The problem I see for this is that such a product makes a watertight case impossible, since the device must be actively venting water vapor. Consequently, in order for something like this to appeal to me, a staunch LifeProof case user, triathlete, etc. I'd want the iPhone with this to be natively watertight.
Not necessarily. You can make it waterproof and still expose only the exhaust vent. That is unless it needs an air intake. The rest of the phone can be waterproofed only exposing the fuel cell output. Even Sony's waterproof phone wasn't watertight. They just made the internal components waterproof with coatings.
There is hope
The problem I see for this is that such a product makes a watertight case impossible, since the device must be actively venting water vapor. Consequently, in order for something like this to appeal to me, a staunch LifeProof case user, triathlete, etc. I'd want the iPhone with this to be natively watertight.
Water vapor is a byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell. There would be some measure of water. Not a bucket of water, obviously...
If it was a superior technology providing vast improvements over a battery, Apple would've used it already.
I agree. While the tech itself may be superior I can anticipate issues with product safety (fire, explosion) as well as refilling/"charging". It's not like you can hook it up to your hydrogen outlet around the corner. And refill packs are likely just too expensive.
hydrogen gas is refuelled via an adapted headphone socket.
While the iPhone that they showed the media was like that, he said that "...A shipping product with the technology -- not necessarily an iPhone -- would have a dedicated slot for fuel cartridges, each containing enough powder to run a phone for about a week."
While the iPhone that they showed the media was like that, he said that "...A shipping product with the technology -- not necessarily an iPhone -- would have a dedicated slot for fuel cartridges, each containing enough powder to run a phone for about a week."
Oh dear, queue long thread of painfully ignorant commenters equating this tech with the Hindenburg, damp pants, fusion reactions etc.
The only way it could be topped would be some lunatic claiming it's a big oil conspiracy to prevent saintly battery tech, or even funnier, solar panels, from ruling the world.
Solar panels wouldn't be great in a pocket. You're right there. So not great for phones. As to what you mean by "saintly battery technology" well that's between you and Jesus.
I think there is a tendency for activists types to pursue electric systems for ideological reasons. Now, for a phone I think the hassle of plugging in your phone every night is less than having to find and buy a top up canister that lasts a week. So current battery tech is best at the moment. This would be awesome in a car though, and vastly superior to an all electric car, where recharge time and range is the issue.
Yeah, too many parts and processes, but high pressure hydrogen has more than double the energy density of Li ion batteries.
Never say never!
After all, God has been using hydrogen in the Sun as a viable energy source for at least 5000 years, perhaps more depending on who you ask. Why not let him do the hard work and we can just collect the energy?
Absolutely impossible. Everyone knows the earth was created 6,000 years ago so the sun would have to be at least that old! /s
Currently there are several types of batteries, the more recent being Lion which needs to be sealed tightly or it burns very hot.
Hydrogen doesn't just burn, it can explode with great force.
I'll pass on this battery; they probably wouldn't even allow in an aeroplane.
You mean "explode" is more dangerous than the damn 787 Lithium batteries that keep burning up?
It can, but only if the hydrogen can't escape. the heat wave and very low weight of hydrogen and the pressure inside those fuel cells means that most of the fuel would be out and diluted in a microsecond before it can even ignite.
I think there is a tendency for activists types to pursue electric systems for ideological reasons. Now, for a phone I think the hassle of plugging in your phone every night is less than having to find and buy a top up canister that lasts a week. So current battery tech is best at the moment. This would be awesome in a car though, and vastly superior to an all electric car, where recharge time and range is the issue.
This is AOK for people going to base camp of everest (or anyplace remote or with very unreliable electricity) where electricity can only come from very dirty generators, solar and less efficient batteries.
I'll believe it when I see it. Did you see the size of their Upp product that gets a week's charge? It's like a skinny tall car battery. Someone's playing the stock market if you ask me.
This is the Holy Grail of mobile technology - a device you can take off a charging cradle on Monday morning and not worry about power till Friday or Saturday night.
Untold fortunes await the successful implementers of this objective - it is only a matter of time, and the countdown appears to be under way now, thank goodness...
The above provides a concern for me. Would the fuel cartidges be user refillable, or would they be one time only and you have to buy new ones? Even if they are only, say, $10.00 each, at 52 weeks in a year, that is $520.00
This is the Holy Grail of mobile technology - a device you can take off a charging cradle on Monday morning and not worry about power till Friday or Saturday night.
Untold fortunes await the successful implementers of this objective - it is only a matter of time, and the countdown appears to be under way now, thank goodness...
If this is viable you also need to consider that it won't be a 1:1 ratio for volume/weight for the current battery. I'd think all companies, but especially Apple, would split the difference so that you do get an improved battery, but you also get a much smaller and lighter device.
For example, just look how the current MBP changed in thickness and weight when they removed the HDD and ODD. They could have increased the battery size to fit that same dimension. They didn't. One reason is it would be much heavier since the ODD is very light, but the main drive is being able to move to a lighter and smaller device while also increasing usage.
For the 15" MBPs, for 2011 it had a 77.5 Whr battery at 5.6 lbs. and 0.95" thick to get "Up to 7 hours wireless web," which the next year with the first Retina IPS display MBP that eschewed the HDD and ODD it had a 95 Whr battery at .46 lbs. and 0.71" thick, yet with the same "Up to 7 hours wireless web."
It wasn't until late-2013 that they finally moved that to "Up to 8 hours wireless web," for the 15" MBP, only a 14% increase, but that was most because of Haswell. This year they finally moved up from 95 Whr to 99.5 Whr, about a 5% increase in battery capacity due to the new internal casing and battery design for 12.5% more playback with "Up to 9 hours wireless web, Up to 9 hours iTunes movie playback"
That said, if this can be used for any of their more mobile devices that are used whilst in motion I would expect they would put more effort toward longer usage between charges, but just know it makes more business since to make it, say, a 200% increase in duration between charges with a 40% reduction in volume than, say, a 500% increase in duration between charges with a 0% reduction in volume.
So what? Couldn't it have 2 compartments, one with the fuel and another for the "byproduct"?
The byproduct then could be eventually removed through the same outlets that you'd use to recharge the battery.
Exactly! Finally a post from someone with a brain! I thought the same thing when I read it. Perhaps there's a compartment that countains a super-absorbent sponge-like material and it's just swapped out for a dry one when you swap or refill the battery cartridge. Maybe it's been built right into the battery cartridge. There are literally dozens of ways they could address the discharge issue without making users wet their pants!
It kills me to see all of the objections that people are coming out with. There are very few details in the article which describes an experiment and people are treating it like it is the final spec sheet for a finished product Ready to hit the market!
It's crazy to assume that all of the issues described in the objections posted here would not be considered and solved before this technology ever made it into a retail device. Safety issues? Recharging issues and convenience? Water vapor storage? Cost? Obviously these issues would be addressed before technology like this ever hit the shelves. There were a lot of dumb comments in this thread, but so far I think the dumbest is the one about the water leaking into your pants pockets. Do these people really think that their issues are "oversights"? LOL! Most of them have probably already been solved and patented - except maybe the cost issue - but mass production should be able to make this affordable for the masses - especially if they have a partner that wants to order 75 million each quarter!
Comments
There is hope
Not necessarily. There are fabrics that allow the transmission of vapor but block liquid water.
I agree. While the tech itself may be superior I can anticipate issues with product safety (fire, explosion) as well as refilling/"charging". It's not like you can hook it up to your hydrogen outlet around the corner. And refill packs are likely just too expensive.
Edit: fixed typo. iPhone autocorrect, grrrr....
hydrogen gas is refuelled via an adapted headphone socket.
While the iPhone that they showed the media was like that, he said that "...A shipping product with the technology -- not necessarily an iPhone -- would have a dedicated slot for fuel cartridges, each containing enough powder to run a phone for about a week."
While the iPhone that they showed the media was like that, he said that "...A shipping product with the technology -- not necessarily an iPhone -- would have a dedicated slot for fuel cartridges, each containing enough powder to run a phone for about a week."
Let Samsung try it first.
Oh the humanity!
Yeah, too many parts and processes, but high pressure hydrogen has more than double the energy density of Li ion batteries.
Never say never!
After all, God has been using hydrogen in the Sun as a viable energy source for at least 5000 years, perhaps more depending on who you ask. Why not let him do the hard work and we can just collect the energy?
Absolutely impossible. Everyone knows the earth was created 6,000 years ago so the sun would have to be at least that old!
But quite a unique battery.
Currently there are several types of batteries, the more recent being Lion which needs to be sealed tightly or it burns very hot.
Hydrogen doesn't just burn, it can explode with great force.
I'll pass on this battery; they probably wouldn't even allow in an aeroplane.
You mean "explode" is more dangerous than the damn 787 Lithium batteries that keep burning up?
It can, but only if the hydrogen can't escape. the heat wave and very low weight of hydrogen and the pressure inside those fuel cells means that most of the fuel would be out and diluted in a microsecond before it can even ignite.
I think there is a tendency for activists types to pursue electric systems for ideological reasons. Now, for a phone I think the hassle of plugging in your phone every night is less than having to find and buy a top up canister that lasts a week. So current battery tech is best at the moment. This would be awesome in a car though, and vastly superior to an all electric car, where recharge time and range is the issue.
This is AOK for people going to base camp of everest (or anyplace remote or with very unreliable electricity) where electricity can only come from very dirty generators, solar and less efficient batteries.
I'll believe it when I see it. Did you see the size of their Upp product that gets a week's charge? It's like a skinny tall car battery. Someone's playing the stock market if you ask me.
Untold fortunes await the successful implementers of this objective - it is only a matter of time, and the countdown appears to be under way now, thank goodness...
My concern would be, is it safe? Something as energy intensive in my pocket worries me a lot.
If this is viable you also need to consider that it won't be a 1:1 ratio for volume/weight for the current battery. I'd think all companies, but especially Apple, would split the difference so that you do get an improved battery, but you also get a much smaller and lighter device.
For example, just look how the current MBP changed in thickness and weight when they removed the HDD and ODD. They could have increased the battery size to fit that same dimension. They didn't. One reason is it would be much heavier since the ODD is very light, but the main drive is being able to move to a lighter and smaller device while also increasing usage.
For the 15" MBPs, for 2011 it had a 77.5 Whr battery at 5.6 lbs. and 0.95" thick to get "Up to 7 hours wireless web," which the next year with the first Retina IPS display MBP that eschewed the HDD and ODD it had a 95 Whr battery at .46 lbs. and 0.71" thick, yet with the same "Up to 7 hours wireless web."
It wasn't until late-2013 that they finally moved that to "Up to 8 hours wireless web," for the 15" MBP, only a 14% increase, but that was most because of Haswell. This year they finally moved up from 95 Whr to 99.5 Whr, about a 5% increase in battery capacity due to the new internal casing and battery design for 12.5% more playback with "Up to 9 hours wireless web, Up to 9 hours iTunes movie playback"
That said, if this can be used for any of their more mobile devices that are used whilst in motion I would expect they would put more effort toward longer usage between charges, but just know it makes more business since to make it, say, a 200% increase in duration between charges with a 40% reduction in volume than, say, a 500% increase in duration between charges with a 0% reduction in volume.
(All data sourced from MacTracker)
If I think about it, surely I can find some other battery-powered personal device where moisture and heat are welcome additions.
What a stupid thing to say!
It kills me to see all of the objections that people are coming out with. There are very few details in the article which describes an experiment and people are treating it like it is the final spec sheet for a finished product Ready to hit the market!
It's crazy to assume that all of the issues described in the objections posted here would not be considered and solved before this technology ever made it into a retail device. Safety issues? Recharging issues and convenience? Water vapor storage? Cost? Obviously these issues would be addressed before technology like this ever hit the shelves. There were a lot of dumb comments in this thread, but so far I think the dumbest is the one about the water leaking into your pants pockets. Do these people really think that their issues are "oversights"? LOL! Most of them have probably already been solved and patented - except maybe the cost issue - but mass production should be able to make this affordable for the masses - especially if they have a partner that wants to order 75 million each quarter!
I suggest they stop drinking Hatorade for five minutes and use the time to do something they never bother to do: RESEARCH.
1. IE already power vehicles.
2. IE already sell through Apple phone chargers.
3. Apple share ownership of their patent portfolio.
Apple and its partner are going to kill Android phones, Googles Noddy Car and have Elon begging to use their PATENTED technology.
Steal your next idea at the Mac World Convention.