The only way I can see they could have made it look more threatening would be to write "Atomic Bomb" in large letters down the side and have a large LED display counting down to zero in 15 seconds or so.
Edit: The perfect add-on for your reactor: http://www.instructables.com/id/Crazy-Countdown-Timer/
see for example:
http://www.airchina.com.cn/www/en/html/index/travel_informat...
All the laptops are made with 97Wh for a reason...
Can I bring a Reactor on a plane?
Yes. Per FAA rules every traveler can carry-on up to two Reactor sized batteries.
[NB I'm not saying I believe them - I wouldn't go anywhere near an airport with one of these things.]
It's an accu battery pack (lithium-ion), no nuclear reaction, the name is misleading.
Thorium reactors are a dead-end, as European research found out. They had stopped all work years ago. There were major accidents with this type of reactors and one even happened at the same time as the Chernobyl disaster: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6...
For some reasons some countries don't want to learn from history.
Edit: English language links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#Thorium_high...
What’s to prevent a Reactor from rolling off a table?
We will be offering an octagonal silicone sleeve that will prevent a Reactor from rolling off surfaces and also protect it from bumps.
So....your base product actually will roll off the table, but you can buy an optional extra to prevent it?
I know nothing about USB power delivery, but I presume that's the value proposition (since as others have noted, there are already a plethora of external USB batteries) although it seems nothing currently supports it.
1) doubles as rolling pin in the kitchen.
2) buy two, and have a set soccer goal posts for a quick pick up game.
3) use it in a circus balancing act during a busking session.
4) many other possibilities.
By the way, I hope my sarcasm is showing...
Lithium-ion packs are measured at 3.7 volts, not 5.
I think this is a neat implementation but there is no technical justification for this price tag, and the idea is far from unique. Looks cool though, and I guess for some that's all that will matter.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alex-kiritz/83/528/b31 Alex Kiritz President at Trontium Inc Redondo Beach, CaliforniaElectrical/Electronic Manufacturing
https://twitter.com/AlexKiritz
https://plus.google.com/107960025708414384190/posts
But this is a Show HN, Maybe Alex can chime in to answer some of the questions we have...?
My main gripe is this: ONLY USB output? Why?
I currently have a "noname chinese crapgadget" battery that can power my usb devices, but also has 9V and 12V output. Much more versatile!
Also, and this is more of a stretch, I know - being able to power a macbook would make this a FAR more universal kind of battery.
EDIT: Oh! I'm sorry, it seems that you can charge your macbook.... https://trontium.com/specs/ But how does that work?
Good job with the site design and product design, and I wish you success with your crowdfunding! :-)
>> Can I bring a Reactor on a plane?
> Yes. Per FAA rules every traveler can carry-on up to two Reactor sized batteries.
Well, if supposedly[0] a charged laptop battery can be shorted to unleash energy equivalent of a small hand grenade, how strong a bomb made of two Reactors would be?...
[0] - so I read at random places in the Internet.
Plus I think the keyboard (a yamaha psr E403 I think) featured in the pictures is not usb powered.
Other than that I'm impressed by the 8 charges you can make with the dewalt drill. Great to build something far from power outlets.
This is going to create some unexpected excitement and lots of magic smoke for a lot of people...
Perhaps it means something positive in California itself, but outside of it it more or less means "expensive, pompous, behind schedule" :)
The picture they have of a backpacker with a liter bottle on one side of his pack and a Trontium on the other looks nice and self-sufficient but he's got all that extra weight to lug. Is he going to be living in the wilderness for 10 days whilst writing a novel on a laptop or tablet? That's about the one use for this battery that I can foresee.
For the average Joe, this thing isn't going to be doing much traveling. And if it's not traveling, it's sitting on a counter not too far away from a wall socket.
As for taking it on a plane -- most plane trips aren't long enough to warrant a super-battery. Devices these days can last 6-8 hours between charges, and if they don't, there are all sorts of cheaper solutions. I have a $20 lipstick-size battery that's good enough to keep a phone or tablet in business for a few extra hours.
I'm afraid I just don't see the point of this product as it is. But I hope they keep doing research, and learn how to shrink it down until it's truly portable.
The idea of negotiating voltage (up to 20V) just doesn't seem all that great to me: consider a failure mode that lets the full 20V into USB devices designed for only 5, like the majority are.
> We are working on an inexpensive add on that will allow control of the lighting function underwater
I wonder if this will sprout a power supply accessory, i.e. a device that speaks to a USB PD source and lets you locally set the output voltage to whatever you need. That way you could use the PD source to charge "legacy" products that don't support PD.
Who wants to walk around with a radioactive material in your pocket, irradiating your genitals?
Scary idea.
If you look at the spec page it says "lithium-ion battery pack".
"get your ass to Mars"
The bigger battery pack I found on amazon with decent reviews was 32000mAh for $119.99 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DN0KBXU).
The trontium still cost more than two of those but the difference is shrinking.
I've had a lot of experience with Li-Ion batteries and more advanced chemistries, and I have to say I'd be scared to try rigging up something that can handle the kind of amps the Reactor is promising.
The only lithium-ion-like batteries I know of that can handle any sort of reasonable amp draws (100W at 5-20V = 5-20A currents) are e.g. really modern LiMn2O4 (hybrid? I'm not sure) cells like [1], not standard LiFePO4 or whatever. So if they happen to have really nice high-draw cells in them, with protection circuitry added to each and all the stuff to make it safe, then they're definitely in the right value range. Keeping batteries from failing dramatically and exploding when subject to abuse, electrical or otherwise, is not trivial.
[1]: http://illuminationsupply.com/batteries-c-48_50/18650-sony-u...
Passengers can also bring two (2) larger lithium-ion batteries (more than 8 less than 25 grams of equivalent lithium content per battery or about 100-300 watt hours per battery) in their carry-on.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash...
Now they may want a cylinder to maximize underwater performance, but that seems pretty far-fetched. It's just a stupid shape.
We are also using ultra high efficiency parts and may also increase the power to over 100 watts if we can get it approved/ make it safe.
"Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor"
Additionally, a lot of the recent hype on thorium reactors is that they are actually molten salt reactors (see the oak ridge national lab experiments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment). By using a liquid fluoride salt, you can run a thorium reactor at ambient pressure and high temperatures, leading to safer operation and better utilization of thorium in feed stock. I think one of the main concerns for this implementation is material durability and corrosion resistance. If we can figure this stuff out, this reactor model looks promising. See Kirk Sorensen's company Flibe energy and the wiki for the LFTR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR.
The worst thing about modern nuclear power is we won't shut the old reactors the hell down, so when you get a Fukushima it's because at every junction proposals to replace it were held up, but no one would brook just shutting it down either.
From the link: The nuclear power plant THTR-300 ( thorium high-temperature reactor) was a helium-cooled high-temperature reactor of the type pebble bed reactor in North Rhine-Westphalia Hamm with an electrical output of 300 megawatts . Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor: While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany.
The reactor was in fact a URANIUM REACTOR!
I still need to see relevant proof that Thorium technology failed for any other reason than good sales and marketing from the Uranium camp.
On topic: It didn't look impressive. :)
Hint: Maybe there was a reason for that? Like ... that was/is the best way to build a Thorium reactor? But yeah, the engineers were probably all monkeys. That must be the reason.
Not saying the engineers are all monkeys, but this specific project was a complete failure and yes, there are countless better ways to develop a Thorium reactor (see LFTR et all).