Member Info for 13thmonkey

It's actually a tactic that is used to overwhelm people with information, expecting a point by point refutation and then claiming a win after one point is missed.

And that's your job is it, keeping a cap on things?

Agree, more than happy with some challenge, but we were only one step away from 'what happens if an aircraft hits one' level of arguments, which is facile.

Thehare, as for your post asking why were weren't countering his points... We had a long discussion on Friday where points were countered, brought up were the explosive risk of H2 and that you need to follow regs (errm ok we'll follow them then), that breathing h2 is deadly (so are all gasses inc oxygen), that you may not get planning permission (like any industrial activity outside a building), that the container is an enclosed space (so enc space regs apply). On top of this there was some very simplistic analysis of sales vs price whilst pretending it was meaningful.

Then the tack was changed to 4 page responses detailing why a company with no sales is worth less than one with sales (true). But then companies at this stage in the launch cycle (and we've taken our time getting here but there's some very innovate tech here (not wework or uber innovative, actually complex difficult to achieve innovative) will have some element of their potential built into the price.

That's why we aren't engaging, as LTH's I/we've considered the possibilities, to have someone who is making illogical arguments and not considering any possible upside is pointless to argue with them.

I've said it before in my 'for those on the fence' post, it's got potential, it could fall back, it could climb, there could be sales around the corner. They have a product for a real problem, it's novel, it has fewer drawbacks than others. Will the market see that or will they buy from others, we've no idea, but they've got the chance. That's why i'm here, for the long term.

That's who I used to work for on the alternator side.

On page 14 his posts still exist, so only the latest spewing forth has been deleted.

might be that their local grid is weak, maybe there's been a new estate or two built nearby.

I was at Nott's hospital last week, and they had one of the containerised scanners, with a big diesel generator sat next to it, didn't seem right in the middle of a hospital having this thing running probably 18hrs a day, maybe 24hrs.

I had some boohoo at 25p... But sold at 50p.

Chippy, and a dart board

very low risk then.

which makes it less of a planning issue, which is normally concerned with how the neighbourhood looks.

worst case you might need to ensure it is out of sight or screen off, but not insurmountable problems.

Cont
Warranty and output, the point about warranty is about risk to AFC, they can offer a warranty whether the product is tested to that period or not, they can offer a nameplate output whether they need n cells or n+2 cells is a risk to AFC. If AFC state a 4 year warranty and 20% of units fail after 3 years (and some will have no doubt about that) then AFC need to pick up the bill, it's not unsellable at that point, it just changes the economics and the potential cost. So if they know they have 3 years in the bag, they could promise 4 and take the final year at their risk the reality of the 3 years will change from usage scenario to scenario, loads, temps, usage patterns etc.

I'm not sure there are any more major points to cover. If we assume it works, there is a market and all of the 'issues' raised are just engineering problems, compared to the fuel cell chemistry they are trivial.

DYOR. This is in part a refutation of some of the points raised recently, this is not suggesting that this might move quickly, it might (not sure what's going to be the outcome of the demo day, but why hold one if it's not ready), or it might not. My personal opinion is that long term there is a need, AFC can fulfill that need, if vapourware companies can be unicorns why can't one with an actual product.
But the engineering issues being brought up here today are non-issues.
Yes H2 is flammable - there are regs for how to work with it - it's just an engineering challenge, there are not irregular petrol based fires, this is a similar risk to the current fual infrastructure.
Yes there is a confined container - there are regs for confined spaces and no-one has to go into it on a day to day basis - non issue.
Distances from Device to charge points, just an electrical engineering challenge which is trivial to solve - non issue.
H2 is/is not toxic in a confined space - so are all gases (and I do mean all) but no-one is in the confined space and there will be shut off valves and such as required by regs (and common sense).

The planning issues, are a bit more interesting.
Do you need planning permission to place a container in a carpark? Unknown - but what we do know is that there is an imminent need to de-fossil fuel personal transport and the grid cannot cope and this is being driven by central government, any issues at a local level will be overturned and in planning applications to have to prove why it should not be done, if the council rejects it and it gets overturned then they lose any benefit, so they only reject what they are certain will not be overturned.

Demand, again interesting.
There is a need for charging points, the grid cannot cope with half Megawatt demands being placed on the grid, and this will be a limitation to implementing charging point, therefore a supportive product has a lot of potential usage. (where I used to work we were hitting the limitations of the power able to be supplied to a small town and we were being fed from two sources) there are limitations.
There is a need for power at peak times, imagine a works/public car park (we used to have c1000 places), even if trickling them, and even if only for a small number of those places the load on the grid would be at peak times, precisely when you don't want it, this would alleviate this issue, power stations take maybe a decade to go from need to live, we'll need 10's of them, or grid scale storage, combined this negates that future need for some of the grid scale storage.
TBC

Barnacles there was a recent explosion in norway? a faulty/poorly specced valve? But then there are have been loads of petrol accidents over the years, at least with H2, post explosion there's no oil etc. to clean up.

If it's DC there will be cable length limits before losses hit, if it's AC it'll be longer, but easily 10's of meters for cables from the box to the charging post where the user plugs their cable in.

Re hydrogen codes, yes there might be codes, and they will then be followed so at this point AFC are not doing anything new or risky, the existence of such codes de-risks the engineering challenge as they will tell AFC what minimum standards they must apply to be safe. Thanks for reassuring us that actually it's less risky than we might have otherwise thought. You might want to go back to deramping school, as you are getting schooled here. That's not to say the price won't drop further, but not for any engineering reasons you've stated.

There'll be auto shut off valves for the hydrogen source if pressure drops in the system as that would indicate a leak, mechanically and system wise that would not be complex, new or novel and so it will be a part of the design, under the assumption that they are engineers who have done risk assessments and FMEA's and not an infinite number of monkeys randomly putting pieces together from a box until something happens.

So is nitrogen. The cabinets are vented, and probably with exhaust fans and sensors, and aren't they using Ammonia?

Banaman, he mentions planning because that's the copy-paste paragraph he's got for anything that requires equipment on the ground. I think he's pasted maybe 1/2 doz times in the last few days.