Super fast charge Graphine Aluminum Ion batteries

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,875
Location
Fresno, California
Fast charge, comparable energy density, and no thermal issues at high current draw. To top it off, you get around the environmental and supply issues that plague Lithium based batteries, and they can be lighter since you don’t need the massive heat sink and cooling components (or at least much less of it).
 

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
506
Location
Martensville SK
Would be nice to see this become a commercial project. My rabid opposition to electric nonsense is based on two things: the incredible pollution, fire danger and resource waste of Li-Ion batteries and the absolutely horrible energy storage density of ANY battery system (and this one doesn't look to move that part forward much).
 

joesab

New Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
4
anyone heard of Robert Smith Murray and his Graphene Super fast charge and paper lightweight batteries?
as far as I understand his batteries are a bit higher density than lithium???
he gives info to build those batteries (just paper and graphene ink so no polution and very light weight) on his youtube channel, google:

¨Robert Smith Murray Graphene Batteries¨

he is an inventor and professor in UK
I can´t wait to get my hands on one of those batteries
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
578
Here is a very good breakdown and review of the same battery teck by "Loz" ,who points out that the graphene aluminum battery has some
enormous benifits,it also poses some equaly enormous problems.
Also there is a partnership between germanys
BASF and a chinese concern for a massive battery plant,waiting for regulatory aproval.
And last and of general interest in alternative
energy ,with an aviation twist from the past,
are "rectennas",which apparently powered a small hellicopter in the 1960's by beaming power,just got a huge upgrade

 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,205
From that article: "The devices were able to capture less than 1% of the heat produced by the hot plate. But Belkadi thinks that those numbers are only going to go up."

Those numbers had better go up. Way up. Quantum physics might offer some useful stuff, far beyond battery technologies in development now, which all use standard chemistry, and we're getting to the limits of "standard" stuff. We're in a similar standard position like the coal-fired steam powerplants of 1950 (?) before controllable nuclear power was developed. There's only so much heat available from coal, and you can only get its combustion so clean. Standard chemistry.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
IMHO all legitimate discussion about any and all energy source(s) should (at some early stage) be required to be expressed in:

total energy required (to be extracted from the Earth and processed into usable form),
total environmental footprint (extraction, processing, storage, transport), and
total cost (from the beginning of extraction to the point where you have it in your vehicle's energy storage tank or battery).

These numbers, in some sort of universal units of measure, should be made public by law. Same as we have a clear and useful label on our box of Wheaties showing calories, sugar, carbohydrates, and salt.

That would put a lot of people (spin doctors and sales writers like me) out of a job, but it would be the best way for people to do what is best for "the planet", "the wallet", "the tax man", and the long-lost concept of truthfulness from our government and corporate leadership.

Sorry, not completely on topic for airplanes, but not that far off.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
578
IMHO all legitimate discussion about any and all energy source(s) should (at some early stage) be required to be expressed in:

total energy required (to be extracted from the Earth and processed into usable form),
total environmental footprint (extraction, processing, storage, transport), and
total cost (from the beginning of extraction to the point where you have it in your vehicle's energy storage tank or battery).

These numbers, in some sort of universal units of measure, should be made public by law. Same as we have a clear and useful label on our box of Wheaties showing calories, sugar, carbohydrates, and salt.

That would put a lot of people (spin doctors and sales writers like me) out of a job, but it would be the best way for people to do what is best for "the planet", "the wallet", "the tax man", and the long-lost concept of truthfulness from our government and corporate leadership.

Sorry, not completely on topic for airplanes, but not that far off.
VB
I realy appreciate the insights and personal experiances and knowledge you share on aviation,and gliders specificaly,and have changed how I think about a few things.
But what you are proposing is a beurocratic flight of fancy far less likely to occur than well,
realy?,you need to get out more or something.
If you realy want to find hell on earth than there
is nothing quite like a "standards organization"
where they slice ever so fine on the deffinition
of a watt or other unit,do you want "standard watts","EU watts"?,"International watts"?"metric,
5 digits past the decimal,gives me the cold grue.

 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Yes, I do need to get out more, and walk off some of this blubber!

Thank you for the compliments, but to be honest any of my insights and useful comments are about the same value as many many others on this forum. A large number of the folks here are experts, or at least highly experienced, at something relevant to aviation.

A washed up old sailplane racer and model airplane builder like me might be able to offer something of reasonable value one moment, but the very next minute there will be a highly experienced powertrain engineer like Billski that somehow manages to explain a complex problem like vibration in propeller shafts that the uneducated masses can understand. A moment later we will have access to the hard-won experience of a guy like BoKu, who is one of only a handful of people actually manufacturing world-class, full-on laminar flow composite airplane kits in a small shop. So the compliments should rightly go to Jake and this entire forum he created, every bit as much as any one person.

As for the consumer labeling of energy sources, of course it's a very tall order. But they managed to do it with food, and consumers can pretty much see what they are putting into their body with a pretty small percentage of BS and spin doctoring. They managed to put labels on appliances telling you what your annual average energy cost will be. They managed to put big giant labels on cars showing what the actual gas mileage will be. They managed to put labels on cigarettes, letting you know that you'll die a horrible and painful death, probably never see your grandkids graduate high school, and the value of your entire life is nothing but a stack of ten dollar bills to people who'd just as soon kill your wife and kids for another stack of bills.

Oh wait... that last one ain't quite finished yet. Maybe next year...
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
987
Location
Outside Boston
@Victor Bravo

The problem with your analogy is that consumer food labels only cover what is included in the final step. It does not include any information about the local super fund site being converted to an organic farm. :)
Same for the appliance, they take energy as a black box and say how much it will cost assuming Y. No discussion or info about the energy source.

While your simple number solution to compare sources will always be very misleading. e.g. What percentage of the batteries are recycled? How was the mineral mined? Strip and leave, Strip and recover?, mine shaft?

The list goes on. Personally, I hope technology advances enough in the next few years to move aware from rare earth elements to something more common. Like graphene which can be made from sugar....

Tim
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,796
Location
US
A complementary step would be to enhance the critical thinking skills and technical acumen of consumers/citizens so they can rapidly see through the obfuscatory BS of marketers. Unfortunately, the marketers have proven pretty adept across the ages at hoodwinking folks, and, if anything, general educational trends are de-emphasizing critical thinking and basic technical proficiency in favor of other objectives.
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
It wasn't intended to be a direct analogy, just the concept that food labels and such made people a lot more aware of what they were ingesting than they were before food labels. All the preservatives and chemicals that are in mass-market packaged foods are still a big problem, but even with what there is now people are beginning to understand how much processed sugar and fats they're putting in their mouth. Still a long way to go of course.

The overall point was that the average Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging, self-righteous dude who scowls in anger at you when you drive a gasoline powered car... has no idea that their Bernie bumper stickered Prius is not the planet-saving "clean and green" hero they were convinced it was, once they are forced to think about where the batteries and electricity come from.

Those same pompous and self-righteous folks are now starting to make life miserable for anyone using leaded airplane gasoline, so this is actually very relevant to private aviation.

For the record I would be VERY happy to have an electric aircraft to experiment with, and see how much use I could get out of it, etc. I saw one of the early electric self-launch sailplanes demonstrated by a friend of mine at Oshkosh and was absolutely astonished by its capabilities. Sailplanes and sailplane-ish efficient powerplanes are a perfect use of electric aircraft tech.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,575
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
That day is today. All indoor models are using electric power, and there is realistically zero indoor modeling possible with IC engines (even the tiny little Tee Dee .010). Too noisy and greasy.

Some guys are using the little CO2 motors for indoor R/C, but the vast majority are electrics.

The smallest IC engines used in outdoor R/C models today are the people still using Cox .020 (very few) and .049 (not nearly as many as they used to be). Virtually 95% or higher of outdoor small R/C is electric now.

On the other end of models, there are a large percentage of the giant scale models (100 inch span and larger) that have electric power. Maybe a current model person can tell us what the current balance of IC vs. electric is in the large models, it's been a while for me.
 
Top