Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Ink Turns Paper Into a Low-Cost Battery
jangel writes "Stanford University researchers have demonstrated a way to turn ordinary paper into a battery, which may be crumpled or pressed into any form. It's said the technology promises greater durability, higher efficiency, and faster energy transfer than traditional batteries. The technique uses special ink made of carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires. Thanks to the small diameters of these materials, the ink sticks strongly to the fibrous paper, allowing the battery to be extremely durable. The paper battery could last through 40,000 charge-discharge cycles — at least an order of magnitude more than lithium batteries. According to the researchers, the paper batteries will be low-cost, may be crumpled or folded, and can even be soaked in acidic or basic solutions, yet their performance does not degrade. 'We just haven't tested what happens when you burn it,' one of the researchers quipped." This is the same Stanford research team, lead by Yi Cui, whose work with nanotechnology for battery applications we have discussed before. We've also delved into alternate routes to the holy grail of the ultra-thin battery.
What is the method of manufacture for the nanotubes? right now, it's petroleum.
After that - are we going to char forests to make the carbon for the nanotubes to power the SUV so Joe Palooka can schlep his fat ass down the block for a six pack and a box of smokes?
And we all know how plentiful silver is...
The problem is lifestyle and expectations and overpopulation. Change any (or more) of those three and you have a big handle on mitigating the collapse.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
yes. and who do you think it has been fucking them over for the last century and a half or so? european imperialists (esp. british and french) and, later, american imperialism.
you say that as if it somehow contradicts anything i said. instead, it just demonstrates that your knowledge of history is limited, at best.
btw, the Crusades were from 1095 - 1291 AD (that's 700-900 years ago - roughly contemporary with the Mongol invasion, approx 1205 to 1337 AD). also btw, the Crusades were neither the beginning nor the end of the hostilities and battles between the european/christian and arabic/islamic cultures.
things don't happen in a vacuum. there's a long - very long - historical context to everything that happens - even the shit's that's happening today. the arabs didn't just suddenly decide out of the blue that they hate america, the palestinians didn't wake up one morning and decide to hate the israelis for no reason. there are reasons. whether you or i or anyone else agrees with those reasons, or think that they justify any action is irrelevent - those reasons exist regardless of opinions.
but really, your rhetorical question "if it was the Arabs who had mathematics, navigation, and a technological understanding far superior to that of anyone else, how come they have to import every damn thing they need (technical expertise, labour, doctors, nurses, etc) from all over the world ?" was meant to imply either that their discovery/invention of these things is a lie (perpertrated by the Great Left Wing Conspiracy<TM>, no doubt) or that they were a bunch of lazy retards for having these things and fucking up. and then you descended into overt racist crap with "Your basic Arab wants to sit smoking shisha and drinking coffee" and "...but since then they have degenerated into a pack of savages".
My point was that like many civilisations before them, they were fucked by war, not by some inherent moral failure (even if they did have the supreme "moral failing" of being arab and islamic rather than white and christian).
in short, your redneck bullshit irked me, so i called you on it.
oh, BTW, i think your "johnny-come-lately" religion is just as fucked up as theirs. and, like all religions, just as cretinous.