Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BASF Shows Off Some Tantalizing Nanotech

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tech-porn dept.

Dan B. writes "The Technology section in The Age today is running a story on the current 'Next Generation' nanotech coming to a store near you from BASF. Interesting read, but I'd like some more info on the 10 hour batteries the size of a cigarette lighter."

7 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. What's a 10 hour battery? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hour is not a measure of power. How many amp- hours is this battery capable of? What terminal voltage?

    A standard size D Alkaline battery is 17 amp-hours at 1.5 volts. That sounds a lot more impressive than a 10 hour battery, and it's using 30 year old technology.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

    1. Re:What's a 10 hour battery? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The discharge curve is also very important. If I draw 10 amps from that 17 Ah alkaline D battery, it will last about 30 minutes instead of 1.7 hours. If I take 10 amps from a 9 Ah NiMH D battery, it will last the full 0.9 hours.
      The car battery can easily handle 600 amps for a few seconds while starting your car. There's no way the laptop battry can handle 80 amps even for a fraction of a second

      This just makes the "10 hour battery" in the article even more meaningless.

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

  2. Found the last link I was looking for by Dan+B. · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the link to the article on the BASF website.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
  3. Where's the "news"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a recap of press releases issued from 1999-2002. Seriously! They're even ordered chronologically in the thesis paragraph. I realize this because I've been keeping a local archive of every mnt-related press release that I've come across since 1998.

    It's a well-written piece, a good article for the site it's on, and I wouldn't think it out of place in "USA Today" or "Popular Science," but why does a pointer to it belong on Slashdot? The newest piece of information in the article is about the "lotus effect cling", which was 'news' in 2001!

  4. Re:10 hours? bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Blockquoth the poster:

    Last time you checked did you find out that just because it's abundant doesn't mean it's a simple matter to acquire it?

    1. Attach hose to faucet.

    2. Fill bucket.

    3. Apply electric current.

    4. Profit!


    Seriously, getting hydrogen is easier than getting just about any fossil fuel, and the power to run the electrolysis can come from just about anywhere, including renewables like solar or wind. Moving the hydrogen around is a thornier issue but we solved a similar one for petroleum as it is.

  5. neither are Amp-hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Really, you need to go by watt hours. This is because no battery has a totally flat discharge curve. For example, a LIon battery is rated at 3.6V but really spends the vast majority of its battery life at about 3.9V.

    So if you take the rated voltage times the total amp-hours drawn you get a misleading number.

    Watt-Hours. That's the way.

  6. Re:Drexler by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting article, it's not often you list science fiction in the credits of something trying to be scientific. The way I see it, "nanotechnology" will be its own field in a couple decades, much like computer science is today relative to physics and math.

    The whole point is that tiny robots which can build anything are a very, very long way off. The only way it's going to happen is through this "hype and effort" that's going into "weak" nanotechnology.

    As far as moving atoms around (including bonding, unbonding, exciting states) one at a time to make things... no problem. Dr. Ho can "see" and manipulate the electron clouds surrounding an atom (pretty damn cool if you ask me).