Hi Richard,
The first task is to develop wire. That is a three year program at $6
million/year = $18 million. We expect to begin that program by the end of
this quarter.
Once wire exists, a licensee is likely to focus on the energy storage
application. We would expect to work with them and cross license any
patents they develop.
Since our parent firm, Magnetic Power Inc., (www.magneticpowerinc.com)
expects to license generators widely beginning later this year, candidate
firms for developing the UMES are likely to emerge synergistically.
As with the energy work, the paucity of Angel investment since the dot.com
crash, has delayed what could have been in production by now...had there
been sufficient availability of the necessary capital.
Mark
From: "RC Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron flywheels - better than any battery!
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:51:02 -0600
Hi Mark,
Please give us an update on your comments regarding UMES. Where is the
research being conducted?
There were two flywheel companies ( US Flywheel Co.)on the west coast
developing an ultrahigh speed mechanical unit some years back.
Richard
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Goldes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Electron flywheels - better than any battery!
Ultraconductors(tm), once in wire form, which is likely in three years,
can be developed into UMES. These are Superconducting Magnetic Energy
Storage devices made with polymer, ambient temperature, Ultraconductors.
A UMES should store twice what an equivalent flywheel can store, without
moving parts. Obviously, it will be very much lighter.
Unlike batteries, which have limited cycle life and difficulty accepting a
very rapid charge, such as would be best for regenerative braking, UMES
units are like ultracapacitors in respect to those characteristics.
Ultracapacitors are falling in price. See the latest Maxwell units.
Electron flywheels should offer them a bit of competition. Again, the
weight may be much less. Visualize a cylinder of Kevlar for strong
containment and binding, since rapid charge and discharge will produce
powerful mechanical movement tendencies.
Mark
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: "vortex" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Hybridizing and the "Bettery"
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:22:04 -0800
Hybrid autos starting to get political?
Used to be - everybody ganged up against GM, but now Toyota will soon be
king of the hill, and the lines and alliances are being redrawn. Will
uncle Sam step into the fray eventually, or will a home-grown US-produced
"better-battery" (Bettery?) come to the rescue of GM ?
"Toyota Motor pushed the hybrid envelope further this week by unveiling
two high-profile cars equipped with the alternative powertrain at the
annual Detroit auto show, but competitors responded by cranking up the
volume to promote rival clean-engine technologies."
http://news.com.com/Turning+up+the+heat+on+hybrid+cars/2100-11389_3-6026076.html
A $60,000 hybrid Lexus is not going to please that many tree-huggers
however.
The most vocal challenge against the Prius 'exemplar' of
gasoline-electric hybrid with substantial battery power is coming from
Germany's DaimlerChrysler, which thinks diesel engines-sans-batteries are
a better overall solution. That stance, however, seems indefensible (OK
stupid) IF far better batteries are in the offing.
I hope that Daimler does not know something about batteries that others
are missing. In fact, this stance of theirs seems like a gigantic
tactical error in light of the analysts at Kleiner Perkins VC. No VC
investor in the world has been as successful, or as admired in financial
circles from NY to London to Hong Kong to LA as Kleiner Perkins. They are
simply the top dog.
To paraphrase Rob Hoff in the article cited below, John Doerr of K-P has
been talking up investments in energy and environmental startups, but he
has never revealed many details. At a Churchill Club event yesterday in
Palo Alto he and other VCs offered their annual tech predictions: High
on the list is his "highest-risk, highest-reward" investment. He didn't
mention it by name, but I will - EEStor. More on that later.
Diesels do get 20 percent to 40 percent better fuel economy than gasoline
engines of the same power at little added cost - and yes they now account
for more than half of all cars sold in Europe. They are claimed to be
more easily adapted to biofuels, supposedly, but that is questionable.
Many of the historical negatives of diesels - such as noise and
cold-starts have been solved. In Europe, diesel fuel is generally cheaper
- whereas here, the opposite seems to be true in recent years.
However, there are now at least 100 well-funded R&D battery projects
worldwide - and although the so-called "one good battery" seems to be as
far away as ever to many observers, including Daimler, I disagree with
that assessment. Only a fool (or a company in a poor patent position)
would pass up the chance to use a far better battery as part of the next
step in hybrids.
Of course - the obvious question for the next couple of years, pending
that better-battery going into mass production - is "why not use a diesel
in the Prius?"
Jones
BTW. I am still sticking by the assertion, made a few months ago, that an
even better solution for transportation, not immediate but for the time
frame of perhaps 2008 and beyond - when the "one good battery" or
"bettery" will be a mass-produced reality... better even than the diesel
Prius, would be a total battery powered design ... but with a small
valveless Wankel as backup. Now let me add one more detail:
Removable.
Yes, there is no good reason the backup ICE cannot be an easily
removable-backup if it is light enough - and only the Wankel is light
enough. Maybe not light enough for Mom... but Deiter, down at the garage,
can handle it or at least he can tell Jose and Manuel how to do it in
about 10 minutes, the same time it takes for an oil change.
For longer trips, since the Wankel is so light-weight, it can be added
into a small compartment that is otherwise used for storage. It could
even be a rented option - which is never used by many consumers - those
who do not need to go over 60-100 miles without a recharge. When you go
on vacation, however, you might swing by the dealer and Deiter pop in the
backup Wankel, as the electrical and fuel connections have already come
as standard, on your batter-powered vehicle. Make that low cost
battery-powered vehicle using the EEStor battery.
Of course this scenario depends on that elusive battery, and also to a
lesser extent on a light carbon body. I have mentioned EEStor before.
They are now in the news again with this blip:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/01/kleiner_perkins.html
EEStor Inc. is a Cedar Park, Texas startup which has developed a
breakthrough battery technology - only is sounds more like a combination
of UltraCap and/or BatCap. Apparently a prototype factory is under
construction and may now be ready. The company was founded in 2001 by
Richard D. Weir, Carl Nelson, and Richard S. Weir, who have backgrounds
as senior managers at IBM and Xerox, not in automotive nor batteries. If
the prototype plant is actually being finished - as rumor has it - then
this is a huge step forward.
According to "Utility Federal Technology Opportunities," EEStor claims
the battery will be half the cost per kilowatt-hour and one-tenth the
weight of lead-acid batteries. Did you get that ? cheaper than lead-acid
per kw and 1/10 the weight for the same power? Specifically, the
anticipated unit weighs 400 pounds and delivers 52 kilowatt-hours on a
fresh charge.
Doesn't sound like that much really, but compare it to what is available.
It definitely fits the minimum requirements of "one good battery"
especially the 10 times less weight per kilowatt-hour.
The technology is basically a parallel plate capacitor with barium
titanate as the dielectric, plus something else - but is a ceramic-based
unit. EEStor was supposed to build (in 2005) an assembly line - to
produce vet and supply them in modest quantity - and then after they
prove themselves to license the technology for volume production. Selling
price would start at $3,200 for low volume and fall to $2,100 in
high-volume production. - about $5+ per pound. Lead acid is less per
pound ($1+) but only a tenth as energetic per pound. NiMH is heavier per
unit output and four times costlier for the same power.
But given the recent history of such announcements - I will be the first
to add the necessary caveat: don't get your hopes up too high just yet.
Jones
