new battery from lithium ion inventor

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

BJC

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,858
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
And every time it is promoted, the realities of physics and chemistry have eventually put a stop to it. Tesla may have found a way around those limits with his "etherical electricity", but nobody has been successful at making his theories a fact.

I was speaking of Nikola Tesla. Much of his research is still not understood by today's engineers.
There is a reason that it is not understood by today’s engineers. As you wrote, “the realities of physics and chemistry ...”


BJC
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,470
....as far as I
know there is nothing in physics to prevent achiving energy densities greater than anything
else bieng developed
So why don't we see the fantastic batteries and capacitors you speak of? "As far as you know" is not any reason to believe that all this stuff is possible or even imminently possible. The people that actually know about this stuff have been trying for decades to improve it, with only slow progress.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,794
Location
NJ
my idea for a great battery chemistry is to use the most reactive chemicals possible...such as in explosives....just need to slow the reaction down ......lots of chemicals out there to study.....just a thought from someone that knows very little about chemistry....
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
798
So why don't we see the fantastic batteries and capacitors you speak of? "As far as you know" is not any reason to believe that all this stuff is possible or even imminently possible. The people that actually know about this stuff have been trying for decades to improve it, with only slow progress.
we do have fantastic batteries,oh i dono ,say flying on mars,or running your phone,laptop,car
grid power leveling bank
heres the thing,they only get better
and the functional limit on power density is
real real big,basicly it is the actual weight and size of the electrons themselves that is the fundamental limit to how energy dense a cappacitor can be and how fine a fractal interface
for them can be made,or found
more zoom less fumes
its a good thing
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
9,461
Location
Saline Michigan
Chlorine is a deadly poison. You don't just dump it in the ocean. It would have to be dispersed over a very wide area, and even then it would evaporate and cause other problems. It would likely have to be reacted with something else to form a stable, non-toxic compound.
There is a commercial market for chlorine gas, used in a wide variety of chemical processes and in drinking water sterilization. Having a waste stream of chlorine might reduce demand for the other commercial production of the stuff.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,470
There is a commercial market for chlorine gas, used in a wide variety of chemical processes and in drinking water sterilization. Having a waste stream of chlorine might reduce demand for the other commercial production of the stuff.
I know that, but is the current supply of chlorine already a byproduct from some other process? Or does it have to be separated from other compounds?
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,470
we do have fantastic batteries,oh i dono ,say flying on mars,or running your phone,laptop,car
grid power leveling bank
heres the thing,they only get better
and the functional limit on power density is
real real big,basicly it is the actual weight and size of the electrons themselves that is the fundamental limit to how energy dense a cappacitor can be and how fine a fractal interface
for them can be made,or found
more zoom less fumes
its a good thing
The batteries on Mars or in any grid storage bank aren't all that much better. The weight of electrons has nothing to do with it either. The battery doesn't store electrons; they travel out the negative pole and come back in the positive pole. The battery only stores electrical potential to move those electrons via chemistry.

A capacitor stores power via electrostatic fields, but electrons also move out its negative and into its positive. Neither batteries nor capacitors store electrons like an air tank stores compressed air.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
798
The batteries on Mars or in any grid storage bank aren't all that much better. The weight of electrons has nothing to do with it either. The battery doesn't store electrons; they travel out the negative pole and come back in the positive pole. The battery only stores electrical potential to move those electrons via chemistry.

A capacitor stores power via electrostatic fields, but electrons also move out its negative and into its positive. Neither batteries nor capacitors store electrons like an air tank stores compressed air.
well then the capacity to hold a charge(chemical potential,or static charge) must have
a practical limit,which for some funny reason nobody is describing in absolute terms that someone like me can understand in the same way as gasoline .Gasoline holds energy that we can extract by oxidising it in a fuel cell and create an electrical potential non reversably,and we know what the absolute upper limit for energy extraction from that reaction is.
Its not just hype.
Capicitors are inherantly light weight,some are now holding significant amounts of power,and recharge instantly.Nobody is saying capacitors CANT work as a chemical energy replacement for aircraft use because of an absolute physical limitation.
The doors to the places where the work bieng done to develope capacitors and batterys
are jammed with realy smart people trying to get
in.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,470
well then the capacity to hold a charge(chemical potential,or static charge) must have
a practical limit,which for some funny reason nobody is describing in absolute terms that someone like me can understand in the same way as gasoline .Gasoline holds energy that we can extract by oxidising it in a fuel cell and create an electrical potential non reversably,and we know what the absolute upper limit for energy extraction from that reaction is.
Its not just hype.
Capicitors are inherantly light weight,some are now holding significant amounts of power,and recharge instantly.Nobody is saying capacitors CANT work as a chemical energy replacement for aircraft use because of an absolute physical limitation.
The doors to the places where the work bieng done to develope capacitors and batterys
are jammed with realy smart people trying to get
in.
Batteries move electrons through a chemical reaction. There are only so many molecules in a battery, and those molecules only have so many free electrons, so the battery's capacity is limited by simple facts of chemistry. The old lead-acid battery, which we still use in our cars and airplanes, does it this way:

1664897902225.png

If you can invent a battery that has a lot more molecules in a small package that doesn't weigh a lot, made of elements that have more free electrons for exchange (which might mean you have to invent new elements, too) then you might have something.

The capacitor can only store so much potential due to its physical limitations. It requires vast areas of plates, with insulation between them, to store any useful amounts of electricity. The area available controls the amount of current stored, along with the thinness of the insulation, so those plates have to be really thin and light and so does the insulation. Now, pushing more charge into a capacitor requires more voltage, which means that the insulation has to prevent arcing between the plates, so it has to be pretty good stuff or the arc will burn right through it. So a better capacitor needs much thinner and much larger plates, and the insulation needs to be somethin g exotic, too. We're talking about millionths of an inch thick, here.

1664898364277.png

The theory is that the electrostatic field distorts the electron orbits in the atoms of the dielectric, but quantum physicists are still trying to figure that out. Electrons, at least the last I heard, don't actually orbit the nucleus. There's something else going on at that level, and until we understand it we can't come up with anything much better.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
798
Dan said:"better capacitor needs much thinner and much larger plates, and the insulation needs to be somethin g exotic, too. We're talking about millionths of an inch thick, here."

millionths of an inch thick,surely we can go a bit thinner than that

2d materials are bieng used for,well,everything

graphene is the strongest material ever tested
and by definition is one atom thick
and the list of "single layer materials" is not
short
so thin and strong we got,enginering and manufacturing are not bieng ignored
early days yet
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
2,293
Location
Kanab, UT
The theoretical limits of chemical batteries are straightforward, and are analyzed the same way as your gasoline+oxidizer case; in most batteries oxidizer is included (although there are exceptions, such as aluminum air batteries).

The limits of capacitors are less obvious, but we’re already past them — high-energy-density capacitors today actually are a mixture of a capacitor and a battery, where chemical effects on the intercalated surfaces have non-negligible effects. Ultra capacitor is the search term here — see e.g. Maxwell for a preferred supplier.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,470
graphene is the strongest material ever tested
and by definition is one atom thick
and the list of "single layer materials" is not
short
Graphene is carbon. It doesn't offer great electron exchange potential, and since it's conductive it's no good as an insulator.

The really old flashlight batteries were carbon-zinc. The carbon was the cathode and was only a conductor. It didn't contribute to the chemical reaction that moved the electrons. That's how stable it is. Are you old enough to remember the short life of those old batteries? They were pathetic.

Carbon-zinc batteries were invented in the 1860s. Nicad batteries were invented in the 1890s and lithium-ion batteries in 1967. It took a LONG time to get them to where they are now. There is no reason to believe that an instant solution to electric flight is just around the corner.
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,301
Location
Outside Boston
Well, we could pin our hope on super conductors used for capacitors. :D
I recall a demo years ago, where they showed using super conductors to create capacitors which stored incredible amounts of energy. And were even more fun to watch when they failed!

I never did really understand how they two worked together. It seems like the two concepts for capacitors as I understand them and super conductors actually are in conflict with each other.

Tim
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
2,293
Location
Kanab, UT
Yeah, the standard high density storage with superconductors is just to store it in the flow of current around a ring…. Haven’t heard about an approach closer to capacitors. The problem with the current ring is that you hit the magnetic limits of the material…. Works okay with type I superconductors, but current type II isn’t there yet, and liquid helium is no fun. (Well, okay, it’s lots of fun, just not cheap or easy to work with.) Plenty of room for improvement in type II superconductors, though. But if you think a lithium battery is a bomb, what must you think of a current ring running a few degrees and a few millitesla away from its quench…
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,301
Location
Outside Boston
Yeah, when the valve/pipe (whatever) cracked leaking the liquid He (looked like blown leak in a steam pipe), the demo went haywire. Within a couple seconds the thing produced an incredible arc to the prepared lighting rods which were only supposed to be there for safety. They worked though.
It was really cool. And likely not very practical for flight, or even a car!

Tim
 

Dillpickle

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
330
Location
Piny Woods, Tx
BUT our laundry will be oh so white!
Five and a half years. Wonder where it's at now?

The article has this:

“The glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely available,” Braga said.

Sure. Take the salt out of seawater and break it down into sodium and chlorine. And what do we do with the vast amounts of chlorine when there may be no increased market for it? Doesn't sound earth-friendly, as they put it.
 

Dillpickle

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
330
Location
Piny Woods, Tx
Ehhh...we can store it as deadly gas without the salt. We had giant tanks of chlorine gas at the pulp mill where I worked as a youngster in Eureka, CA. What's a little risk in the name of green progress, ehh?
Bleach is sodium hypochlorite. You need the sodium for it.
 
Top