×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Non-Toxic, Paper Battery / Supercapacitor

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the i'll-take-a-ream dept.

Power 228

jcr writes "Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a combination battery/capacitor by infusing carbon nanotubes and electrolytes into a paper substrate. The material can be folded, rolled up, or molded to any convenient shape with no effect on power capacity. Operating temperature range is -100 to 300 degrees F. One of the co-authors is quoted: 'We're not putting pieces together — it's a single, integrated device. The components are molecularly attached to each other: the carbon nanotube print is embedded in the paper, and the electrolyte is soaked into the paper. The end result is a device that looks, feels, and weighs the same as paper.'" The researchers haven't yet developed a high-volume way to manufacture the devices. They envision ultimately printing sheets between rollers like newsprint.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

So... (5, Funny)

What the Frag (951841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222681)

Instead of a paper-cut you get a electric paper-shock?

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222703)

Science labs around the world will soon migrate from the 'leave a charged capacitor lying around' trick to the 'can you take that note over there to Mr Smith' trick.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223463)

Errr... can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those ?

Re:So... (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223543)

can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those ?

I call it an "in tray".

The longer you procrastinate, the more it shocks you...

Re:So... (1)

kauttapiste (633236) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223673)

Not to mention the implications this will have on the old 'replace-toilet-paper-with-something-that-shocks' prank genre.

No such thing as... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222939)

Power capacity. Keith Dawson, it's anything BUT that. Power capacity would be the ability to discharge. The poster is probably thinking of energy density. PLEASE READ THE SUBMISSIONS (and maybe try to understand them if you can) BEFORE YOU POST THEM ON THE FRONT PAGE.

Hey MODS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223097)

Mod Parent Up!

Hey KDAWSON. Don't mod parent down, Douche! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223893)

We know that it was you, kdawson. Idiot.

Re:So... (4, Funny)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223103)

Think of the things you can do with a paper airplane...

Re:So... (5, Funny)

MacEnvy (549188) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223239)

Think of the things terrorists can do with a paper airplane...
Fixed that for you.

Groan (1, Insightful)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223319)

It's bad enough we've got politicians and pundits hyperventilating over "think what the terrorists could do with [insert new technology/newly-public information/whatever]". Now I've got to endure it from /. posters as well? Terrorism is still vaporware, on the whole. Wake me up when terrorist attacks in the US become as frequent as, say IRA bombings were in the UK a couple decades ago.

Re:So... (1)

beckerist (985855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223537)

Actually, this reminds me of a book that I haven't seen for many years. While my grandpa was flying off to Germany in WWII, his troupe stopped in NYC for a bit before flying over. While there he bought this little silver book...on the cover was printed "Nudes Illustrated."
The thing had a tin-foil cover, and the best part was there was a battery attached to a spring inside. When the book was opened, a magnet would pull the spring back, and the battery would rapidly oscillate back and forth, making a connection then breaking it, and repeating. The effect was, since the cover was tin-foil, the book would shock whoever opened it.

Now there's no need for the obvious (and heavy) battery!!!

How hard are nanotubes to create? (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222683)

I wonder how hard nanotubes are to create. Are they totally unnatural and that's why we don't see exactly this sort of thing in nature?

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222809)

imperfect ones are found in ordinary soot. Their effectiveness drops of rapidly if even just a few flaws are introduced and as far as I'm aware the only way of geting them with a really low flaw-count is to deliberately manufacture them.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (5, Informative)

KrugalSausage (822589) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222841)

I do some research with CNTs, so maybe I can help answer this.

Carbon nanotubes are not completely unnatural, there is probably a very small percentage found in your fireplace (if you are burning carbon based wood, is there another kind? ;) ).

Most methods of production involve taking some form of carbon and applying enough energy to it break it up and allowing it to reform. In the 1950's, some Russian researchers were first publishing about these very small and strange carbon rods that they found in their powder. Going from memory (don't know russian), I believe they started with some electrodes with carbon on them. After applying high voltage to them, a discharge (lightning) forms and breaks down the carbon. In this soot, some of these carbon nanotubes were found. They were unaware of the significance of their discovery at the time.

In 1991, Iijima published their 'new' discovery (not knowing about the Russian paper, language barrier and all) of the CNT and since then, research has exploded into finding and refining new ways to make them. Their method of production involved laser ablation, where a carbon target is hit with a laser. The hot debris is carried by an inert gas and while it cools some nanotubes are formed.

The three main methods are chemical vapor deposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposi tion [wikipedia.org] , laser ablation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_ablation [wikipedia.org] and arc discharge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_discharge [wikipedia.org] .

Now there are companies that can send you a black powder that is >95% carbon nanotubes. At our lab, we take these and mix them with a surfactant to make a CNT solution. If you filter this solution, the CNTs accumulate on top of the filter and form a black sheet of carbon nanotubes. This paper paper goes by the name of buckypaper. In the article, it seems that instead of a surfactant they are using cellulose. If you want them to align while they are forming the paper, all one has to do is apply an external electric field. The quasi-one dimensional nature of the CNTs gives them a higher magnetic susceptibility along their axis than perpendicular to it. This helps them align along the magnetic field lines.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (1, Redundant)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223019)

That was amazing. You were modded up so fast that between the time that I started reading the article when you were a 2 and when I went back to the main article you were up to 5 already.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (3, Insightful)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223227)

Well, that's happens when someone takes the time to actually answer a question in an easy to understand and comprehensive way with links to more information if the reader desires it.

I'm glad "good behavior" like this is still rewarded in even a small corner of the internet.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223261)

I forgot the name of the paper I read just last night and I am at the wrong computer to look up the history, but Scientists have discovered that Damascus sword blades actually have formed carbon nano tubes in them. While the forgers of Damascus blades didn't know what they did they did know it worked better than plain old steel.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (4, Funny)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223415)

I do some research with CNTs


I've been doing research with CNTs all my life too. It never gets any better.

Re:How hard are nanotubes to create? (3, Informative)

Apatharch (796324) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222865)

Carbon nanotubes are usually manufactured by vaporising graphite impregnated with metal particles. The carbon condenses on the metal, forming tubular molecules. There's more information on the process here [azonano.com] .

ugh.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222685)

Why does it smell like fish between my girlfriends legs? It makes me a sad panda :(

Re:ugh.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222727)

Why does it smell like fish between my girlfriends legs? It makes me a sad panda :(
I'm sorry to hear that. Sometimes the only way that you can regain your sense of dignity is to go down to Tijuana and give nickel blowjobs for a week. It worked for me. After that I sold all of my SCO stock.

e-ink (4, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222687)

Now it would be interesting, so far power supply for e-ink was big and bulky. There is already a technology of printing ICs on paper, meaning - electronic paper is at hand's reach.

Re:e-ink (1)

ATMD (986401) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223039)

There is already a technology of printing ICs on paper
Would you mind providing a link to that? I've not heard about this before, and it sounds fascinating... I guess I probably just saw it, thought "more wearable computer nonsense", and ignored it :)

Re:e-ink (2, Informative)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223357)

Here's a link to printable RFIDs

ahref=http://www.physorg.com/news2678.htmlrel=url2 html-19118 [slashdot.org] http://www.physorg.com/news2678.html>

P.S. Wearable computers make you look like a borg - Look at pics of Thad Starner for example
ahref=http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~thad/rel=url2html- 19118 [slashdot.org] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~thad/>

Cheers!

Re:e-ink (1)

zero_offset (200586) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223413)

Google is your friend... Even searching for something as basic as "circuits printed on paper" will yield lots of links. As I recall, most of the recent slashdot stories were related to disposable cell phones and the like.

kWh/kg and kWh/$? (3, Interesting)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222689)

Hi,

Just as an alternative ultracapacitor this sounds interesting: I'm going hunting for the efficiency numbers above, though they're going to be hard to gauge at this stage I guess!

Rgds

Damon

Just like Sony Laptop batteries (2, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222701)

They combust at Farenheit 451 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just like Sony Laptop batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222947)

They combust at Farenheit 451
Anyone remember paper clothes? Swimwear and under clothes from paper?

Imagine the variations on the old capacitor hooked to the chair pratical jokes possibe with this new capacitor.

Power specs? (4, Insightful)

strredwolf (532) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222711)

Come on? What's the volt/amp specs per square inch? "Oh we got a paper-thin battery that's flexible" is all fair and good, but until we get full specs on it, we can't plan on replacing our iPhones any time soon with Earth: Final Conflict style devices.

Re:Power specs? (1)

Nephrite (82592) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222857)

I second this. Or else I could create the same stuff with two coins, a lemon and a piece of toilet paper just now without problem.

Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (3, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222741)

As an aside, announcements of technologies such as this are becoming more frequent. As Alvin Toffler [wikipedia.org] was talking about many years ago, we have entered the period of "Future Shock". Development and change in general is undergoing a period doubling. Not only are these new technologies amazing, but also the technologies they enable will also be amazing. So it begs the question: what do we - as a species - want to do? Because unless a mass extinction occurs we will probably be able to choose from an unimaginable menu of options about fifty years from now.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (3, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222779)

So it begs the question: what do we - as a species - want to do?
I suppose I can't answer for everyone, but to me, the choice is clear: Make a flying car.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222783)

no, it doesn't. It might raise the question, but most definitely does not beg.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (5, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222805)

what do we - as a species - want to do?
If the new technology is used in the future the same way it was used in the past, the first priority is probably to make better porn.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (2, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223127)

So it begs the question: what do we - as a species - want to do?

Sex.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (4, Insightful)

Stefanwulf (1032430) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223195)

Development and change in general is undergoing a period doubling. Not only are these new technologies amazing, but also the technologies they enable will also be amazing.
I'm trying to think of a period in human history when this wasn't true, at least for some area of the globe. Imagine when people first developed language, or writing, or math, or agriculture. Or more recently the printing press, more effective plows, the scientific method, the telegraph, or even steam-powered ships and locomotives. In each case the immediate practical benefits were augmented by an increase in the rate of future discoveries, either directly (as from the scientific method or writing), or indirectly (as from greater food production allowing a class of people who weren't subsistence farmers to develop, or faster travel allowing a more rapid exchange and synthesis of information)

Technology has never been changing as fast as it is now, but that's also been true for as far back as I'm aware...each generation just doesn't seem to see the trend of acceleration that came before them because it all seems so slow compared to what's happening just then.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (1)

l1gunman (463233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223325)

Um. Wouldn't that be a period 'halving'?

Development and change in general is undergoing a period doubling.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223481)

> So it begs the question: what do we - as a species - want to do?

That's not an example of begging the question! /pedant

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (1)

SlideRuleGuy (987445) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223797)

Personally, I think we should focus on merely surviving our own human nature. Since it is always easier to destroy than it is to create (see laws of physics), the greater our technological power becomes, the easier it will be for smaller and smaller groups of people to do more and more destructive things. Eventually it will be trivial for one nut case to kill us all. Certainly explains the Fermi Paradox quite well.

Re:Your purpose, Mr. Anderson? (1)

WhiplashII (542766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223909)

This is true as long as we are all on Earth. After we get into space, both on space stations and other planets, it will take more than one nutcase at least.

in SI units (4, Informative)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222769)

thats -73.3 C to 148.8 C.

<\karma whore>

Re:in SI units (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222873)

SI unit for temperature is kelvin

Re:in SI units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222933)

oh... yeah... *hands physics degree back to university*

Re:in SI units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223049)

Or rather 70C to 150C (you should keep the original precision).
(Argh, /. is eating the degree-symbols!)

Bad conversion habits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223151)

I see this all the time. A children's book stated that Hawaii lies 2,500 miles from the continental U.S. and helpfully converted it to 4,023 km. It continued that some people were surfing on 3-foot, or 91-centimeter, waves.

And look at this idiocy from NASA [nasa.gov] :

within a minute the probe will slow down from 20,000 km per hour (12,427 miles per hour) to just 300 km per hour (186.4 miles per hour).


(Correct answers: 4,000 km, meter-high, 12,000 or 10,000 mph, 200 mph.)

Re:in SI units (1)

cheekymunky (1052654) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223185)

except that you've given 4sf while the original figures were to 1sf...

something like "-70 C to around 150 C" might be better...

</pedant>

Re:in SI units (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223437)

> something like "-70 C to around 150 C" might be better...

Not if you were planning to run it close to the extremes it wouldn't...

Useful? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222787)

Of great importance
  What is it's capacitance versus its geometry?

I have a capacitor too, its called 2 pieces of metal separated by a distance

I want to know the capacitance of this new thing, Only then can we deem it great .
What are the dimensions of a 1 farad capacitor made of this stuff,?
a 100 microfarad capacitor made of this stuff, 1000 and , 10,000 Microfarads ?
  Picofarad values ?

Voltage breakdown / handling .
temperature stability ? long term storage problems?

Then and only do we really have somwething useful as a capacitor , oterwise it's just trivial
Is this a usable capacitor ?
Also storage
It isn't enough to be battery , what are its charging /discharging characteristics ? Milliamp or amp hour power capacity versus its geometry / dimensions ?
the above answer the question Is it useful ?
or just hype AH- boosta

It s not enough to look like duck, are we trapshooting wood decoys ?
Should I invest money in this?

Pointless announcement (5, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222801)

This is a pointless announcement. Anybody can make a capacitor with two conducting surfaces separated by an insulator. A good, useful, and economical capacitor is something else. Questions like capacitance, capacitance per unit area, capacitance per unit volume, voltage rating, Q, stability, cost per unit, testability, long-term stability and reliability, manufacturability, testability, structural strength, vibration effects, electromigration, overvoltage resistance, pinhole noise, dielectric drift, leakage current, leakage drift, stray inductance, longevity, temperature range, polarization, memory effect, moisture resistance, solvent resistance, altitude effects, and more are significant parameters. A useful new capacitor design would have to have some significant advantages over current designs.

Re:Pointless announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222821)

Yes but Redundant to previous post Useful?

Re:Pointless announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222823)

It is not toxic. That already is a great improvement over current batteries. Sure, it will need to be at least a little powerful as a bttery and/or capacitor, but the advantages of one of either that can be implanted inside your body without killing you makes it useful even at a tenth of every measure imaginable of a modern battery.

No, it's not. (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223475)

Actually, the point everyone is missing is this, FTFA:

Another key feature is the capability to use human blood or sweat to help power the battery.
Three uses for this, right off the bat:

  • Ultra-small/portable blood glucose meters. I don't know how many of you are diabetic, but my wife is and I can tell you that carrying around a blood glucose meter is a real PITA. Anything that has the potential to make these things smaller and more portable is a real plus.
  • E-ink/e-paper. Imagine having the thing turn on as soon as you grab it. Cool!
  • Low footprint biometric systems. Let's face it, having a biometric identification system is more practical if you can get a device that fits where you need it.

Re:Pointless announcement (3, Insightful)

gone.fishing (213219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223735)

Research, pure or practical is what advances technology and indeed the whole human race. While very few products make it beyond the lab information learned may be applied elsewhere.

While I may agree that this particular product may never make it out of the lab perhaps someone will read the announcment and have an eureka moment of their own and be able to apply something that they learned from this research to whatever it is that they are working on.

I actually do hope that this research (or more accurately a product derived from this research) makes it out of the lab. I think there is room in this world for non-toxic, compostable capacitor-batteries.

Pointless? I think a better word may be inspirational.

biodegradeable? (2, Interesting)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222845)

It's 90% paper, so from the sounds of it, it'll biodegrade pretty much like paper. Which doesn't seem so great if you want to start putting it in cars or aeroplanes. I can't help but be reminded of Larry Niven's Ringworld, where a bacteria [I think it was a bacteria] evolved to consume certain high-tech gear. So not only will our batteries have the lifetime of regular paper, but things that eat regular paper will be able to eat our batteries too.

Re:biodegradeable? (1)

GospelHead821 (466923) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222919)

I have not read the article, so shame on me if this is incorrect. It sounded, however, like the paper was only being used as an inexpensive and flexible substrate. It would be neat to use regular paper if you actually wanted to print these, as described in the summary. On the other hand, if greater durability is required, I imagine that you could use cardstock, fabric, or some hybrid, like the paper used to make money.

Re:biodegradeable? (1)

curmudgeous (710771) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222953)

Ringworld tech was based on cheap, high temperature superconductors. Problem was that a type of bacteria developed a taste for the superconductors and pretty much any that were exposed to air were consumed and the society collapsed.

BTW, in the second book you find out that the germ was engineered and introduced by the Piersons Puppeteers as an easy way to eliminate a potential threat.

Re:biodegradeable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223029)

Actually, in the second book (which I'm reading currently) we find that the bacteria was engineered and weaponized as part of a plot to control the Ringworld. That may be slightly more likely than random luck evolution.

Re:biodegradeable? (1)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223213)

that would be an engineered organism designed to eat superconductor, secretely created by the puppeteers and delivered as an economic weapon, to boost sales of their own version of the conductor. IIRC

This sounds very exciting.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222847)

Its a shame that, if its fate is typical of most amazing technological leaps we read about on Slashdot, we will in all probability never hear, see, or use anything relating to this wonderous bit of technology ever again (probably due to some issue the researchers new about when they made the announcement, but decided to gloss over in rush to attract funding).

Re:This sounds very exciting.... (2, Insightful)

slobarnuts (666254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223061)

Each time I hear about things like this, I become less and less impressed. You said it yourself: "Announcements", while all these breakthroughs are occurring in the lab, the We hear so much about nano-technology and all these brilliant ground breaking devices, only to... never actually see them. Granted things like nano-tech are in their infancy, I dont actually see any of this technology they keep announcing. It is not like we are making great leaps and bounds. When I look around I do not see too much of a difference between the technology we have now and that we had 10 years ago. Sure, everything is a bit faster, a bit more streamlined, made to fit into a smaller package and impress all your friends with your brilliant choice of aesthetics. I have yet to see clothes that dry themselves, a scalable replacement for fossil fuel, a star trek phaser, micro machines that can patch a wound, a mass produced multi-tasking robot to help around the house, or even the ability to use three seashells after doing #2. When you see all these articles and features about some new invention, 99% of them are just minimal upgrades to previous technology - LIKE WAOW, NOW I CAN USE MY CELL TO BUY STUFF WITHOUT TALKING TO SOMEONE -. Wow, my car can parallel park itself, too bad it cant find its own way to the office safely, or park itself while you go to your office. When many SciFi writers were envisioning out time they saw moon bases, martian fights, warp drives, all that crazy crap. Im typing this on a computer that is not all that dis-similar to the one i used 10 years ago, And the color LCD on my cell phone is actually harder to read in daylight than the one I had 10 years ago. Let me know when something with the 'Wow' factor is available to the general public. Of course it could be because I am a spoiled child of the 80's, and wasn't around to be Wow'ed by the first Talkie or horseless carriage. But that is beside the point, my point is that the technology we use everyday just does not appear to be keeping up with these announcements of ground breaking technology.

Re:This sounds very exciting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223109)

I couldn't agree more. I have been following announcements on new technologies in these pages since their inception, and out of the many cool, purportedly revolutionary advancements mentioned here I have yet to see one making any impact on my life.

Re:This sounds very exciting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223265)

well...from the DARPA conference there are plans and a tested robotic surgeon...look up Trauma Pod. A robot that can run track. Computers that can interact directly with the human brain. That is all pretty WOW to me

my understanding is that all of these things made from Carbon Nanotubes are ready for mass production barring one thing...

mass production of quality (pure) carbon nanotubes has yet to be achieved. Its a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse, we have all these really amazing uses for the CNTs (space elevator, batteries, color changing/self cleaning clothes, etc etc) but we are unable to bring these things to the mass production level because the parts suppliers aren't up to snuff yet.

Re:This sounds very exciting.... (2, Insightful)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223461)

Each time I hear about things like this, I become less and less impressed. You said it yourself: "Announcements", while all these breakthroughs are occurring in the lab, the We hear so much about nano-technology and all these brilliant ground breaking devices only to... never actually see them.
Of course, most of the time, those announcements are not sitting on a working prototype. They're trying to raise money for development.

This is a new idea in academia. That's a totally different thing. It's either a hoax (which, in this case is incredibly easy to prove, so it probably isn't), or it's really something that's useful. Hopefully it'll spawn a bunch of research into similar approaches for nanotech batteries so that eventually we have something really awesome that does this.

longer lasting battery? (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222871)

I'm assuming since this is essentially a high tech capacitor it will probably withstand many more recharge cycles than a lithium ion or nickle metal hydride battery?

Re:longer lasting battery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20222937)

Hig tech capacitor means nothing,!!
  only the applications and time will tell

Needs a name ... (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222943)

It's a battery. It's a capacitor. It's the battacitor!

Re:Needs a name ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223123)

Well, capattery sounds better to me. Additional advantage: can be spelled crapattery if/when the thing turns out to be useless.

--JAB

Re:Needs a name ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223423)

But battacitor can be spelled Badassitor if things go well!

Re:Needs a name ... (1)

larske (518751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223165)

Both terms battacitor and capattery has been coined before (similar to liger and tigon?), a brand NEW name needs to be invented: The ... (ta da) BATTEROCITATOR(tm)(r)(c)(help)(cant)(stop)(writing )(stuff)(in)(parentheses!) This is also the name of a new action movie starring The Governator as the Batterocitator.

Re:Needs a name ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223247)

iPower

Vampire Paper! (3, Funny)

Sabathius (566108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20222979)

Another key feature is the capability to use human blood or sweat to help power the battery.
Jesus Christ! Has anyone else noticed the alarming trend of devices made to run on human fluids!

Re:Vampire Paper! (3, Funny)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223207)

They will pry my precious bodily fluids out of my cold dead... oh wait, never mind.

Re:Vampire Paper! (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223823)

Has anyone else noticed the alarming trend of devices made to run on human fluids!

So now we know how the sexbot of the future is going to be "recharged"

Re:Vampire Paper! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223853)

Would it run on kittens blood?

How does it work? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223009)

I can't find the paper yet at pnas.org, and as usual, TFA is light on details. Where and how is the energy stored? Capacitance between individual nanotubes? Or between sides of the paper? Or a chemical process?

What happens when you fold the paper? Wouldn't you short-circuit it?

How well does the carbon adhere to the paper? Pencil strokes always flake off a bit over time.

Vapo(u)rware (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223047)

The researchers haven't yet developed a high-volume way to manufacture the devices. They envision ultimately printing sheets between rollers like newsprint.

Give me patience.... and give it to me NOW!!!

Scary fuel (2, Funny)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223149)

Another key feature is the capability to use human blood or sweat to help power the battery.

I can see Stephen King starting on a new novel ...

Obligatory... (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223269)

Another key feature is the capability to use human blood or sweat to help power the battery.

"Combined with some form of fusion, the machines had found all the power they would ever need ..."

An Idea (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223189)

Maybe use something other than paper. Have you ever seen paper that has been touched a lot over the course of a few years? It's not so pretty. Maybe the use of some polymer is in order.

possible applications? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223369)

If power/weight and power/ is good, this can mean a technological revolution. It would mean the end of the oil-era(it would make wind and solar power much more applicable). But we are waiting for that breakthrough for a long time already, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

pF or capacitance (1)

dlhm (739554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223509)

Did I miss it in the article. Did they list the Farads or capacitance of any measure of this material? If not, what does all this really mean? Everything holds some sort of charge.. unless they specify what value it is, it really doesn't matter.

1850s style paper battery (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223605)

I believe some batteries were made like this in the 1850s. Hemp-paper + rotton-apple-squeeze. The carbon came from cigar smoke - how can you wrap slimy paper around a silver dime without smoking cigars ?

Electronic Postage Stamps (1)

sjaguar (763407) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223653)

I think that "sheet" is an exaggeration. The paper looks to be the size of a postage stamp. I was expecting an 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper. I wonder how much of a shock one would get when accidentally licking (or maybe purposely) the paper? I wonder if the paper battery will suffer the same problems as normal paper does, such as mold and humidity. What happens when they ignite?

Hopefully RPI will release more soon. (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 6 years ago | (#20223737)

Hopefully RPI will release more info on their website soon. I was kind of surprised they didn't have a post about it on their homepage. (They almost always have in the 4 years I was there and the year since I graduated.)

If its not toxic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20223883)

Then why are they wearing rubber gloves to hold it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...