Maker Pro
Login Join Maker Pro
Or sign in with

Menu

Connect With Us

Network

Maker Pro

Stanford reports 10x Li-Ion capacity incresee

J

Joerg

Reminds me of a German science ministry head, da big guy, who proclaimed
that all TVs will be flat screens within two years. I laughed so hard.
This was IIRC around 1975 ...

Nanotubes or nanotechnology? The supercapacitors are enabled by
nanotechnology...
Click to expand...

The very same VC parasites who gave us the dot.com/fiberoptics boom (I
could name names) tried hard to start a nanotech boom [1]. They had
nanotech conferences at $400-a-night Peninsula hotels, churned press
releases, started Small Times magazine, and started buying up
(stealing, actually) arguably-nanotech companies. They defined
"nanotech" as "anything small", which allowed them to take credit for
everything from soot to IC's, and somehow managed to get MEMS
included.

The academics cooperated and went crazy for buckyballs and nanotubes.

It didn't work for them, so the VCs have moved on to Web 2.0 or
something.

John

[1] well, I got sucked in, too. That puts me about negative one year
of work, one lawsuit with the Sand Hill vultures, and positive 100,000
shares of worthless stock. Parts were fun.
Click to expand...

Ouch. But I guess we all have to go through something that blows up in
our face at some point. No risk - no success.
 
G

Glen Walpert

Nanotubes or nanotechnology? The supercapacitors are enabled by
nanotechnology...
Click to expand...

The very same VC parasites who gave us the dot.com/fiberoptics boom (I
could name names) tried hard to start a nanotech boom [1]. They had
nanotech conferences at $400-a-night Peninsula hotels, churned press
releases, started Small Times magazine, and started buying up
(stealing, actually) arguably-nanotech companies. They defined
"nanotech" as "anything small", which allowed them to take credit for
everything from soot to IC's, and somehow managed to get MEMS
included.

The academics cooperated and went crazy for buckyballs and nanotubes.

It didn't work for them, so the VCs have moved on to Web 2.0 or
something.

John

[1] well, I got sucked in, too. That puts me about negative one year
of work, one lawsuit with the Sand Hill vultures, and positive 100,000
shares of worthless stock. Parts were fun.
Click to expand...

It can be hard to tell what new ideas will fly, and when. I remember
seeing reports of data storage by burning pits in tellurium thin films
deposited on glass platters back around the early 80's IIRC, and
thinking "no way is that going to evolve into an under $30 DVD/CD-RW
drive that will put an entire 4.5G digital movie on 10 cent media from
the local office supply store in 10 minutes" - or something like that.

Since this one makes enough sense to me that I think it will turn into
a real battery within 10 years enough to bet a beer on it, it probably
has some fundamental flaw yet to be revealed :).
 
S

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

New Posting Host, eh ?:)
Click to expand...

No, IDIOT!

I told you MONTHS ago that the IP address COX provides is a DYNAMIC
address which can change at any time. They re-assign ports ALL THE TIME.

You do not know anything close to what you think you know. Your "guess
as you go" style sticks out like a sore thumb in so many of your posts.

And you wonder why, as I take note of your IDIO-syncracies... why I do
not like your spew.
 
S

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

A "COUPLE"? Sounds like THIRTY years to me! I suspect Joerg
knew it was going to take a LOT longer than 2 years to get that
technology working and affordable.

Jon
Click to expand...


IBM will be making nano-wire memory chips that will have hard drive
capacities. Magnetic domains by the billions on a chip!

Check this week's EE Times for the article.
 
J

Joerg

Glen said:
John Larkin wrote:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n1/full/nnano.2007.411.html

Looks like this could be the solution to both capacity and
charge/discharge cycle limitations. Could be the beginning of the end
of the lead acid battery :).

They inadvertently omitted the mandatory nanotube statements "five to
ten years from commercial products" and "may lead to a cure for cancer
and diabetes."

PR breakthroughs like this have happened approximately daily for the
last eight years or so. So far, I know of no successful nanotube based
products, except maybe selling nanotubes themselves.

John

Nanotubes or nanotechnology? The supercapacitors are enabled by
nanotechnology...
Click to expand...
The very same VC parasites who gave us the dot.com/fiberoptics boom (I
could name names) tried hard to start a nanotech boom [1]. They had
nanotech conferences at $400-a-night Peninsula hotels, churned press
releases, started Small Times magazine, and started buying up
(stealing, actually) arguably-nanotech companies. They defined
"nanotech" as "anything small", which allowed them to take credit for
everything from soot to IC's, and somehow managed to get MEMS
included.

The academics cooperated and went crazy for buckyballs and nanotubes.

It didn't work for them, so the VCs have moved on to Web 2.0 or
something.

John

[1] well, I got sucked in, too. That puts me about negative one year
of work, one lawsuit with the Sand Hill vultures, and positive 100,000
shares of worthless stock. Parts were fun.
Click to expand...

It can be hard to tell what new ideas will fly, and when. I remember
seeing reports of data storage by burning pits in tellurium thin films
deposited on glass platters back around the early 80's IIRC, and
thinking "no way is that going to evolve into an under $30 DVD/CD-RW
drive that will put an entire 4.5G digital movie on 10 cent media from
the local office supply store in 10 minutes" - or something like that.

Since this one makes enough sense to me that I think it will turn into
a real battery within 10 years enough to bet a beer on it, it probably
has some fundamental flaw yet to be revealed :).
Click to expand...


It would also be the time to take a step back and think a bit about the
density of the packaged energy. There comes a point where that gradually
turns dangerous, as evidenced by a few Li-Ion batteries that went
"exotherm".
 
S

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

Hey, TURD! We both know how they re-assign ;-) TURD!

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...


Actually, you have no fucking clue as to why, you retarded, presumptuous
cretin.

They do it by their choice. They also would do it if I left my modem
off-line for lone enough for the port to get re-used.

I would venture to say that NONE of your illusions as to why they do it
are valid or true... in ANY case.

You are so fucking stupid, I could swear that it was you that I saw
starring in that movie "Total Retard".
 
P

przemek klosowski

It would also be the time to take a step back and think a bit about the
density of the packaged energy. There comes a point where that gradually
turns dangerous, as evidenced by a few Li-Ion batteries that went
"exotherm".
Click to expand...

Yup, whipping out my trusty 'units' program, I put in the data for my
laptop battery, 19V and 45000 mAh, and ask for a TNT equivalent

45000 mA hr 19 V
You want: g tnt
* 667.37921

Yup, two thirds of a kilo. Could probably take a door out if all this
energy could be extracted in a short time. Fortunately, it's limited, but
it is no wonder that they do catch fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(*steve*)
Successful Stanford Research SR530 lock-in amplifier repair
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
(*steve*)
(*steve*)
G
Stanford Research SR510 lock in amplifier circuits
Replies
1
Views
1K
shrtrnd
S
F
Anyone having an Stanford Research SR830 manual?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Fred Bartoli
F
D
Stanford's robotic Audi to brave Pikes Peak without a driver
Replies
2
Views
969
Mr.T
M
J
NEWS: Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
RadicalModerate
R
Top