Talk:Paper battery

Comments

Just to add a few non-pay links for those who don't have access to the globe site.

BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6945732.stm

Ars Technica - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070813-scientists-create-paper-thin-flexible-biodegradable-battery.html

vnunet - http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2196660/boffins-flatten-battery-carbon-nanotubes

And here is the original press release.

Rensslaer - http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2280

I recommend that someone more knowledgeable than I in page setups and such post the body of the official release and maybe even go so far as contact the researchers directly for their input.

74.210.43.171 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) thrudd

Updated

I organized the info and added a bit, still could use a bit more, but I was editing at work and ran out of time; had an especially hard time uploading a pic, if anyone can help, the permissions and pictures are at these links: http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/4801.php?from=99678 http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/4802.php?from=99678 Irontobias (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be leery of adding; I don't see a GNU free use licence there. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Algal cellulose battery

Here's a different sort of "paper batter", perhaps this info can be integrated into the main article. [1] AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous information

1. Paper batteries are not very low cost and are not scalable (with the fabrication techniques currently used) because they require aligned carbon nanotubes. Aligning carbon nanotubes is not hard to do, but it is expensive on a large scale. The technique used is to use a chemical vapor deposition at 750-800 degrees C. This is fine for small areas (such as 1 inch squared sized) but not for meter by meter sizes. 2. There is evidence to support the claim that carbon nanotubes are cause serious respiratory problems. Therefore it is erroneous on the part of the researchers to claim that paper batteries are harmless.

Tarun.chari (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to contain more errors than facts.

It relies fundamentally on sources with almost no technical background. The BBC and other sources contain fundamental errors, this is not a battery, or a supercapacitor, or both. It's an electrolyte that can in principle be used to make both.

http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/4802.php?from=99678 - a image from one of the refs, that makes this clear.

The original paper presenting this seems to be here.

I've done some initial editing on this article.

The problem largely arises that the journalists and PR people writing the original cited articles do not understand the technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29

A battery is composed of

• Two reactive substances, of differing electrochemical potential. Possibly additional electrodes to connect these to the output
• A spacer or means of mechanically separating the substances so they do not come into contact and short out.
• An electrolyte to conduct ions.
• Conductivity enhancers - there may be nanotubes, or fibres, or other conductive elements spread throughout the above, to improve conduction, and improve performance.

The remaining unedited part of the article still largely assumes that the 'battery' is simply the sheet of paper. It's not. A functional battery would have two substances, of different electrochemical potential to provide the power.

This makes some of the other claims - medical compatibility - almost pointless. The spacer film may be biocompatible, as may the electrolyte, but if you place the reactive chemicals also required, into the body without any barrier film, then at best the battery will rapidly discharge, at worst, the person will be poisoned by them.

--Speedevil (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)