Thread: The batteries of the future, weightless, and invisible.

Originally Posted by Tombie

WHAT? . Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had today!!!!

Firstly - why would the “Ions” be lithium? And why would it be Ions? Not electrons?


Batteries convert chemical to electrical - there are losses.

Pumped hydro has HUGE losses - it’s economic benefit is to use off peak demand power from outside sources to replenish the upper holding tank.

Neither system is lossless and the battery must consume from one surface or another - it’s how batteries work. Even the best rechargeable batteries have finite cycle life.

Because the Wired report was not talking about normal batteries, so the normal rules may be irrelevant.
The researchers were playing with lithium ions, carbon fibre and supercapacitors storing energy as electrostatic charge in structures.
This stuff could revolutionise the whole field.
I don't pretend to understand it, and very few people probably would either, but clearly the old rules are outdated in this new field of research.
It's a whole new approach. Fascinating, hope it works.

Experiment for someone to try.

Charge your phone up and remove the battery. Take it outside and jam a fork though it. Now stand back and as you watch it go up in smoke and flames think about how good it would be to be sitting in your structural battery when somebody T bones you at an intersection.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Because the Wired report was not talking about normal batteries, so the normal rules may be irrelevant.
The researchers were playing with lithium ions, carbon fibre and supercapacitors storing energy as electrostatic charge in structures.
This stuff could revolutionise the whole field.
I don't pretend to understand it, and very few people probably would either, but clearly the old rules are outdated in this new field of research.
It's a whole new approach. Fascinating, hope it works.

Agree it’s good to watch development.

Just be aware they can’t break rules of physics. And those rules are a given.

What the primary goal is would likely be energy density.

As mentioned by Vern - the safety aspect is one of the biggest hurdles. High density is often highly volatile.

Imagine if they figured out a way to generate energy by causing ions to flow around structures - it could be revolutionary.
Buildings might power themselves. Vehicles might be self-powered. Space travel solved. Radical stuff.
After all, it wasn't that long ago that people scoffed at the idea of capturing solar energy - now it's possible everywhere.
Fascinating.

Electrical engineers go to great lengths to prevent electrons moving around a structure!

It’s side effect is called electrocution. It’s pretty nasty

The fact of the matter is something has to give to make it a battery. Firstly it will need to be isolated from earth. Then isolated from anyone being able to make a circuit by touching it.

To be a battery a chemical reaction needs to take place - why all batteries wear out/have a finite lifespan. So if a structure is acting as cathode and anode - there needs to be an electrolyte of some description, a barrier (like the lipo) and there will be erosion of the structure as it functions.

These are rules... energy.....

Converting Solar to energy was around decades ago. Doing it on large scale was what people laughed at as it was cost prohibitive. It’s process takes Photons, converts them (rules remember) and makes electrical potential and heat. Even these panels wear out.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Because the Wired report was not talking about normal batteries, so the normal rules may be irrelevant.
The researchers were playing with lithium ions, carbon fibre and supercapacitors storing energy as electrostatic charge in structures.
This stuff could revolutionise the whole field.
I don't pretend to understand it, and very few people probably would either, but clearly the old rules are outdated in this new field of research.
It's a whole new approach. Fascinating, hope it works.

Doesn’t matter what the batteries are, they have to comply with the laws of Physics which is what I said in my last post - supposing things might change doesn’t change laws if Physics. Entropy alone takes care of anything that may last forever let alone all the other issues, so it doesn’t matters how much you ‘believe’ they may be right, it’s all a load of cods wallop - and you’re the exact sort of person they are praying on to fund their retirement.

Nothing to do with me. These are research scientists in Europe.

I would question the qualifications of anyone who would claim that something could last forever...

Anyone can stick a term like that in a document on the internet.