Slashdot Mirror


Advance In Super/Ultra Capacitor Tech: High Voltage and High Capacity

fyngyrz writes: Ultracaps offer significantly faster charge and discharge rates as well as considerably longer life than batteries. Where they have uniformly fallen short is in the amount of energy they can store as compared to a battery, and also the engineering backflips required to get higher voltages (which is the key to higher energy storage because the energy stored in a cap scales with the square of the cap's voltage, whereas doubling the cap's actual capacitance only doubles the energy, or in other words, the energy increase is linear.) This new development addresses these shortcomings all at once: considerably higher voltage, smaller size, higher capacitance, and to top it off, utilizes less corrosive internals. The best news of all: This new technology looks to be easy, even trivial, to manufacture, and uses inexpensive materials — and that is something neither batteries or previous types of ultracaps have been able to claim. After the debacle of EEStor's claims and failure to meet them for so long, and the somewhat related very slow advance of other ultracap technology, it's difficult not to be cynical. But if you read TFA (yes, I know, but perhaps you'll do it anyway) you may decide some optimism might actually be called for.

147 comments

  1. How gracefully does it fail? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're getting to a point where the issue isn't just how much energy we can store in how little space, and how readily we can use it, but also how stable that medium is and how gracefully it fails when mishandled. Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary when punctured, imagine something holding several times as much energy.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't hold more energy, it merely charges instantly.

      Sure, they have to use higher voltages to store that energy. But current kills, not voltage (which you should appreciate if you ever had experienced an electrostatic discharge)

    2. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Capacitors discharge rapidly when shorted, that can make them more hazardous than batteries in certain situations.

    3. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy that supercapacitors hold is actually relatively small, compared to batteries. One common use is to support a battery, so for example you might have a modem that can pull 1.5A powered by a lithium cell. Pulling 1.5A for 10ms is much worse than pulling 0.5A for 30mS, in terms of battery life. That's just the way the chemistry works. So you put in a supercap that can deliver the high current and then more slowly recharge from the battery between pulses.

      So in most cases you will probably be more worried about the battery than the supercap. Batteries are still orders of magnitude higher energy density than ultracaps.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by durrr · · Score: 1

      You will never see it happening.

      Along with the rest of the city block you're in.

    5. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Capacitors discharge rapidly when shorted, that can make them more hazardous than batteries in certain situations.

      Also less forgiving of sloppy loads.

      An ideal storage capacitor would have some sort of valve mechanism where you could store fast, but limit the discharge rate.

    6. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "But current kills, not voltage"

      That's a vast oversimplification. For the same resistance, more voltage results in more current.

      Static discharge is only safe because there's very little energy involved - it lasts a very short time and there's not a lot of stored energy behind it, but there's still a lot of current flowing. Take an old TV with a CRT, turn it on, then unplug it. Now try to remove the anode connection to the CRT by hand (not to be tried by those who value their health). The voltage is similar to that of a static spark (around 25,000 volts), but you'll get a really good jolt out of it. There's much more stored energy behind it.

      Compare that to grabbing the posts on your car battery, which can put out hundreds of amps for relatively long times. Nothing happens, because of the low voltage. Now compare to getting hit with lightning.

      Voltage can be dangerous.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Oh I`m pretty sure you wouldn`t want to be near any sort of metal penetrated high voltage super capacitor. I mean high voltage, low ESR, high energy density, short circuit. What could possibly go wrong.

      On the other hand. With so much energy and power density, there is so much that could go right!

    8. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If only somebody invented diodes and fuses

    9. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary"

      Many of the energy sources we work with on a daily basis are "pretty scary", but properly handled they integrate into our lives without notice or much safety concern. Gasoline is of course the most obvious, one little spark can quickly result in a massive fireball. Most homes in the US have propane tanks or natural gas, both of which can result in a building being reduced to a pile of debris with even a small crack in a line and a spark. Heck the amount of energy in corn/wheat dust is staggering, it has reduced entire mill complexes to smoldering ruins. Its true that some sources are more stable than others, diesel fuel for example contains more energy then gasoline but doesn't burn nearly as energetically in the open air, but even unstable energy sources have a place under proper controls.

    10. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, an ideal storage capacitor will simply store and release energy at maximum possible speed, and nothing more. Diodes and resistors act as flow control valves. Can you imagine the insane PITA it would be to find a proper capacitor with the right diode voltage drop and proper resistor built-in for the job you need?

      This is why electronic components (excepting ICs) are individual pieces and not mashed together in the manner in which you describe.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and resistors and inductors... but one can only dream

    12. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

      If only there were a measurement for how powerful electricity really is.....( hint hint...its called Watts ) I remember the good ol' days of disposable cameras...taking a single AA battery to charge a 150V capacitor that was meant to power the flash. Instead, it powered my shock box...pretty good kick for being powered by a AA battery.

    13. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
      If you want to see an interesting problem, do the basic physics of a capacitor:
      1. Determine #electrons needed to supply 50A for half an hour
      2. Separate those electrons on two plates separated by fractions of a mm (you know, like a capacitor)
      3. Calculate the force between those plates

      Seriously, it's an informative exercise and these are problems straight out of my high school physics book. From memory, if you have 2 pennies with a 1% charge imbalance between them, the electrical repulsive force is enough to levitate the Empire State Building.

    14. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      You, and all of the other people making comments like this, are completely missing the point. There's enough energy in a a water cooler to level texas, but when a water cooler is punctured it just leaks onto the carpet. When a cellphone battery is punctured it's far more enthusiastic.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    15. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by msauve · · Score: 1

      If only one could look at a wire and easily say "if I touch that, x watts of power will go into me." By far, the most common situation is that you have a good idea of the voltage, and the conductivity of humans is consistent enough to make that a reasonable measure of the potential threat.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple. A 12 volt lead acid battery won't give you a shock, for instance, even though it's capable of delivering hundreds of amps and stores a lot of energy. Your skin resistance is highly non linear. At low voltages (for example, the voltage your multimeter puts out when measuring a resistance), the resistance from one hand to the other holding the probes with dry skin is a few megohms. But as the voltage rises, there is a point where the resistance dramatically falls and much higher currents can flow. You need enough voltage to be present to result in a lethal electric shock.

    17. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, lets imagine it:

      The capacitors proposed in the article would let out a loud bang probably vaporize the part of the object that punctured it, fusing the capacitor electrodes rendering it useless, but then it would be over. That is the worst case, most likely it would be a slow drain that would cause little damage to anything other than the capacitor, which may still partly function depending on the severity of the puncture.

      Cellphone battery's behave the way they do because they contain the element lithium, and in case you didn't know that element doesn't like our atmosphere, it tarnishes rapidly producing heat in the process, and it is fairly easy to speed up this process. This combined with the strong acids in the battery cause a nice fireball when you puncture them.

      So I ask which would you rather have?

      The biggest drawback would be consumption of the battery, but if you ate a cellphone battery well... your not much better off. The plus side is that the capacitor contains nothing the microprocessor in your phone doesn't already have. So, I don't really see your problem with this.

    18. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by glenebob · · Score: 1

      1.5 volts does not make for much of a kick...

    19. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      True, but Mr. +5 Insightful fearmonger said these devices would hold "several times as much energy" as cellphone batteries, when TFS just says they're increasing energy density by increasing voltage (and probably modestly at that). These graphene "supercapacitors" at best have still only have about 1/10th the energy density of Li-ion batteries that are melting down when shorted. (~15Wh/kg vs. 100-265Wh/kg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Sure, if you have a heart condition or something, a jolt of voltage can kill. And a flick of flint-n-steel can light a deadly fire. I don't think the days of supercapacitor cells mercilessly frying our junk is quite upon us yet, though, as the GP poster might be implying.

    20. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You've just stated the physics of why capacitors can't beat chemical storage (batteries) in real life. As you say this is basic physics, and has been the primary factor limiting the appeal of supercapacitors in real world applications.

    21. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [[Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary when punctured,]]
      You are 100% correct. And yet, look how few cell phone battery incidents we have.

      You know what else is scary as hell when punctured and brought near any ignition source (such as, an internal combustion engine with various parts reaching several hundred degrees)? A hundred pounds of gasoline!

    22. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that a "storage capacitor" and a traditional capacitor are the same thing. I didn't.

      Heck, there are already batteries that are more than just simple batteries. For example, ones with temperature sensors for charge control.

    23. Re: How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the internal resistance of supercaps is higher than that of a battery with the same volume, and as a result practical power density is lower. Lifetime should be better tho.

    24. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only somebody invented diodes and fuses

      I'm sure they would come in handy when a large piece of metal pierces the (near) fully charged capacitor in a MVA.
      I'm not certain how though.

    25. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "That's assuming that a "storage capacitor" and a traditional capacitor are the same thing. I didn't."

      You should, because a capacitor is storage/filtering and nothing else, period. Exactly like a battery, except it has a far, far higher rate of charge and discharge, and can undergo many, many, many magnitudes of order higher charge/discharge cycles versus a battery.

      "Heck, there are already batteries that are more than just simple batteries. For example, ones with temperature sensors for charge control."

      That's more of a safety requirement than a feature due to the particular characteristics of the underlying battery chemistry.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      It is not the available electrical energy stored in the battery that contributes to their potential for catastrophic failure it is just that the battery materials also makes a good fuel for a lithium oxygen fire. This is not the case with a super capacitor that has such good conductive properties. You could do a lot of harm with them by discharging them rapidly through the wrong substance but that requires adding another material or substance to the equation.

    27. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this -

      http://www.darwinawards.com/da...

      Hope you don't end up becoming the next Darwinian champion

    28. Re:How gracefully does it fail? by patniemeyer · · Score: 1

      Interesting note on this point - The Tesla battery has a special "intumescent" material coating the (~7000) battery cells comprising the car battery pack that responds to overheating by expanding and isolating the affected cells. So it essentially has a built in firewall between each of the thousands of component cells that tries to block off overheating or damaged ones from the rest of the pack. It's kind of like having 7000 tiny gas tanks inside the gas tank that each offer some protection against rupture and fire. (Cue Futurama "6000 hulls" joke).

  2. Moore's law by fisted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Capacitors. [...] If they finally obeyed Moore’s Law by squeezing themselves down to the microscale

    They never disobeyed Moore's law since Moore's law is about transistor density..

    1. Re:Moore's law by RghtHndSd · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to figure out why my money isn't obeying Moore's law.

    2. Re:Moore's law by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And the term "Moore's law" has always been a problem in itself. It's based on what was seen so far at its creation but it's not a law. But "Moore's average" wasn't catchy, so...

    3. Re:Moore's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because you're lazy. People who are hard working all become billionaires. Just ask the current Republican presidential roster. Or the previous one, for that matter.

    4. Re:Moore's law by fisted · · Score: 1

      We're calling a lot of not-quite-laws laws. Betteridge's comes to mind, or Godwin's.

    5. Re:Moore's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's use of the term law as in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. I.e. it's an observation.

    6. Re:Moore's law by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Because you didn't invest in the right tech companies!

    7. Re:Moore's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moore's law is about being able to buy more and more of the cheapest component. If your money isn't obeying moore's law, you weren't buying the cheapest component.

    8. Re:Moore's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money does. It just keeps on shrinking.

  3. How abusively can it be made to fail? by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You said it. We want a lot of energy in a hand-held format. But it's dangerous.

    That energy will get hacked for purposes both good and bad, and the bad purposes will include explosions.

    --
    -kgj
  4. Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's not to like?

    1. Re:Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Considering they use Lightscribe on optical media to manufacture it, I'm already looking forwards to some epic DVD-in-microwave videos to come out of this

      https://youtu.be/Fgm0FRN0KbU

    2. Re:Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      We're going to need bigger magic blue smoke refilling kits.

    3. Re:Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by Kythe · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, there are Youtube videos of hobbyists using this technique to make graphene.

      --

      Kythe
    4. Re:Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by Kythe · · Score: 2
      --

      Kythe
    5. Re:Bigger bangs when the magic smoke escapes! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Lightscribe never became more popular, it was a pretty neat idea. Not as neat as digital watches, but still.

  5. Old and new news by Kythe · · Score: 1

    The DVD-burner graphene etching technique to produce supercaps is several years old -- but it looks like they're continuing to work on it. Good to see the technique hasn't been abandoned.

    --

    Kythe
  6. Danger Danger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. Explosions are not that easy by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    You said it. We want a lot of energy in a hand-held format. But it's dangerous.

    Do you have any comprehension of the amount of energy stored in a tank of gasoline? A lot of energy stored is not in and of itself dangerous. What matters is the means by which that energy can be released. Your body stores a huge amount of energy but there is no easy way to release that energy rapidly. Diesel has even more energy than gasoline but good luck igniting it. You can drop a lit match on diesel fuel and nothing will happen. Now do batteries and ultracaps have their own unique failure modes? Sure. But it's not hard to demonstrate that the chances of an explosion are pretty minimal.

    That energy will get hacked for purposes both good and bad, and the bad purposes will include explosions.

    Do you see a lot of exploding cars outside of fictional movies? Causing an explosion normally requires a criminal act typically involving external explosives. It's not actually a very easy thing to cause an explosion. (thank goodness) In most cases even if there is a catastrophic failure the car merely burns, it doesn't explode. I actually trust the engineers working on this stuff and I've worked with companies building battery packs for cars and other high energy applications over the years. They are pretty well aware of the possible failure modes and what to do about them. Explosions aren't something they are overly worried about.

    1. Re:Explosions are not that easy by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you have any comprehension of the amount of energy stored in a tank of gasoline?

      Do you have any comprehension of the amount of energy stored in a 3-oz bottle of distilled water?. E=mc^2. If I didn't slip a decimal, the blast radius should run to approximately 6 miles.

    2. Re:Explosions are not that easy by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      E=mc^2, sure, but unless you have a pathway by which you can go from A-->B lowering the mass (yes, you could fuse the H's, then the O to make Ne (and boy, talk about a high energy barrier to achieve that) you cannot release this energy. BTW: you'd only get [m(H2) - m(Ne)]c^2, which is a lot less than you assumed.

    3. Re:Explosions are not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a comprehension of the amount of work and technology that it takes to release that energy? It won't happen by accident, and you would need a pretty sophisticated bad guy to pull it off.

    4. Re:Explosions are not that easy by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Actually unless the gasoline is mixed with oxygen the potential energy is zero.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Explosions are not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true... you're assuming that a 3 oz. glass of anti-matter water is an impossibility :)

    6. Re:Explosions are not that easy by Guignol · · Score: 2

      you're holding it wrong
      try holding it higher

    7. Re:Explosions are not that easy by pla · · Score: 2

      Not entirely true... you're assuming that a 3 oz. glass of anti-matter water is an impossibility :)

      Yeah, but then you'd have six ounces. And the TSA has already impressed upon us that, although 3oz counts as completely harmless, more than three can take down an airplane!

    8. Re:Explosions are not that easy by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you are trying to be clever or funny

      http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Ph...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:Explosions are not that easy by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true... you're assuming that a 3 oz. glass of anti-matter water is an impossibility :)

      Yeah, but then you'd have six ounces. And the TSA has already impressed upon us that, although 3oz counts as completely harmless, more than three can take down an airplane!

      if you did have three plus ounces of antimater on board it probably would.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    10. Re:Explosions are not that easy by Big_Breaker · · Score: 0

      Gasoline seems "safe" because the fuel needs to mix with atmospheric oxygen and that slows the energy release, especially if it's in a container.

      A capacitor or lithium-ion battery is more akin to a rocket - fuel and oxidizer held in close proximity, or gun powder where they are literally mixed together.

    11. Re:Explosions are not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get 1.8 megatons of TNT equivalent. That's pretty serious.

    12. Re:Explosions are not that easy by rthille · · Score: 1

      From the label on Larry Niven's softweapon:"Warning, do NOT use setting 7 on planets with an atmosphere!"

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  8. What about cars? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Why can't we use these things in cars? Imagine being able to recharge your car faster than you could fill it up with gas. The station itself could then recharge their built-in ultra capacitors. Even if it takes X seconds to charge a car and five to ten times longer to charge the station back for that amount, it would be impressive. No more "out of gas", no more having huge-ass semi-trucks filled with thousands of litres of gas driving around. Stations could add solar panels for some additional "free" electricity, etc.

    1. Re:What about cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more looking for gas stations, instead just look for the wind turbine that most gas - er... fuel.. nope... energy(?) stations would put up both as advertisement and for power generation.

    2. Re:What about cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure anyone wants to handle the kV connectors that would require.

      If anything I see car battery packs being standardized in the future and "refueling" would be handled by a robot changing the battery and taking it to a charging station.

    3. Re:What about cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "recharge your car faster"

      Even with standard EV batteries we're reaching the point where the ability to recharge quickly isn't the issue, its the energy transfer/cabling required to do so. First off is the infrastructure that would need to be ran to the "gas stations" you would almost have to run a separate transmission line to each station. This could be mitigated by installing some kind of capacitor bank at the stations that would take some of the strain off of the network, but it would have limitations. Secondly the cabling from the lines/capacitor bank to the car, it would be far more substantial then a simple pump hose probably requiring a completely different method of connection (more reminiscent of automated battery swapping rigs).

    4. Re:What about cars? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Why can't we use these things in cars?"

      The problem is leakage. Current-generation supercaps do not hold a charge long enough to be usable as batteries.

    5. Re:What about cars? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The charging cables would have to be enormous, though, to fill (say) to a 400 mile range in less than 3 minutes. The currents and voltages required would be absurdly high. Let's say we have a 180kWh battery/capacitor we want to fill in 3 minutes (0.05 hours). The power coupling would be running to the car at 3.6 megawatts during the charge cycle. With a 11kV coupling you'd need a current of almost 330 amps, so big, thick and heavy conductors. Even if the charger was 99% efficient, you'd need to dissipate 36kW of heat energy during charging (about equivalent to the power output of a small car at wide open throttle).

      Having quick charging capacitors/batteries isn't even half the challenge of making an electric car charge rapidly.

    6. Re:What about cars? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      If you actually look at it in a vacuum, instead of as the evolution that got us here, our current gas-station infrastructure is also ridiculous. Inch thick tubes with no safeties pumping volatile fuel anywhere someone wants, that has to be trucked in on a regular basis from refineries often located in different countries than the original oil is produced in, with highly polluting leakage possible at every stage of the game? Ridiculous. And yet we're so used to it we don't even blink. Most of the refueling station ideas are no more crazy, especially since you really only need them to be truckstop-scale since overnight "trickle charging" (relatively speaking) can work well for most people most of the time.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    7. Re:What about cars? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      China experimented with supercap busses. They charge up off pantograph at the bus stop. The range is awful, but you don't need much range - just enough to make it to the next stop, and the next charge.

    8. Re:What about cars? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Their energy density is also a fraction of that achieved by a battery.

    9. Re:What about cars? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Sounds like those old-school racing games. Make it to the checkpoint and barely get enough seconds to make it to the next one.

  9. Not at all gracefully by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary when punctured, imagine something holding several times as much energy.

    One of the problems with capacitors charging rapidly is that they can also discharge very rapidly too so any failure would not be graceful. However I'm not sure there is much reason to be optimistic yet for these devices. The article mentions that the way they get high voltages is by connecting the capacitors together. This means they connect them in series which will significantly reduce the actual capacitance since capacitors in series add like resistors in parallel.

  10. Energy density isn't the concern by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary when punctured, imagine something holding several times as much energy.

    You ARE something that holds several times as much energy. The energy density of animal fat is roughly the same as that of gasoline and both are FAR higher than the energy density of a lithium-ion battery. Whether something is scary has very little to do with the amount of energy it holds. It is the rate and circumstances in which it can be released that matters.

    That said, if something hits me hard enough to puncture my cell phone battery while I'm carrying my phone, the battery combustion is probably the least of my concerns. I'm likely much more concerned with whatever just speared or shot me.

    1. Re:Energy density isn't the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cellphone batteries are already pretty scary when punctured, imagine something holding several times as much energy.

      You ARE something that holds several times as much energy. The energy density of animal fat is roughly the same as that of gasoline and both are FAR higher than the energy density of a lithium-ion battery.....

      Spot on.... people are scary. Obese people doubly so.

      Posted AC because of unPCness....

    2. Re:Energy density isn't the concern by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      That said, if something hits me hard enough to puncture my cell phone battery while I'm carrying my phone, the battery combustion is probably the least of my concerns. I'm likely much more concerned with whatever just speared or shot me.

      Really? Think about it: it would really suck if you just got shot and couldn't immediately tweet about it.

      just got shot lol #ouch #deadsoon

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Energy density isn't the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE something that holds several times as much energy. The energy density of animal fat is roughly the same as that of gasoline

      Have you ever heard of spontaneous human combustion?

    4. Re:Energy density isn't the concern by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      How about a smartphone that runs off the users own body fat! Just need to figure out how to access the fat... Maybe a belly button attachment.

      Excuse me while I run to the patent office.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:Energy density isn't the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE something that holds several times as much energy. The energy density of animal fat is roughly the same as that of gasoline and both are FAR higher than the energy density of a lithium-ion battery.

      Fat and gasoline both require oxygen to burn, so your comparison is silly. Mix gasoline with air at the right ratio and yes, it's scary as hell. Same with fat, although doing that is much harder.

  11. Battery comparison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The centimeter-scale devices would have capacitances in the range of 400 to 1,000 millifarads

    My maths seems off here. Anybody know when they were giving this number if they meant:
    - a 1cm x 1cm x 'paper thin' device; or
    - a 1cm device?

    Google maths (below) suggests a 1 Ah 12v battery is equal to 300F.

    1 F = 1 As / V
    1 Ah = 3600 As
    3600 As / 12V = 300 As/V = 300F

    Best case scenario of 1000 millifarads we would need 300cm for a 1 Ah equivalent battery? Seems large....
    Also wondering how they deal with the voltage drop? Years back I remember a story about a near constant voltage ultracapacitor - would this use the same technology?

    1. Re:Battery comparison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't use the superscript 3 character on slashdot apparantly :/

      Meant:
      - a 1cm x 1cm x 'paper thin' device; or
      - a 1cm cubed device?

      => 300 cubic cm for 1 Ah @ 12v :/

    2. Re:Battery comparison? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      AA batteries have a volume if 7.7 cubic centimeters, so 300 cubic centimeters would be the volume equivalent of around 39 such batteries.

      A typical NiMH AA battery has a capacity of 2.4 Wh, so around 94 Wh, versus 12 Wh for the new supercapacitors based on your math.

      That is indeed rather low, I think existing supercapacitors are already a bit better than that. Perhaps the measurement for these new things was for the paper-thin variety, at which point it's 300 square centimeters, and it becomes a matter of how many layers you can stack in one centimeter of height.

  12. Higher voltages by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, yes, the amount of energy stored goes up as the square of voltage for a given capacitance. However, for a given dielectric getting twice the voltage requires twice the thickness and cuts the charge in half -- so the energy per unit volume is unchanged.

    Which shouldn't be surprising since the energy is stored in the dielectric by (e.g.) straining the molecular structure of the material.

    The biggest reason for going to higher voltages is to reduce the interconnects, which get enormous at low voltages and high currents. (Cross-sectional area goes up inversely with the square of voltage for any acceptable IR loss, which is why long-distance power lines run at scary voltages.)

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Higher voltages by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      Energy storage is proportional to voltage squared at constant capicatance? Really??? So if I connect two (super)capacitors in series, thereby doubling the voltage limit, I have somehow squared the energy storage! I don't think so!!!

      Power goes up with voltage squared in resistive circuits, but that's a different issue. In this case, you'd get that power for a shorter time.

    2. Re:Higher voltages by overshoot · · Score: 2

      Really??? So if I connect two (super)capacitors in series, thereby doubling the voltage limit, I have somehow squared the energy storage!

      You've also halved the capacitance and doubled the volume. So: twice the voltage (4x), half the capacitance, (0.5x), and twice the volume (0.5x). Looks like your energy density didn't materially change.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    3. Re:Higher voltages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum Electrolytic caps actually increase in energy by the square of voltage and increase in size at the same rate as voltage, so they do get more energy dense as voltage goes up, up to around 500V. This is specific to aluminum electrolytics, though, so I still don't care for TFA's explanation.

    4. Re:Higher voltages by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It also makes the electronics a lot easier. A power supply capable of operating over an input range of 10-30 volts is a lot easier to make than one that operates over 1-5 volts.

    5. Re:Higher voltages by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Two capacitors in series have half the capacitance. If you combine two like that you get exactly what you'd expect: Twice the energy storage of one capacitor.

      You can connect them in parallel. The maths works out he same: Twice the storage.

    6. Re:Higher voltages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Energy storage is proportional to voltage squared at constant capicatance? Really??? "

      That's high school physics.

      You're a fucking idiot.

  13. Failure modes by sjbe · · Score: 1

    One of the problems with capacitors charging rapidly is that they can also discharge very rapidly too so any failure would not be graceful.

    That's one of those ideas that sounds right but isn't necessarily actually true. Yes there are ways to rapidly discharge a cap but it doesn't follow that those are failure modes that would be likely. We use capacitors all over the place and most of the failures of them are demonstrably not from catastrophic discharge.

    1. Re:Failure modes by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      We use capacitors all over the place and most of the failures of them are demonstrably not from catastrophic discharge.

      Large capacitors which store significant amounts of energy or the tiny ones in circuits? Particle physics bubble chamber experiments in the 1960/70s used to have magnets which were pulsed by capacitor when the beam hit them. The stories I've heard older colleagues tell about accidents involving the massive capacitor banks suggest that sudden, catastrophic failures can and do occur. With a small capacitors you get a puff of smoke, with massive capacitor banks you get people blown across rooms and seriously injured.

  14. Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Informative

    Energy stored is C * V * V / 2. Telling us C without V is sort of like measuring the capacity of a gas tank by giving you the length, but leaving out the depth and width.

    They report capacitances in the 1000 millifarads for a "centimeter scale" device.

    If the maximum voltage is 1V, then we have an unimpressive energy storage of 0.5 J in their "centimeter scale" device.

    AAA batteries can store about 5000 J, by contrast. To match that, these would need to be charged to 100V.

    Without the V number this article is disappointingly uninformative.

    --PM

    1. Re:Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like they only go up to 1V
      http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n2/full/ncomms2446.html

    2. Re:Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The "centimetre scale" device is "1/5th of the thickness of a sheet of paper". So a 1cm cube could contain about 500 of them, depending on the thickness of the paper referenced. So in 1cc 250J can be stored.

      A AAA battery is 10.5mm in diameter and 44.5mm long. So 4.5 centimetre scale devices can fit in the same volume, holding about 1,125J. This is the same volume as a AAA battery usually occupies in a device, as the AAA battery is a cylinder, whereas the centimeter device is a cuboid, but the space around the curves of the battery isn't usually used.

      1,125J in an AAA battery size is directly comparable with NiMH rechargeable batteries. 5,000J for an AAA battery is the figure for disposable batteries. But the super capacitor is rechargeable.

    3. Re:Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is assuming Voltage=1Volt. They claim ability to have high voltages. Don't know how high though.

    4. Re:Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're probably not going to reach conventional battery density soon but they've got a lot of advantages if their density improves a bit. Right now the equivalent of a single AA is many times the volume of a AA but they already see use in some niche applications because of their properties.

      They charge efficiently, hold their charge for a very long time, and discharge swiftly (Very very very little internal resistance)

      They are extremely rugged

      They can operate in much wider temperature ranges, with much less performance loss at the extremes

      They have a much much much longer service life

      They don't leak

      They don't outgas

      They don't fail catastrophically like lithium cells

      They're not filled with toxic chemicals

      You can surface mount them to PCBs

      Basically if the density increases significantly we're going to stop using lipo cells in a whole lot of applications.

      Check out this video.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY2X-ZQpnvY

      This guy tears down a solar powered satellite linked sonar buoy (Used in the fishing industry) - The thing is completely,permanently sealed from the harsh elements (It floats in the ocean for months or years at a time) and it's only source of energy is solar cells. It uses a supercap to store energy because a battery can't be used reliably in a completely sealed system for very long amounts of time. The battery would eventually, degrade, leak, outgass, and perform very badly when very cold.

    5. Re:Numbers for C given, no numbers for V by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      > 1,125J in an AAA battery size is directly comparable with NiMH rechargeable batteries. 5,000J for an AAA battery is the figure for disposable batteries

      This is really off the mark. I have 1100 mAh, 1.2V rechargeable AAA batteries. 1.1 Ah * 1.2 V = 1.32 Wh ~= 4752J. No idea about the disposable batteries.

  15. Supercaps in cars by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Why can't we use these things in cars?

    We already do use them in cars.

    Imagine being able to recharge your car faster than you could fill it up with gas.

    Not quite that simple. There is a serious heat issue to deal with when you are transferring that much electric power over wires even if the power is available. Filling up something like a Tesla safely in less than 3 minutes is not as easy as it sounds. You can't just pump more juice over the same wires. You start getting into needing superconductors to handle the juice unless you have wires the thickness of your arm.

    Stations could add solar panels for some additional "free" electricity, etc.

    That would be a LOT of solar panels. I'm not sure you appreciate the amount of power we are talking about here. A few solar panels on the roof would add so little power it would barely be measurable.

    1. Re:Supercaps in cars by Lennie · · Score: 0

      Long term, if solar keeps improving the way it does I would expect cars just have their own panels:
      http://www.greenoptimistic.com...

      But it's still a long way away.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:Supercaps in cars by andrewla · · Score: 0

      They are already here... http://www.gizmag.com/immortus...

    3. Re:Supercaps in cars by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Ohh, cool. The comments for that article are horrible by the way. Saying it's completely impossible.

      Well, not in that price range though. ;-)

      Producing a car with such a low weight is still expensive and if it became cheaper it would help diesel/gas powered cars too, thus making it harder to compete.

      Anyway I meant mass-production and some what affordable like the first Tesla car will take a long time.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:Supercaps in cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A while back I wondered if coating a vehicle in solar panels would allow it to run itself. Assuming you parked your car in direct sunlight in an area with few cloudy days I think it worked out to several weeks to get one full charge of the batteries of a standard EV. I suppose every little bit helps, but unless solar cells become dirt cheap a much more efficient plan would be to put solar panels at home connected to a battery bank that the car. Even factoring in the losses due to the transfer you're going to produce MUCH more power with optimally positioned, efficient, mass produced solar panels than you're going to get with car mounted solar panels with poor sun exposure, lower efficiency & expensive custom molding/enclosures.

    5. Re:Supercaps in cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think something like 4 mWh of solar energy hit the roof of your average gas station a sunny day (9,000 sq ft), now solar panels are only 15-21% efficient so that translates into about 600-800 kWh of produced energy on a sunny day. The biggest battery in a Tesla Model S is 90 kwh. Even assuming transfer losses I would imagine that 80% of that energy would make it into the actual vehicles so that would be at least 5 to 7 fully charged EV's per sunny day, assuming my back of the napkin calcs are correct its hardly an inconsequential amount of power. I don't know if the economics of it would work out but the power generation is far from minimal.

    6. Re:Supercaps in cars by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      There's a reason why this is only CGI. Do some math: Solar constant is about 1kw/m^2. The car might have 5m^2 of cells if you're generous. Solar cells have an efficiency of 10-20%. Even under optimal conditions the solar cells on a car aren't going to generate more than a few 100 watts, maybe 1kW. That's great for a bicycle, decent for a moped and sucks for a motorcycle. For a car it's going to suck even more. Yes you can move something ultralight and ultra-aerodynamic with that amount of power but it won't be a car as you know it.

  16. Cap Gel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone thinking Capacitance Gel?

  17. Unit 16 is finally shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jrjr

  18. Stunner bullets, anyone? by anvilmark · · Score: 1

    High voltage, compact size, easy to make. I'm sure this will somehow be used in porn first (the 'how' eludes me but there seems to be a Rule 34 about tech) - yet "Everything that can be weaponized, will be weaponized..."

  19. Energy density isn't the important bit by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Do you have any comprehension of the amount of energy stored in a 3-oz bottle of distilled water?. E=mc^2. If I didn't slip a decimal, the blast radius should run to approximately 6 miles.

    Exactly my point. The energy density of a substance is almost irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is whether there is a means to release that energy catastrophically. In most cases there is no easy way to do it. We don't see cell phones detonating. We don't see cars exploding. We don't see laptop batteries going ka-boom. Worst case we normally see is a comparatively gentle and slow combustion. Damaging sure but hardly an explosion.

    1. Re:Energy density isn't the important bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...except super capacitors are designed to charge/discharge rapidly... so I'm confused as to the point you are making. Accidental discharge wouldn't result in an explosion per se, but could start fires and would definitely be lethal to someone who discharged a super capacitor accidentally through themselves.

    2. Re:Energy density isn't the important bit by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yeah. High-current/high-energy-density batteries are, by the nature of how they are designed, prone to catastrophic failure if something causes the components to short together.

      It's nearly impossible to make it "not explosive" without also making it "not nearly as useful".

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Energy density isn't the important bit by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      The point that he's making is that we have this discipline called "Engineering" whom can take a look at the catastrophic failure modes and design in ways to mitigate those failure modes within the system -- just like how we've designed systems that store more energy per unit volume for safety, which also tends to want to make a big kaboom (aka gasoline, liquid propane, etc).

  20. wonder what else you could etch. Circuit boards? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The idea of having a cheap consumer device that can so easily etch any bitmap with such fine detail intrigues me. I wonder what else you could etch. If there was a coating for circuit boards that these lasers could etch that would be really cool. Pop a board in your CD burner amd minutes later have a perfectly etched board.

  21. solar storage and electric car energy storage!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH PLEASE let this become a reality! I've been shying away from an off-grid solar system in my house because I HATE batteries and I don't own an electric car because batteries suck so bad... but THE HOLY GRAIL IN ENERGY STORAGE?? Is it upon us?? If these ultracaps turn out to be real, I wanna charge them with my 3.5kW of solar panels and power my house and (future) vehicle!

  22. Heh by koan · · Score: 1

    As a kid in electronics class out teacher wired up a capacitor incorrectly to demonstrate what would happen if we weren't cautious.
    The resulting explosion was surprisingly powerful.

    I wonder what an ultra cap would do in the same situation

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Heh by PPH · · Score: 1

      That sounds like (no pun intended) an electrolytic cap reverse polarized. I scanned TFA and didn't see anything about these supercaps being polarized. So charging them backwards should work just as well as forwards.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backwards or just overvolted. When we did this in electronics class, the backwards one just shorted out, but the 36V-on-16V made fireworks (it even launched a small smoke ring).
      This happens because the electrolyte boils inside a hermetically sealed container. If these don't have boilable electrolyte or aren't sealed inside strong containers, they will not go bang in that fashion.

  23. How old is the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA: "... plummet until microsupercapacitors find their way into camera phones"

    How old is this article? If memory serves me correctly, camera phones haven't been used since the last millenium.

    1. Re:How old is the article? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If memory serves me correctly, camera phones haven't been used since the last millenium."

      Plenty of non-smartphone cam phones still made and used today.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  24. Railguns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this makes railguns more feasible for tank-sized vehicles.

    1. Re:Railguns? by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      I hope this makes railguns more feasible for tank-sized vehicles.

      Or more compact wireless tasers...so many fun applications!

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  25. Not many details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best they said was
          "The centimeter-scale devices would have capacitances in the range of 400 to 1,000 millifarads—easily enough to power an LED flashlight for an hour."

    If the flashlight is wimpy, an led with 10mA at 1Volt for an hour is 36J. 36J in 1F is 4.24 Volts.
    If the flashlight is bright, an led with 1 Watt for an hour is 3600J. 3600J in 1F is 42.4 volts. That would be interesting.

    If they cover cost and power and energy density, the other issue for batteries is longevity.

  26. 'Choices' codeword for lack of solutions by laughingskeptic · · Score: 2

    If they had an electrolyte that worked in this application they wouldn't be talking about all the possible choices. They would tell us what worked.

    "For this solid electrolyte, we have plenty of choices. We can use gelled polymer electrolytes, made by swelling a polymer matrix with an electrolyte solution, or we can solidify ionic liquids by adding polymers or silica nanopowder. This nonleaking design, together with a virtually unlimited number of charge and discharge cycles, means that our supermicrocapacitors will likely outlast all other electronic devices on the chip. Such long life will be particularly useful whenever it is inconvenient or dangerous to open things up to replace a power source, as in pacemakers, defibrillators, and other medical implants."

    Electrical and magnet fields occur in 3 dimensions, not one. They can talk about the gap between the fingers of their layout, but their effective average gap in 3D is probably closer to PI*center_distance/2 which gives a lesser result for the expected capacitance. Their max voltage with a given electrolyte is limited to the closest edge, but that is not how a physicist would compute expected capacitance.

  27. Explosions are rare and hard to achieve by sjbe · · Score: 1

    ...except super capacitors are designed to charge/discharge rapidly... so I'm confused as to the point you are making.

    Simple version. Failure = easy. Explosion = hard.

    An explosion is a difficult thing to do even if you are trying to get one. It requires a rather fussy set of circumstances to be possible. Explosions by accident are exceptionally rare.

    Accidental discharge wouldn't result in an explosion per se, but could start fires and would definitely be lethal to someone who discharged a super capacitor accidentally through themselves.

    Which is why you design the system to make accidental discharge difficult to achieve. The mechanics of this are well understood. You could easily cause a rapid discharge of a car battery but in practice it isn't a big problem.

    1. Re: Explosions are rare and hard to achieve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did an accidental experiment where I crossed my 220 volt primaries. They welded and the fuse blew at the street. But the interesting thing was the very loud bang and the flying debris. I'd call that an explosion.

    2. Re:Explosions are rare and hard to achieve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not just explosions. Laptop batteries has as much releasable energy as a hand grenade. They never explode like one though. But a badly engineered battery can turn into an intense 5-second flame thrower. That is not something you want to have in your lap or your backpack when it goes off.

      Also, you don't want a cellphone battery to send long flames into your ear. Variations in chemistry and good cases offers some solutions, but lithium is not trivial.

      A super cap can deliver a lot of energy to a short circuit. But there is an easy fix to that. The local powerplant can deliver much much more energy to any short in your home, but fuses prevents it.

    3. Re: Explosions are rare and hard to achieve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you'd be wrong.

    4. Re: Explosions are rare and hard to achieve by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      He'd be correct. He explosively vaporized a small amount of copper where the conductors touched.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  28. Pound it, EXPLODE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe 20 years ago, I knew someone working at GM as an intern on their electric car. I asked about ultra capacitors. He said they tried them but when they did test crashes, 10 foot fireballs shot out of the car. There is a large amount of energy there and explosions are a real problem. So, did they overcome this? Because if not they will not be used in cars for quite some time.

  29. From the abstract of the original(?) article by egor+duda · · Score: 4, Informative

    From here

    We employed these hybrid electrodes for building aqueous-based symmetric and asymmetric cells that can deliver energy densities up to 55.3 Wh kg-1, placing them among the best performing hybrid electrochemical capacitors.

    1. Re:From the abstract of the original(?) article by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      > placing them among the best performing hybrid electrochemical capacitors.

      Which still sucks by orders of magnitude compared to batteries.

  30. Re:wonder what else you could etch. Circuit boards by fnj · · Score: 1

    The idea of having a cheap consumer device that can so easily etch any bitmap with such fine detail intrigues me.

    LightScribe doesn't "etch" anything. Using infrared light it reacts with a photoreactive dye. It's the same principle as recording to CDR. You don't "burn" anything when you record a CDR. You just modify a photoreactive dye.

  31. Solar energy hitting rooftops by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I think something like 4 mWh of solar energy hit the roof of your average gas station a sunny day

    Don't know where you got your "data" but that is wrong. One square foot of roof gets about 10-30KWh per YEAR. Even if the roof is 1000 square feet (100x100) that means it will get about 82 KWh per day on a nice sunny day. That isn't even enough to charge one Tesla fully per day. It might offset their costs slightly but it's hardly going to make a huge dent.

    1. Re:Solar energy hitting rooftops by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You're way off. There are places in the southwestern United States that get 7 kilowatt hours per square meter per day (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-072/CEC-500-2005-072-D.PDF), or 0.65 kilowatt hours per square foot, which is roughly 237 kilowatt horus per year.

    2. Re:Solar energy hitting rooftops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want read the post a little more carefully, your numbers figure out on the high side of mine. You said that 1000 sq ft generates 82 kwh (9*82=738 kwh per day), I said that 9,000 sq ft generates between 600-800 kwh per day. The 4mwh, as noted in the post, are the directed, unconverted energy from sunlight that strikes the surface. Again as noted in the post solar panels only convert a fraction of that energy into electricity.

  32. We will be dissapointed again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big oil/big money interests will do anything that they can to slow if not stop or suppress or discredit this! As they have been doing for many years with any technology that threatens their profits.

    Why do you think that early hybrid (gas engine and battery powered) cars had no provision to plug the car in to charge its battery? That came about because someone smart started marketing a kit for that. Shortly after that it became an option and then came standard on hybrid vehicles.

    Development of more efficient batteries and any other technology that could improve electric cars has been slowed or suppressed. Look at the story of the EV1 (see the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"). Big oil/Big money interests killed the EV1 because they were afraid that if it became popular, it would lower their profits. Killing the EV1 set the production and adoption of electric vehicles back decades. Just think where electric vehicles could be now if they had become popular in the 90s, how many improvements would have been made by now!

    So many things that could have greatly benefited people have been suppressed or destroyed by the greedy just so that they could continue to profit from other's misfortunes. Really sad isn't it?

  33. Solar energy density by sjbe · · Score: 1

    A while back I wondered if coating a vehicle in solar panels would allow it to run itself.

    Short answer is no. There isn't enough solar energy hitting a square foot of ground even on the sunniest of days to power anything remotely the weight of a modern car. I think most places get something like 10-30kwh of solar energy per square foot per year. A Tesla has a 90kwh battery in it. So even if you coated it in perfectly efficient solar cells you wouldn't get more than a few feet.

  34. Discharge curve by dhaen · · Score: 1

    The use of supercapacitors as storage devices is severely limited by their discharge curve (compared with batteries) - google it.

    1. Re:Discharge curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they are not, making a DC/DC converter which has 1:2 or 1:3 input voltage variation, is quite easy

  35. The voltage boost isn't an energy boost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As TFA explains, they don't have a fundamentally higher voltage capacitor, allowing them to take advantage of CV^2 gains. Rather, their manufacturing technology can build multiple capacitors in series as easily as a single lower-voltage capacitor. But the resultant capacitance is inversely proportional to the square of the number in series (since they're smaller and in series), so there's no energy density gain.

  36. What is "TFA?" by pturley · · Score: 1

    See subject.

    1. Re:What is "TFA?" by rthille · · Score: 1

      Derived from RTFM (Read the fucking manual), an exhortation from experienced computer users to newbies when they asked dumb questions. Since no one on slashdot reads TFA, there was enough similarity for it to be adopted.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  37. IMHO that may be even more important. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    The DVD-burner graphene etching technique to produce supercaps is several years old -- but it looks like they're continuing to work on it. Good to see the technique hasn't been abandoned.

    I'd never heard of it.

    Using a DVD burner for constructing microcircuitry is a GREAT hack. Should be trivial to do resistors and wiring with it. If somebody can figure out how to do fast thin-film transistors it would put microcircuit fabrication within easy reach of hobbiests.

    Sure the scale would be far larger than microchips. But for a lot of stuff that's just fine.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:IMHO that may be even more important. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  38. "TFA" stands for The Fucking Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject..

  39. lots of negativity... by Kaitiff · · Score: 1

    We've all been anesthetized by the constant daily 'AMAZING NEW BATTERY TECH AROUND THE CORNER!' articles over the past X years.. but this one doesn't sound like they are doing the 'if only we could do X' to make it work commercially.. these guys even suggest you could start right now with a room full of DVD burners. they even state there's a startup company already started on making the stuff commercially for the market. I for one will remain a bit optimistic on this one...

    I don't think we'll see this tech in Tesla's car in the next 5 years, or maybe even in cell phones in that time period. I DO expect we'll see it in stuff like medical gear and in solar panels. That bit where the backside of a solar cell could have a sheet of ultra caps on it capable of storing all the energy it captured...so a meter square of solar panel on a sunny day that could store lets say a kw/hour in itself. That could def be useful. A BIG part of the cost of a home solar system for off-grid is the battery storage. Not to mention the weight and hazard of deep cycle acid cells. Collection and storage in one place, lightweight and maint. free? High voltage transmission to prevent line losses? Oh yah.. I can see this cracking the home solar thing WIDE open, and that's just one industry my tiny little mind can think of.

    --
    If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
  40. Microcapacitors by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    RTFA It isn't about making giant capacitors to hold a ton of power. It's about storing power for microelectronics more easily. Replacing car batteries is a problem that can be solved at a later date.

    1. Re:Microcapacitors by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the polite correction. Useful knowledge.

      --
      -kgj
  41. Capacitor faults and strengths by aurizon · · Score: 1

    1 Capacitors hold charge between two plates separated by the electrolyte, and typically excess electrons accumulate on one conducting plate as a cloud. Once you reach a certain voltage, the insulation fails = punch-through. If self healing, the voltage will fall and the arc will stop before the charge is gone. If not, most of the charge will dissipate.

    2 Capacitors are the mechanical analog of the spring, more force = more spring stretches, in the same way as you charge a capacitor the voltage increases as the charge increases. There is not voltage plateau of the the electro-chemical difference. Charge Q = 1/2 C * V * V, with Q = coulombs C = farads, and V = voltage. Not the square function, when voltage drops by half, charge is 75% gone, and vice versa. The voltage falls, so there needs to be a regulator for loads that need a constant voltage.

    3. Since all surfaces are in parallel, charge and discharge can be very rapid, limited by path resistance and inductance.

    4 Batteries change the chemical state of the charge/discharge compound, as a bulk material. This is inherently 25-100 times as much as a capacitor's charge.
    Even these capacitors face these limits.

    That said, their speed and near infinite life will find them a role, just where they will fit? My fitbit runs for a week on a capacitor and charges very rapidly. Will an iPad or android pone run on that sort of a tiny charge? It is possible that e-ink devices as book reading displays will get to do this, but devices that transmit RF power use more than 1000 times the power of an e-ink reader in static mode, and 100 time in rewrite mode

  42. Re:wonder what else you could etch. Circuit boards by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    There is existing tech that allows light to affect a photosensitive layer on a copper clad board. Do that, wash off the unexposed areas, then submerge the board in chemical etchant. Wait, rinse, dry, and you have a single layer PCB.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate