Alrighty then. "a current of up to 1 volt". Any science or engineering journalist, even at MIT News level, could get that wrong, but not all of them. They should have better fact-checking.
Neat application though. Obviously, don't expect to buy one next week. But what's interesting here is that you'd think that electrochemical cells, which are going to scale by volume (cube law) as they get smaller, would not be as effective in these micro-scale applications as the energy harvesting/wireless energy schemes people seem to like work on, which mostly scale by aperture/area (square law). They treat that in passing, basically, the problem with solar is sometime's it's dark, but it's not very edifying.
The text says “a current with a potential of up to 1 volt.” The key word is potential, i.e. electrical potential whose SI unit is the volt. That must be the amount of potential that this particular chemical reaction can create. Since the current probably depends on the amounts of the chemicals involved, the article doesn’t state that.
they are written by people who want to entice the knowledgeable to read the article, and the less so to gawk at it. Surely this accomplished both tasks
Headlines like this show the branding power the big schools have. If it's one of the big ones the headline is "<School name> scientists do X". If it's a small or international school, it's "Scientists do X", never "Boise Community College students do X".
You’re comparing a research university with a teaching college. In respect of a research announcement. Like, yeah the College of Western Idaho also doesn’t get much PR for its football team.
This might be a dumb question, but I wonder what the lifespan of this battery is. When the zinc oxidizes, the electrode eventually becomes less effective as an anode right?
Not a dumb question at all, and something I hope they address in the actual publication, which is what should have been linked to instead of the usual shoddy PR
I've been saying for years that pockets enable batteries, NOT vica versa. What happens is people go thinking that the battery enables the pockets. The pockets are getting smaller. BUT this is not TRUE!
I've reading somewhere about the stats and the pockets are bigger than ever. It's simple we don't have the batteries, "the size selector" that enable us to get the most ideal pockets that I have in my dreams.
We need batteries that enable the smallest pockets of all time. Much "work" is being done on "smarting the phone". No body considered that it coulds be the side of a coin. This is something they could be working on.
Imagine terminals everywere, you insert your "smartphone", and it's a whole PC! You can even insert into a payphone to make regular phone. There's still payphones everywhere. It's just an idea.
The paper says they got 760 wh/l which isn't bad. Normal zinc-air is 2.5x that, but these small ones aren't that different to lithium ion. I think that's pretty great.
Neat application though. Obviously, don't expect to buy one next week. But what's interesting here is that you'd think that electrochemical cells, which are going to scale by volume (cube law) as they get smaller, would not be as effective in these micro-scale applications as the energy harvesting/wireless energy schemes people seem to like work on, which mostly scale by aperture/area (square law). They treat that in passing, basically, the problem with solar is sometime's it's dark, but it's not very edifying.