Intelligent Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology Can Now Fit Inside an iPhone

[StyxMaker]

...Didn't a space shuttle vaporise because of the exploding hydrogen tank? Or is history apart from science also one of my weak points? ...

Apollo 13' blew a cover off the fuel cell bay, did not 'vaporize' anything. The astronauts all returned safely.

The first Space Shuttle was lost because of the break down of the o rings on the external solid fuel rocket engines. The second Space Shuttle was lost due to damage to the heat shielding on the leading edge of one of their wings.

Fuel cells have never cost a life, or a vehicle to be lost in any of the world's space programs.

 

[redman042]

Didn't a space shuttle vaporise because of the exploding hydrogen tank? Or is history apart from science also one of my weak points?

It was Apollo 13. Tank exploded but crew made it back alive.

Lesson learned? Don't ever, ever stir the tanks. Just avoid hitting the "stir" button on your iPhone 7H and you'll be fine ;-)

 

[goobot]

And - back on (your) topic - gasoline is explosive but way less explosive as hydrogen in general. Didn't the armed forces of certain countries (maybe yours?) develop a hydrogen bomb because it was more explosive than tnt and if so, why did they not consider to use gasoline instead?

Lmao, did you just use a hydrogen bomb as an example? You have to acheive nuclear fussion for that. Fyi the only two places in our solar system where it had been achieved is the sun and hydrogen bombs. The sun because the extreme Gravity is powerful enough to force it and a hydrogen bomb because they use atomic energy first in order to the acheive fusion. Any force on an atomic level is powerful. Your example is on the level of saying humans are stronger than ants so when you look at ants on there actual physical level they must be weak.

 

[Analog Kid]

It's explosive (which just means it burns faster), but usually only a small part ignites because it has a tendency to disperse very very fast (being so light). Most of the what burned during the Hedingburg disaster wasn't Hydrogen, which escaped within a few seconds of the start of the dirigible being breached.

That's basically the argument in this article, that and putting ballistic materials around it making the cells quasi indestructible (which is not even the case for Lithium batteries).

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...gen-fueled-cars-arent-little-hindenburgs.html

Here's the problem I have with arguments like this. You're saying it's safe because it dissipates, and then say it's safer because it's put into a quasi-indestructable housing that prevents it from dissipating. The quasi is exactly what makes a pipe-bomb so dangerous: the pipe is quasi-industructable so it builds up a nice high pressure inside before blowing out. The pressure cooker bombs in Boston were built the same way.

Computer World calls it safer than gasoline, and then goes on for paragraphs about how much work has gone into protecting the tank. If it's safer than gasoline, shouldn't it require less protection? I don't think GM bounces bullets off of their gas tanks, and I don't feel safer that Toyota thinks they need to with their H2 tanks.

The fuel tank itself isn't all that important-- if it's full of hydrogen then it can't burn. It can only burn when there's oxygen around. A leak in the garage could be bad news when the furnace kicks on.

In the end, what matters is the energy released, and the time it takes to release it. That tank is pressurized at 10,000 psi? How is that a good thing? Doesn't that mean it will spread the gas more evenly through the oxygenated air more quickly? And isn't 10,000psi pretty explosive even before accounting for the hydrogen?

 

[StyxMaker]

Can the propellerheads stop wasting time on this technology and just hurry up and invent teleportation. Far more useful.

Talk about a technology that would REALLY mess you up if it failed.

 

[YAW]

I really blame incompetent science teachers for comments like this.

People drive around in vehicles with tanks full of much larger amounts of a potentially explosive liquid. These vehicles actually are driven by mixing that liquid with air and triggering mini-explosions. How many people get killed by gasoline explosions each day? And what if you drop a car? Does the gasoline explode? Huge mushroom cloud on the highway?

I don't know about you, but i find it harder to drop a car, than an iPhone.

 

[wikiverse]

Next Samsung commercial to bash battery life: They no longer hug walls, they, uh, well we don't know how to bash this now.

Samsung Galaxy phones already have wireless charging and a partnership with Ikea to include wireless chargers in their furniture.

I'm sure they will partner with airlines, cinemas and cafe chains to roll out wireless charging soon too.

Intelligent Energy are only targeting Apple to peddle their fuel cells, because they are the only major phone company that doesn't have any wireless charging in any of their products.

 

[SvP]

So, people want to replace something you can plug in at home, fill up without porwering down the device, and using electricity from any source (hopefully nuclear or atleast some renewable source)... with a system of cells that you have to produce (at a huge inefficiency), transportm, sell/buy and replace manually?

Really? And you're talking about safety ??

 

[SvP]

the only major phone company that doesn't have any wireless charging in any of their products.

most of their products (apple watch has it)
It's not any more convenient than a cable.
Actually: it's even more inconvenient if i wanted to use it while charging.
Personally, i don't get it (the wireless thing). I'll take it when they make it, but don't think i'll see it as a huge benefit.

 

[MrUNIMOG]

I don't know about you, but i find it harder to drop a car, than an iPhone.

Now what happens if you drop your iPhone? If you're lucky, nothing. If not, the screen shatters and if might catch some scratches or dents. But dropping your iPhone won't corrupt its structural integrity, so you can't really compare dropping a fuel cell phone to crashing a fuel cell vehicle...
By the way hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are by no means less safe than battery electric or gasoline powered vehicles.

 

[lincolntran]

Take exploding pant to a whole new level!

 

[MrUNIMOG]

So, people want to replace something you can plug in at home, fill up without porwering down the device, and using electricity from any source (hopefully nuclear or atleast some renewable source)... with a system of cells that you have to produce (at a huge inefficiency), transportm, sell/buy and replace manually?

Really? And you're talking about safety ??

You do realize that the fuel cell is not some kind of energy storage but merely the device converting chemical energy stored in hydrogen into electricity?

A fuel cell iPhone could be just refueled with hydrogen, like the prototype mentioned in the article. However if they stick with disposable hydrogen containers instead of a fixed tank to power the fuel cell, why should that be dangerous? Carrying a small pressurized amount of hydrogen in a safe container wouldn't be dangerous at all, even less so than carrying a lighter. And for the environmental aspect, it surely would be possible to just make refillable containers.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So, you put this thing in your pocket and the next thing you know it looks like you wet your pants?

Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. I think this might make more sense in something like a Macbook Pro where it's not stuffed in a pocket where the water vapor has nowhere to go but inside your pants. I doubt they'd let you take a hydrogen fuel cell on a plane, though.

 

[skinned66]

Show me the price of a refill and we can talk. Remember this?

I can charge my phone for about 8 cents a day and a power bank for about 15 cents when I need it that's good for 2 full charges. It cost me $20.

 

[SvP]

You do realize that the fuel cell is not some kind of energy storage but merely the device converting chemical energy stored in hydrogen into electricity?

A fuel cell iPhone could be just refueled with hydrogen, like the prototype mentioned in the article. However if they stick with disposable hydrogen containers instead of a fixed tank to power the fuel cell, why should that be dangerous? Carrying a small pressurized amount of hydrogen in a safe container wouldn't be dangerous at all, even less so than carrying a lighter. And for the environmental aspect, it surely would be possible to just make refillable containers.

I'm saying its ridiculous to talk about safety when you're about to transform a highly efficient and low waste product into a high waste, incredibly tedious and inefficient product.

The whole idea is stupid beyond belief.

Good marketing gimmick... Hydrogen could have application in high power temporary setups (generators etc) and high power transportation (trucks etc) but in all else it's just tedious and expensive crap.

 

[vartanarsen]

no thanks, don't want my iPhone sharting

 

[SvP]

And the level of discussion here... Shudder

 

[Keirasplace]

Here's the problem I have with arguments like this. You're saying it's safe because it dissipates, and then say it's safer because it's put into a quasi-indestructable housing that prevents it from dissipating. The quasi is exactly what makes a pipe-bomb so dangerous: the pipe is quasi-industructable so it builds up a nice high pressure inside before blowing out. The pressure cooker bombs in Boston were built the same way.

Computer World calls it safer than gasoline, and then goes on for paragraphs about how much work has gone into protecting the tank. If it's safer than gasoline, shouldn't it require less protection? I don't think GM bounces bullets off of their gas tanks, and I don't feel safer that Toyota thinks they need to with their H2 tanks.

The fuel tank itself isn't all that important-- if it's full of hydrogen then it can't burn. It can only burn when there's oxygen around. A leak in the garage could be bad news when the furnace kicks on.

In the end, what matters is the energy released, and the time it takes to release it. That tank is pressurized at 10,000 psi? How is that a good thing? Doesn't that mean it will spread the gas more evenly through the oxygenated air more quickly? And isn't 10,000psi pretty explosive even before accounting for the hydrogen?

The answer is IN THE ARTICLE. I'm not going to rewrite it. But, you could have read it. Also,material could easily prevent intrusions, some mesh kevlar material for example, WHILE permitting oxygen to escape; it's very very small.

 

[macs4nw]

.....On a side note, Apple Car will feature Hydrogen Fuel Cells? That sounds more realistic!

Check this out. HFCs are apparently not the panacea car makers were hoping for. Many auto manufacturers have poured millions upon millions into development projects only to come to the conclusion that HFCs are inefficient and impractical for now.

Unless those problems can be solved, I'd say Apple is more likely to go with EV technology.

 

[RobertMartens]

My chemistry knowledge is very basic, but I thought hydrogen was very dangerous if ignited?

I vividly remember my chemistry teacher igniting a balloon filled with hydrogen. BOOM!

And that boom is the ONLY thing you can remember from chemistry class?

 

[iolinux333]

Lmao, did you just use a hydrogen bomb as an example? You have to acheive nuclear fussion for that. Fyi the only two places in our solar system where it had been achieved is the sun and hydrogen bombs. The sun because the extreme Gravity is powerful enough to force it and a hydrogen bomb because they use atomic energy first in order to the acheive fusion. Any force on an atomic level is powerful. Your example is on the level of saying humans are stronger than ants so when you look at ants on there actual physical level they must be weak.

Yes, but what if you sit on a hydrogen iPhone in your pocket and it bends and there is hydrogen fusion?

 

[Darth.Titan]

most of their products (apple watch has it)
It's not any more convenient than a cable.
Actually: it's even more inconvenient if i wanted to use it while charging.
Personally, i don't get it (the wireless thing). I'll take it when they make it, but don't think i'll see it as a huge benefit.

Thank you. In fact, I'll go so far as to say there's no such thing as wireless charging. What Samsung advertises as "wireless" is really just plugless at best, and not very efficient.

Apple at least calls it inductive charging, which is more accurate IMO.

Just a gimmick.

 

[big-ted]

Thank you. In fact, I'll go so far as to say there's no such thing as wireless charging. What Samsung advertises as "wireless" is really just plugless at best, and not very efficient.

Apple at least calls it inductive charging, which is more accurate IMO.

Just a gimmick.

Not a gimmick, makes it so easy to recharge your phone, no worries about being precise when placing your phone in a dock or picking up the end of a cable, just place the phone on the pad, and it starts charging, when you are ready to go just pickup your phone, no need to remember to unplug it. No doubt when Apple eventually get around to wireless charging on their phones it will be magical

 

[Analog Kid]

The answer is IN THE ARTICLE. I'm not going to rewrite it. But, you could have read it. Also,material could easily prevent intrusions, some mesh kevlar material for example, WHILE permitting oxygen to escape; it's very very small.

Firstly, I READ THE ARTICLE (wait, why are we yelling?):

Computer World calls it safer than gasoline, and then goes on for paragraphs about how much work has gone into protecting the tank.

As would have been evident if you had read it, my questions are largely in response to the article... If you don't know anything more then simply say so, or don't answer. I'm quoting your post, but not arguing with you-- just taking your points and trying to explore the logic.

For example, since you brought it up: why is being gas permeable advantageous when trying to keep the hydrogen gas from getting close to the oxygen gas that it has a burning desire to bond with? If the gases are escaping, then we're past the point of being concerned about intrusion prevention, no?

 

[SvP]

The safety discussion is nonsense. No use irl so no statistics. And any power storing feature will have dangers. It's energy. Dense. The denser the more dangerous. But not more dangerous than showering or crossing the street.