Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the three-seeds-from-Hades dept.

TheUnknownCoder writes:

"Researchers at Stanford University have taken inspiration from the pomegranate to design a supercharged anode battery. Working in collaboration with the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the team used the pomegranate's unique seed design to make a battery that can store 10 times more charge than a standard rechargeable lithium-ion battery."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:16PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:16PM (#9184) Journal

    Can't wait for some of these battery advancements to materialize in commerce. Many technologies are waiting on better batteries. ...Although you have to take the TALOS [wikipedia.org], long-range drones [wired.com], and Internet of Things [wired.com] with your battery advancements.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Khyber on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:22PM

    by Khyber (54) on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:22PM (#9186) Journal

    I am already envisioning some very high-tech LED flashlights soon. 15W MK-R in a rechargeable Mag-Lite? I'll take ten, please!

    Plus gaming on a laptop will be easier to do without being chained to an AC outlet.

    And 97% capacity after 1,000 cycles? Not bad as far as degradation goes.

    --
    Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bd on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:47PM

      by bd (2773) on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:47PM (#9188)

      Agreed, that is a lot of power density and really good degradation behavior.

      This may also be quite nice for electric cars.

      Given the quality assurance habits of your typical cheap battery manufacturer, I wonder what the failure modes of such a battery will be?
      What happens if one of these cells with 10 times more capacity short circuit? Fire? Magic smoke? Can I have my own dual-use cellphone/hand-grenade?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:58PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:58PM (#9281) Journal

        This would definitely be good for electric cars -- take the Nissan Leaf for example with it's 80 mile range -- halve the battery and go 400 miles, maybe more because of the weight savings. It would take out of the realm of being an expensive extra car, into being a real contender for one's primary or sole car.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:13PM

      by wjwlsn (171) on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:13PM (#9193) Homepage Journal

      Radio control hobbyists could really use this. One of the more popular battery configurations for small-to-medium sized planes and multi-rotors is the 3S 2200 mAh LiPo (3S = 3 cells in series for nominal voltage of 11.1 V), and they weigh about 250 g (0.5 lb) each. In my experience, flight times with one of these can range from 5 minutes (very aggressive multi-rotor) to 45 minutes (motor glider with careful throttle control). Give me about 10 times the energy density and I could fly my usual quad (carrying a GoPro) for an hour or more. Then installing a video transmitter would be worth the effort.

      --
      I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
  • (Score: 1) by Boxzy on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:36PM

    by Boxzy (742) on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:36PM (#9201) Journal

    New Phone designs. Just be careful they don't roll away!

    --
    Go green, Go Soylent.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:09PM (#9229)

      Sorry, Apple has a patent on both rounded corners and fruit-based technologies.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:22PM (#9233)

        But mixing fruit with cake has prior art.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by resignator on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:19PM

    by resignator (3126) on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:19PM (#9232)

    From the TFA:

    "They need to simplify the process and find a cheaper source of silicon nanoparticles. One possible source is rice husks: They’re unfit for human food, produced by the millions of tons and 20 percent silicon dioxide by weight."

    Very interesting but isnt silicon dioxide basically sand? Why not just use the sand and rocks which make up 90% of earth's mass and refine the processes for that instead?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Khyber on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:39PM

      by Khyber (54) on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:39PM (#9240) Journal

      Same reason we're not really using it for regular ol' processors. It's loaded with contaminants. The rice husks would be a better source for already nanoparticle sized bits of silicon dioxide.

      --
      Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
      • (Score: 1) by resignator on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:55PM

        by resignator (3126) on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:55PM (#9249)

        Thanks, I knew someone would clear that up for me. A colleague of mine was arguing that it had more to do with the nations that make our electronics having a ready supply of rice husks and a lack of good sand. I thought the process for obtaining silicon dioxide was already a rather cheap process that could simply be ramped up so why reinvent the wheel. I stand corrected. Size does matter :P

    • (Score: 1) by blackpaw on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:07PM

      by blackpaw (2554) on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:07PM (#9255) Journal

      Probably not nano particle sized.