Guest_Jim_* Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Batteries are among the most important technologies developed because they have allowed so much to become mobile, but capacitors too are also important and could one day challenge batteries. Batteries can store a great deal of energy, but are slow to release or absorb it, while capacitors are the reverse. Many are working to increase the amount of energy capacitors can store, and now researchers at the University of Delaware and the Chinese Academy of Sciences have created a new design with great potential. This new design is the first to use 3D nanoscale interdigital electrodes, which means the electrodes in the new capacitors are similar to interwoven gloved fingers. This design keeps the electrodes near each other, which increases the amount of charge the capacitor can store. These electrodes use carbon nanotubes embedded in the nanostructure to increase the amount of energy stored, thanks to their impressive surface area to size ratio. The new electrodes also feature high voltage breakdown, which will keep the insulating material being used from failing. The new design was able to hold two watt-hours per kilogram, which is a greater energy density than has been reported for any other dielectric capacitor. The researchers expect this design to find use in field applications, like accessory power supply and hybrid power systems. Source: University of Delaware Back to original news post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Watt is a measure of power. Perhaps the summary means to say "two watt-hours per kilogram?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheGamer11 Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Watt=Joule/second, doubt watt hours would be appropriate for a capacitor anyways? Nvm you are correct according to wiki, was thinking of power densitry Edited October 28, 2015 by DanTheGamer11 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Thanks for the catch. Source article also says "two watt-hours," so ours is now corrected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts