Slashdot Mirror


MIT Secretly Built Mega-Efficient Nano Batteries

mattnyc99 writes "There was plenty of chatter last week about an MIT announcement that researcher Angela Belcher had developed a way to create virus-based nanoscale batteries to power mini gadgets of the future. In a fascinating followup at Popular Mechanics, Belcher now says that her unpublished work includes full-scale models of the batteries themselves, and that they could power everything from cars and laptops to medical devices and wearable armor. Quoting: 'We haven't ruled out cars. That's a lot of amplification. But right now the thing is trying to make the best material possible, and if we get a really great material, then we have to think about how do you scale it.'"

25 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Efficiency? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I see nothing in those articles about these batteries being "mega efficient", as the title of this Slashdot post screams. The novelty seems to be the fact that they're grown using viruses and can be applied in thin films.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Efficiency? by dafrazzman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you discover something, typical procedure is to make a paper on it. Instead, MIT went ahead and worked on development before announcing the fundamental concept discovered. Maybe not "secret," but highly unusual.

      --
      My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
    2. Re:Efficiency? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      and they haven't actually built anything yet, except full scale models (whatever that means).

      Creating 1:1 scale battery models is one of my hobbies. I find that tubes from toilet paper rolls work well as a base for models of D cells. Large drinking straws are a good starting point for AAA cells. Old laundry detergent boxes are great when you want to move to more advanced projects like automobile batteries.

    3. Re:Efficiency? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, they did? The article says they wrote a paper about their anodes and electrolytes (I expect the electrolyte isn't such a big deal).

      So they made some viruses that are supposed to make little wires. Then they used the viruses to make some little wires. Then they wrote a paper. Then they worked on some more viruses to make some other wires that could be used as the other necessary component of a battery. And they're writing another paper.

      That really sounds like pretty much how it's supposed to happen.

    4. Re:Efficiency? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally a good use for nanotubes: building full scale models of nano batteries!

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:Efficiency? by salec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see nothing in those articles about these batteries being "mega efficient", as the title of this Slashdot post screams. The novelty seems to be the fact that they're grown using viruses and can be applied in thin films.

      Oh, no, that is not complete story of what this bugs could do. Think about it for a moment:

      1. those are big-molecule-sized particle batteries.
      2. You can construct them in such a matter that their terminals can be accessed only trough specific shape of (molecular, e.g. an enzyme) connectors.
      3. You can make each terminal incompatible with opposite polarity terminal, allowing for suspending those batteries in a liquid, or, if the batteries can bond with each other through (weak) hydrogen bonds, a large mass of them might already be in liquid form.

      Now, what is that all together? An "electric fuel", something that might power electric cars, but refuel on pump stations in same time ICE cars refuel. Car would have nanobatteries' processing unit, which would allow parallel connection of great many such batteries, pumped from the "fresh" tank. Once discharged in processor, batteries would be would be pumped into "used" tank.

      Bonus points for hypothetical clever battery design that would spoil terminals' shape if battery is empty as it would allow processor to be installed in "fresh" tank and just keep the tank stirred enough. Once processor squeezes out all the "juice", battery should fall off it, allowing connection with another, fresh battery to commence.

  2. What could go wrong? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... researchers genetically engineer viruses to attract individual molecules of materials they're interested in ... The M13 viruses used by the team can't reproduce by themselves and are only capable of infecting bacteria.

    Good thing bacteria can't infect anything...

    Of course, now I'll have to worry about my batteries getting a Staph infection:
    "Doctor, I need some Vancomycin for my laptop."

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:What could go wrong? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      This will be perfect for running my Vista laptop as it already runs on viruses!

    2. Re:What could go wrong? by incognito84 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Biological viruses in the batteries and Vista on the hard drive... That cocktail can only mean... Good god man! What have you done?

  3. Re:Make product by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on. It's not THAT bad. They did do this in secret.

    Well, until they went to the press...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  4. Re:Make product by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bring product to market.

    Stop blabbering on and do it already.

    Think about what you're saying here.
    Is MIT, a university, going to bring this technology to market?

    We always hear about research because the people doing it need to show it off so that they can find business & manufacturing partners to bring it to market. Quitely shopping it around isn't the way its done.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  5. Re:Make product by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    No.

    For one, your lego battery wouldn't even work in theory. An actual scientific model is supposed to represent what would work as well as possible.

    For two, they aren't just using a model. They've actual built components of this.

    "
    A much-buzzed-about paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month details the team's success in creating two of the three parts of a working battery--the positively charged anode and the electrolyte. But team leader Angela Belcher told PM Wednesday that the team has been seriously working on cathode technology for the past year, creating several complete prototypes. "

    "
    The M13 viruses used by the team can't reproduce by themselves and are only capable of infecting bacteria. At just 880 nanometers long--500 times smaller than a grain of salt--the bugs allow researchers to work at room temperatures and pressures with molecular precision, using and wasting fewer hazardous materials in the process. Now that they've demonstrated the construction of such tiny electronic components is possible, the challenge facing researchers is how to make them practical."

    As in the virus "inside part" is actually done. They've also got the anode construction done. They're working on the cathode.

    This is a practical engineering project at this point. This is news. Who knows if it will end up "practical", but nevertheless it is real whether you rtfa or not.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  6. Re:Make product by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

    Heh, that's exactly how it's done. You recognize that the research has commercial application, ask for spin-off rights, found a startup company, build a prototype, then get investors. The result is a whole lot of secrecy, and, eventually, an actual product.

    On the other hand, if all you're trying to do is create buzz and get more government grant money, you make press releases.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  7. Not models. Prototypes. There's a difference. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A much-buzzed-about paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month details the team's success in creating two of the three parts of a working battery--the positively charged anode and the electrolyte. But team leader Angela Belcher told PM Wednesday that the team has been seriously working on cathode technology for the past year, creating several complete prototypes. "

    "The cathode material has been a little more difficult, but we have several different candidates, and we have made full, working batteries."

    They've actually built things, that work, though the 3rd component the cathode is still apparently a work in progress. The summary says "models", which of course means something specific to /.ers, but that isn't the reality reflected in the articles.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  8. Re:Uh, Popular Mechanics? Unpublished Work? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Huh? - You must have missed the death of western manufacturing in the 80's-90's.

    Robotic factories, robotic warehouses and Chinese peasants ARE doing all the work! The rest of us are sitting around in office blocks posting to slashdot.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  9. Re:Make product by Cyberia · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's next? Adware Batteries? Free power, only you get to watch adds on your portable tv, or listen to ads on your radio... oh wait... never mind...

    WAIT!... Let's call Eveready and Duracell say we are consultants from Symantec, Mcafee or Sophos and we are here to create a strategy to help them win in this market space. A virus based battery... let's push out a pattern for that one boys...

    PROFIT!

  10. Re:Make product by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We also hear about research because this is Slashdot: News for Nerds. If you only want to hear about ready-to-use products, go to Best Buy.

  11. Insensitive Clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01110011 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011
    01110100 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110011 01101000
    01100100 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111
    EOF

  12. Re:Uh, Popular Mechanics? Unpublished Work? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot is a poor substitute for Daiquiris, but the combination is a good idea. Cheers!

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  13. For the last fucking time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's VIRUSES, not virii, or viri, or any other variation of that word!

    1. Re:For the last fucking time... by Gewalt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Re:For the last fucking time...

      Oh, good, that means you're gonna shut up about it now?

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  14. Obligatories by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) What could possibly go wrong?

    2) Grow virus, Stir in cobalt oxide and gold, Add electrolyte, Invent cathode, ..., PROFIT!

    3) I for one welcome our new secretly developed, Army-funded, virus-based, electricity producing overlords.

    4) But will it run Natalie Portman's vibrator?

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:Obligatories by orasio · · Score: 4, Funny

      4) But will it run Natalie Portman's vibrator?

      Everyone knows that Natalie Portman's vibrator runs on midiclorians!

    2. Re:Obligatories by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's no vibrator...

      --
      I hate printers.
  15. Re:Not models. Prototypes. There's a difference. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Prototypes" mean something specific to us too.. and it isn't "2 out of 3 critical components, not even integrated yet".

    Actually, it can, because they can be prototypes of the components. Two of which have been integrated. And they've made full, working batteries, just not using their cathode technology yet.

    Why don't you just RTFA instead of continuing to poo-poo their accomplishment based on a single word taken out of context, the first one you latched onto not even existing in the article? Right, right, I must be new here.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are