Canon patents fuel cell DSLR, we're ready

Back in May, we heard that MTI Micro was working with "an elusive Japanese developer or digicams" to get its Mobion fuel cell tech into actual products. Given this Canon Fuel Cell DSLR patent, it looks like we can no-so elusively safely say where the camera is being developed. The patent itself is straight up enough: "The present invention related to an electronic equipment system having fuel cells, and more particularly, to a camera system in which fuel cells are provided to a camera body and a connection device connected to the camera body." It looks as though the fuel cells will power the entire camera system, including flashes and other motors, complete with a separate power management system, sort of like having your own mini generator. As for when this system will be available, no word.

[Via Photographybay]

[OneLove @ Aug 11th 2008 10:01AM]

hopefully its not a fool cell. Great news! I like where this planet is going, maybe i will stay.

[Travis @ Aug 11th 2008 10:03AM]

yes but how many mpg does it get?

[j_g_puff @ Aug 11th 2008 10:14AM]

What's the advantage of using fuel cells in this way? Will it allow longer between recharges, or is it lighter or what?

Presumably the cost involved in developing this is so high that it will debut on high-end kit. People using high-end kit will probably be happy with the external battery packs you can buy already, so to make this stuff viable it would have to provide a lot of juice.

I love the way that the H2 is piped around the camera. I wonder if you can flare off the H2 when you disconnect the lens?

[Will @ Aug 11th 2008 4:58PM]

My assumption is that the biggest advantage is "recharge" time. With battery powered cameras you have to buy extra batteries, which can get expensive, and spend several hours recharging them when they get low.

Fuel cells, on the other hand, can be refilled as fast as you can pump hydrogen. My best guess (didn't actually look at the patent) is that it uses removable "cartridges" of some sort, so you could still carry extras in your pocket, but if you have space (ie in your car or backpack) you could have a larger hydrogen tank allowing for nearly instant refills.

[rock99rock @ Aug 11th 2008 10:15AM]

If they only made one of these for my 4 hour iphone.

[Kamokazi @ Aug 11th 2008 10:15AM]

" Japanese developer or digicams", "it looks like we can no-so elusively safely say where the camera is being developed"

I can let the occasional error slip by, but that is 2nd degree murder of the English language right there. Proofread FFS.

[Knives_Out @ Aug 11th 2008 10:35AM]

I hope they make sure this does not fall into the hands of the Romulans!

[CaptSaltyJack @ Aug 11th 2008 10:37AM]

Does it take unleaded or diesel?

[klietza @ Aug 11th 2008 10:50AM]

Eighth

[brian @ Aug 11th 2008 11:13AM]

Who wrote this one? The grammar is horrible. Not up to the typical Engadget standard. Are they slipping? Gees, I hope not...

[Lars @ Aug 11th 2008 11:17AM]

Patent?? Hardly an invention to stick a different kind of power source into an electronic device.

[bebop @ Aug 11th 2008 12:22PM]

No kidding! I thought "obvious" inventions like this get rejected by the patent office?

[TheLibraryDude @ Aug 11th 2008 2:56PM]

So, could someone really separately patent putting a fuel cell in each and every type of device? I need to get busy in filing the patent paperwork for fuel cells in the following devices:
remote controls
stereos
pdas
cameras (oops, already taken)
mp3 players
computers
easy bake ovens
etc.

[Dan @ Aug 12th 2008 9:45AM]

Well, the "patent naive" side of engadget strikes again. Canon DID NOT PATENT this. They have FILED A PATENT APPLICATION. I'm not even going to do a lookup to see if an examiner even looked at this, as with the application backload as it stands it probably won't see an examiner's desk for another year or two. Please, anyone who's ready to say "gee, the USPTO hands out patents like candy on Halloween. I think I'll go get a patent on breathing!" understand that this IS NOT A PATENT.

Again, this is a PUBLISHED APPLICATION, which simply means the application was filed 18 months ago. Canon can claim no rights of ownership or invention.

[Guy @ Aug 11th 2008 11:33AM]

Your kidding me? Fuel cells can already power cameras, video cameras that is (which is still a camera system).
http://www.jadoopower.com/solutions.html
They can power the camera and an attached camera light.

[Justin E @ Aug 11th 2008 11:39AM]

"Given this Canon Fuel Cell DSLR patent, it looks like we can no-so elusively safely say where the camera is being developed. The patent itself is straight up enough:"

I wish that first sentence was "straight up enough" - it took me four reads to understand that train wreck.

[greasy @ Aug 11th 2008 11:45AM]

I wonder if it will take the same gas mixture as my chainsaw. The possibilities would be endless.

[Todd Ballsack @ Aug 12th 2008 12:27PM]

So are the bad jokes, apparently...

[mrpoo @ Aug 11th 2008 11:54AM]

This does not seem to be connected to MTI work, which is DMFC-based while the Canon patent seems focused on H2 as a fuel source, not mentioning methanol once. They do briefly make a reference to ethanol fuel, which is not typically considered very viable. It's oddly ironic to splash a copy-protection watermark across a graphic pulled from a patent published by the USPTO.

One of the key aspects of the patent is sharing a single fuel cartridge (full of H2) for fuel cells in the camera body, the flash, and the interchangeable lens of an SLR. To get practical energy densities with H2, you need high pressures (~10,000 psi), which is one reason methanol usually wins for these small fuel cell implementations. I want to see the idiot-proof connector that can enable a lens to pop on and off a camera body (deliberately, not accidentally!) while maintaining a 10,000 psi seal.

[Za @ Aug 13th 2008 8:42PM]

A separate container...duh. Opening the door to my car doesn't let the air out of my tires.

[mrpoo @ Aug 14th 2008 8:06PM]

The patent specifically discusses the concept of a single fuel tank. Read it before commenting... duh.

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 11th 2008 12:22PM]

Rather unnecessary seeing as how my Nikon D80 can survive for a couple days without a recharge but OH WAIT SNAP this is a Canon and I'm guessing that Canon doesn't have its act together on the batteries if it needs one of these?

[Za @ Aug 13th 2008 8:46PM]

I am guessing you have never used an external flash? They use up significant amounts of battery power, and this would be a God-send to people who rely on their cameras. You likely shoot for fun, but for example, if you were shooting for National Geographic and venturing into the jungle, don't you think it would be easier to lug a couple of fuel-cell cartridges allowing 10,000 shots each, or would you think it better to lug around several batteries, chargers, and a generator?

Just because it doesn't help you doesn't mean that it is not useful for anyone. From here on out, manufacturers should call you up, "wickedpheonix" [did you seriously spell your own name wrong?] and ask, "Oh, Mr. Wickedpheonix, our development does not help you? Fair enough. We're canceling the project and canning our R&D teams.

[Za @ Aug 13th 2008 8:47PM]

I am guessing you have never used an external flash? They use up significant amounts of battery power, and this would be a God-send to people who rely on their cameras. You likely shoot for fun, but for example, if you were shooting for National Geographic and venturing into the jungle, don't you think it would be easier to lug a couple of fuel-cell cartridges allowing 10,000 shots each, or would you think it better to lug around several batteries, chargers, and a generator?

Just because it doesn't help you doesn't mean that it is not useful for anyone. From here on out, manufacturers should call you up, "wickedpheonix" [did you seriously spell your own name wrong?] and ask, "Oh, Mr. Wickedpheonix, our development does not help you? Fair enough. We're canceling the project and canning our R&D teams.

[Tom Castle @ Aug 11th 2008 2:02PM]

My Canon DSLR already takes an absolutely immense number of shots per charge (like a thousand or so). I can't wait for fuel cell technology to go mass-market, but I can't think of a technology less in need of fuel cells than DSLRs.

[Markarian @ Aug 11th 2008 6:53PM]

I agree, two batteries will more than take me through my entire 2GB card on my XTi. I really don't think Fuel cells are necessary for this application. Especially since generic batteries are so cheap on eBay. This patent diagram seriously worries me and wonders if we might be looking at the impending death of the EF system as we know it. That would really be unfortunate.

[Josh @ Aug 11th 2008 2:11PM]

So, is it going to by hydrogen powered?

If so - thank Christ we don't use olden style flashes any more..

[mrpoo @ Aug 11th 2008 7:48PM]

The patent application never mentions methanol, but specifically mentions hydrogen several times. With all the fuel interconnects this concept would need, there would be significant risk of leakage. Methanol is toxic, does not readily dissipate, and makes for a reasonably good solvent for some of those fancy plastics and labels. In other words, it looks like they're thinking hydrogen.

[Bill @ Aug 11th 2008 4:41PM]

You can buy sodium borohydride based fuel cells with different adapters to recharge your cellphone or iPod (search for Medis fuel cell)

I've been very disappointed in the Medis product, however.

I hope DMFC are available soon.

[andy @ Aug 12th 2008 1:16PM]

Patents will only hinder this technology.