Toshiba develops MP3 player with 60 hour fuel cell battery

Toshiba, who wears the belt for world's smallest methanol fuel cell, has now developed two fuel-cell powered MP3 player prototypes. A flash-based player measuring 1.4 x 4.3 x 0.8-inches is said to run for 35 hours on a single 3.5ml charge of highly concentrated methanol while a hard drive based player swells to 2.6 x 4.9 x 1.1-inches and runs for about 60 hours on a single 10ml charge. Those dimensions are pretty sweet (the 60GB ipod is 2.4 x 4.1 x .75 inches by comparison) and will certainly get smaller once optimized for production. The players will be on exhibit at CEATEC Japan starting October 4th. Could this mean actual product by Christmas 2006?

[Thanks, Roamerick]

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

am i the only person in the world who can live with a twelve hour battery in my mp3 player?

[paul @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

This is cooler than the controller news.

[Tak @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Freakin' sweet! :D
Now all they have to do is have a reasonable starting price and I'm sold ;)

[Chris E @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Will this explode if you drop it??????

[Stan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Hehe Chris, that is what I was thinking: is it gonna say: "CAUTION: Highly Flammable. May Explode if overheated". =)

[Steven @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Yeah, so now you have to carry around an mp3 player and "juice"?
No thanks.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Yeah, but no charger to carry and you only have to carry the "juice" if you're going to be gone a long time. Plus recharge takes a minute instead of hours.

[Creed @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Can you get that fuel cell and juice past the TSA security people for your overseas flight? I though not. I'll stick with Lithium ion technology for now.

(I don't believe Methanol can be in checked luggage. You'd have to drain the thing to pack it and find fuel when you get there.)

[bollewolle @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

@steven: so you mean at this moment you always walk around with an extra pair of batteries or a recharger?

I for one think this is pretty nice. Perhaps this will one day be usefull for PDA's and devices alike.

[NDPTAL85 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Why would people want to give up the convienence of rechargable batteries for the danger and inconvienence of explosive flammable liquid that must be purchased from a store? What happens if you run out and you aren't near a store that sells refills?

[Seni0r @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

I don't think they'll let you take this on a plane.

[StandardAI @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

I wish you people would use your mind before posting. No, you don't have to carry around the "juice" because it lasts for 60 hours without having to put anything in it. The current thing that steers people away from the ipod shuffle, and ipod nano is that the batteries are internal and eventually they simply stop working because of the fact that you can never really recharge a traditional battery, fuel cell's completely eliminate all of this. The idea of fuel celled digital products is very, very smart. Imagine fuel celled laptops or PSP's that last a lot longer than they normally would, and run on something that's much cheaper to you. And no, it wouldn't explode unless you tried to set flame to it or something, which why would one want to do that to their mp3 player any ways.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

"Will this explode if you drop it??????"

Li-Ion batteries can explode. This looks to be no more dangerous than a cigarette lighter.

[Max @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

12 hours is fine for me, I'll just plug it in when I get home at night.

[Maikeru @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

You know if they ever get fuel cell tech smaller, I think that putting the whole unit inside a cartridge might be more benficial. Essentially just make it so that you have a "battery" form factor so that people won't be scared off by this new tech and so it will be easier to "refuel" the device/s.

[Psyop-er @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Wow, cool!

Steve

I don't think somethign that has a 60 hour playback time means you need to carry a bottle around with you. It's 60 hours, and even still, so what if you kept a tiny vial of it in your bag, you get an instant recharge without having to plug it in and waiting.

I hope they do this for a lot of portable devices. Cell phones, laptops. Yeah of course it's flammable, so is Gas in your car, and batteries are full of nasty shit that's corrosive and toxic. They make them safe though don't they?

Let'd not forget the billions of people walking around with a lighter in their pockets. Like the one in my front pocket, next to my... Well, anyway, let's just say I trust the technology.

[Josh @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

How should you try to get that through airport security? Screams attention!!!

[Brian Erst @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Oooh - "highly concentrated" methanol! I imagine it must be like neutronium - that MP3 player probably weighs half a ton...

If you Google "highly concentrated methanol", all the hits are from Toshiba and Ultracell (the creators of the fuel cell). Apparently, it just means that it's 30% methanol and 70% water.

I wouldn't call 60 proof "highly concentrated" - rubbing alcohol is 140 proof, fer chrissakes.

[Alberto D @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

I just wonder what happens with the "juice" you put in, because what I know of fuel cells (correct me if I'm wrong) the fuel cell convert the "juice" into energy by decomposing the "juice" into water (or something like that)... but I think its a great idea in terms of battery life and ecology... now I hope they do it for all the other gadgets...

[Tak @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

No. 10: Imagine fuel celled or PSP's.

Yeah, that's really child safe xD

[keith coutinho @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

hmm what if they say that for the protection of your player you must only use their own brand methanol (:O see the branding on the bottle in that photo) they might price it like printers. if they sold their digital electronics dirt cheap to get the market share, then slowly increase the price of the juice, it would be killer :)

[Danger @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Let's just hope you don't spill on yourself while you're refilling the fuel cell. Methanol is crazy toxic especially since this is supposed to be highly concentrated. http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M2015.htm

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Brian - methanol is a tad different from rubbing alcohol ;)

I think the idea of fuel-cell electronics is brilliant. Maybe the general public should stick to batteries, but imagine methanol-powered electronics for hikers, soldiers, and scientists! I would love to be able to carry a laptop on 3-day missions without carrying extra batteries or my Voltaic. Need GPS coords? Bam. Done. Need approach vectors for the LZ and complete situational awareness from higher? Bam. Done. Satellite and topographics? Done. Up to the minute intel? Done. Want to AIM your buddies while under fire? Done. :D

[RC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Going along the lines of what Maikeru said, they should have battery (AA, AAA, etc) shaped containers filled with the fuel. Once one runs out snap in another one and your good to go. I think non-techy people will appreciate the familiar site of batteries.

[ixalon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

We've had "do not eat!" We've had "do not chew!"

Next up is "do not drink! (if underage)"

[Cheeze @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

What 23 said, but instead of just making it the container, make it the same form factor and voltage and put the + and - voltage on the ends like a normal battery. Then there'd be no need for all new devices when you can get the same juice out of the same AA or AAA form factor.

I'd buy AAA batteries that lasted 10x longer and "recharge" in a few seconds.

[TacoBallZ @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

OK, am I the only one who "GETS THIS" ???
Battery makers are all over this because its the same damn thing as Printer Cartrdiges, eventually you run out of juice, and you have to keep getting their brand. I would rather have a Li-ON battery that lasts for 2-3 years than having to refill it 2-3 a month over the same time period. DUH!

[Aphid @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Cool. Alcohol fuels a lot of things that I do too!

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Can someone please come up with the Vodka Fuel Cell? I think a combo MP3/flask would really, um, rock!

[r @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Nice try, but nobodys gonna pour crap into their mp3 player or any other device to make it work. I can't see how anyone here thinks this is "brilliant", although it is interesting that they can do it I suppose.

But heck, does anyone even use batteries for most devices anymore? I couldn't imagine anyone buying a cell phone or laptop that ran on batteries. I don't even think most vaccuum cleaners take bags. Did people forget this or am I just taking crazy pills or something?

[Brian Erst @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Justin -

I'm well aware of the differences between ethyl, methyl and isopropyl alcohol. I just found the "highly concentrated" description of a 30% solution to be funny.

Granted, you wouldn't want to take a swig of the stuff, but you wouldn't want to do that with a lot of denatured alcohols out there either. It's the toxic effects of the methanol you have to be worried about - this stuff is not going to explode or catch fire easily. You need at least 80 proof alcohol to flambe in cooking (and that's if it's been warmed up first by the hot pan - you need much stronger stuff if you want it to go "whoosh"). This stuff has enough water to make it near impossible to light.

"Safely diluted" seems to be more apropos.

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Is methanol a renewable energy source? There's no denying that fuel cells are a much more efficient energy producer, and hydrogen is a very clean fuel - but not easy to store/transport. Which is why you see fuel cells running off of methanol or even gasoline (as a source of hydrogen). Replace an engine powered by gasoline with a fuel cell powered by gasoline and you'll need much less gasoline, but you're still dependant on it. All I see with this is another dependency building up, when right now it's still more efficient yet to produce energy (in whatever form; coal, diesel, nuclear...) at a central power plant. Everyone wants longer lasting devices, but wouldn't better battery technology or another way to store electricity (flywheels?) make more sense in the long run?

[iomatic @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

...


That's like putting gas in your wristwatch. Stupid.


...

US$.02 Non-refundable.

[eddie @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Justin, methanol is highly poisenous. It can cause blindness and death.
Although I think it's really cool to have a power source like that from what I've seen people doing with their everyday appliances I think it'll never pass for safety concerns. Too bad. And no, it can not be made less dangerous.
Batteries are not so easy to open/destroy and are quite sturdy. Beside, these days you're not even allowed to take a lighter to the plane, can't imagine taking a bottle of methanol.
What I don't understand how come with all this in mind they still went ahead and produce this?

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

r: are you insane? EVERYTHING uses batteries! My iPod, cell phone, laptop, etc... it's all battery powered.

Jeeze... I hate to say it but fuel cells won't take off until less stupid people exist in this world. Perhaps there ought to be an entrance test to qualify to purchase a product that is sufficiently advanced enough that you need to be intelligent about its operation.

To everyone that thinks methanol is dangerous - go ahead and short circuit the + and - terminals on a Lithium Ion battery, oops - there goes your hand and those burns on your body are very unbecoming. The potential energy in rechargeable batteries is extremely dangerous. Maybe you should try to over-charge a battery and watch it vent its toxic stew of piping hot vapor at you?

I'd rather take mildly flammable (70% water) over LIon cells which have been in the news enough to prove they can be dangerous if improperly used.

By the way, LIon cells haven't made any amazing inroads in energy density, charge time or price in quite some time, maybe the next gen tech needs something that stores a lot more in a smaller footprint? As long as the catalyst doesn't wear out in a year and you're left with a paperweight, I say bring this crap to market!

[paperless @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

How about nuclear power?

That way you could buy an mp3 player with enough power for 100 years or even more with like less than a gram of plutonium.

One thing is certain it would be way more useful than a stupid bomb made to kill milions.

[paperless @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Im not talking about today but in the future BTW

[Ian Jardine @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

"But Mr Homeland Security Officer I need this supply of methanol for my MP3 Player". "Why can't I take this flight?"

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

"Is methanol a renewable energy source?"

I think all you have to do is raise grain and fire up yee olde backyard still and you can produce alcohol, and thus presumably methanol (some refinement required). I don't now precisely what the efficiency ratio is of cultivating the grain and refining the brew versus tapping and refining crude, but one season to produce a fields worth of alcohol sounds at least as RENEWABLE as oil, which takes thousands - millions of years to produce (though I think you end up with more)...

Who knows...maybe someone will find a way to make alcohol/methanol out of kelp...

[Anawrahta @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Agree with #33, the idiots are out in full force today.

With the mentality being expressed in this thread, any kind of internal combustion engines would have never been built because of the flamability of gasoline.

And yes the big thing that is holding fuel cell tech back is the archaic and repressive laws concerning the airline industry. Once fuelcells are approved to be used on planes all you idiots out there will wonder why this tech wasn't around sooner to replace batteries.

The fuel for fuel cells is cheap plentiful and easy to produce, it makes little to no pollution. Batteries are expensive, extremely wasteful and more complicated to produce.

[Old Number 7 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

People have been using disposable and refillable lighters for a long time. Guess what? They contain a flammable liquid! Some lighters can be filled so you do not come into contact with the flammable liquid.

Your car can be filled without coming into contact with the flammable liquid.

OH, and by the way do you need to carry around a gas can for your car? Do you need to carry around a gas can for fuel cells? Do you need to carry around your charger for your ipod? No you do not, these are not valid arguments.

I would think that on a site like engadget there would be less public ignorance but I guess I am wrong.

[bazald @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Hrmm... Am I the only one here thinking that a methanol distribution infrastructure needs to be put into place if this is, in fact, "the future".

[Kamil Mytnik @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Am i the only one that thinks that the people who are complaining about this AWESOME technology, are the same iWhores who have ipods and cant admit that their battery life is complete CRAP?

[Psyop-er @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

bazald
"Hrmm... Am I the only one here thinking that a methanol distribution infrastructure needs to be put into place if this is, in fact, "the future"."

You should be the only one, but you're not. The refilling infrastructure would be located in your house. So that at some point during the 60 hours of use you get out of it you say "Oh I need to refill my MP3 player so I can listen to music at work" You would the proceed to you home filling station. It looks exactly like the cupboard under your kitchen sink where you keep your little bottle of fuel. You fill it up... Hooray! Music!

[Old Number 7 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Let me sum this up.

1)Company who is NOT Apple is first to market with an innovation which will change the face of consumer electronics as we know it. They release it for an MP3 player which is NOT an ipod.

2)People become ignorant and fanboyist and brush aside the technology using flawed logic to justify their now obsolete ijunk.

***2 Years Later***

3) Apple releases ibook with fuel cell technology

4 The people rejoice.

[Tamer @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Fuel cells release CO2, but a system like this (fill her up) produces less waste. I wonder what's worst for the environment overall. Producing, transporting, using and disposing batteries or fuel cells?

My bet would be on batteries for sure.

[duerra @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

----- "Agree with #33, the idiots are out in full force today.

With the mentality being expressed in this thread, any kind of internal combustion engines would have never been built because of the flamability of gasoline. " -----

How can you be so shortsighted? Consumers don't want to fill up their electronics with fuel any more than they want to fill up their gas tanks with fuel. The problem is that with cars you don't really have much of an option, do you? There's not any good technology really available today to make it so that you don't have to stop at the gas station every couple weeks. As soon as there is.... well, *that's* innovation

Furthermore, consumers won't want this any more than many people want to buy non-rechargable batteries. With any other consumer electronics, batteries can last years, not requiring you to constantly purchase more "fuel". In addition, NiMH batteries today and the like can hold even better charges than disposable alkalines.

The picture is a little bit bigger than some poor vehicle-related analogy.

[BigBen @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

Oh please, you Apple haters are too much. I see one or two comments her of iPod owners who didn't like this idea. I'm sure the support for this tech will be divided the same way amongst iPod users as it is among the dozen or so people who have chosen another DAP.

As an Apple supporter, I am excited about the prospects for portable fuel cell technology. I look forward to the time that my favorite electronics/computer company integrates it into its products so I can decide if that gear is the best for me.

I understand that it's frustrating for many when Apple comes out with a product using some tech (e.g. hard drive mp3 player) that's been around for awhile and people think Apple invented it because it becomes popular. But you can't fault the company for integrating these concepts so well. And it'd be naive to expect all users of consumer electronics to know the complete histories of all technologies involved.

--BB

[friendlyf1re @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

"Posted Sep 16, 2005, 11:12 AM ET by r

Nice try, but nobodys gonna pour crap into their mp3 player or any other device to make it work. I can't see how anyone here thinks this is "brilliant", although it is interesting that they can do it I suppose.

But heck, does anyone even use batteries for most devices anymore? I couldn't imagine anyone buying a cell phone or laptop that ran on batteries. I don't even think most vaccuum cleaners take bags. Did people forget this or am I just taking crazy pills or something?"

Go to the store and find any portable electronic device and if it doesn't have batteries, you get a cookie.

[friendlyf1re @ Dec 19th 2005 2:05AM]

"Posted Sep 16, 2005, 11:12 AM ET by r

Nice try, but nobodys gonna pour crap into their mp3 player or any other device to make it work. I can't see how anyone here thinks this is "brilliant", although it is interesting that they can do it I suppose.

But heck, does anyone even use batteries for most devices anymore? I couldn't imagine anyone buying a cell phone or laptop that ran on batteries. I don't even think most vaccuum cleaners take bags. Did people forget this or am I just taking crazy pills or something?"

Go to the store and find any portable electronic device and if it doesn't have batteries, you get a cookie.