backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by crispbp04.. on May 24 at 11:34 AM

She won the $50,000 Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award

A high school student from California has created a way to charge cell phones completely in just 20-30 seconds. 

Eesha Khare, 18, of Saratoga, California, recently won the $50,000 Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award for her fast-charging device. 

The device uses an improved supercapacitor that can store a lot of energy into a small space using a nanorod electrode. It is capable of 10,000 charge-recharge cycles and can fully charge a cell phone in 20-30 seconds. 

Traditional chargers typically take hours to achieve a full charge, and are capable of only 1,000 cycles for rechargeable batteries.


Khare said her supercapacitor has been used to power an LED, and sees her invention being placed in cell phones in the future.

"It is also flexible, so it can be used in rollup displays and clothing and fabric," Khare said. "It has a lot of different applications and advantages over batteries in that sense."

This definitely isn't the first time a high school student has come up with a brilliant invention in recent years. Just last year, 15-year-old Jack Andraka invented a new pancreatic cancer test that earned him the $75,000 prize from another Intel-sponsored fair. 

Source: NBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Paper
By EricMartello on 5/20/2013 1:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And not every modern battery can get charged with 1C. That's just wrong!
A Li-Ion battery with 3.7V and 1Ah has a energy of 3.7Wh!
So if you charge it with 1Ah for one hour, it's almost full.


By your example, that would be charging at 1C. C equals 1 a/h in this case.

quote:
The same if you put 3.7W in it in one hour it's full, too. (for example by connecting it to a 3.7V 1Ah power source)
It's nothing different, it's the same, expressed in a different unit.


Watts are a unit of energy. We do not know how much energy there is in a battery; we calculate this based on its known capacity and voltage. Nobody who knows what they're talking about is going to be referring to battery capacity in W/H. I suppose you're one of those people who measures car engine performance in HP per liter.

quote:
Are you joking with me? Why should you charge a SC above it's rated voltage? Why do you connect it to a battery at all?


If the battery is part of the circuit and there is no other type of voltage regulation in said circuit, then the nominal voltage of the circuit will equal that of the battery. If you have a typical 12V battery and a 2V "super" capacitor, the battery will overload that capacitor.

That was in response to your comment that a super capacitor could not explode. Both a super capacitor and normal electrolytic capacitor can be damaged if you exceed their rated voltage.

quote:
The idea is to replace a chemical battery with a SC in future devices, nothing else. And she never claimed anything else. Just read her paper:


No, that's not the idea. Capacitors were never intended to replace batteries and never will, however battery technology may advance further as new designs allow them to store more energy, perhaps even generate energy by means of a chemical reaction.

It's not really her paper, is it? Not that it matters because until she has a functional prototype it's all just conjecture. She did not deserve a $50K prize for articulate speculation and theorizing - that prize should have gone to a contestant who did their own work without help.


RE: Paper
By UpSpin on 5/20/2013 2:21:05 PM , Rating: 3
My last reply to your ignorant dumb posts:
Watt is not a unit of energy . Watthour is a unit a energy . And I never used Watt/hour (W/h) as you constantly did, I always wrote Watthour (Wh). If you don't believe me, then take a look in your physics school book, or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
quote:
The kilowatt hour, or kilowatt-hour, (symbol kW·h, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy

quote:
The watt is a derived unit of power in the International System of Units (SI), The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion or transfer.


So again, Wh (Watthour), because Wh is a unit of energy, gives you the amount of energy stored in a battery!

quote:
Nobody who knows what they're talking about is going to be referring to battery capacity in W/H.

I never wrote W/h, I always wrote Wh and pointed you, several times, to this fundamental mistake you constanstly did.

quote:
If you have a typical 12V battery and a 2V "super" capacitor, the battery will overload that capacitor.

Of course, if you're an idiot you can bring everthing to explode. But it's a fact, a supercapacitor does not need a charging circuit, just a constant voltage (of course the correct voltage). That's all I said. Everything else you wrote came from your wrong imagintation.

quote:
No, that's not the idea. Capacitors were never intended to replace batteries and never will

That's exactly the use case of a super capacitor: To replace a chemical battery!
They get used instead of batteries already (toothbrush, backup memory, regenerative energy storage of racing cars) and will replace chemical batteries once they get a higher energy density. (which they will: see her work, see aerogel, carbon nanotubes, ...)

quote:
however battery technology may advance further as new designs allow them to store more energy, perhaps even generate energy by means of a chemical reaction.

of course battery technology will advance further, and btw. chemical batteries (ni-mh, li-ion) store the energy chemically, they release it with a chemical reaction! You seem to be living in the medieval. (maybe you wanted to sound smart and wrote some non-sense, whereas you meant some biological batteries?)

quote:
It's not really her paper, is it? Not that it matters because until she has a functional prototype it's all just conjecture

It's what SHE wrote. It's her work! You must be really jealous.
She also build the prototype, shown in the picture of this article, produced in the lab with a Prof supervising her (of course wasn't she allowed nor able to produce it totally on her own)quote


RE: Paper
By karimtemple on 5/20/2013 2:32:11 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for at least trying. It makes me feel a lot better that at least someone here isn't a crazy person.


RE: Paper
By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/20/2013 3:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

Plus, capacitors are more likely to explode if the polarity is reversed. Simply exceeding their voltage rating usually is not nearly as exciting.


RE: Paper
By EricMartello on 5/20/2013 7:20:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My last reply to your ignorant dumb posts:


Aka correct and factual.

quote:
Watt is not a unit of energy . Watthour is a unit a energy . And I never used Watt/hour (W/h) as you constantly did, I always wrote Watthour (Wh). If you don't believe me, then take a look in your physics school book, or


If you're going to link to something at least read the link:

Watt: a derived unit of power ... defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion or transfer .

Do you understand what the word "derived" means? It's a synonym for CALCULATED. That means WATT is purely conceptual. Amp/hour is the CORRECT unit to express a given battery's capacity, because without knowing the AH rating the W/H label is ambiguous.

To put this another way, you cannot determine the horsepower of an engine without knowing the torque at a given RPM.

W/H is for people like you who think there are such things as 1500W "peak power" desktop speakers for $3.

Amps are the units of electrical energy a battery has "available for transfer" and volts tell us the rate of said energy transfer. By multiplying voltage times amps you get...WATTS. WATTS UP WITH THAT!?

quote:
So again, Wh (Watthour), because Wh is a unit of energy, gives you the amount of energy stored in a battery!


A W/H can be a measure of energy consumed in an hour, as it pertains to companies in the business of selling electricity and whose pricing is based on watts used per hour.

Fortunately, batteries do not charge us a fee for transferring their energy to our devices so using W/H to refer to their capacity is wholly inaccurate.

quote:
I never wrote W/h, I always wrote Wh and pointed you, several times, to this fundamental mistake you constanstly did.


Actually its w/H.

quote:
Of course, if you're an idiot you can bring everthing to explode. But it's a fact, a supercapacitor does not need a charging circuit, just a constant voltage (of course the correct voltage). That's all I said. Everything else you wrote came from your wrong imagintation.


An "empty" capacitor that is exposed to voltage will draw current until it "fills up". The capacitor's voltage will be that of the circuit it is connected to. I don't know how to make that any simpler.

If you had a capacitor that could store enough energy to power a device like a smartphone for any reasonable length of time, it would need to draw either a lot of current for a short time or be fed a lower current for a longer time to reach full capacity.

What you seem not to get is that the capacitor's ability to charge quickly does not mean it will require a lower quantity of electricity (amps) to reach its full power.

If you had a theoretical super capacitor that had a 3.7V rating and the equivalent of 2000 mAH capacity, it would draw over 360 AMPS @ 3.7V to charge itself in 20 sec. Get it?

You would not be able to reduce the current by increasing the charge voltage without damaging the capacitor.

You could use a capacitor with a high voltage rating, which would then require that you use a voltage regulator when powering the device. A VRM would reduce the efficiency and generate quite a bit of heat.

Clearly you, the guy who desperately searches wikipedia and google just to attempt to have a discussion on this topic, is qualified to declare that I am making incorrect and/or imaginative statements.

quote:
That's exactly the use case of a super capacitor: To replace a chemical battery!


No, not really. They're more of a bridge between electrolytic caps and rechargeable batteries, but they'd fall closer to standard capacitors than batteries on the capacity spectrum.

Using capacitors to replace batteries may become possible some day, but this girl and her $50K prize will have had nothing to do with it.

quote:
chemical batteries (ni-mh, li-ion) store the energy chemically, they release it with a chemical reaction!


And I suggested that in the future, there may be batteries that are capable of generating their own energy rather than having a requirement of being charged.

It would work like this: battery "self charges". You use it and deplete it. You stop using it, battery "self charges" again. Repeat. Did I lose you again?

quote:
It's what SHE wrote. It's her work! You must be really jealous.


Now we can see who's posting incorrect and imaginary information...

quote:
She also build the prototype, shown in the picture of this article, produced in the lab with a Prof supervising her (of course wasn't she allowed nor able to produce it totally on her own)quote


She built "something"; she didn't even have a working demo on hand and the level of her contribution was never disclosed so how exactly are you going to sit there and tell us what she did and didn't do?

Facts:

- She claims her "device" lit an LED. She did not say for how long.

- She believes that the lighting of an LED somehow proves that her "device" can power cell phones. Why not test something other than an LED?

- None of the articles talking about this girl mentioned even slight technical details of what she is taking credit for, but they were quite boisterous about announcing that she "invented" something so revolutionary.

- She received access to equipment that is not typically available to high school students, giving her an unfair advantage over other entrants in the contest (sham).

Bottom line - this girl is no genius but she's smart enough to game the system and is now $50K richer.

Scientist? Not.

Con artist? Probably.

Liberal? Definitely.


RE: Paper
By DerMack on 5/21/2013 9:13:43 AM , Rating: 3
Eric you are seriously messing up SI units...

There are 7 base units, metre (m), kilogram (kg), second (s), ampere (A), kelvin (K), mole (mol) and candela (cd). ALL other units are derived from these. Being a derived unit doesnt make them any more conceptual than these base units.

derived units include among others these:
watt (w) unit of power, J/s or kg·m2·s-3 ;
joule (J) unit of energy, N·m or kg·m2·s-2.

Wh is basically just joules (J/s·3600s=3600J) and thus energy.
W/h would be joules per second per hour. I suppose it could be used to describe the rate of change in power output...

quote:
Amps are the units of electrical energy a battery has "available for transfer" and volts tell us the rate of said energy transfer.

SI system says amperes are units of electrical current, volts electrical potential difference. (but I get the point you were trying to make, just had to nitpick)

and for the last time, stop using W/H as watthour, it is not watt per hour, check your electricity bill if you ever get confused about the units again, seriously...

MSc


RE: Paper
By StanO360 on 5/21/2013 1:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I use the analogy of a river. Volts being the width and depth of the river and amps the speed of the current.


RE: Paper
By EricMartello on 5/22/2013 12:26:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Being a derived unit doesn't make them any more conceptual than these base units.


They are conceptual in the sense that they do not represent something that can be measured as the base units you listed do.

We can measure mass, distance and we can track time, so if we have an object with a known mass moving a known distance, we can calculate it's velocity as well as kinetic energy. Meters per second and KE (expressed as joules) are conceptual values - they express the concept of energy and motion, but neither energy nor motion themselves can serve as a basis for measurement.

These units being conceptual doesn't undermine their utility in terms of physics calculations any way - the point I was making is that using WH instead of aH to describe a batteries capacity is just bad.

Why do I say this? Watts are calculated based on the current being drawn from a source at a given voltage. When you draw current from a battery, the voltage will fluctuate inversely to the current being drawn.

If a battery maker claims 100 "watt hours" it assumes that the current draw will remain constant, and therefore you may end up with more or less "watt hours" based on the current drawn from the battery.

By correctly referring to battery capacity in amp-hours, we can infer that regardless of voltage fluctuations, a battery will provide current up to its rated amp-hour rating. If I have a 12 volt 5 Ah battery, I can draw 5 amps @ 12 volts from it for 1 hour and fully expect it to deliver...and if it doesn't I would complain to the manufacturer.

quote:
and for the last time, stop using W/H as watthour, it is not watt per hour, check your electricity bill if you ever get confused about the units again, seriously...


I will as soon as people stop referring to battery capacity in WH. lol


RE: Paper
By catmanq on 5/20/2013 11:18:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Watt is not a unit of energy . Watthour is a unit a energy


You obviously have no idea watt you are talking about. Eric obviously does.


RE: Paper
By karimtemple on 5/21/2013 9:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't blame you for not understanding this; electricity is not an easy subject. You'll get no disdain from me on that front. I just have two problems:

One, talking about things you have no idea of. When I don't know about something, I just refrain from talking about it or I say "I don't know." You obviously don't understand the difference between energy and power, and yet you choose to speak on it. That's why UpSpin chose to stop responding; Eric won't understand what's being said to him.

Two, the posts in this thread in general, and the massive number of downvotes I received simply for trying to be a voice of reason and of anti-sexism, make me really sad for what dark ignorance might lurk within this site. I guess that's what I get for expecting intelligence and civility from the Internet. lol, Silly, in retrospect.


RE: Paper
By StanO360 on 5/21/2013 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
The term is used all the time for AC UPS's btw. When you need to calculate the the backup time a given UPS will provide based on your power usage.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki