SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the okay,-maybe-a-really-really-little-battery dept.
As electronic devices become more compact and powerful, conventional methods for manufacturing electrical components simply won't do. The problem lies in the fact that current systems require a huge battery and their components are too bulky.
However, that all could change, as engineers from the University of Cambridge have created an ultra low power transistor that can run for a long time without a power source.
Basically, transistors are semiconductor devices that function like a faucet. Turn a transistor on and the electricity flows, turn it off and the flow stops. When a transistor is off however, some electric current could still flow through, just like a leaky faucet. This current, which is called a near-off-state, was exploited by the engineers to power the new transistors.
These new transistors are able to scavenge power from its surrounding environment allowing a battery to last longer. Dr Sungsik Lee, the paper's first author, also from the Department of Engineering says, "if we were to draw energy from a typical AA battery based on this design, it would last for a billion years." The new design could be produced in low temperatures and they are versatile enough to be printed on materials like glass, paper, and plastic.
Reference:
S. Lee and A. Nathan, 'Subthreshold Schottky-barrier thin film transistors with ultralow power and high intrinsic gain'. Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aah5035
At last, the Age of Facebook on the Milk Carton is nearly here.
[Ed note: Story title is taken from linked article by the University of Cambridge.]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:07PM
I don't get how scavenging the loss automagically allows you to run forever. It's still the loss from something, which has to run and drains the battery. It that something doesn't run, then you're not scavenging a loss, but merely running off a battery with a low-power transistor. Those exist already, with the problem that we put millions or billions of them together any time we want to achieve anything fast enough for our impatient selves... Me confused by TFS.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:30PM
Yep, as usual, the only way to make any sense of it is to ignore what the journalists say, and read the paper.
Abstract
The quest for low power becomes highly compelling in newly emerging application areas related to wearable devices in the Internet of Things. Here, we report on a Schottky-barrier indium-gallium-zinc-oxide thin-film transistor operating in the deep subthreshold regime (i.e., near the OFF state) at low supply voltages (<1 volt) and ultralow power (<1 nanowatt). By using a Schottky-barrier at the source and drain contacts, the current-voltage characteristics of the transistor were virtually channel-length independent with an infinite output resistance. It exhibited high intrinsic gain (>400) that was both bias and geometry independent. The transistor reported here is useful for sensor interface circuits in wearable devices where high current sensitivity and ultralow power are vital for battery-less operation.
Sadly, though not surprisingly, there's no mention of magic perpetual scavenging; it's just a low-power transistor of a particular type we didn't have already. I'm guessing the poor journalist is getting confused by two separate ideas: 1) sub-nW power consumption means it can run on scavenged energy (powered with a rectenna) and 2) sub-nW power consumption means it could run "forever" on a real battery. (Of course, the concept of a battery-powered circuit running for a billion years is nonsense -- you'd be lucky if a battery lasted a century with no load, so anything below about 1uW is practically all the same -- but this means you could have many 1000s of these transistors and still last a decade.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:53PM
If they last until their stamped on expiry date. Especially Duracell. I don't know why, but I have had duracells puke their guts constantly stored either by themselves or inside a device. In contrast I have had many no-name batteries last in the same devices for years without leaking, indicating either Duracell is building their batteries 'hot' with a capacity that doesn't actually survive long term, they have horrible QC on some batches, or they have inadequate seals for the environments they are being used in.
(Score: 1) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @09:35PM
A lot of store brand batteries are actually made by the same companies that produce Duracell and others, but they are packaged cheaper. They don't skimp on battery quality but they skimp on stuff like labelling (they come off the same machines). Many stores sign contracts for battery supplies and actually have the vendors' own staff or contractors come out to stock shelves or displays that are either owned by the vendor or leased to the store. You can rest assured Energon and them make their money whatever you buy. They just figured out if you put a cheaper one next to an expensive one, people buy the cheap one, sometimes even if they don't need it (particularly before storms, holidays), so sometimes they are priced to do that on purpose.
When there are contracted displays like this (often on their own pod or island in places like Wal-Mart) they are only allowed to stock batteries and accessories approved in the contract on that display. That's usually a pretty good sign all of the batteries in the display have the same origin... you can't stock Energon on Duracell's display etc. If you see that done, its usually either a mistake or the store bought the stock (like with a dollar store).
If you buy weird imported batteries it's always a gamble, with quality. I've had roughly a 50% good return on those. I just don't bother doing it anymore. Energon or Duracell or Rayovac or the store brand or whatever is good enough.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:18AM
Energon? Either you are powering Transformers, or maybe you mean Energizer?
(Score: 1) by nobu_the_bard on Friday October 28 2016, @05:22PM
Hahaha, yeah Energizer! I typoed it I think three times, and caught them all, fixed it... and apparently accidentally reverted it before I submitted. Oops?
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:44AM
"In contrast I have had many no-name batteries last in the same devices for years without leaking, indicating either Duracell is building their batteries 'hot' with a capacity that doesn't actually survive long term"
I worked in one of their plants 20 or so years ago almost all them no name brands were made by them at least back then and those batteries were made with a different cheaper to produce formula. So if anything it should be the cheepies going bad.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday October 28 2016, @11:03PM
I wouldn't count on it. The difference is usually in terms of capacity. The name-brand battery will typically have a higher capacity than the generic*. It's entirely possible that the higher capacity formula is also more prone to leakage and may not store as well either.
* Though the increased cost means you still pay more per amp-hour usually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:39PM
The summary's already 2/3 of the article. Here's the best excluded paragraph (of two).
The transistor’s design also utilizes a ‘non-desirable’ characteristic, namely the ‘Schottky barrier’ to create smaller transistors. Transistors today cannot be manufactured into smaller sizes since the smaller a transistor gets, the more its electrodes influence each other, causing a non-functioning transistor. The use of the Schottky barrier in the new design creates seal between the electrodes that make them work independently from each other.
That makes it sound like if you really want to know what's what, reading the original paper is probably more informative. This sounds more interesting to me than the rest, but I don't have a background in it.