Apple shows continued interest in fuel cell-powered devices with weeklong battery life
Apple has showed continued interest in using hydrogen fuel cell technology to power its portable devices, echoing a functional iPhone 6 powered by hydrogen that was showcased just last week.
Published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, the application was originally submitted by Apple in March, and actually represents a continuation of two patents from 2010, one of which was previously spotted by AppleInsider. Text and diagrams depict not only a fuel cell stack for generating power, but related aspects like connections with the portable device and a cartridge system for adding fuel.
The diagrams make reference to a MagSafe connector, implying that technology would be oriented towards MacBooks, and claim that a device could run for "days or even weeks" without refueling.
Recently, however, British firm Intelligent Energy developed a prototype iPhone 6 pairing a fuel cell with a rechargeable battery. The company has reportedly been working closely with Apple, though neither party has been willing to comment on that claim.
Intelligent Energy's system would use an ultra-thin stack, and disposable cartridges containing enough fuel powder to run an iPhone for a week.
The likelihood of Apple putting fuel cell technology in a shipping product is uncertain, since cartridge slots would take up valuable design space, and many people might prefer to keep recharging via USB instead of paying for fuel. There also might also be outsized manufacturing and environmental costs in producing a supply of cartridges.
However, Thursday's patent continuation makes it clear that Apple remains interested in pursuing the concept, as the company strives to make more environmentally friendly products that also offer greater runtime between recharges.
Published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, the application was originally submitted by Apple in March, and actually represents a continuation of two patents from 2010, one of which was previously spotted by AppleInsider. Text and diagrams depict not only a fuel cell stack for generating power, but related aspects like connections with the portable device and a cartridge system for adding fuel.
The diagrams make reference to a MagSafe connector, implying that technology would be oriented towards MacBooks, and claim that a device could run for "days or even weeks" without refueling.
Recently, however, British firm Intelligent Energy developed a prototype iPhone 6 pairing a fuel cell with a rechargeable battery. The company has reportedly been working closely with Apple, though neither party has been willing to comment on that claim.
Intelligent Energy's system would use an ultra-thin stack, and disposable cartridges containing enough fuel powder to run an iPhone for a week.
The likelihood of Apple putting fuel cell technology in a shipping product is uncertain, since cartridge slots would take up valuable design space, and many people might prefer to keep recharging via USB instead of paying for fuel. There also might also be outsized manufacturing and environmental costs in producing a supply of cartridges.
However, Thursday's patent continuation makes it clear that Apple remains interested in pursuing the concept, as the company strives to make more environmentally friendly products that also offer greater runtime between recharges.
Comments
This is just a return to non-rechargeable batteries, now called fuel cells. I do not like the idea. It's completely impractical. This takes people from just charging their laptop/phone/watch at night to having to visit a store once a week like one would buy groceries just for a fuel cell replacement.
It's also yet another environmental cost where the disposable fuel cells have to be replaced. If fuel cells replace D/C/AA/AAA batteries, that's fine. But they won't. Mainly because it would create further stress on the water supply in places that are already suffering (Eg California)
This is just a return to non-rechargeable batteries, now called fuel cells. I do not like the idea. It's completely impractical. This takes people from just charging their laptop/phone/watch at night to having to visit a store once a week like one would buy groceries just for a fuel cell replacement.
It's also yet another environmental cost where the disposable fuel cells have to be replaced. If fuel cells replace D/C/AA/AAA batteries, that's fine. But they won't. Mainly because it would create further stress on the water supply in places that are already suffering (Eg California)
Harvesting hydrogen doesn't have to be done from water. Indeed, commercially, it's far more common to be from natural gas. I do, however, agree that there are environmental costs. I did not see what metallic powder they are using to store the hydrogen, though I am assuming it is a relative of the metal hydrides that were first proposed as a non-pressurized means of storing hydrogen.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not environmentally friendly at all. Not for phones, not for laptops and not for cars or busses. (The only things that might benefit from hydrogen are airplanes and rockets.)
The only reason I can see Apple do this is as an option for people who spend a lot of time in the middle of nowhere and don't have the ability to recharge daily, or for people who go on hikes for several days or something. And even in that case it's better and FAR more environmentally friendly to buy a small solar panel that you can carry on top of your backpack to recharge your phone, iPad, camera etc.
I really, really, really hope Apple never uses fuel cells, not in their devices and not in the rumored Apple Car. It's ridiculous!
Personally, I'd only be interested if the fuel isn't exotic or the canister proprietary. I'd most like to see it powered by commercial alcohol. It's cheap, easily available, and relative to most other fuel sources, safe. In a pinch, you can every use vodka for power.
I'm fully expecting certain people to see that headline and say something to the point, "You all said you didn't want longer battery life, you wanted the device to be thinner, and not you're happy Apple is working on weeklong battery life."
:???: Of course we are. All of use, no matter how "green" we think we are produce domestic waste. This has been happening since the first society and will continue to expand. It's an excellent way for archeologists to study ancient civilizations. They even have a term for it: midden.
I've never heard that term for the process of sifting(?) or analyzing(?) through midden.
This is all I could find…
[LIST][*] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fair+to+middlin
[/LIST]
Well, you can probably can buy a 12 pack and last 3 months, but still be a nightmare for those who just buy when it runs out. On the bright side there would never be a need for an outlet with one of these(replaceable battery lovers).
They'd probably do hybrid battery/fuel cell, which would last 3-4 days instead of pure fuel cell phones.
If screen and SOC tech decrease power usage enough, the battery portion of the phone would be efficient enough to last 12h even if the cell is half the size it is right now.
Having more battery life is great (I'd it run forever without being charged), but how about splitting the difference so we can get, say, 60% longer usage and a much smaller battery than would be needed for 300-400% more usage, plus whatever extra power requirements we don't experience when we leave them plugged in whilst sleeping? Sure, they could (and would) reduce the weight and volume, but this would also allow more space for components over 300-400%+ or 700%+ battery.
I'm not sure if this should be called midden, or something else, like shitten¡ Either way, it coincides with my previous post and I found it interesting so I thought I'd share.
that we produce waste is a given. that doesn't negate the value in seeking ways to minimize waste production. what's so confusing about that?
I agree. I would say there isn't just a value in minimizing waste but also a necessity for the longevity of the human race as well as trillions upon trillions of dollars to be had by finding large-scale and longterm solutions. What's confusing is the simplistic sentence, "Aren't we adding more rubbish to landfills?". Yes, of course we are, but adding to a landfill doesn't mean something shouldn't be done. Additionally, just because something can be recycled doesn't mean it's therefore environmentally friendly to do so. Regardless, all this pales in comparison to the potential threat of our population outstripping resources and/or altering worldwide homeostases. For example a domino collapse of ecosystems.
I've been trying to cut back on my caloric and meat consumption, but I will start eating all the burgers I can if I knew I'd soon be eating patties made from ground up insects.