Step Toward Liberating Electronic Devices From Their Power Cords

Science_afficionado (932920) writes "A new type of supercapacitor that can hold a charge when it takes a lickin' has been developed by engineers at Vanderbilt University. It is the first 'multi-functional' energy storage device that can operate while subject to realistic static and dynamic loads — advancing the day when everything from cell phones to electric vehicles will no longer need separate batteries. These devices could make it possible to design electrical devices that are not limited by plugs and external power sources."

Comments

How would this get rid of power cords?

[Lumpio-]

As far as I understand, in practice using a supercap isn't much different from using a battery. The energy density might be different but it's not like they magically create energy from thin air. They still need to be charged. Or are we talking energy densities that would last for the entire life of a device here?

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[Albanach]

My cell phone needs charged at night, but I don't consider it to be a wired phone and I don't find the charging cord to hinder me when making calls. My laptop, on the other hand, stays plugged in most of the time because it won't last a full day otherwise. It is hampered by the power supply.

I think the idea here is that short term charging for devices is necessary, but normal operation would be wire free, thus they are liberated from wires.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[rmdingler]

The supercaps would be more like permanent batteries, and could be implemented in applications where retrieving a dead battery is inefficient.

This is potentially groundbreaking. Current battery tech leaves a lot to be desired, the materials being used are finite, and it's possible there are no more great leaps in efficiency using chemicals to store energy.

This is an entirely different way to store energy and the tech is in its infancy... storage capacities will likely improve with research.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[CastrTroy]

We are pretty much getting to this point without the help of super capacitors. With new batteries, solid state drives, and low power (not low speed) chips, it's possible to make a laptop last 20 hours. It's not mainstream, but give it another 2 or 3 years and it won't be uncommon that you'll only have to plug in you laptop at night, just like you do with your phone.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[pushing-robot]

The summary (and the article, to an extent) is bad; this is a supercapacitor that also serves as a structural part, so all sorts of random things can be turned into (weak) batteries.

They're envisioning a world where buildings, cars, and all sorts of things could be turned into giant capacitors, and you could just pump energy in somewhere and then draw it out wherever you like using some kind of short-range wireless transfer.

The idea is a bit half-baked, but I support any science that makes our world more like Star Trek, even if it takes the form of mundane objects randomly exploding when there is a power surge.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[Charliemopps]

Yea, but you still have to charge it. There's still a cord. The summary of both the article and the summary are basically an outright lie. The energy density is still less than that of a battery, and the tensile strength is ok... but not that great. Your device wont weigh any less, it just might be a bit smaller or have more room for other features because the battery is the case or components.

A more honest headline would have been: "Electronic devices may soon be smaller and charge faster!"
There's nothing in this technology that will eliminate the need for a cord.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[LordLimecat]

The summary (and the article, to an extent) is bad

In case you're on a browser thats removed the URL bar: This is slashdot.

Re:How would this get rid of power cords?

[unrtst]

Another equally honest headline would have been "Electronic devices may soon hold much more charge allowing them to be used without frequent charging via power cords or where existing battery powered devices would be impractical". The existing headline suggests the same thing with nineteen fewer words.

I don't buy it. Take a cell phone for example... the existing lion batteries have more mass than the phone chassis, and they have 10 times the energy density of the supercap in question. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the phone chassis has twice the mass of the existing battery, and lets say you replace both the battery and the phone chassis with this supercap material. You would end up with 3/10ths the energy capacity.

AFAICT, this tech does nothing to eliminate power cords. Even in their example of a house with supercap in place of drywall (I'm sure that's more cost effective than running wires /sarcasm), devices would still need to connect to the supercap, which will almost certainly be facilitated by plugs placed regularly along the wall.

IMO, where this tech is interesting is in applications where you would not normally find an electronic device, but a low powered device may be desirable. For example, if you could make a bicycle frame out of it and have a similar strength to weight ratio as existing frames, then electric assist on a bike would not require lugging a heavy battery around with you. It'd also alow for much faster charging (ex. so delivery people on bikes, which is very common in NYC and other big cities, would always have power for their next trip).

I'm sure there are many other uses, but those where capacity is already the major issue are probably not where we should be looking first. In all cases though, this does not eliminate the cord. Charges faster, sure... and has one tenth the capacity, so you'll be charging more or lugging more weight around.

"not limited by plugs and external power sources"

[Gaygirlie]

Bullshit. Where exactly do they plan to get the power to charge those supercaps? From thin air?

Re:I hate it when;

[Twinbee]

"Ten times more" would mean multiply by ten, so it makes sense that "ten times less" means divide. It's consistent, and that's the main thing.

Re:I hate it when;

[MightyYar]

Yeah, but English is all about context. The statement "Supercapacitors store ten times less energy than current lithium-ion batteries, but they can last a thousand times longer," is unambiguous in this context because we know that the energy storage is not negative. Language would be really boring if everyone spoke as if they were programming a computer. In fact, we have precise language in various fields, and it generally sucks to read. Imagine if everything were written in legalese!

Re:"not limited by plugs and external power source

[cjb-nc]

The other advantage is the speed at which you can charge a capacitor compared to a battery. I have a consumer cordless screwdriver with a capacitor in place of a battery. It runs for a decent time and runs down, like most such devices. Unlike a battery, it recharges to full in 90 seconds, not hours.

How many?

[jamesl]

How many stories have we read in the last two decades about breakthroughs in power that will replace current battery technology, cut the power cord, end our dependence on carbon or make our undies clean and white on half the water? How many have resulted in actual products and a better life?

Only the clean and white one.

hold a charge when it takes a lickin'

[Threni]

What does this folksy nonsense actually mean? Something to do with saliva?

Yep, reckon so..gahoop gahoop gahoop.

Re:"not limited by plugs and external power source

[Idarubicin]

TFS is misleading.

One of the great advantages of this new tech is the super capacitor can be charged and discharged for millions of cycles, versus thousands of cycles for existing battery technology.

Actually, that's not really the point of the article, either. Large numbers of charge-discharge cycles are a feature of pretty much any supercapacitor, not just these ones. They're arguing that these new supercapacitors have sufficient mechanical strength and robustness that that could be used as structural, load-bearing components in some applications. In other words, you don't have to put a box around them; they can be an integral part of the frame or case of your device. The battery (or capacitor) doesn't have to be a separate, discrete, armored lump inside the case.

In practice, as long as the energy storage density of these things is still just a tenth that of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, they're going to have problems in mobile applications. Near-indestructible material and near-instantaneous charging are both good things. But I'm not really "liberated from my power cord" if I have to top up the capacitor every couple of hours, or if my new battery-less iPhone weighs a couple of pounds with its giant supercapacitor frame.

Re:I hate it when;

[Richy_T]

I believe he would have completed the sentence with "capacitors". Current as in presently available, not Coulombs per second.

Eh?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Batteries have gone through multiple generations of technology in the last two decades. Solar panels are now so cheap that the physical installation costs are the biggest part of installed costs. Solid-state storage is increasingly the norm. OLEDs are now in TVs, 77" diag. 4k-ish, WRGB. e-Paper readers cost tens of dollars and are seen as outdated tech. Smartphones cost tens of dollars. 4G phones. Gb/s Wi-Fi. Etc etc.

How much fucking progress do you need?

(When Li-Ion was introduced in '91, it stored less than 90 Wh/kg, now it's over 200 Wh/kg. The price was over $3/Wh, and is now less than 30c/Wh. http://www.batteryuniversity.com/images/parttwo-55h.gif. And there's no reason to suspect it will stop, we're still pushing Li-polymer capacity. With LiS, LiMetal, and ZnAir all in the early commercialisation stage, and graphite-everything in the lab stage.)

((Solar panels have doubled in capacity/m^2 every ten years, and halved in price/m^2. Every doubling of global production cuts the price by 1/5th. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/12/daily-chart-19. And there's no reason to suggest the trend will stop.))

Nothing to do with "Liberating form Power cords"

[Quantus347]

This "new" supercapacitor has nothing to do with liberating devices from Power Cords. Supercapacitors still need to be externally charged. All this development does is make them a bit more resilient than current model when in more rugged environment, and supposedly make it where we used supercapacitors as structural components. In other words your car would not have a separate battery to replace, because it's frame itself would be used to store electricity. While the creator seems to think that is the wave of the future, I dont see it as a particular good (or cost effective) idea.

bestiality is illegal and guns are not for oral us

[raymorris]

> a 9-colt with your tongue?

If that's a 9mm Colt, that sure sounds like a bad idea.
If you're talking about tonguing a horse - nasty.

Re:"not limited by plugs and external power source

[bluefoxlucid]

Electrolytic voltage ratings are somewhat meaningless. They specify one of infinite meaningful measurements for the same thing.

A 50V capacitor isn't just 50V; it's 50V rated for some operating hours. Let's say 10,000 hours. If your capacitor oscillates across 50V (say a GND+150VDC on one side and GND+100-150VAC on the other, or just 50VAC), you can run that capacitor for 10,000 hours. If we drop that voltage to 25V, it'll run 20,000 hours. Raise it to 100V, it'll run 5,000 hours.

Essentially, its useful life scales linearly with voltage. This cap has 500,000 / E hours of life for an AC voltage of E.

Re:I hate it when;

[bluefoxlucid]

It's held in pretty high regard still. I've considering making some updates, but I can see much of the advice reflected in good writing (Wall Street Journal, Stephen R. Donaldson's writing, etc.) and ignored in bad writing.