It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capacitor Batteries from MIT

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This story was originally posted on Slashdot.org

slashdot.org...

The link for the article is here:
www.sciencentral.com...

Essentially, nano tubes cover the surface area of the electrodes to hold a much greater charge, thus acting like a battery with a VERY long shelf-life.




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
So now we wait until they actually create a prototype. I hope they are right when they say they can get it done in a couple of months and try to bring them to market in 5 years. I seriously doubt they will succeed, but stranger things have happened.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Great advances in capacators have been made over the last decade or so, and this one does sound real cool. I do hope it will work as well as they think.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
Great advances in capacators have been made over the last decade or so, and this one does sound real cool. I do hope it will work as well as they think.


The concept is sound. Increased surface area equates to increase capacity. I wonder how they are dealing with overheating as any energy storage device heats up when being charged.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   


The concept is sound. Increased surface area equates to increase capacity. I wonder how they are dealing with overheating as any energy storage device heats up when being charged.

Sardion,
yes I have no doubt the concept is sound but that just does not always mean it works as well as first thought.
As to the heating, I do not recall the articall be spefic on this, but I think when they say nano tubes, thery are refearing to carbon 60 nano tubes. Which if I rember right one of the characteristics of carbon sixty is the ability to conduct with out produceing heat.
Uforchently I have not kept up on everything that has been going on with carbon sixty, I got that info several years back.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This guy mentioned it's use in hybrid cars. If you're going to use this technology to run a car, I say forget hybrid, hybrid is an unnecessary complexity, let's work toward running electric cars off of these super batteries. An electric engine is so much simpler.

Carburetor, what carburator, no more worrying about gummed up carburetors or fuel injectors.
Catalytic converter, not needed.
Muffler, throw that out too, along with the exaust manifold.
Timing chain, that's history too.
Fuel filter, air filter? Yeah, they get the boot too.
Crap, forgot the gas tank, throw that in the trash.
Intake manifold, antiquated, throw it away.
The PVC valve, cam shaft, valve covers, and distributor can go away too.

If you play golf you may have allready had a taste of electric vehicles with the electric golf cart. They are wonderful, and they are quiet.

Anyway, I'm sort of on a side topic, but these super batteries sound cool!

Troy



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
These are not batteries.

Batteries store electrical energy as chemical change.

Capacitors store electrical energy by separation of charges.

A capacitor can charge and discharge almost instantly, but not a battery.

The problem with them has always been energy density, and cost.

A battery simply holds more energy for less weight at a much lower price.

It would seem that is changing now...



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   


posted by RedGolem
Great advances in capacitors have been made over the last decade. This one does sound real cool. I hope it will work as well as they think.
[Edited By Don W]


Capacitors are electron storage devices. They work by having two plates - a negative and a positive - and a dielectric between. Dielectric, an insulator. A non-conducting material. The difference of potential between the two separate plates is the amount of electric charge. Stored power.

Capacitors function in what is called a “time constant.” A time constant is the mathematical relationship between the amount of capacitance as measured in farads - from Faraday - and the resistance in the circuit measured in ohms. Capacitor circuits work in 5 time constants. That is, to charge a capacitor takes 5 time constants, and to discharge one, also takes 5 time constants. The circuits can vary so the length of a T/C can vary. The charging circuit T/C could be different than the discharging circuit T/C. Each T/C represents 91% of the available charging or discharging capacity.

So, you have 91% in T/C1, 91% of the remaining 9% in T/C 2, 91% of the 1.2% remaining in T/C 3, 91% of the .2% remaining in T/C 4, and 91% of the less than .01% remaining in T/C 5. Obviously no capacitor is ever fully charged or fully discharged, but it gets close. And closer. The discharge of a capacitor is the reverse of the charge. It’s all done in 5 T/Cs.

Capacitors are most commonly used to boost AC motors when starting from rest. Most electric motors are series wound for controlled speed versus parallel wound for start up torque. The capacitor makes a series motor act like a parallel motor on startup. Some motors are part series part parallel in the windings.

The higher the quality of the construction materials, the more electric charge can be contained and the longer a charge can be held. Capacitors are also known as a DC current blocker. OTOH, the same capacitor will conduct AC current, based on the current frequency or cycles. Physical size is equal to electrical capacity. You don’t get a lot in a little. Personally, I tend to think of a capacitor as a surge device. It is unclear to me how a capacitor can replace a battery as a source of electricity. Or even if it can, what has been gained?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Donwhite,
Thanks for all that info. And what you said about capacators not being able to replace batteries has always been true to my memery.
But what I said about capacators makeing advances in the last decade or so was also true. 25 yeas ago when I was in school I was told a one farad capacator would be about the size of a soda machine, never actually saw one that big. About 5 years later I saw a 500,000 ufarad capacator about the size of a 2 liter bottle of soda.
Now for the real kicker, about 5 years ago I saw a 1, farad capacator about the size of a credit card!!
I saw that one at a nasa Tech show. I would not have thought capacators could replace batteries, but it seems to some degree that is hapening. I still dont think I will see the battery disapear in my lifetime.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   


posted by RedGolem

Thanks for the info . . what you said about capacitor not being able to replace batteries has been true to my memory. But what I said about capacitor making advances was also true. 25 yeas ago a one farad capacitor would be the size of a soda machine, 20 years ago I saw a 500,000 ufarad capacitor about the size of a 2 liter bottle of soda. Now the real kicker, 5 years ago I saw a 1 farad capacitor about the size of a credit card! I saw that at a NASA Tech show . . it seems to some degree capacitors could replace batteries, but I don’t think I will see the battery disappear in my lifetime. [Edited by Don W]




Thanks for that good up-date, RG. My father was born in 1901 and he and I marveled in 1969 that in his lifetime, man had moved from flying barely 120 feet at Kitty Hawk to flying a half million miles round trip to the moon! In one lifetime! And so it was also in electronics. It was around 1900 that Marconi used a static generator to broadcast across the Atlantic. A few years ago the Viking mission made the last transmission from the orbit of Pluto, 40 AUs. from Earth. 3.6 billion miles. 6 billion kilometers. I started my AF career with vacuum tubes and ended with integrated circuits. OK so I believe in and accept progress.

But power is amps. Volts stun, bur amps burn. Ask those guys who had to sit in the electric chairs. Well, you can’t do that, but you could “smell” the flesh when the amps got high. Some detractors said the modem of death was “boiling” the brain? Which brings me to the power grid and KVA - kilo volt amps. Especially amps.

We know the formula. P equals I times E. “P” being power. “I” being amps and “E” being volts. I can imagine a credit card size capacitor holding 1,000,000 volts but I can’t see it holding many amps. We do know that formulas don’t work right in real life. There's the hedge factor. That’s due to - friction - electrical resistance. Losses. Heat. Etc.

I wonder how many coulombs the credit card size capacitor holds? I'm thinking a lot of volts but not so many coulombs.

Definition: A coulomb is equal to exactly 6.241×10 to the 18th power elementary charges. Electrons. See http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb



[edit on 6/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Donwhite,
Wow no one ever said good post to me before!!! Thanks.
As to the credit card size one farad capacator I dont rember everything they told me about it, but I do seem to recal that the big draw back to it was low voltage.
I also did not exspect those capacators to deliver much energy in terms of colloumbs, but again I do not rember asking that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

" . . the electrodes with millions of tiny filaments called nanotubes. Each nanotube is 30,000 times thinner than a human hair. Similar to how a thick, fuzzy bath towel soaks up more water than a thin, flat bed sheet, the nanotube filaments increase the surface area of the electrodes and allow the capacitor to store more energy."





posted by RedGolem

As to the credit card size one farad capacator I dont rember everything they told me about it, but I do seem to recal that the big draw back to it was low voltage. [Edited by Don W]



I am not quibbling. I really want to know your ideas. Volts can be quite high as in the aquadag volts on a tv picture tube (CRT) but will have almost no current flow. The small physical size suggest high volts but low current. Have I missed something here?




I also did not exspect those capacators to deliver much energy in terms of colloumbs, but again I do not rember asking that.


Right. Energy is power. P + I x E. You can juggle the “I” and the “E” and keep the same Power. It would fly in the face of most of what I learned relating to power and amps. You can run a million volts on a piece of kite string but 10 amps of current will melt a clothes hanger.


[edit on 6/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Donwhite,
Well if I come across any one who has used or knows of those capacators I will ask and see how much info I can get. I would like more info on them also.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   


posted by RedGolem

Don W. Well if I come across any one who has used or knows of those capacitors I will ask and see how much info I can get. I would like more info on them also.
[Edited by Don W]




Thanks, RG. I am satisfied the advances you have described in capacitor technology put ‘caps’ several orders of magnitude ahead of what I experienced in the old days of vacuum tube technology.

Given then that today’s capacitors have many times the capacity of earlier ones, there is still the problem as relates to automobiles. Assuming we could get most cars to weigh in at under 1,500 kilograms - instead of over - it remains a truism it takes brute force to accelerate such a heavy object from rest. I still believe that in the ‘electricity world’ brute force is equal to many electrons which I use the term coulomb to indicate.

I suppose my major critique is not at all to question the remarkable improvements in capacitors, of which I was unaware, but rather it is my lingering doubts that capacitor technology will ever replace chemical batteries as the source of brute force energy in automobiles. Or in any other form of ‘heavy lifting.’ 10-4 on reporting new data.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Donwhite,
Thanks for all your info also. Hopefully we will come across pathes again and see what other things we can exchange.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Alls I know about capacitors is that they recharge really fast.

This could make them popular.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Given then that today’s capacitors have many times the capacity of earlier ones, there is still the problem as relates to automobiles. Assuming we could get most cars to weigh in at under 1,500 kilograms - instead of over - it remains a truism it takes brute force to accelerate such a heavy object from rest. I still believe that in the ‘electricity world’ brute force is equal to many electrons which I use the term coulomb to indicate.


Carbon Composite bodies will be coming to a dealership near you soon, add in the aerodynamical gains from a more molded shape and newer style flexi-fuel engines(Rotary), Nanotube Capacitors could compliment a LiIon Hybrid car which could make people considered this a veritable sports car, yet gets 60+ Miles to the gallon. That is what it needs in order to make Hybrids "cool."

[edit on 11-6-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   


posted by sardion2000

Carbon Composite bodies will be coming to a dealership near you soon . . newer style flex-fuel engines (Rotary) . .
[Edited by Don W]



I wonder if the rotary engine is as efficient as the old time Otto cycle engine? The 4 cycle engine. The Japanese have perfected the rotary engines but I’m still dubious the rotary can equal the Otto. Remember the rotary is just feeling its oats when the rpms get higher than a 4 cycle is comfortable with. I like the Eaton blower (positive displacement) on a 4 cycle engine as offering the best power to fuel compromise. I’m thinking 75,000 miles on a rotary is good, but 200,000 miles on a 4 cycle is already here. GM’s latest Detroit diesel was advertised as a ‘million miles before overhaul.’



Nanotube Capacitors could compliment a Li-ion Hybrid car which could make people considered this a veritable sports car, yet gets 60+ Miles to the gallon. That is the product that is needed in order to make Hybrids "cool." [Edited by Don W]



I agree. We need to encourage the sale of this new technology. Instead of giving the manufacturers money by the barrels how about giving any one who buys (and drives) a 60 mpg car say, $10.000 cash or tax credit. Let’s make it worthwhile to the taxpaying consumers. For a change. To make it real interesting, why not lay on a special tax on any vehicle getting less than 30 mpg of say, $5,000. That would be encouragement! And might off set the bonus so the Fed's would be out nothing?




[edit on 6/11/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I wonder if the rotary engine is as efficient as the old time Otto cycle engine? The 4 cycle engine. The Japanese have perfected the rotary engines but I’m still dubious the rotary can equal the Otto. Remember the rotary is just feeling its oats when the rpms get higher than a 4 cycle is comfortable with. I like the Eaton blower (positive displacement) on a 4 cycle engine as offering the best power to fuel compromise. I’m thinking 75,000 miles on a rotary is good, but 200,000 miles on a 4 cycle is already here. GM’s latest Detroit diesel was advertised as a ‘million miles before overhaul.’


That's not why I added in the Rotary engine. You see, with a car that is made primarily out of superstrong and superlight carbon composites, that is molded into an aerodynamic shape with a spacious interior, added in with regenerative energy recapturing systems from the heat, wind, and friction from the brakes(all of which are fed directly into the capacitor banks or if they are full then the batteries) along with a Plug in component to keep the batteries full charged overnight in the garage, you wouldn't need an especially efficient or even a very powerful engine either. Infact the reason why I added in the Rotary is twofold. 1. It can burn a variety of fuels, Mazda's latest version can supposedly burn everything from Gasoline to Gasous Hydrogen and everything in between(Biodiesel, Propane, Natural Gas, etc). The Liberty of choice. If you really wanted, you could setup a still and produce alcohol and make your own fuel.
and 2. They can be built in a relatively small package.



I agree. We need to encourage the sale of this new technology. Instead of giving the manufacturers money by the barrels how about giving any one who buys (and drives) a 60 mpg car say, $10.000 cash or tax credit. Let’s make it worthwhile to the taxpaying consumers. For a change. To make it real interesting, why not lay on a special tax on any vehicle getting less than 30 mpg of say, $5,000. That would be encouragement! And might off set the bonus so the Fed's would be out nothing?


I think a better way to go would be to start opening up the checkbooks and funding basic research into these specific areas: Room Temperature Superconduction, More efficient combustion engines, Selective re-usable fluid filtration system(By fluid I mean both liquid and gas), etc. Things of that nature. We don't want to be rushing out the technology before it's completely ready. Remember the Stirling Cycle Engine Car that crashed and turned into a Hindenburg for stirling cycle cars?

Anyway here is a picture of the Car of the Near Future IMHO....



Eliica 8-wheeler concept car(Max speed 200+ MPH)

[edit on 11-6-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   


posted by sardion2000

That's not why I added in the Rotary engine. You see, you wouldn't need an especially efficient or even a very powerful engine either. Infact the reason why I added in the Rotary is twofold. 1. It can burn a variety of fuels, and 2. They can be built in a relatively small package.[Edited by Don W]



You’re right on the compact size of the rotary engine. And as you point out, the fossil fuel engine can be small not only in size but in terms of power as it would be used mostly to recharge batteries or supplement capacitors and etc. for the electric motors which will do the main job of propulsion.



I think a better way to go would be to start opening up the checkbooks and funding basic research into these specific areas:


Oops! If there is a profit motive - and an incentive - the corporations will use their own money for R&D and much more efficiently than if we give them public money to “play” with. Say as in Enron!



Remember the Stirling Cycle Engine Car that crashed and turned into a Hindenburg for Stirling cycle cars?


I think the Stirling cycle engine is an external heat source engine. Too much piping, tubing too long, too much travel for heat. It was doomed before it started. I believe the Stirling engine was invented about the same time Watts built his first steam engine. 1712?

Very interesting Car. But who needs 200 mph? We’d be better off paying for a 200 mpg car!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join