Physicist Develops Battery Using New Source Of energy

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:20 pm

An interesting discovery, a battery that uses direct conversion of magnetic fields into electromotive force.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162807.htm

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:52 pm

Mmm. perhaps useful in electronics, storing small amounts of energy in small spaces, etc. Unfortionatly they give no clue as to the energy density compared to chemical batteries, except to say oneday they could power a car for miles (with how big of a battery?). Chemical batteries can currently power a car for hundreds of miles. If the moter and energy storage material could be incoperated into a single structure, it would be interesting, but at what energy density?

Dan Tibbets

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:18 pm

D Tibbets wrote:Mmm. perhaps useful in electronics, storing small amounts of energy in small spaces, etc. Unfortionatly they give no clue as to the energy density compared to chemical batteries, except to say oneday they could power a car for miles (with how big of a battery?). Chemical batteries can currently power a car for hundreds of miles. If the moter and energy storage material could be incoperated into a single structure, it would be interesting, but at what energy density?

Dan Tibbets

I agree, the article isn't very forthcoming with hard data. If you look at the science behind it, as a lab experiment it's extremely interesting.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

The drawing in the article shows Gallium-Arsenide thin-films. I can tell you that this technology will never be used for industrial (non-computing) applications if it is dependent upon Gallium-Arsenide. Gallium is somewhat rare, almost as rare as Indium, and is a by-product of Zinc refining. As you know, Indium is used as part of the ITO thin films used as electrodes in flat panel displays. There are start-ups that plan to use it for solar cells (CIGS material). Since much of the existing supply comes from recycled ITO sputtering targets, it does not seem likely that there will be enough supply of Indium for use in CIGS solar cells.

Since Gallium comes from the same source as Indium, it is likely that Gallium would have the same supply constraints if a wide-scale industrial use were to come of it. Of course, it may be possible that cheaper, more commonly available magnetic materials can be used in place of the Gallium Arsenide. However, if this is the case, then it is likely they would not have used Gallium Arsenide in their test device.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:28 pm

Indium will probably be replaced with graphene as production methods are developed. GaAs will be tougher.

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:37 am

However, if this is the case, then it is likely they would not have used Gallium Arsenide in their test device

I would think that being based on 'spintronics' research, materials such as GaAs would be la ogical selection. Being a proto-prototype, There's a lot of research and advances to be made on this technology.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:58 am

gblaze42 wrote:
However, if this is the case, then it is likely they would not have used Gallium Arsenide in their test device
I would think that being based on 'spintronics' research, materials such as GaAs would be la ogical selection. Being a proto-prototype, There's a lot of research and advances to be made on this technology.

I agree. GaAs is a well researched material. There are experimental and production methods for it. Now that the effect has been seen it is worth looking into other materials where the science/technology is not as well developed.

A similar progression has been seen with high temperature superconductors.

tombo · Post by **tombo** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:52 am

I worked with GaAs in the 80's and the raw material was not the bottleneck.
The expense was all in the high tech processing. It is much more difficult (and toxic) to work with than Si. It is more mechanically fragile. It is a compound not an element so there is a whole range of formula tweaks that while they yield more flexibility along with it comes a lot more things that have to be kept just right. And it is more sensitive to contamination than Si.
But all that is just science & engineering. If the money people choose to pay us to solve them, it works. The other big problem was just economies of scale vis a vis Silicon.