Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Science Technology

Scientists Create Battery That Charges In Seconds and Lasts For Days (telegraph.co.uk) 230

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Telegraph: A new type of battery that lasts for days with only a few seconds' charge has been created by researchers at the University of Central Florida. The high-powered battery is packed with supercapacitors that can store a large amount of energy. It looks like a thin piece of flexible metal that is about the size of a finger nail and could be used in phones, electric vehicles and wearables, according to the researchers. As well as storing a lot of energy rapidly, the small battery can be recharged more than 30,000 times. Normal lithium-ion batteries begin to tire within a few hundred charges. They typically last between 300 to 500 full charge and drain cycles before dropping to 70 per cent of their original capacity. To date supercapacitors weren't used to make batteries as they'd have to be much larger than those currently available. But the Florida researchers have overcome this hurdle by making their supercapacitors with tiny wires that are a nanometer thick. Coated with a high energy shell, the core of the wires is highly conductive to allow for super fast charging. The battery isn't yet ready to be used in consumer devices, the researchers said, but it shows a significant step forward in a tired technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Create Battery That Charges In Seconds and Lasts For Days

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:09PM (#53351673)

    This technology will be in shops within the year.

  • No more worries about non replaceable batteries!!!
  • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:10PM (#53351689)
    I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that whenever energy is both very dense and very accessible, you've made an explosive. Existing battery technology is already going that direction. At what point will I need to register my phone as a destructive device under the NFA?
    • by SumDog ( 466607 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:12PM (#53351695) Homepage Journal

      https://xkcd.com/651/

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's not really accurate to compare a battery to a hand grenade though, even if they contain similar amounts of energy. The grenade can release it all in a fraction of a second, while the battery, even if shorted, will take several orders of magnitude longer. Could start a nasty fire but you certainly couldn't throw one and expect it to detonate.

    • At what point will I need to register my phone as a destructive device under the NFA?

      Samsung will register it for you before they ship it.

    • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:38PM (#53351795)

      Electronics guy here, and I was thinking along the same lines.

      Capacitors are two plates, very close together, separated by an insulator.

      We attach power up to the two plates and a static charge occurs between the two.

      After we remove the power source the capacitor retains the static charge and would do so forever if it weren't for decay due to leakage across the insulator.

      The "capacity" of a capacitor is directly proportional to the surface area of the two plates.

      The voltage it can hold is defined by the arc-through point of the insulator quality and distance between the plates.

      Sounds like they have all that figured out.

      --

      The advance in battery consumption has bottomed not been on the battery and breakthroughs on the efficiency of the device(s) that needs the battery power have pretty much topped out, as well.

      This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.

      Those factors have always been a concern with capacitors.

      • This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.

        Hobbyist reporting in, and this is exactly what I was curious about. That better be a damn good insulator, otherwise we are in for a whole new ballgame of Note 7s.

        I very much want better battery technology, but that also invites some very destructive failure modes.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          With tech that can charge in seconds, id probably guess it results in changes to device expectations. Something like cell phones that hold less total power, but can be charged wirelessly in a few seconds every 4 hours or something. Basically more frequent yet quicker charges.

        • This method could be a game-changer, but I wonder about factors that would degrade the integrity of the system, especially the distance between the two plates (punctures, blunt force, flexibility) and the shelf life of the insulators.

          Hobbyist reporting in, and this is exactly what I was curious about. That better be a damn good insulator, otherwise we are in for a whole new ballgame of Note 7s.

          I very much want better battery technology, but that also invites some very destructive failure modes.

          In the light that capacitors are being used, the way to alleviate the battery's distress is to build a sensor that detects the battery wants to dump core, and also build a device that responds, when the detector goes into the red, by shooting two prongs ... no, just a minute, that's how to make a taser.

        • Actually, this would likely be a LOT safer than the exploding batteries, exactly because a capacitor is a much simpler device. Critically - it needs no chemically volatile liquids. Batteries are filled with highly reactive chemicals - they have to be to store energy in the form of lose ions. Lose ions only exist if the chemical is highly reactive.
          Highly reactive == potentially explosive.

          But a capacity is made of solid, non-moving parts - I actually can't see a scenario where it could explode. A huge charge

          • Arc flash is a serious thing, especially when the device is in your pocket.
            • Sure, but it's not an explosion.

              • It's not?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

                • An explosion is defined as a rapid energetic gaseous expansion. Usually due to a high energy chemical reaction but disturbing a superheated liquid would count too. Arc flash is... not that. Well maybe if its energetic enough to plasmafy the air but I doubt there is any reason to put that much energy in your pocket.

                  • From the video...

                    It creates a pressure wave, called an arc blast, that can reach thousands of pounds per square inch. Enough to knock someone off a ladder, rupture an ear drum, or collapse a lung.

                    That sure sounds like an explosion to me, far more violent than rather slow conflagration you see from the runaway chemical reaction in a li-ion cell. You did see it blow the head off that mannequin, didn't you?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The advance in battery consumption has bottomed not been on the battery and breakthroughs on the efficiency of the device(s) that needs the battery power have pretty much topped out, as well.

        Lieutenant Colonel Korn, take that sentence out and shoot it.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Actually batteries are already about as good as we can reasonably charge them in most instances.

        In electric vehicles we are already getting close to the limits. Tesla charges at 120kW, but actually they pair up bays so it's 120kW shared between two. If one car is already pulling 110kW, the other only gets 10kW. Going higher is difficult because you need an even bigger connection to the electricity grid, and a charger capable of handling more heat.

        Maybe you have a 3kW electric heater in your home. If the Tes

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          *90%. My bad, 99% would only be 6.5W, still problematic in such a small space.

          90% is a very high target for a charging circuit... Typical buck regulators that operate in the required range with small inductors (to keep the phone thin) will manage around 80% with careful design.

      • by tomxor ( 2379126 )

        Electronics noob here :P The failure modes of normal super-capacitors appears to be quite different to the smouldering ceramic or exploding electrolytic based capacitors. From wikipedia on normal super-caps:

        ...theoretically supercapacitors have no true polarity and catastrophic failure does not normally occur. However reverse-charging a supercapacitor lowers its capacity...

        So assuming nothing vaporises when multiple tiny shorts occur from blunt force, puncture or over voltage etc... then i guess the question is what else happens after all those shorts? would it heat up a lot to the point of melting or causing an external fire? would it try to discharge suddenly and cause

        • YouTube has many examples of exploding super capacitors, but the devices in this article are too new for us to know how they react to abuse.

    • I'm pretty sure that whenever energy is both very dense and very accessible, you've made an explosive. Existing battery technology is already going that direction.

      That's nonsense.

      NiMH and LiFePo batteries are at least 2/3rds as power-dense as Li-Ion by volume, but are EXTREMELY stable and safe... Moreso than lower density Alkaline batteries.

      Meanwhile, the least-dense battery technology being used is lead-acid, as found in your card battery, and they have a bad habit of exploding, too. Probably much more th

    • First year physics... q = Integral[current, t]

      F = 1/(4piepsilon0) q^2/r^2

      IIRC from a homework problem 20 years ago, if you had 2 pennies with a 1% charge differential between them, there would be enough force to life the WTC. (I said it was a long time ago).

    • Couldn't you wire it with a current limiting diode so a short won't lead to an explosion?

    • This has been my experience with both lithium batteries and supercaps. In fact, supercaps are worse as they can discharge more quickly and don't need to wait on slow chemical reactions.

      Supercap explosions are very frightening and could be very dangerous.

    • Just the once.

  • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:15PM (#53351711) Homepage

    One: What is the capacity per unit volume? This isn't mentioned in TFAs. I would think that creating batteries with an order of magnitude (or three) more capacity should be higher priority. Why should we have cell phones that work for days when they should work for months on a charge or cars that only go a couple of hundred miles when they should be able to go thousands of miles on a single charge?

    Two: If it can be charged very quickly, it can be discharged very quickly. People were up in arms when three Teslas caught and Samsung phones caught fire. What will be the reaction when devices have batteries that can give up all their charge basically instantly which means literally thousands of Amperes of current.

    I suspect that there are applications in which these batteries will be perfectly suited for - but the typicaly ones like phones, cars, etc. will not be in that list.

    • Electric powered toys will be a huge winner if you can have half decent capacity and a high discharge. Common racing style quad copters will happily draw 130amp and could easily draw more. The limiting factor is definitely the batteries. You draw 100amp from a 1300mah battery and the batteries don't last long.....

      Current battery tech for quadcopters gives you batteries that are large and heavy for any given capacity. That is the only way to be able to draw the current.

      • Electric powered toys will be a huge winner if you can have half decent capacity and a high discharge. Common racing style quad copters will happily draw 130amp and could easily draw more. The limiting factor is definitely the batteries. You draw 100amp from a 1300mah battery and the batteries don't last long.....

        Current battery tech for quadcopters gives you batteries that are large and heavy for any given capacity. That is the only way to be able to draw the current.

        Yep. Approximately 47 seconds, to be precise. 36 seconds at 130A.

        That can't be the steady-state draw, or those quadcoptors would barely be able to take off...and what the heck gauge wiring are these things using, if they're seeing that even as a peak? I sure hope it's #2 or better, or battery capacity could be the least of your worries...

        • No that is max throttle draw. My freestyle quad will burst pull 100 amp at full throttle, 4 x emax 2205 2300kv motors. They will generate a combined thrust of about 4.8kg on a quad that weighs in at about 520g including battery.

          On a 1300mah battery I get about 2.5 to 3 minutes before the battery is empty.

          My racing quad though will pull 120 amp+ at full throttle (I don't know exactly as that is the peak of the current sensor I use). I get under 2 minutes on a 1300mah battery in a race. It produces just u

        • Oh and I use 12awg from the batteries and 16 from the PDB to the ESCs and 18 for the ESC to the motors. Average wire length though is very very short with the longest being the main battery lead at about 40mm.

          I also run 4 cell batteries giving me 16.8v on a fully charged battery. You do see 5 & 6 cell batteries but rarely at racing comps, more at drone top speed comps.

      • This actually sounds perfect for powering vapes.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Two: If it can be charged very quickly, it can be discharged very quickly.

      Sort of... but you can mitigate this to limit it to cases where you connect a third party device that is explicitly designed to extract the stored power from it at said rate. Such devices would be not any more difficult to detect than electronic explosives already are currently. The device itself containing the fast-charging battery could easily contain mechanisms that does not allow the battery to discharge faster than a certain sp

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        Actually, now that I think about it, you could even prevent it from being extracted by a third party device at a high rate by just adding a single diode to the charging circuit. The diode doesn't limit the rate, but it does restrict the direction that charge can flow. If the other side of the storage is hooked up to discharge circuitry that expressly limits the rate at which charge can be tapped from the storage system, then there is no possible way that you could get it to discharge any faster than the h
    • It's a bad summary (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:46PM (#53351823)

      This isn't a new battery at all, it isn't a new supercapacitor either, its a method of making nanowire supercapacitors by growing them from 2D substrates.

      But how do you explain that to Telegraph newspaper readers? Those readers won't understand that supercapacitors is already a mass market product, or that replacing batteries with them is already a niche thing.

      So the Telegraph writes it up as 'magic battery', and Slashdot submitter echoes that.

    • Increased capacity makes battery explosions even more of an issue than increased discharge rate. A battery that lasts 100 times as long will release 100 times as much energy during a catastrophic failure.
    • Ultracapacitors are the holy grail of electrical storage. Cheap materials, many cycles, very rapid charging, etc. etc. The energy density, last time I checked a couple of years ago was on a par with Lead Acid - so fairly heavy and large to get the energy you need. I assume that has, and will continue to improve. If they've reached the density of Lithium-Ion then that's some significant progress. It's a technology to watch, it already has application - typically regen braking in an electric or electric
    • "Why should we have cell phones that work for days when they should work for months on a charge or cars that only go a couple of hundred miles when they should be able to go thousands of miles on a single charge?"

      You are confusing "should" with "I'd like to have". If we're going that route, then cell phones should have a charge the life of the phone. Cars should have a charge that will go 200k or the life of the car.

      • We can do that. The nuclear battery is a thing, they used to be used in pacemakers. For a car, a small reactor could conceivably power the car for its entire lifespan.

  • yay math (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:28PM (#53351749)

    A quick search tells me a phone battery typically has a capacity of something like 1500 mAh, so "charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn't need to charge it again for over a week" sounds like something on the order of adding 5000 mAh in 30 seconds.

    That would mean a current of 600 amps, assuming 100% efficiency. For reference, USB 3.0 has a max of 0.9 amps, Lightning is a little over 2, a refrigerator draws 6 amps, and your household circuit breaker will trip at 15 amps.

    • This. Mod parent up. I was going to post something similar.

    • Re:yay math (Score:4, Informative)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @11:14PM (#53351915)

      Without giving the voltage, those numbers are pretty meaningless. Power = Volts * Amps

      Lightning has a huge power at 2A because it's millions of volts.

      A high-end microprocessor can draw about 100A, but only at a little over 1 volt.

      Your circuit breaker will trip at 15A, but at 120V. That's 1800W. If this capacitor is only charged to about 1.5 V like a typical battery, the 600A would only be 900W.

      Thus, you could easily charge it from a standard outlet. It would require a beefy power supply similar to those in large servers, though. I think that most people would opt for a cheaper power supply that could still charge their phone in a minute or two.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        1500mAh = 1.5Ah

        1.5Ah in 30 seconds = 1.5 * 120 = 180A at the battery voltage.

        Battery voltage is 3.7V for LiPo, the type typically used in phones. So power = 180 * 3.7 = 666W.

        In fact many phones have >3000mAh batteries. The OnePlus 3T is 3600mAh, which would be 1600W.

        Okay, your outlet can provide 666W, but how are you going to get that to your phone and convert it to ~4V for charging the battery? Just take a look at what a typical industrial 3.3V 180A power supply looks like.

    • 600 amps at 5V would be about 3kW.

      It would take one honking-big wire connecting the charger to the "battery" and the charger would pull at least 25 amps from the wall at 120V or 12.5 amps at 240V. Realisticly, it would probably pull a lot more. Still, it's nothing a typical clothes-dryer 240V circuit couldn't handle, so don't worry about burning down the house.

      So, to market this to the average joe consumer, you just make the charging take minutes instead of seconds and make sure the charger doesn't pull m

    • by sl149q ( 1537343 )

      And think of the electrical service you would need to order to charge your EV in (to be similar to gas) say 2-3 minutes.

      This says 4.5 megawatts to get down to 15 minutes and involves intermediate storage. Scary stuff!

      http://www.computerworld.com/a... [computerworld.com]

    • For reference, USB 3.0 has a max of 0.9 amps, Lightning is a little over 2, a refrigerator draws 6 amps,

      By the time this comes to the market we'll be at USB 7.4 anyway.

      and your household circuit breaker will trip at 15 amps

      WTF? Who wired up your house?

      Anyway your assumption is stupid. You mention milliamps, hours, and no talk of voltage. So let's fix your math:

      5000mAh in 30 seconds is 600A. Since you made assumptions about it being a mobile phone I will too, 5V. This is 3000W of power.

      In a typical 230V house that is 13.04A. Easily delivered by the 18A outlets and the 35A circuit breakers typical for a house in Europe.
      Things get a bit more interesting in the USA b

      • All of the breakers in my house are at least 20A, with larger ones for appliances that draw more power.
    • A quick search tells me a phone battery typically has a capacity of something like 1500 mAh, so "charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn't need to charge it again for over a week" sounds like something on the order of adding 5000 mAh in 30 seconds.

      That would mean a current of 600 amps, assuming 100% efficiency. For reference, USB 3.0 has a max of 0.9 amps, Lightning is a little over 2, a refrigerator draws 6 amps, and your household circuit breaker will trip at 15 amps.

      All this means is that the battery pack won't be the bottleneck when charging. The bottleneck will be the thickness of the wires between the voltage step-down transformer and the battery pack. I imagine we'd want to make those wires as short as possible (they'd probably end up looking a lot more like "plates" than "wires"). We'd probably also want to consider higher battery voltages.

      With Li-ion batteries we usually use 3.7V or 4.2V batteries, because that works well from a Lithium ion chemistry perspectiv

  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:29PM (#53351751)

    ...about the size of a finger nail and could be used in phones, electric vehicles ...

    Wow. A battery the size of a finger nail that can power an electronic vehicle for days! I'm impressed. At least I'm impressed by the quantity of bullshit that the Slashdot editors will let be packed into a lame summary.

    • by davidwr ( 791652 )

      Wow. A battery the size of a finger nail that can power an electronic vehicle for days! I'm impressed. At least I'm impressed by the quantity of bullshit that the Slashdot editors will let be packed into a lame summary.

      Or, that's one honkin'-big fingernail.

    • by Trogre ( 513942 )

      I think it's safe to infer that the intention is to use more than one of these in a vehicle.

      • I think it is safe to say that a battery the size of a fingernail should and would never be used in a cell phone or a vehicle. It is pretty obvious that if it works at all, and I'm not buying that it does, it should be scaled up for phone or vehicle use. The claim that a device the size of a fingernail would be used in either of the listed devices is completely bogus, and once again an obvious failure of the Slashdot editors to edit.
  • How many times... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NormAtHome ( 99305 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:35PM (#53351783)

    Over the years how many announcements / articles that promise some revolutionary technology have been talked about on here and yet years later they're still nowhere near being on the market. We're still waiting for those rollable / foldable displays that have been on the horizon for years, the closest that I've seen is a video of an LG prototype at this years CES show, you couldn't even hold it as they only had one and it was behind plastic; no shipping products use it yet.

    There have been articles on here before about some university saying they have working nano-tube enhanced capacitors that will replace conventional batteries and promise unlimited and very quick recharges and yet still not on the market. When this gets on the market it'll be a revolution for mobile devices and probably electric cars too since they currently take 6 to 8 hours to charge, the Tesla high power wall charger promises to recharge in 3.5 hours but it's not like you can take that with you on the road.

    • And yet on a daily basis we have a huge amount of technology trickling down to consumers. Try and run your phone on the battery technology of 15 years ago and see how it goes.

      As for the foldable displays, that isn't a technology problem, it's a WTF do we need that for problem combined with a moving goalpost problem. We've had foldable displays in research labs for years, and just before they hit the market the market itself decides to go all touchscreen.

    • by Whibla ( 210729 )

      Indeed OLED technology has gone nowhere since its inception around 10 years ago.

      As for those foldable displays [kickstarter.com], yeah, they don't exist either... /s

      OK, so not all research is immediately practical, not all technical hurdles are easily solved but at least try to remember the things that have made it to market (and are now so common place it seems like they never didn't exist or the technology was never new) as well as the things we're still waiting on...

  • NOT A BATTERY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amoeba1911 ( 978485 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:40PM (#53351801) Homepage
    A capacitor is not a battery! They can fulfill the same need sometimes, but it's entirely different principle of operation. Next, the article is all about how lithium batteries suck, but doesn't talk about how this new capacitor compares to other capacitors or batteries. Before you can tell if this is useful at all or just junk, you have to know at least these four key metrics:

    energy density per mass
    energy density volume
    power density per mass
    power density per volume

    The article is useless, doesn't list anything relevant.
    • Re:NOT A BATTERY (Score:5, Informative)

      by BenFranske ( 646563 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @11:21PM (#53351939) Homepage

      Note that TFS states that "The high-powered battery is packed with supercapacitors..." see the definition for battery responsible for why we call groups of electrochemical cells batteries... "a set of units of equipment, typically when connected together" which is based on the traditional usage for artillery batteries. So if there are multiple supercapacitors working together it's absolutely correct to call it a battery (specifically a battery of supercapacitors, instead of a battery of electrochemical cells). Note that I doubt that the author was actually thinking along these lines when they wrote the piece, but I would argue it could still be correct.

      • battery
        badr/
        noun
        noun: battery; plural noun: batteries; noun: the battery
        1. a container consisting of one or more cells, in which chemical energy is converted into electricity and used as a source of power. "battery power" synonyms: storage cell, cell "insert fresh batteries"
        2. a fortified emplacement for heavy guns.

        Capacitors do not store chemical energy.
        • I beg to differ, chemical energy is not required. See the Oxford English Dictionary...

          battery, n.
          Pronunciation:/batri/
          Etymology: French batterie (13th cent.) ‘beating, battering, a group of cannon’, etc. (= Provençal bataria , Spanish batería , Italian battería ), battre to beat: see -ery suffix.

          1. The action of beating or battering. ...
          3. The beating of drums; sometimes a particular kind of drum-beat, perhaps that giving the signal for an assault.
          4. A number of pieces of artil

    • The article is useless, doesn't list anything relevant

      Much like some websites

  • by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @10:45PM (#53351817)

    What's the volumetric energy density compared to lithium batteries or liquid hydrocarbons?
    What's the storage price per unit of energy?
    How easy is it to scale up production?
    Is it dependent on rare or difficult to obtain materials?

    These questions are the ones that *matter*. All else is detail.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by burtosis ( 1124179 )

      What's the volumetric energy density compared to lithium batteries or liquid hydrocarbons? What's the storage price per unit of energy? How easy is it to scale up production? Is it dependent on rare or difficult to obtain materials?

      These questions are the ones that *matter*. All else is detail.

      The energy density is likely 40-70 times lower than lithium ion batteries in even the most optimistic sense. The power density may be ok to better than lithium ions for the few milliseconds it actually functions.

  • I seem to remember a story about a Kzin (in one of Larry Niven's RINGWORLD novels) referring to shorting out a high capacity (Puppeteer) battery to make a high yield destructive IED. Looks like life is catching up to SciFi - - - again -grin-
    Please note that the batteries were designed by a rigorously safety-paranoid species to NOT be capable of being used in this manner - but a war-faring and destruction-motivated species STILL managed to circumvent the safeties, and managed to make it go "KA-BOOM".

  • Whenever I see a "battery" that is the size of a postage stamp, I scream BULLSHIT at the screen. Not once have I seen a postage stamp sized battery technology announcement turn into a real battery. I want a battery that does something "measurable". This is very very very easy to do an experiment that any observer can do some mental math and say, "whoa".

    For instance. Heat 1 liter of water from room temperature to boiling. Then we can look at the battery in question and know pretty much its energy density.
  • Translate: it is useless for commercial product right now, and we have no fucking idea how to get there.
  • It could be used in phones, cars and wearables, but the first uses will be backpack power source for a friggin laser beam weapon. A flamethrower that can reach out to 1000 meters.

  • by jandjmh ( 66714 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:48AM (#53352603) Homepage

    It is a capacitor. That means the voltage is directly proportional to the charge. That doesn't make it useless, but to extract most of the stored energy you need a load that can work over a 5:1 or more voltage range. (at 20% of peak voltage you have extracted 96% of the energy because the store power is proportional to the square of the voltage.) A Tesla battery pack can supply more than 1500 amps at 300 or more volts even when it is at 100% charge, and almost just as much current, at almost the same voltage, when it is at 10% or less of full charge. A giant supercapacitor that was designed as a replacement, might, just for example, have a full charge voltage of 600 volts, and be designed to work down to 120 volts, and would have to supply, in this scenario, 750 amps at 600 volts, increasing to 3,750 amps at 60 volts to deliver constant power. A challenge to the power control circuits indeed.

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Just about every device you have contains a Wheatstone bridge and a transformer or other power circuitry to come down to 3, 5, 9, 12v or whatever. The kinds of size that fit into a plug itself, most of the time.

      110V or 240V. Large or small. Powerful or not. Pretty much everything has that kind of voltage conversion going on already.

      Sure, you won't find one in your mobile phone just yet, but that's no different - batteries are often 3.7V and then pushed up to 5V for USB etc. and even laptops push their 1

      • "Wheatstone bridge" ?
        A Wheatstone bridge is used to measure an unknown resistance. This feature is only required in a few rare circumstances, like inside a multi-meter.

        Just about every device I have are not multi-meters and certainly do not contain Wheatstone bridges... You might be thinking of a diode bridge that could do with a transformer to convert AC to DC, but this only works to transform AC voltages and batteries to not supply AC. What you would need is something like a buck converter, which most d
  • I hope they do make this supercapacitor concept into reality, rather than just talk about it. For those of you who want to know what problems researchers of today are facing with producing these supercapacitors, then read this more indepth article here. http://saintlad.com/supercapac... [saintlad.com] Here are some recommended readings to further understand how these work and the current market situation for supercapacitors. Official Research Paper by University of Central Florida http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10... [acs.org]
  • > t is uncommon for a lithium-ion battery to withstand more than 1,500 charges before it fails

    Bologna. My iPhone 5S is over three years old and still has ~65% charge at the end of a day of use.

    > can store a large amount of energy

    The paper is behind a paywall, but thanks to Sci-Hub I could read it. It focuses entirely on power density, not energy density, but does have some comparative information in Chart F. According to that, the best-case scenario for this device is about 0.07 Wh/cm^3. A modern li-p

  • by undefinedreference ( 2677063 ) on Thursday November 24, 2016 @03:14PM (#53355679)

    On a government project a number of years ago, we used a bank of supercapacitors to launch something very quickly off an average vehicle battery every minute or so.

    It sounds great, but we also had the damned things explode quite spectacularly. And by that, I mean, if we didn't have it inside a very tough metal box, shrapnel might have killed the tech that was near it when it went.

    Not that lithium batteries are much better; I've seen some really exciting fires when the LiPo batteries in R/C race cars fail... If you thought a phone battery bursting into flame was exciting, you have never seen one of these go up.

  • By battery we mean capacitor.

Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning

Working...