MIT Building Batteries Using Viruses

thefickler writes "Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are now using viruses to build cathodes for Lithium-Ion batteries. Three years ago these same researchers found they could build an anode using viruses. Creating both the anode and cathode using viruses will make batteries easy to build. This nanoscale battery technology will allow batteries to be lightweight and to 'take the shape of their container' rather than creating containers for the batteries, which could open up new possibilities for car and electronics manufacturers."

Re:It's harmless.

[Anonymous Coward]

"According to the article, these virii only infect bacteria."

Good thing you don't have any of THOSE in ya.

Re:It's harmless.

[derGoldstein]

It's bad enough when people in IT show there ignorance

"there" ignorance, huh?...

Re:Hope all goes well

[julesh]

Now there's a whatcouldpossiblygowrong article if I ever saw one...

Well, yes, the people who use that tag are all reactionary luddites, and this story will appeal to them.

Please, what could go wrong with this? The virus escapes and... err... behaves almost exactly like the virus it was engineered from? Except, you know, in presence of iron phosphate (a rather rare substance) it grows in a different shape. Clearly a danger to the survival of our species, there.

Re:Technical progress, but unfortunately...

[julesh]

Wonderful ! Now, instead of having some standard battery sizes (AA, AAA and so on), we are going tu have as many different shapes of batteries as there are products

I have non-standard batteries in my cell phone, my laptop, my electric bike, my portable media player, my bluetooth headset and my digital camera. I have standard size batteries in... err... actually, I can't remember anything I own that uses standard batteries. Oh, the digital scales in my kitchen, which take 2xCR2032s.

Standard sized batteries are already on their way out. Manufacturer-specific rechargeables are the new standards.

Re:Hope all goes well

[Goaway]

Oh no, scary scary viruses! Viruses are super evil and will totally destroy humanity if we dare to meddle with them! Time to break out the torches and pitchforks, or at the very least post smarmy posts on Slashdot!

(Here's a hint: Viruses are probably the most common entities in the biosphere. You are pretty much swimming in them.)

Re:It's harmless.

[Emerssso]

Technically speaking, as a linguist, *both* are acceptable plurals of the word 'virus'. They both meet the broad definition of morphological variants, namely that at least some English speakers use both /virii/ and /viruses/ and nearly all speakers of the language can understand the content the speaker is attempting to convey. Furthermore, both use morphological pluralization rules found in other words in the language (for example, /cacti/ and /foxes/. From a linguistic standpoint, it doesn't really matter whether or not this would be correct in Latin, as we are discussing English. The point I'm trying to make is that it may be the case that from a traditional lexicographical standpoint, only one is correct, most modern linguists would accept both as valid plurals, and neither as superior over the other. Remember, the sounds we make are ultimately arbitrary representations. As long as the are consistently intelligible within a community, it doesn't matter what they are.