Suggesting the patent is bit of commercial deception ?Post by Supercaps » Today, 17:22
Yes the patent covers this. Patents are normally written as broadly as possible to prevent copying methods by other parties. This is why the words “in some embodiments” and “can” are used. There are no lithium ion electrochemical cells in the super capacitor modules which are being used. Good to see you doing your research. Have you worked out how it’s done yet?...
That's the scheme in which a small battery is used to charge the capacitors as necessary to maintain some minimum level to avoid damaging them. It's not meaningful to storage capacity, but the inclusion of electrochemical cells in a system claimed to have none is disturbing.In the first video they did mention batteries - but it was something about the supercaps not being able to retain charge for a long time so the batteries somehow fixed that
Then the 3.6 kWh claim is meaningless crap. If someone owes you a hundred dollars and gives you a box containing a hundred dollars, but you can only ever actually get ten bucks out of it, does all the extra money in the box do you any good? Do you feel ripped off?I wonder - maybe the 3.6 kWh on the box is the actual storage capacity - BUT with it configured as a battery you can only use 1.2 kWh
Even a lead-acid battery can be discharged to the full depth of the rated capacity... it costs in cycle life, but the voltage at the end of discharge is still close to the nominal and usable. At even 80% depth of discharge, this "48 volt drop-in replacement" which must be charged to 54 volts to be fully charged is down to 24 volts; that's not useful.Which would tie in with lead acid batteries where you can only use a fraction of the capacity
Or even Lithium where you can only use 80%
Claiming that the design is covered by a patent then sending that "Have you worked out how it’s done yet?" response from Supercaps about the patent would be suitable for someone attempting to insult the recipient as much as possible....".And the latest reply from Arvio commenting on the Patent " battery" reference... ????????
Suggesting the patent is bit of commercial deception ?Post by Supercaps » Today, 17:22
Yes the patent covers this. Patents are normally written as broadly as possible to prevent copying methods by other parties. This is why the words “in some embodiments” and “can” are used. There are no lithium ion electrochemical cells in the super capacitor modules which are being used. Good to see you doing your research. Have you worked out how it’s done yet?...
Post by Supercaps » Today, 01:45
Just to clarify a few things. The super capacitor in the picture is one of the range of super capacitors, not the one in the 3.55kWh unit. Secondly the calculations are correct except for the micro farad typo. The missing piece of the calculations is understanding of the technique used to extract almost all of the energy from the capacitors from 54VDC down to 44Vdc when in series without a series DC to DC converter. Yes there are electronics involved. The electronics perform high speed balancing between the parallel cell groups. This is the IP of the product. You can learn about this by reading the patent. The real test is at the terminals, which can easily be shown to deliver the energy stated. The unit can be shown opened up to anyone interested in person to have no electrochemical batteries and proven with a colomb meter to be what is stated. Still haven’t had anyone from this thread come to visit. Doors are always open. Nothing to hide......
In parallel would make no sense. Weasel words don't give me a lot of faith.Minor point Brian, but he didnt say there was no dc/dc conversion......he actually said there is no "in series". dc/dc conversion !
My guess is that's the cell monitoring, and charging (from electrochemical cells!) at extremely low voltage.Now that may be nothing ,..or it may distract from the fact that there could be some cell level conversion trickery,.
That previous photo with the blue supercap bank showed a lot of cell level electronics.
Good point, but that full range is not typically used, and the lithium voltage range is much narrower for a very large fraction of the full capacity... and vehicle manufacturers routinely state both a nominal (full voltage range) capacity and a usable capacity.With regards to the voltage range, a typical 48v lithium pack (13 S of 18650s ), would typically have a full capacity range of 39-55volts ( 3v - 4.2v per cell) .
I skimmed through that discussion... yes, very similar.This reminded me of a previous "ultracap" discussion...
Anybody remember the "fastcharge" 1000 hp drag bike thread ?..
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178345&highlight=1000+drag+bike
What happened to that project ?... Their blog is gone and the site is "dusty"
So, rather than DC-DC conversion "in series" with the capacitor output, they are presumably pumping the remaining charge out of some cells in a normally parallel group to the rest, probably in stages.OK,.. More feedback from Arvio..
Post by Supercaps » Today, 01:45
Just to clarify a few things. The super capacitor in the picture is one of the range of super capacitors, not the one in the 3.55kWh unit. Secondly the calculations are correct except for the micro farad typo. The missing piece of the calculations is understanding of the technique used to extract almost all of the energy from the capacitors from 54VDC down to 44Vdc when in series without a series DC to DC converter. Yes there are electronics involved. The electronics perform high speed balancing between the parallel cell groups. This is the IP of the product. You can learn about this by reading the patent. The real test is at the terminals, which can easily be shown to deliver the energy stated. The unit can be shown opened up to anyone interested in person to have no electrochemical batteries and proven with a colomb meter to be what is stated. Still haven’t had anyone from this thread come to visit. Doors are always open. Nothing to hide......
I agree with Duncan, I think the way it works and stuff doesn't matter (at least for now). if they can prove the weight and cost, then it becomes a viable product. if not it's just another product that will not see the light of day outside of exhibitionsAll of the electronic bits - the patents and the "secret sauce" are almost besides the point
To me the point is the 200:1 reduction in weight and the 1000:1 reduction in costs
The Rolls-Royce engine and automotive companies have been unrelated for decades... but yes, Rolls-Royce is a major and very capable manufacturer of turbine engines for various applications. That's a good thing due to the technical resources which will be available to the project, but the purpose is still to "explore the potential" of the technology.Not graphene this time but a superelectrolyte and stainless steel with a special sauce:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/20180319-rr.html
Could be the next one with 180Wh/kg.
Big name is involved: RR as in jet engines and luxury cars.
Remember... Whilst they are "exploring the potential"...the Kilowattlabs guys claim they already have supercaps with 2-3 times the energy density of the units in the Sirius device !....Not graphene this time but a superelectrolyte and stainless steel with a special sauce:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/20180319-rr.html
Could be the next one with 180Wh/kg.
.
That would need those supercaps to be more like 10,000F each,...and Arvio have already stated they are 3000F devices ! ( ref page 2)Maybe that is how they do it - it's actually a 12 kWh pack and they are only using the top 3.5 kWhs
Interesting
So 8.5% at 44v and 95% at 53v
Just don't see how you do that with Supercaps unless you set the "zero" at 40v
So if 2.7v is full then "zero" would be 1.9 volts
Right - that's how capacitors work, and what I've been saying since post #2 and first quantified in post #13. Either most of the energy is not coming out, or the caps are going down to a much lower voltage (1.9 volts if they're all in the same state). There is no other option in the real world.OR...if they really have figured out how to get most of the energy out (8.5% remaining). Whilst holding the pack voltage minimum at 44v , then it only needs to go up to 55.5v (2.77 per cap) to hold the full 3.55 kWh. ???
I wonder - maybe the 3.6 kWh on the box is the actual storage capacity - BUT with it configured as a battery you can only use 1.2 kWh
Maybe that is how they do it - it's actually a 12 kWh pack and they are only using the top 3.5 kWhs
Okay, but in the statement quoted in post #26 the distributor explicitly said this is not the case.I think that it is much more likely that they are only using the top 1.2kWh and that the 3.5kWh is a true but irrelevant capacity
It's just not DC-to-DC at the place (point in the power flow) where we expect it... which they call "in series", because we would expect the output of the capacitors to go through the DC-to-DC converter to reach the load.So we are back to the issue that They would have to use some form of voltage boost that is not dc/dc as we understand it ?
So the cells which get nearly fully discharged are taken down to much lower (well below 1.9 volts) voltage by DC-to-DC converters which add that energy to the remaining cells, which only get down to 2.2 volts (for a 44 volt series bank). They call this "high speed balancing between the parallel cell groups", although I think to most people familiar with complex batteries "balancing" means the very opposite: equalizing state of charge, not deliberately shifting charge to a selected group of cells.So, rather than DC-DC conversion "in series" with the capacitor output, they are presumably pumping the remaining charge out of some cells in a normally parallel group to the rest, probably in stages.
