1 posted on
03/03/2014 9:55:59 PM PST by
neverdem
To: neverdem
It’s probably biodegradable as well.
2 posted on
03/03/2014 9:59:07 PM PST by
Kevmo
("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
To: neverdem
So, how does that compare to a ~2300 mAh NiMH AA battery?
# of recharge cycles?
3 posted on
03/03/2014 9:59:41 PM PST by
Paladin2
To: neverdem
Drink Ethanol, don’t burn it.
4 posted on
03/03/2014 10:00:39 PM PST by
Paladin2
To: neverdem
Huh.
I wonder how far away we are from bio implanted computers that can run off of the implanted person’s metabolism?
5 posted on
03/03/2014 10:11:11 PM PST by
Grimmy
(equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
To: neverdem; Kevmo; Paladin2
“The prototype is similar in size to a typical AA battery and has an energy storage density of 596 amp hours per kilogram – roughly one order of magnitude greater than a smartphone’s lithium-ion battery. This means that the battery could last at least twice as long as conventional lithium-ion batteries on a weight-for-weight basis.”
UH? Supposedly the sugar battery has an energy storage density of 10 times that of lithium ion, but it could only last twice as long??
I must say after reading that my confidence level for the rest of the article was in bad need of recharging.
6 posted on
03/03/2014 10:15:00 PM PST by
aquila48
To: neverdem
“Rechargeable, energy-dense bio-batteries running on sugar might be powering our electronic gadgets in as little as three years”
And then again, maybe not.
Magic battery tales are almost my favorites, but magic battery companies beat ‘em out for pure entertainment value every time.
10 posted on
03/03/2014 10:31:37 PM PST by
catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
To: neverdem
Hmmmm.
A liquid-filled battery that farts and you have to feed, making sure that everything is very clean, so it doesn’t get infected.
11 posted on
03/03/2014 10:33:15 PM PST by
VanShuyten
("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
To: neverdem
To: neverdem
This is really more of an engine than a battery in that it burns fuel (sugar) instead of being recharged (by reversing the electro/chemical process like a lead acid battery).
It does have some very interesting possibilities if it can be scaled up to the point that you could run a car on these.
14 posted on
03/03/2014 10:59:10 PM PST by
Boiler Plate
("Why be difficult, when with just a little more work, you can be impossible" Mom)
To: neverdem
Hey, copper top...
To: neverdem
Brilliant. However, I suppose any size larger than AA will be banned in New York City as being too dangerous due to its high sugar content.
18 posted on
03/04/2014 12:31:04 AM PST by
outofsalt
(If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
To: neverdem
with water and carbon dioxide the only by-productCO2?? Aaaah! They're going to kill the planet!! /s
To: neverdem
To recharge your phone you just slide these pre-formed sugar sticks in the hole in the side of your phone and, presto, full charge. ;)
To: neverdem
The battery ... can convert all the potential chemical energy stored in a sugar into electricity. There is no known process that is 100% efficient.
To: neverdem
Environmentalists will want it banned.
To: neverdem
A new twist on “putting sugar in the gas tank.”
37 posted on
03/05/2014 1:43:08 AM PST by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: neverdem
39 posted on
03/14/2014 7:27:09 PM PDT by
4Liberty
(Optimal institutions - optimal economy.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson