Proof of Concept Verifies Physics That Could Enable Quantum Batteries (newatlas.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Atlas: For the first time, a team of scientists has now demonstrated the quantum mechanical principle of superabsorption that underpins quantum batteries in a proof-of-concept device. "Superabsorption is a quantum collective effect where transitions between the states of the molecules interfere constructively," James Quach, corresponding author of the study, told New Atlas. "Constructive interference occurs in all kinds of waves (light, sound, waves on water), and occurs when different waves add up to give a larger effect than either wave on its own. Crucially this allows the combined molecules to absorb light more efficiently than if each molecule were acting individually." In a quantum battery, this phenomenon would have a very clear benefit. The more energy-storing molecules you have, the more efficiently they'll be able to absorb that energy -- in other words, the bigger you make the battery, the faster it will charge. At least, that's how it should work in theory. Superabsorption had yet to be demonstrated on a scale large enough to build quantum batteries, but the new study has now managed just that.
To build their test device, the researchers placed an active layer of light-absorbing molecules -- a dye known as Lumogen-F Orange -- in a microcavity between two mirrors. "The mirrors in this microcavity were made using a standard method to make high quality mirrors," explained Quach. "This is to use alternating layers of dielectric materials -- silicon dioxide and niobium pentoxide -- to create what is known as a 'distributed Bragg reflector.' This produces mirrors which reflect much more of the light than a typical metal/glass mirror. This is important as we want light to stay inside the cavity as long as possible." The team then used ultrafast transient-absorption spectroscopy to measure how the dye molecules were storing the energy and how fast the whole device was charging. And sure enough, as the size of the microcavity and the number of molecules increased, the charging time decreased, demonstrating superabsorption at work. "The idea here is a proof-of-principle that enhanced absorption of light is possible in such a device," Quach told New Atlas. "The key challenge though is to bridge the gap between the proof-of-principle here for a small device, and exploiting the same ideas in larger usable devices. The next steps are to explore how this can be combined with other ways of storing and transferring energy, to provide a device that could be practically useful."
The research was published in the journal Science Advances.
To build their test device, the researchers placed an active layer of light-absorbing molecules -- a dye known as Lumogen-F Orange -- in a microcavity between two mirrors. "The mirrors in this microcavity were made using a standard method to make high quality mirrors," explained Quach. "This is to use alternating layers of dielectric materials -- silicon dioxide and niobium pentoxide -- to create what is known as a 'distributed Bragg reflector.' This produces mirrors which reflect much more of the light than a typical metal/glass mirror. This is important as we want light to stay inside the cavity as long as possible." The team then used ultrafast transient-absorption spectroscopy to measure how the dye molecules were storing the energy and how fast the whole device was charging. And sure enough, as the size of the microcavity and the number of molecules increased, the charging time decreased, demonstrating superabsorption at work. "The idea here is a proof-of-principle that enhanced absorption of light is possible in such a device," Quach told New Atlas. "The key challenge though is to bridge the gap between the proof-of-principle here for a small device, and exploiting the same ideas in larger usable devices. The next steps are to explore how this can be combined with other ways of storing and transferring energy, to provide a device that could be practically useful."
The research was published in the journal Science Advances.
Schrodinger battery tech (Score:3)
It is there except when you try to use it.
Re: Schrodinger battery tech (Score:5, Funny)
If you know the voltage then the current is unknown
Re:Schrodinger battery tech (Score:4, Informative)
It is there except when you try to use it.
Dr. Leonard McCoy: [...opens battery...] "It's dead Jim."
Re: (Score:2)
It won't start if there are cats on the hood.
Been there, heard that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Been there, heard that Super battery announcement #66,666,666
They announced empirically proving a prediction of quantum theory that has never been seen.
Literally, they said "The idea here is a proof-of-principle that enhanced absorption of light is possible"
How on earth did you even jump to "super battery announcement???
If that's what you heard you need to get your ears checked. Nothing even close was said.
I can't even fathom why you people that hate and despise scientific research even come to this site
Re: Been there, heard that (Score:2)
Because they want to act smart... duh.
Re: Been there, heard that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People love to be sound like the smartest person in the room with their quick quips but come off sounding like a know nothing asshole. If you really don't understand the subject matter then shutting your mouth would be the best option.
The best thing about new batteries (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Coming soon to an alternate timeline (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Willing to bet your iPhone 2 battery was smaller than the G7. Can't find the grams for each battery pack, but given the overall phone dimensions it seems incredibly likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The iPhone 2 from 2007 had a capacity of 1350mAh. The Motorola power G7 I am typing on now has a capacity of 5000mAh. That is two doublings in 14 years, which my mental math pegs at about 10% growth per annum. The power consumption of the phone has grown along with it, but we wouldn't have EVs if battery tech wasn't improving consistently and dramatically.
There's very real physical limits on the energy and power density of batteries. This growth in power consumption by phones will have to plateau at some point since there is a point where our phones will glow in the dark, burst into flames, melt into slag, burn through our hands and pockets, or sublimate into noxious fumes.
There's a limit on the energy density of EV batteries as well. We can put only so much of the material in batteries to the chemical reaction that holds electrical charge, there must be a
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger is better, so ... (Score:3)
An infinitely large battery will charge instantaneously? Can't wait to put that in my electric vehicle... :-)
Re: Bigger is better, so ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Sun is a giant hydrogen-powered battery. Go fetch it! Tip: go at night so you don't get burned.
What's really interesting is (Score:3)
"For the first time, a team of scientists has now demonstrated the quantum mechanical principle of superabsorption ... where transitions between the states of the molecules interfere constructively,"
What a Tandy idea ! (Score:4, Funny)
Ho-hum. In the alternate universe, these are already being given away at Radio Shack, their battery club.
It's like a fusion reactor in your pocket! (Score:2)
So much power that you never need to charge it so why even cal it a battery!!1!
Re: (Score:2)
640 Chernobyls oughtta be enough for anyone.
-Gill Bates
Batteries can store nuclear power too. (Score:3)
Ultimately this breakthrough could pave the way for practical quantum batteries, making for fast-charging electrical vehicles or energy storage systems that can deal with bursts of energy from renewable sources. But of course, it's still very early days for this research.
Don't these people recognize how inexpensive, fast acting, and energy dense batteries can help out nuclear power too? Apparently not.
Renewable energy shares a handicap with nuclear power, an inability to match supply to demand. The cause and nature of this handicap is quite different but the means to address this handicap is identical, grid scale energy storage systems.
Renewable energy needs energy storage for reliable power far more than nuclear power does. The French discovered that nuclear fission reactors can reduce power output quite quickly but this comes with the cost of not being able to increase power output quickly. This discovery allowed the French to work out a means of matching supply to demand fairly closely by coordinated rotation of power output changes among an overbuilt fleet of nuclear power plants, but this can only do so much so they still had to rely on hydro and fossil fuels for some power. This tactic increases the costs of energy from nuclear fission and fossil fuels but with the French not seeing a lower cost option they adopted this as preferable to electric grid failures.
With batteries on the grid any nation could meet their electricity demand while keeping the grid stable on 100% nuclear power. That doesn't make a grid using only nuclear power desirable, it only makes it possible. The same applies to renewable energy sources, just because we can supply an electric grid with 100% renewable energy doesn't mean we should.
I'm seeing people come to realize, at a painfully slow pace, how batteries on the grid could benefit nuclear power. Just as I'm seeing people realize at a painfully slow rate how we need nuclear power.
I saw a survey recently that polled people on what is needed most to address global warming, electric vehicles (which is just another way to claim we need more batteries), green hydrogen, solar, or geothermal. One huge problem with this poll is that it is comparing two energy storage methods, batteries and green hydrogen, with two energy sources,. solar and geothermal. That is a category error. Another big problem is that this poll ignored so many other options on dealing with global warming. I understand that a poll can't list all options to open ended questions like this, but if you are going to poll people in a meaningful way then don't ask such an open ended question. People noticed this error and flooded the comment section under the poll that we need nuclear power.
People might not want nuclear power but they are at least recognizing the need for it on the grid. If quantum batteries deliver on its promises then that will allow nuclear power to finally displace fossil fuels on the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have the storage, nuclear isn't needed anymore.
Renewables are cheaper and faster to build. And none of that messy 1000 year cleanup afterwards.
If true, and I'm not claiming you are wrong or mistaken, then we just solved global warming.
Did you hear that everyone? WE SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING!
Now I have to add some text to this post to avoid the shouting filter on posting here. I keep seeing people exclaim quite adamantly that wind and solar power are low cost, can be built out quickly, produce little CO2, is safe, when paired with batteries can provide reliable power, and is available everywhere in the world. Okay then, we solved the problem. Now,
Re: (Score:3)
If your batteries are good enough what on earth do you need nuclear power for?
Re: (Score:2)
He must own a nuclear plan judging by the amount of shilling he does for them. If you do that much shilling for free then you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
He must own a nuclear plan judging by the amount of shilling he does for them.
When I went to high school I did a report on city planning focused heavily on nuclear fusion. Fifty years later the hope is still there but the reality has dampened it quite a bit. Fission or fusion have a place generating power, but some people believe more of the marketing hype than others. He's probably just a believer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess I now know of two people who apparently live under rocks and have never heard of solar or wind power.
Re: (Score:2)
> So I guess I now know of two people who apparently live under rocks and have never heard of solar or wind power.
Solar and wind require far more resources than nuclear. On the order of 100 to 1000x times more.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please.
I have a few.
Here's a short one page summary: https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
Here's a longer online paper that goes into greater detail: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Here's an online book that shows even greater detail: http://www.withouthotair.com/C... [withouthotair.com]
Can you provide sources that show the contrary?
The issues of land use and material needs will force nations to adopt nuclear fission power or see their lights go out. If Australia follows the same path as the USA then they will start with nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair now. There's no wind or sun under rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
If your batteries are good enough what on earth do you need nuclear power for?
You need nuclear power for its greater energy density, meaning less land use: http://www.inference.org.uk/su... [inference.org.uk]
Not on the chart is that nuclear power has an energy density of 1000 W/m^2, that's shown here: http://www.withouthotair.com/c... [withouthotair.com]
For many nations it ends right there, they don't have enough land to produce the energy they need without nuclear fission.
Another reason is safety: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... [nextbigfuture.com]
For many nations the argument ends there, nuclear power is the safest source of energy avail
Re: (Score:2)
From one of your own links
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that "renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ... On a cost basis, wind and solar is the best economic choice in markets where firm generation resources exist and demand is growing." They further reported "the levelized cost of energy from lithium-ion battery storage systems is competitive with many peak-demand generators." BNEF did not disclose the detailed methodology and LCOE calculation assumptions, apart from declaring it was "derived from selected public sources".[46]
Also, there's plenty of room in almost every country for solar as I'm assuming most homes come with roofs.
We also still have no viable solution to nuclear waste and likely never will as no community in the US is going to allow a proper storage site to be built in it.
Of course nuclear reactors also have the same problem. By the time we finished all the lawsuits and legal hurdles we'd be implementing meaningful amounts of new nuclear power too late for it to have the effect we want f
Problem solved, now stop scaring the kids. (Score:2)
From one of your own links
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that "renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ... On a cost basis, wind and solar is the best economic choice in markets where firm generation resources exist and demand is growing." They further reported "the levelized cost of energy from lithium-ion battery storage systems is competitive with many peak-demand generators." BNEF did not disclose the detailed methodology and LCOE calculation assumptions, apart from declaring it was "derived from selected public sources".[46]
If true then we solved global warming. We should all celebrate on solving the problem, continue to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, stop scaring everyone's children to the point of suicide, and move on to far more pressing issues.
Also, there's plenty of room in almost every country for solar as I'm assuming most homes come with roofs.
If you would actually read any of my cited sources rooftop solar is insufficient to meet the energy needs of any nation, it produces more CO2 than nuclear fission, is more dangerous than nuclear fission, costs more than nuclear fission, and takes more material tha
Re: (Score:2)
I started a piece by piece breakdown of what you said but then decided I don't care enough to spend my time on this so I'll keep it short. You have a good number of false claims in there along with correct ones so get your shit straight as you wont convince anyone of anything with a lot of what you posted.
Re: Batteries can store nuclear power too. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. This new battery tech obviously means that we should abandon nuclear energy immediately as it's no longer necessary since we need batteries to store the massive surpluses of renewable energy during peak generation times, for use during peak demand times. Nuclear energy projects would simply divert attention & resources away from innately superior energy solutions.
You can cite sources to show how innately inferior nuclear fission power is to other options? I cited sources here: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I'm not making the argument that nations should use nuclear power. I'm making the argument that nations already decided to use nuclear power, that they will decided to use nuclear power in the future, or they will be reliant on imported nuclear power even if these nations have no nuclear power plants of their own. We are seeing nations in the Middle East bui
Tag words... (Score:3)
Re:Tag words... (Score:5, Funny)
Next we're going to hear about quantum multiverses and quantum vaccines.
And quantum mechanics -- people that fix broken quantum stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Next we're going to hear about quantum multiverses and quantum vaccines.
And quantum mechanics -- people that fix broken quantum stuff.
I guess they could also just be really, really -- really -- tiny mechanics ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure all mechanics are quantized. It doesn't help you much to have half a mechanic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Tag words... (Score:3)
Now just add nano in the description and you are good to go
Nano-quantum batteries it sells itself
Re: Tag words... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again and again we here about new, superduper battery technologies, yet my phone battery still bareley lasts a day.
But if quantum batteries come to pass, no matter how forgetful you are you will always be able to run an app that reminds you when to feed Schrödinger.
Re:So many times (Score:4, Insightful)
Again and again we here about new, superduper battery technologies, yet my phone battery still bareley lasts a day.
Every time battery technology improves, Apple makes the phone thinner. Then the other manufacturers follow.
When the public refuses to buy a thinner phone and a thicker phone dominates the market, that's when battery life will extend.
Re: So many times (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the two dimensional phone.
Grandparent poster misunderstands, sir. With quantum interference, it is now possible to build a phone whose top is below its bottom. We were planning to call it the "iPhone" for "imaginary," but that seems to be trademarked already.
Sincerely,
SQRT(-1) Enterprises
Re: (Score:2)
Again and again we here about new, superduper battery technologies, yet my phone battery still bareley lasts a day.
You do realize that to get new technology in your phone you have to buy a new phone once in a while?
I suspect it will be (Score:3)