulate in it, I believe they are refering to after treatment type which would have nothing massively bad in it that could plug filters and the like. I think this approach is to eliminate the sometimes massive charges by local utilities for water.
Not sure what soap, phosphates, chlorine and nitrogen dirivatives would do to a motor though.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It's possible that the process removes contaminants  Testing results: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EcoloCap-Solutions-Inc-ECOS-iw-1213677037.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2010)

Water is hard on an engine. Why use it unless you need to clean the combustion chamber and lessen the knock. Water will also act like an octane booster and that is not what you want in a diesel engine. Water is an enemy of diesel engines. Why do you think they have filters that remove it from the fuel. This is just total garbage.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Apparently not, you might want to research the technology a bit further. Emulsions are old technology, this simply claims to be a better implementation of it through nano technology.


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

JRP3 do you own any stock in OTC.BB:ECOS? Just wonder why you defend them so much? It seems clear to me to be a scam.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes I do own some stock, a very small position, but that's not why I defend them. I do not recommend anyone buying their stock as it's a high risk gamble at this point. I actually don't know if any of their technology works or not, but I have yet to see any solid evidence that they are a scam. They have had independent testing of their Lithium X battery and they are working on getting EPA certification for their M-Fuel. I honestly don't think the EPA will take any test results from just anyone without doing a bit of verification. They have lined up sales of their fuel processing units, so unless they have scammed the companies that are paying for these as well I've seen no proof of deception. If you have such please provide it as I would be most interested.


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

Well I looked up R-3 Energy in Cottonwood Falls, KS. It's a just a small bio-diesel retailer. Founded by 2 guys, could not find turn over or much of any other records. R-3 is small time and I dont see why the press release states.....
Michael Siegel, CEO states: "We will be delivering the first NPW-30 to R-3 Energy in Cottonwood Falls, KS (30 metric tons/day of biodiesel) as soon as an extensive series of quality control tests are completed." 

So what gives with the double talk do these guys sell biodiesel or diesel with 30% water. And 30 metric tons a day is BS. Thats allot of fuel and from what I've seen ECOS dosnt have that kind of production.

If the M-Fuel was worth a shit it wouldnt be chasing biodiesel and carbon credits. 

I do love stock but this one gives me fear. Keep buying azddf


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

They have two different fuel processors, NPU-10 (M-Fuel) and NPW-3 (biodiesel):


> We plan to set up the NPU-10 (M-Fuel) and NPW-3 (biodiesel) processor in our demonstration facility by the end of the year in the Chicago area in order to demonstrate the unique capabilities of our technology. We are presently in the process of testing bio-diesel production from high fatty acids such as chicken fat, beef tallow and trap grease. Utilizing these feedstocks and the ECOS technology, the NPW-30 can produce bio-diesel for around $0.35 a gallon not including the cost of the feedstock.


----------



## Picasso (Sep 28, 2010)

Those guys dont have the processors YET. It says WE PLAN. The income statements show NO R&D Expenses from last reports, Seem these guys dont build or testing anything. 

So what do you think of....If NPU-10 is M-Fuel and Id guess the 10 stands for 10% why go from 30% to 10%? Because the water content is to high!

And as for NPW-30 I'm going to guess this is Diesel with 30% biodiesel.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems to me that their naming strategy relates to how many metric tons of product they produce a day, i.e. NPW-30 does 30 metric tons NPU-10 does 10 metric tons.


> We will be delivering the first NPW-30 to R-3 Energy in Cottonwood Falls, KS (30 metric tons/day of biodiesel) as soon as an extensive series of quality control tests are completed.


One thing to consider is that ECOS is simply the publicly traded front for MBT. Basically a PR machine and investing instrument. The business model seems to be to get other companies interested and pay for testing of the products that MBT creates. That's my impression anyway, could be wrong.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Some battery news


> Europe: In Holland, EcoloCap Solutions Inc. and MEGAS have approved the final sample battery design and delivery of test [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]batteries[/COLOR][/COLOR] is expected 1st quarter of next year. This testing is the last step before completion of the final design for the battery to be produced by MEGAS. The company is also in the process of supplying additional batteries for independent testing by companies in both electric vehicle and power storage applications, and is moving rapidly to bring this revolutionary technology to market in Europe.


More:
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/...attery-and-m-fuel-in-several-mar-1343256.html


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Hurry up and wait.

What is MEGAS anyway?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> Hurry up and wait.


I don't see any hurrying going on.


> What is MEGAS anyway?


Mobile Europe Gas Inc.?
http://www.allbusiness.com/mining/oil-gas-extraction-crude-petroleum-natural/989117-1.html


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Well, it appears Next alternative (the greater half of ecolocrap) has dropped the CNT battery off its list of "technology" if that means anything


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Next Alt and ECOS parted ways a while ago. Haven't heard much about their LiX battery in a while, they seem to be pushing the M Fuel more these days. They have a website with some videos if anyone is interested.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2011)

What the heck is M fuel? Must stand for milk as that crap is white that he poured into that tank then dumped some out on the ground.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Really? Didn't you read any of the posts after your last few?


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2011)

You know, I don't really keep up with junk. I usually just post on the wing as these come along. I do go have a look and do read some of the garbage but usually don't wast too much time. As with the battery the M-Fuel is in my opinion a dead horse. I can see why it is a risky investment.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

gottdi said:


> You know, I don't really keep up with junk. I usually just post on the wing as these come along. I do go have a look and do read some of the garbage but usually don't wast too much time. As with the battery the M-Fuel is in my opinion a dead horse. I can see why it is a risky investment.


Not really, I would have an onboard emulsifier if I had the skills 

Emulsified fuel has been tested and used various times over the last 40 years.

Trouble with it is that it is not lifetime stable, meaning I can't have it sit in my fuel station for a year.

It reduces the amount of diesel required to do the same amount of work and thus reduces pollution.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110415/ECOLOCAP-SOLUTIONS-INC_10-K/

That certainly was an interesting read.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Yep, startup looking for funds and in the process of slowly dying.

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?3912-Real-KMBT.

It did go a bit faster than Eestor, which oddly some people are still following.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Hanging on by a carbon nano tube.


----------



## scooby555 (Apr 26, 2013)

so where are we with this new technology ? 

other companies trying these out ?


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

scooby555 said:


> so where are we with this new technology ?
> 
> other companies trying these out ?


Its a tad better than regular lead so no big interest will fund it and yes there are legitimate versions of this tech in lead carbon batteries, nobody actually produces it though.

So even though it can work its a unicorn.


----------

