Printed Battery Sheets

[Bret Cahill]

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.


Bret Cahill

 

[Uncle Al]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Bret Cahill

Think of the national labor savings if toilet paper came pre-used.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Uncle Al wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Bret Cahill

Think of the national labor savings if toilet paper came pre-used.

Apparently it does, in the Cahill household. That's why he spreads
his crap all over Usenet.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

JF

 

[DB]

ohara5.0@mindspring.com wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

JF

Al:

Great snarky answer. Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt.

John usually does his homework. Energy payback on PV is easy, (at least
all the studies I've seen), especially thin film. It is the cost of
production that does it in. $.50/watt, then there may be something to
take to the bank.

 

[DB]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?
Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte
Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.
The "stuff" is too thick for that
Then find thinner stuff.

Why when the problem is solved and conventional silk screen printers
are more than capable of making all such batteries needed, which is
damn few.

Get with it. Bret is as braindead as hashbrains.

 

On Sep 4, 7:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

JF

Al:

Great snarky answer. Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. What would you use m for?

 

On Sep 4, 11:41 pm, ohara...@mindspring.com wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

JF

Al:

Great snarky answer. Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. �Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs,

A tech incendiary doesn't bs. He just pushes the envelope.

this isnt.

Hard to say. I once took a materials course and thought we got a bad
textbook. Later I found out the entire field -- actually 14 gazillion
different fields -- is like that.

The future of humanity depends on what? Something as easy to ridicule
as materials science?

We're all gonna die.

Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ďż˝

Without ever hearing about them, it's 99% certain someone is already
working on them.

The reason is it's the only solution.

Surely over yon stars of heaven, a kind materials scientist is
concerned about my ass getting "load shedded."

What would you use m for?

Roll them up into cylinders for batteries.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. �Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. �Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. �What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. �Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. �Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. �What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Batteries produced by the silk screen printing processes are old
technology long used in niche applications.

The sheets roll off the line at 45 mph.

We need to work around _that_ design point.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that

Then find thinner stuff.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Batteries produced by the silk screen printing processes are old
technology long used in niche applications.

The sheets roll off the line at 45 mph.

We need to work around _that_ design point.

Why

Because every other design point results in a trivial solution.

when the things are only usefull in niche applications

Well we don't want _that_!


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that

Then find thinner stuff.

Why when the problem is solved and conventional silk screen printers
are more than capable of making all such batteries needed, which is
damn few.

What makes you think those are the batteries needed?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that

Use offset.

Are you interested in getting some of that $300 million or not?


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:00:23 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ros0c4th7bgmpu5luo3fn1kgff1gnrq43j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

---
Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
---

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

---
Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:52:45 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that

Then find thinner stuff.

---
Ptolemy would have loved you!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:07:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.

---
It's "Harlequin", you knuckle-dragging buffoon, and it's hardly modesty,
since I've posted the patent number to USENET several times when it was
relevant.

That's hardly the case now, when all you're interested in is starting
idiotic arguments.

Besides, I've already given you a couple of clues as to how you can find
what you're looking for, but being as stupid and lazy as you are you
can't bear the thought of getting up off of your fat ass and doing some
work, can you, you miserable piece of shit?
---

The _whole point_ of patenting is to publish so everyone will see your
invention.

---
No, it isn't.

The point is to buy a 20 year monopoly in return for disclosing the art.

Here, try to learn something for a change instead of just flapping those
gums:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent


JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail.

Nanosolar built a 1 GW output plant in just a few years with claims
they can eventually drag the price down to $1/watt, as cheap as coal
when the grid tie in included.

No one in industry or academia has questioned those claims.

Batteries need something like that to bring about real change.

Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Printed PV has been around that long.

The printed battery will be reversed. Start out with the plant design
and then work backwards to the battery.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.

The _whole point_ of patenting is to publish so everyone will see your
invention.


Bret Cahill