Dave K.

Battery Investing for Beginners

Jerry,
If you are looking for detailed information then contact me directly through the LTL website. The post is about batteries and adding a 5 or 10 page document about ultracapacitors to John’s post would be inappropriate. The amount I have added already is stretching good taste. There is no co-development agreement with any University after a major Canadian Institution breached its NDA agreement and initiated an R&D program of its own, using our technology that was disclosed to them. From that point forward we follow our legal advice and will use such institutions for testing only but will not reveal trade secrets to them. As far as power converters go I wish to mention that the energy density of the first generation of our ultracapacitor is nonlinear such that the lower 50% of the voltage curve will only represent 10% remaining power. Yes the dielectric constant increases with increasing voltage prior to leveling off. An example performance plot is part of a pending patent application still in confidential phase. Sorry you have to wait for public releases. For the LTL products the electric power converter only needs to be 25% larger in size, adding <$1,000 to a 100kw system but saving $22,000 on the cost of 50kw battery pack (assumes Lithium not lead acid batteries). The only competing technology that LTL watches is lead acid batteries as they are the lower cost solution for the automotive industry.

On Sep 28 08:37 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> I see no independent tests of such tech in your post. Please give
> where it has been proven?
>
> How big will a 20kwhr unit be?
>
> Please give URL on the University projects?
>
> And what commercial products you say are out there? URL?
>
> Sorry but too much hype has gone on in this field to believe anything
> that has not been independently tested.
>
> While true 75% of the power is in 50-100% voltage range, that leaves
> 25% unavailable vs 10% in most batteries. But you waste most of the
> electronics as they need to be 2x's as large as battery units do
> even just using down to 50% voltage.
>
> As Lithium, Iron, Phosphate, Magnesium are about as inexpensive as
> they come, I fail to see how you will get yours cheaper/kwhr. And
> don't forget Lithium still has far more room to improve in energy
> density.

Battery Investing for Beginners

Your statement is 5 years out of date. Electrostatic capacitors have increased in energy density over the last few years to commercially available working energy densities of 5 to 10 J/cc, from 0.2J/cc. Electrostatic capacitors are aggressively replacing power electrolytic capacitors in inverters and drive electronics in electric/hybrid cars. Expect them in the very near future to go for the current double layer capacitor markets where they are used with batteries in automotive and industrial drives. These capacitors are principally single polymer dielectrics, not the more complex materials currently under development. Universities such as Penn State and Utah are expecting eventually to achieve energy densities of working range for single polymer systems reported as high as 450J/cc. Compound dielectrics with energy density of 300J/cc represents an increase of 30 in energy density. The EAMEX technology represents a similar increase of 30 times in energy density as compared to current commercial double layer ultracapacitor technology. A number of Research labs are expecting to achieve energy densities similar to EAMEX through different methods. The increase in energy density is about the same as the improvement made over the last 5 years for electrostatic capacitors through improvements in material processing of the same dielectrics used over the last 30 years. LTL’s technology is the manufacturing process that uses the new dielectric materials under development. Yes we have our own proprietary dielectric materials but the manufacturing process is compatible with that under development by most labs working on electrostatic dielectrics.
75% of an ultra-capacitor’s energy is delivered in the 50% to 100% voltage range. Cost increase in electronics is essentially nil for electrocstatic capacitors as they do not require, as much cooling and heating as Lithium batteries nor is there a requirement for protective electronic circuits across each device as required by Lithium batteries. This cost savings offsets the 15% expected cost increase of the electronics. But as the ultra-capacitors are expected to be <30% the cost of current Lithium-ion batteries the overall savings for car companies is expected to be substantial.


On Sep 27 07:07 PM jerrydd wrote:

>
>
> Dave, are there any independent tests of your ultracap? As it's over
> a 100-1000x improvement and other parts of it's website are so far
> out of present tech I have to wonder. Plus I just don't see how you
> can do it in a cap.
>
> Until it can be independently confirmed I wouldn't touch this with
> a 10' pole!!
>
> Plus no mention of the expensive electronics needed to deal with
> the rate voltage to Zero voltage swings needed to get the power out.
>

Battery Investing for Beginners

Hi John good article on batteries but you missed a number of disruptive technologies arising from the ultra-capacitor research market. I am bringing them to your reader’s attention as they are potentially disruptive to the battery industry and for that reason, have to be closely monitored by investors. The technologies are at the development stage and 1- 3 years from manufacture, of course should they work as intended.
Both are disruptive, but different ultra-capacitor technologies, which are targeting batteries with cost of manufacture in the $50 to $150 per kwh range. The low voltage technology is under development by a Japanese company EAMEX and their web link is www.eamex.co.jp/capa2_... and then there is the company I work for website 1-LTL.com whose technology is a high voltage electrostatic technology with a similar cost of manufacture. EAMAX has serious attention from the automotive companies and I expect a lot of money is being poured into research on their technology. LTL is talking to a number of organizations interested in funding its next stage of development.
The web page www.1-ltl.com/capaciti... has a energy storage table with active links to pages that explains the different technologies. Feel free to e-mail me with any updates to battery technologies or costs, as my goal is to keep the table current. Only public information will be entered.
There are a few other companies working in the electrostatic capacitor area but their work is more disruptive to the existing double layer ultra-capacitor manufacturers such as Maxwell. Yes there is EESTOR but they are so far off of meeting their delivery dates I believe they have been dismissed by most investors. An interesting footnote about EESTOR is that LTL believes it may have a critical controlling piece of IP over them and a free, except for our IP, work-around to their technology. LTL’s IP is for manufacturing process for high voltage ultra-capacitors. This has been the company’s strategy all along to own the manufacturing equipment for high voltage ultra-capacitors.
Summary, all battery makers intending to survive long term have to get their cost of manufacture below $250 per kwh range within 3 to 5 years and ideally to less than $150. The green tech and battery market should be seen as similar to the DOT COM era with a number of big winners and losers emerging within 5 years. The market will be very dynamic and expect a few disruptions. That is why forums such as this will be a valuable source of information for investors over the next few years. Dave

Auto Batteries: Short Term Revenue Growth Favors Lead-Acid by 6 to 1

John, are the lead battery companies you are promoting so scared of 1st Lighten The Load’s technology that you, even being a lawyer, had to take the risk of a cheap libel shot at me. We have had a number of private conversations in the past. From those you know that I am an Industrial Physicist and with nearly 30 years of experience working in leading and next generation technologies, both commercial & military with over 18 years of managerial expertise. I have brought a large number of leading edge products to commercial production. I expect an apology from you or are the negative things others have said about you an understatement?

On Jun 29 03:14 PM John Petersen wrote:

> Dave K, the gulf between an invention and a product is very wide,
> but I wish you well because my fondest prayer is that some genius
> in a garage somewhere comes up with a better solution.
>
> Since lead acid batteries have been starting every car on the road
> for about 75 years, I think the shock and vibration issues have been
> worked out pretty well.

Auto Batteries: Short Term Revenue Growth Favors Lead-Acid by 6 to 1

John, a good article. Though I am a competitor to the battery companies and expect to eventually dominate the energy storage fields. I suggest you get the lead acid companies to do some grass roots promoting. For example add their information to common places such as Wikipedia i.e. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... because the chart on this link really is very negative towards lead acid. A shocking fact I got from the table is that a number of the Lithium technologies have very short lives 2 to 3 years. I will add my company’s technology on the site when pilot manufacturing takes place, the step I am setting up at this time. One question I do have about the lead acid batteries is are they able to take the shock and vibration of the automobiles? If so then what is wrong, do they need to get a PR firm? Nether the less I always am glad to see that some people are able to see that the end game will be full cost of the storage technology not what is inside because all people care is the full cost of the car not what is inside it.

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Try google.com, before replying next time as I have proven you wrong time and time again but you keep on trying.

I am very familiar with the work of Penn State and have been talking with a chemist, in a competing group to the ones involved with Strategic Polymer Sciences. Their polymers contain fluorine, which make them extremely expensive to manufacture and may represent an environmental disposal problem. The polymers they use are approximately 10 times the price of nonhalogenated (sp) polymers to manufacture. That is why 1-LTL isn’t considering their approach as economically viable for commercial applications and definitely not environmental friendly. You would have to get to 3,000J/cc to make the material viable and what they are 30J/cc I believe.

Time for you to quit, you are still zero unless you are a paid heckler, which means you won't go away as its your job.

O
n Apr 04 06:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Sorry, wrong. Can be found in the white papers here:
> strategicpolymers.com
>
> And BT is not a polymer.
>
> And no not off-topic. Cleantech, batteries and (Optimism)^........

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Actually,
The highest polymer dielectric constant is 100,000, that I have found published and Research continues as to whether to what extent it will be useable. Not the one 1-LTL is working on/using and you won’t be able to find out, a few have already tried. For the record single crystal BT is about 100,000, (Japanese Research) but then growing single crystals and making capacitors economically is the problem. It hasn’t stopped pending and issued patents for single crystal capacitors rather than ceramic capacitors which are in actuality a fused poly-crystal structure.
Our conversation is way off topic as it is suppose to be about the battery industry and it is best to drop it at this point.

On Apr 04 02:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave k
>
> Above you gave link and said: (quote) "replaced with a material having
> dielectric constant about 6000"
> Highest known polymer dielectric is a little over 50.
> No 100 x energy density in that either...
>

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

John,
I wish to apologize having to reply to Aquaculture's criticisms, but I was left no choice. It is not my intention to get into side arguments that are off topic. It is unfortunate he didn't bother to e-mail me first and get his assumptions checked out. However, the readers did get a couple more links of ultra-capacitor electrical storage technology to watch out for.
Dave K.

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Hi Aquaculture,

Excuse me but what part didn’t you get? Why would I wish to follow your flawed and incorrect comparison of apples to oranges? 1-LTL doesn’t use a ceramic-based capacitor dielectric, except for very low energy density, high frequency capacitor applications, but not for energy storage. Secondarily, our ceramic polymer dielectrics, for high frequency applications have dielectric constants that actually increase with increasing applied voltage and only show signs of saturation as they approach break down or their intended working voltage. Yes ceramic capacitors have a dielectric saturation problem, for some but not all formulations, a going up in smoke problem, because they lack self-healing and well ceramic is just brittle and breaks real easy, THAT IS WHY WE DON’T USE THE TECHNOLOGY. So please read this carefully THE 1-LTL ULTRA-CAPACITOR DOES NOT USE A CERAMIC BASED DIELECTRIC as the primary energy storage component in our ultra-capacitor technology.

You are applying apples to oranges and wrong because;

1. A Polymer based capacitor’s dielectric energy density is limited by the initial dielectric constant in combination with their break down voltage and does not have a dielectric saturation problem.

2. Double layer ultra-capacitor energy density is limited by the electrode surface area and electrolyte properties. Sorry no dielectric saturation problem here either. Their apparent dielectric value increases with increasing voltage but such effects are attributed to pseudocapacitance effects. Here is a link go read, bucky-central.me.utexa... Oops sorry you are wrong once again no dielectric saturation. Let me see 150 to 175 Farad per gram at up to 2.7 Volts. Energy 1/2CV squared => ½*125*2.75 *2.75 = 456 J/gram or by multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by 3600 gives 126 w-hr/kg. Oh yes you can argue the number should be 50 or 150 or 75 but the article proves the point I had to make. The capacitance versus voltage curves doesn’t show a dielectric saturation problem. Guess you have just been caught being wrong once again. Oops ultra-capacitor @ 125 w-hr/kg, will it be practical, will it emerge from the lab, look out batteries. There are many other published research articles with similar claims.

Neither of the above 2 capacitor technologies have a dielectric polarization problem. 1-LTL’s is polymer based and does not have a dielectric saturation problem either. So how wrong do you have to be before you quite talking about something you clearly don’t have a clue about?

So much for your pseudoscience and you have been caught red handed as a rude nasty little FAKE! So ignore the facts if you wish but please go elsewhere if you wish to make a fool of yourself.

I support my claims, whenever possible using technical sources, which are at, arms length to 1-LTL. If you are going to comment back I expect the same from you. In the future you should at least put in a few words such as “I am most likely wrong but feel” or try “I know nothing about the technology but I think that” or even better “ I am making the following up”.

As far as you having any expertise in patent applications, don’t even open that door.

Thank you for your big fat juicy mistakes, as you have been very entertaining for me.

Dave



On Apr 03 07:59 AM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave K.
>
> No you have not answered any criticism regards 1-ltl.
> No I do not accept that your tech is credible.
> The opposite!! (now that its clear youre not following the route
> I outlined above)
>
> Its not a matter of me not understanding self-healing. The problem
> is you not understanding dielectric saturation (strong electron-ion
> correlation as field stengthens, leading to cancellation between
> ionic- and electronic polarization in ceramic dielectric!)
> K varies as ~1/E over much of voltage range resulting in approx.
> LINEAR increase in energy density with field.
> You believe (common mistake!!!!!) using a 6000 K material will give
> you 100 x energy density.
> You calculate total energy stored as 1/2 CV^2 without reporting any
> breakthrough on saturation issue. This invalid calculation 1/2 KE^2
> then gives (.5)(8.85x10^-12 F/m)(6000)(10.6^8 V/m)= ~3x10^8 J/m3
> = ~300 J/cc.
> That's optimism squared!
> In reality you're lucky to get 2J/cc with the link you gave...<br/>
>
> Your website has been in the air a long time, yet:
>
> -no patent (even though there are hundreds of US patents which make
> the same mistake out there -sometimes I wish the Swiss would examine
> all patents!)
> -no energy storage measurements
> -no permittivity versus field data
>
> If you want to be succesfull in this field, the order to do things
> would be:
> -to get a lot of Schaum's outlines, practice solving millions of
> problems incuding calculus.
> -get mr Feynmans trilogy and complete at least part 1 and 2, be able
> to validate everything he says.
> -then IF you get a good idea in the kitchen:
> 1.make it,
> 2. test it,
> 3. go to mr Peterson and get a patent,
> 4 get 3rd party verification of your measurements,
> 5 and THEN you can launch a website promising all the goodies to
> mankind.
> And not the other way round...

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Hi aqua
Actually you have failed to understand the self-healing process that is used by the energy storage technology. The self-healing electrode structure is not an external fuse but internal, where a defect or weak spot is disconnected from the remaining bulk of the part. The following link, plasma.ece.utk.edu/pub... is from an independent research group and provides some details about how the process takes place. The exact method and construction of the self-healing structure is dependent on the materials used in the capacitor’s construction and end application. The capacitors they are testing are designed specifically for energy storage.
The difference between the 1-LTL (1st Lighten The Load Inc.) capacitor structure and those in the article is in their construction. The dielectric constant (the part where the energy is stored) of the capacitor in the article is 4 to 8 depending on the plastic film that is used with break down voltage of 350 V/micron, about 9,000 Volt per thousands of an inch. The 1-LTL ultra-capacitor construction is different in that the dielectric layer has been replaced with a material having dielectric constant about 6,000 but with a much lower breakdown voltage, about 100V/micron. This gives an energy density about 100 times that of a commercial metalized film capacitor. Our technology at 300J/cc is only 3 times the energy density of a soon to be commercial double layer-ultra-capacitor which are about 30 w-hr/kg while 1-LTL’s claim is 100 w-hr/kg. The press release for the double-layer capacitor is www.jeol.com/NEWSEVENT...
The advantage of our technology over double layer ultra capacitors is in working voltage and in single unit size and cost of manufacture. Double layer capacitors are from 1.5 to 3.5 volts while the 1-LTL’s ultra-capacitors have single unit voltages from 10 through 100,000’s of volts. This makes them easier to use in almost all energy storage applications from automotive through electric grid storage. The question isn’t if batteries will be replaced by ultra-capacitors but it is when and who will have the lowest cost to fabricate technology. In the end it will be cost of manufacture and the operating cost of the storage technology that will win. Whether it is made using green apples or oranges really doesn’t matter to the consumer so long as it is inexpensive, recyclable and can be called a green environmental friendly technology.
I hope this has answered your criticism and you now accept that the 1-LTL technologies as credible.

On Apr 01 06:18 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Ok Dave fair enough. I read you're aware of dielectric saturation
> in the case of Eestor.
> I just wasted some 10 minutes looking at your renewed site.
> To me meaningfull scientific statements -claims that you make- are
> a method of verification. Since no such method is in the air, your
> entire content (the rest) is meaningless to me.
>
> That said, you claim 300J/cc. with ceramic/polymer material, about
> 10 x better than commercial and cheap ultra-cap in marketplace today.
>
> This high energy density is possible -only in theory!- capped at
> about 400 J/cc as upper limit, in three phase composite with some
> nano scale fraction packed.
> But achieving high breakdown strength is extremely difficult. For
> this you have to create a packing at nanoscale without defects, with
> some high order-a very difficult problem on which many labs are working
> today. And fusing doesnt help. In fact of the billion you manufacture
> one might come out right.
> But if you have solved one of the toughest problems in nano kudos
> to you...
>
> Good luck.
> aqua

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Sorry we don't use BaTiO3. Yes a unique ultra-capacitor technology. We have provided samples to a major German company. Not vapor ware either and our technology is not the same as EESTOR, though we know why theirs won't work. Maybe better to check the website before commenting as we are not in hiding.

On Apr 01 02:36 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Oh no, here is an another one of those BaTio3 capacitor nuts. <br/>Done
> any permittivity testing yet? I looked into patent. Fused but same
> problem as EEstor: high voltage, low energy density. Very low....

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

John,
Good article but I wish to add to it from a company’s perspective, the criteria that were used in developing our competing product, yet to go into production. The list was used to determine the long term winning storage technology to become involved with
1. Lowest cost per kilo-watt-hour or competitive price target $150/kilo-watt-hour
2. Self-healing i.e. no thermal events possible (fire)
3. Long life >1000 charge/discharge cycles
4. Does no contain toxic chemicals (no toxic spill to clean up after a car accident)
5. Fast recharge <5 minutes
6. Able to tolerate wide temperatures and mechanical shock.
7. High specific power

Lead Acid battery technology or Nickel Metal Hydride were the technologies that we targeted as the ones to beat. The reasons were as follows, electric vehicles use regenerative braking (recover energy) so 200 or 500 lbs of extra battery weight doesn’t make the vehicle less efficient in stop and go traffic but it improves the ride. The cost savings of less expensive batteries more than compensate for the $500 to $ 700 it would cost to design the car to carry the extra weight. Electric cars with a range of 100 miles and speed of 90 to 100 mph would meet the main market requirements. Fast recharge batteries could be made in any chemistry, including lead acid, though with additional cost.
Most homes have more than one car so a market would exist for electric cars with added motor for extended range operation such as BD Auto or alternately these cars would use a fast recharge battery technology. It is confusing to me why Lithium-ion is even being considered for use in electric cars, especially because of its cost. For a sports car it is understandable to want low weight but for the main market it is more utility and cost of production. The Car companies got lost in bigger and more power is better, practical low cost commuting cars are still forgotten. The consumer won’t care about what type of batteries they have in their car, but they do consider the cost when they purchase.
I would be cautious about investing too heavily for long term in a car company making electric cars with Lithium-ion, unless they are sports cars or high end or investing long term in Lithium-ion battery companies. Short term with the attitude they are speculative investments not long-term keepers. Their price is being driven by industry hype rather than core fundamental or market economics. There is a number (> 4) game changing technologies any of which could materialize and obsolete batteries in the next 3 years.
Of course John you already know the company I work for could be one, if we make it into production, though ours is an ultra-capacitor technology. There was a comment about small mom and pup companies not having great technologies. The following companies were mom and pup at their start up stage, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Goodyear and Polaroid etc. Technology you can do in the kitchen is more likely to work and get acceptance. Startups that are overly secret or generate a lot of hype and miss production milestones by years well of course just pump and dump opportunities. Dave Kelly CTO of 1st Lighten The Load Inc. 1-LTL.com