MS 462 R vs MS 462 R C-M (m-tronic vs traditional carb)

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Maybe you should re-read my post. I said that battery engineers have stated that we are nearing the theoretical maximum energy density possible in any foreseeable battery technology. It is not possible for a trend of doubling to continue indefinitely. If it were, we would be able to power a city with one small battery in a few decades. There is an upper limit, and the experts say we are near it. Doubling the current capacity is unlikely, and even if we did so, gasoline would still have 6-7 times as much energy. I am not saying battery powered saws are useless. The are convenient for light tasks of short duration. I use a battery-powered pole saw and a Kobalt 18" 80 volt chain saw for such tasks. But I do not see battery-powered saws replacing gasoline powered saws for serious logging. I expect I will continue to use my 500i for the heavy duty work.

Are you really saying battery advancements have reached the end? No better will ever be better? Really?

If so you're ignoring all current research and early production evidence, because there will always be a better technology.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/n...research-exceeds-initial-goals-draws-interesthttps://news.mit.edu/2022/controlling-dendrities-lithium-batteries-1118https://global.honda/innovation/advanced-technology/all-solid-state-battery.htmlhttps://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ign-long-lasting-solid-state-lithium-battery/
But maybe you somehow know more than NASA, MIT, Honda, Harvard, and countless others?

The only questions are when it happens and how much it costs to make.

As I said, the very next generation that will be available is already 2x the power and 1/2 the space and weight within 10 years. And most of the research is pointing towards that happening again in another 10 years. You can ignore the evidence if you like, but it's not going to stop it from happening.

As for gas, yes I love my 500i. It's the best saw I've owned. And gas is very energy dense, but throw ~66% of that out the window as soon as you use it in a gas engine due to thermal losses.

"we are stuck with internal combustion engines only achieving 20% to 30% in real world applications"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
By that math, as I said, two more generations of battery technology and 90cc saws become obsolete.

Don't fight the future, embrace it. I love my 500i but in another 25 years I'll want a nice light smokeless, quiet, powerful, low vibration battery saw.

 

[bwalker]

Are you really saying battery advancements have reached the end? No better will ever be better? Really?

If so you're ignoring all current research and early production evidence, because there will always be a better technology.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/n...research-exceeds-initial-goals-draws-interesthttps://news.mit.edu/2022/controlling-dendrities-lithium-batteries-1118https://global.honda/innovation/advanced-technology/all-solid-state-battery.htmlhttps://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ign-long-lasting-solid-state-lithium-battery/
But maybe you somehow know more than NASA, MIT, Honda, Harvard, and countless others?

The only questions are when it happens and how much it costs to make.

As I said, the very next generation that will be available is already 2x the power and 1/2 the space and weight within 10 years. And most of the research is pointing towards that happening again in another 10 years. You can ignore the evidence if you like, but it's not going to stop it from happening.

As for gas, yes I love my 500i. It's the best saw I've owned. And gas is very energy dense, but throw ~66% of that out the window as soon as you use it in a gas engine due to thermal losses.

"we are stuck with internal combustion engines only achieving 20% to 30% in real world applications"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
By that math, as I said, two more generations of battery technology and 90cc saws become obsolete.

Don't fight the future, embrace it. I love my 500i but in another 25 years I'll want a nice light smokeless, quiet, powerful, low vibration battery saw.

You are assuming that electric motors are 100% efficient. They are not. Your also not considering transmission losses involved with electricity or the fact batteries lose efficiency in both low and hi temps.
There really are no free lunches.

 

[Hermio]

Are you really saying battery advancements have reached the end? No better will ever be better? Really?

If so you're ignoring all current research and early production evidence, because there will always be a better technology.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/n...research-exceeds-initial-goals-draws-interesthttps://news.mit.edu/2022/controlling-dendrities-lithium-batteries-1118https://global.honda/innovation/advanced-technology/all-solid-state-battery.htmlhttps://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ign-long-lasting-solid-state-lithium-battery/
But maybe you somehow know more than NASA, MIT, Honda, Harvard, and countless others?

The only questions are when it happens and how much it costs to make.

As I said, the very next generation that will be available is already 2x the power and 1/2 the space and weight within 10 years. And most of the research is pointing towards that happening again in another 10 years. You can ignore the evidence if you like, but it's not going to stop it from happening.

As for gas, yes I love my 500i. It's the best saw I've owned. And gas is very energy dense, but throw ~66% of that out the window as soon as you use it in a gas engine due to thermal losses.

"we are stuck with internal combustion engines only achieving 20% to 30% in real world applications"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
By that math, as I said, two more generations of battery technology and 90cc saws become obsolete.

Don't fight the future, embrace it. I love my 500i but in another 25 years I'll want a nice light smokeless, quiet, powerful, low vibration battery saw.

I am actually paraphrasing the experts at NASA and battery manufacturers. Are you saying there is no limit? When can I get one of those 10 gigawatt batteries with 10 million amp-hours of storage in a AAA battery size? The reason there is a limit is because chemical reactions have a limit. And it turns out that oxidation of hydrogen by oxygen is at the top of the list, which is why fuel cells work. Hydrocarbons have high energy density because of hydrogen but also carbon. None of the electrochemical reactions come close. And all batteries must be entirely chemically self-contained. Not so with fuels, which use oxygen from the air to complete the reaction, and you don't have to carry the air with you. And it takes about 18 pounds of air to oxidize 1 lb of gasoline. So, 1 lb of gasoline, when combined with the air needed to burn it, amounts to 19 lb of fuel, and a similar amount of energy in a battery would require about 13 lb of battery using today's technology. Even if we double that technology, no electrochemical reversible reaction can pack the kind of power that oxidation provides. The only reason electric motors can compete at all is because electric motors are over 90% efficient. Gasoline engines run about 30% efficient, but they, too, can be made more efficient. Just think of today's muscle cars that are more powerful than the muscle cars of the 60s, yet use less than half as much fuel.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

You are assuming that electric motors are 100% efficient. They are not. Your also not considering transmission losses involved with electricity or the fact batteries lose efficiency in both low and hi temps.
There really are no free lunches.

I never made any assertion or assumption about electric motor efficiency being 100%. Nor did I discuss transmission losses or other efficiencies of electric systems anywhere in this thread.

 

[Del_]

Technology often comes at us from left field..

Supersonic exploding bubbles wood cutting.

'The Cavatatior'.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

I am actually paraphrasing the experts at NASA and battery manufacturers. Are you saying there is no limit? When can I get one of those 10 gigawatt batteries with 10 million amp-hours of storage in a AAA battery size? The reason there is a limit is because chemical reactions have a limit. And it turns out that oxidation of hydrogen by oxygen is at the top of the list, which is why fuel cells work. Hydrocarbons have high energy density because of hydrogen but also carbon. None of the electrochemical reactions come close. And all batteries must be entirely chemically self-contained. Not so with furls, which use oxygen from the air to complete the reaction, and you don't have to carry the air with you. And it takes about 18 pounds of air to oxidize 1 lb of gasoline. So, 1 lb of gasoline, when combined with the air needed to burn it, amounts to 19 lb of fuel, and a similar amount of energy in a battery would require about 13 lb of battery using today's technology. Even if we double that technology, no electrochemical reversible reaction can pack the kind of power that oxidation provides. The only reason electric motors can compete at all is because electric motors are over 90% efficient. Gasoline engines run about 30% efficient, but they, too, can be made more efficient. Just think of today's muscle cars that are more powerful than the muscle cars of the 60s, yet use less than half as much fuel.

Let's review what you've said in this thread (emphasis mine):
Post #17 "Battery engineers say that we are nearing the theoretical maximum energy density in today's battery technology"

Then you changed it to:
Post #20 "battery engineers have stated that we are nearing the theoretical maximum energy density possible in any foreseeable battery technology"

When I pointed out that a simple google search shows the absurdity of that claim in post #21 with actual research and scientific breakthroughs that are happening today, you came back with this nonsense claiming quotes from NASA engineers and battery manufacturers who say that limitless energy doesn't exist. Please post the quotes from these people who feel the need to state something so absurdly obvious.

Do you have a point here, or are you going to just keep changing the subject? I've made some simple predictions based on current facts and technology trends. We'll see if they come true. I have no need to argue with whatever it is you think you're trying to accomplish.

edit: for clarity and brevity

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Technology often comes at us from left field..

Supersonic exploding bubbles wood cutting.

'The Cavatatior'.

Game changing innovation can't be predicted. No one ever sat there and said "I need an iPhone" until suddenly it appeared on the market and everyone had to have one.

 

[bwalker]

I never made any assertion or assumption about electric motor efficiency being 100%. Nor did I discuss transmission losses or other efficiencies of electric systems anywhere in this thread.

That's my point. When discussing efficiency these factors have to be discussed.

 

[Hatchville Homesteader]

Game changing innovation can't be predicted. No one ever sat there and said "I need an iPhone" until suddenly it appeared on the market and everyone had to have one.

That's my point. When discussing efficiency these factors have to be discussed.

So I should have waited for a battery powered 462 instead of the m-tronic?

Man, these threads get off track …haha

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

That's my point. When discussing efficiency these factors have to be discussed.

Ok, that may be your point now but that's not what you said:

"You are assuming that electric motors are 100% efficient."
"Your [sic] also not considering transmission losses involved with electricity or the fact batteries lose efficiency in both low and hi temps."

As I responded, none of that is true with what I posted.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

So I should have waited for a battery powered 462 instead of the m-tronic?

Man, these threads get off track …haha

Only if you wanted to wait another 10 years.

Apologies to you OP for the tangent, but this is par for the course on this forum. :-(

 

[bwalker]

Ok, that may be your point now but that's not what you said:

"You are assuming that electric motors are 100% efficient."
"Your [sic] also not considering transmission losses involved with electricity or the fact batteries lose efficiency in both low and hi temps."

As I responded, none of that is true with what I posted.

If you didn't mention what I pointed it easy to connect the dots.

 

[sean donato]

Re-read my post. I'm not talking about today's technology. I specifically said "solid state batteries" which is the next gen battery technology in early production today. 2x the energy, 1/2 the space and weight. e.g.

https://www.samsungsdi.com/column/technology/detail/56462.html
And I'm basing my predictions on the previous technology trends we've already seen. I'm not making pie in the sky prognostications, I'm observing the past and following the trend line forward.

Till it's out I wont hold my breath, super capacitors were supposed to replace lithium batteries years ago, and were still using lithium batteries. There seems to always be a hiccup with the new battery tech once it (if it ever) makes it to mass production. Look how long it took lithium to catch on main stream. I'd be guessing at leat 15 years till we see a reliable, economical supply of solid state batteries.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Till it's out I wont hold my breath, super capacitors were supposed to replace lithium batteries years ago, and were still using lithium batteries. There seems to always be a hiccup with the new battery tech once it (if it ever) makes it to mass production. Look how long it took lithium to catch on main stream. I'd be guessing at leat 15 years till we see a reliable, economical supply of solid state batteries.

I'm not holding my breath either. If I had a nickel for every "battery breakthrough" that's announced I'd be a millionaire. Most of them are just academics who did some decent research and are looking for a production partner to make it real.

But what we're seeing today with solid state is real companies solving production problems. Early versions are out, mass production for commodity items should be in ~10 years if it follows typical battery technology patterns. The demand is there which drives the incentive and investment to make it happen.

 

[huskihl]

They should try dumping the lithium in the gas tanks. From what I’ve seen it appears to burn really well

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

They should try dumping the lithium in the gas tanks. From what I’ve seen it appears to burn really well

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) is incredibly stable. You can pound a nail straight through it and nothing happens. But it has lower power density and lower volumetric density than other chemistries so it's not used as much. Who wants a heavier, bigger battery than has less energy? You'll see it used in stationary situations like battery backups, RV coach batteries, off-grid applications, etc.

Most of the common Lithium-Ion formulas you see in power tools and laptops like Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC), Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO), or Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO) are spectacular fire starters. You can definitely burn your house down when you short-circuit the cell directly. That's why the packaged battery has to have additional protections against that.

 

[sean donato]

lifepo4 is also a lower operating voltage then li-po, or li-ion. I wouldn't want it in a stand by configuration either.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

lifepo4 is also a lower operating voltage then li-po, or li-ion. I wouldn't want it in a stand by configuration either.

Right. LiFePO4 is 3.2V per cell whereas most other chemistries are 3.7V per cell.

But it's not really a disadvantage. A 4S LiFePO4 battery works out to a very nice 12.8V, the discharge curve is VERY flat, and unlike lead acid you've got 100% depth of discharge. A 100Ah LiFePO4 battery actually provides 100Ah of usable energy whereas a deep cycle lead acid battery might give 40-50% of its capacity. They can easily be wired up as 24V and 48V systems for cabins and backup systems. They're very popular in stationary applications for all these reasons.

The only really downside is the inability to charge below freezing but people off-grid find solutions for that.

 

[sean donato]

Right. LiFePO4 is 3.2V per cell whereas most other chemistries are 3.7V per cell.

But it's not really a disadvantage. A 4S LiFePO4 battery works out to a very nice 12.8V, the discharge curve is VERY flat, and unlike lead acid you've got 100% depth of discharge. A 100Ah LiFePO4 battery actually provides 100Ah of usable energy whereas a deep cycle lead acid battery might give 40-50% of its capacity. They can easily be wired up as 24V and 48V systems for cabins and backup systems. They're very popular in stationary applications for all these reasons.

The only really downside is the inability to charge below freezing but people off-grid find solutions for that.

Yeah I'm fairly well versed in the different chemistries being into scale rc. Life-po4 was a stop gap for me till I just embraced li-po and li-ion. I personally wouldn't go back. 12 volt is really the only odd ball for the other lithium chemistries 14.8 volts is manageable for a 12v system but charging off a standard charger can be a challenge. Guess thays why they all come with a BMU anymore. 24 and up I don't think it would matter much which you choose, unless your confronted with lots of cold weather. Never seen a battery fall so flat on its face in the cold as life-po4. But like you say there are way to manage that.

 

[Hermio]

Let's review what you've said in this thread (emphasis mine):
Post #17 "Battery engineers say that we are nearing the theoretical maximum energy density in today's battery technology"

Then you changed it to:
Post #20 "battery engineers have stated that we are nearing the theoretical maximum energy density possible in any foreseeable battery technology"

When I pointed out that a simple google search shows the absurdity of that claim in post #21 with actual research and scientific breakthroughs that are happening today, you came back with this nonsense claiming quotes from NASA engineers and battery manufacturers who say that limitless energy doesn't exist. Please post the quotes from these people who feel the need to state something so absurdly obvious.

Do you have a point here, or are you going to just keep changing the subject? I've made some simple predictions based on current facts and technology trends. We'll see if they come true. I have no need to argue with whatever it is you think you're trying to accomplish.

edit: for clarity and brevity

I don't know whether I worded it incorrectly or you misunderstood it, but let me clarify it. What I tried to say is that today's battery technology is already nearing the theoretical limit of storage density. I have seen this in print multiple times from multiple sources. If you want to search for it, be my guest. That in no way is changing the subject. The fact that there is a limit is unquestionable. The fact that battery technology can never get to the energy storage capacity of hydrocarbon fuel is also unquestionable. But the real barrier is cost. One could run all day with a battery-powered saw if one had enough batteries on hand. But at today's cost, that would require an investment of thousands of dollars in batteries. If battery costs could get down to, say $25 for an 80 volt, 5-10 amp-hour battery, that would be a game changer. But high output would also be needed. Using the MS500i as an example, that saw puts out 5 kW of power. Assuming an electric motor at 90% efficient, and an 80 volt power supply, a battery would need to put out at least 69 amps of current to match the 500i. They may be able to get there, but I am not sure about heat dissipation in the battery. That could be a major engineering challenge. And all this needs to be done without adding excessive weight. If that can be done, electric saws would be more viable. But climate change should not be the real driver.