[LINK] 'Electrical Energy Storage Unit'

[Richard Chirgwin]

Another clanger:

> This could translate into an electric vehicle capable of traveling up to 
> 500 miles on a five minute charge, compared with current battery 
> technology which offers an average 50-100 range on an overnight charge. 
The "five minute charge" claim is nonsense. How long it takes to charge 
electrical storage with a given amount of energy is also constrained by 
what your power supply can deliver.

Imagine the maximum output of a standard Australian GPO: 240V at 10A, or 
2.4 kWh. In five minutes, that delivers 2,400 / 12 = 0.12 kWh. That's 
not enough to drive a car 500 miles. So you either have to have huge 
current on the supply side, or accept that the supply is what constrains 
the recharge cycle.

Also: capacitors have always been able to store large charges and 
release them quickly. That's what they *do*.

The "ultra" in an ultracapacitor is the density and duration of its 
storage - that is, you pack more charge into a smaller space, and it has 
less "leak" within the capacitor (ie, slower self-discharge).

Wrapping the story in the quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo (like "no 
chemicals" and "five minute charge") casts serious doubt either on 
Naturalnews as a source of information, or on the people who briefed the 
journalist ... possibly both.

RC


Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> New capacitors are indeed great, even if the article contains at least 
> two anti-scientific clangers, one of them serious:
>
> stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> I'll bet (hope) solar panels, teamed with an eesu, become a common 
>> item ..
>>  <http://www.naturalnews.com/023063.html>
>
>> It is claimed that this new advance allows for a specific energy of 
>> about 280 watts per kilogram ...
>
> Careless.  The Watt is a unit of power, not energy.  The specific 
> energy of a cell, battery or capacitor is usually measured in Watt 
> Hours per Kg.  There is such a thing as specific power but a figure of 
> 280 watts per kilogram would be extremely modest.
>
> But less nit pickingly ...
>
>> Further, because it is based on a solid state design and not 
>> dependent on chemicals, the technology would be extremely safe, 
>> environmentally friendly ...
>
> This is potentially dangerous nonsense.  "Not dependent of chemicals" 
> simply because it's solid state?  Sounds like the sort of 
> superstitious claim made by some on behalf of organic foods: 'contain 
> no chemicals'!
>
> All capacitors have 'chemicals' even if they are powders sealed inside 
> the components.  And some of them are very bad.  Traditional high 
> power capacitors used in electricity distribution use PCBs -- some of 
> the most potent carcinogens known -- in their electrolytes, and 
> represent a serious waste disposal problem.  I don't know anything 
> about barium-titanate but I do know it's a chemical.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen Wilson
>
> Lockstep
> www.lockstep.com.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>