Hi,
Timothy Sherburne wrote:
"I'm not sure of the exact demonstration Boris mentions, but he
refers to
either gas-powered microturbine or fuel cell technology.
In either case, the
"fluid" is simply methanol or a similar fuel. Fuel cells
have been around
for some time but have been slow to reach the marketplace,
IMO because
there's little incentive for industries to change to a
technology that has a
very low consumable cost. It's also an expensive technical
feat to
productize these concepts. Fuel cells are relatively
uncomplicated and
environmentally friendly; nuclear power and chemical
batteries are, of
course, not."
Fuel cells and suchlike have been around for almost 50 years.
Given the market potential for such devices, there are two
possible reasons for them not appearing. One, there are
(presently) insurmountable technical problems. Two, vested
interests are preventing development. Regarding one, the simple
fuel cells using methanol and hydrogen have had enough
development time for them to have evolved to the equivalent of a
50megapixel camera. As far as I can tell, they are still having
difficulty at normal size generating enough energy to drag a car
body around for a reasonable time. Micro applications are
complete non-starters. More and more esoteric and hazardous
fuels are being applied and yet there is still no functional
cell available for purchase.
I find the idea of microturbines to be both funny and
frightening. To be functional, a microturbine will have to
revolve at speeds in the hundreds of thousands of revs per
minute. By the time you have associated the relevant cooling
and power creation systems, not to mention the fuel tanks, they
are non-starters, if you will pardon the pun. Also, the thought
of something spinning and steaming away in my jacket pocket like
that fills me with trepidation. The shielding required to deal
with potential catastrophic and explosive failure only adds to
the problem. My (admittedly intuitive) conclusion is that the
difficulties involved in successful application of this
technology are nowhere near solved. In fact, it seems that each
new (near) resolution only creates more problems.
Regarding two - who knows? Certainly the petrol companies have
bought and applied for many patents in this area.
No technology is environmentally friendly. Maybe fuel cells
are, relatively, but I think that there has been absolutely no
research on this matter.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I stand by my belief
that power supply is one of the biggest inhibitors for
photographers to move to digital and that it is likely to become
the biggest in the relatively near future. I would be very
careful of believing the statements of sources that can come up
with the following twaddle.
Source: www.smalltimes.com
"In fuel cells big and small, hydrogen atoms enter at the anode,
a negatively charged electrode, where a catalyst strips them of
their electrons. These electrons provide the current that powers
the device that the fuel cell is connected to. Meanwhile, the
ionized hydrogen atoms travel through an electrolyte,
essentially a screen that blocks loose electrons from flowing to
the other side of the fuel cell and mucking up the chemical
reactions. These hydrogen ions end up at the cathode, the
positively charged electrode. Oxygen from the air also flows
into the cathode, where it combines with the electrons returning
from the device and the hydrogen ions. The resulting waste
products are heat, carbon dioxide and water, which micro fuel
cells often burn off as steam."
Just as a comparison:
State of the art technology, from the same source as above.
"Berkeleys steel mini-engine currently runs on hydrogen and can
keep a bicycle headlight lighted for two hours on a shot glass
of fuel"
My Coleman lantern can go for about 14 hours on a pint and puts
out considerably more light and warmth.
mike
