- Forum
- Lounge
- Technothread
- Page 3
Technothread
Each capacitor would be microscopic. The circuit is easy to implement, its just a bunch of capacitors and transistors. Whats hard is getting them small enough -- nanotechnology is not good enough yet.
For a car battery? Similar size to a watch battery. As you can no doubt see, the benefits are awesome. They'd be expensive to make or buy for a while, but think about it in the long run - your whole car/bike/space ship will run on a battery the size of a modern car battery. Your engine, instead of taking up a third of the car can be inside the dashboard
For a car battery? Similar size to a watch battery. As you can no doubt see, the benefits are awesome. They'd be expensive to make or buy for a while, but think about it in the long run - your whole car/bike/space ship will run on a battery the size of a modern car battery. Your engine, instead of taking up a third of the car can be inside the dashboard
I don't think capacitors work like that.
AFAIK, capacitors can only release their charge very rapidly. At most, in a few hours, and those are the ones that hold the smallest charges. The bigger the electric charge, the faster it'll discharge.
At least I think that's how it works (I studied this like six years ago), but if this wasn't the case, they'd probably be used to store energy for long term when space isn't an issue, don't you think?
EDIT: Okay, now that's just preposterous. Do you have any sources on this, or are you just guessing?
AFAIK, capacitors can only release their charge very rapidly. At most, in a few hours, and those are the ones that hold the smallest charges. The bigger the electric charge, the faster it'll discharge.
At least I think that's how it works (I studied this like six years ago), but if this wasn't the case, they'd probably be used to store energy for long term when space isn't an issue, don't you think?
EDIT: Okay, now that's just preposterous. Do you have any sources on this, or are you just guessing?
Last edited on
It would be a fantastic invention. It might even be the next OLED. A.K.A. The next invention for use by the mass public that makes my jaw drop and gets me excited in ways that confuse people. It just sounds like you are missing a few things. We have the tech to build them IF you or someone else can design them and the tech to build them. At least we will by the time you invent them. Build it big (aka cheap) then scale it down.
How would it work? Would it be something like this?
If capacitors release thier charge quickly each cell in the array would go inert very quickly upon initialization. The ultimate capacitor (UC) would have to be made of billions of Micro capacitors (MC) that hold a high volume of electricity and release their charge in sequence according to the power consumption needs.
My understand of these things is limited to what I have heard in this thread. This sounds logical to me but logic is limited to the data.
My next question is
How much electricity can a micro capacitor actually hold?
How would it work? Would it be something like this?
If capacitors release thier charge quickly each cell in the array would go inert very quickly upon initialization. The ultimate capacitor (UC) would have to be made of billions of Micro capacitors (MC) that hold a high volume of electricity and release their charge in sequence according to the power consumption needs.
My understand of these things is limited to what I have heard in this thread. This sounds logical to me but logic is limited to the data.
My next question is
How much electricity can a micro capacitor actually hold?
Helios, I'm speculating, and also, by soon I mean "within 50 years".
True, capacitors discharge very fast; and that is the point of the transistors:
Capacitor --> Transistor (0 posistion) --> Positive rail OR Transistor (1 position) --> next capactior.
So it's on a loop. You'd get a small amount of voltage decay every time the loop completes, hence the need for better technology. But basically you use a transistor as a switch (transistors also amplify a voltage signal, so there's another + to them); if the transistor is in the 0 position, current flow is to the positive rail (out of the battery, to the components). If the transistor is in the 1 position, current flow is to the next capacitor.
True it wouldn't work with just capacitors. But add an equal amount of transistors and it may work. Think about RAM. Each bit of RAM is a capacitor -- capacitor is charged -> 1, capacitor is uncharged -> 0. A transistor per each capacitor allows the CPU to move bits around.
Electricity is the movement of electrons around a circuit. An atom releases an electron and it joins the next atom. That atom releases and electron or electrons and they flow to the next atom. That's what current is.
How much "charge" they can hold; I do not know. That is measured in farads.
Hence the need for smaller capacitors. That way you can have billions that are tiny and as such hold a tiny charge, but last a long time.
True, capacitors discharge very fast; and that is the point of the transistors:
Capacitor --> Transistor (0 posistion) --> Positive rail OR Transistor (1 position) --> next capactior.
So it's on a loop. You'd get a small amount of voltage decay every time the loop completes, hence the need for better technology. But basically you use a transistor as a switch (transistors also amplify a voltage signal, so there's another + to them); if the transistor is in the 0 position, current flow is to the positive rail (out of the battery, to the components). If the transistor is in the 1 position, current flow is to the next capacitor.
True it wouldn't work with just capacitors. But add an equal amount of transistors and it may work. Think about RAM. Each bit of RAM is a capacitor -- capacitor is charged -> 1, capacitor is uncharged -> 0. A transistor per each capacitor allows the CPU to move bits around.
| How much electricity can a micro capacitor actually hold? |
Electricity is the movement of electrons around a circuit. An atom releases an electron and it joins the next atom. That atom releases and electron or electrons and they flow to the next atom. That's what current is.
How much "charge" they can hold; I do not know. That is measured in farads.
| The bigger the electric charge, the faster it'll discharge. |
Hence the need for smaller capacitors. That way you can have billions that are tiny and as such hold a tiny charge, but last a long time.
Last edited on
| A capacitor stores a charge from it's positive pin for a limited amount of time, and then discharges it through the negative pin. |
This is a pretty common misconception, but you've got it backwards. 'Charge' is a measure of electrons. Early on in the discovery of atomic components (electrons, protons, and neutrons), electrons were given a negative charge (and protons were given a positive charge). The reality is this was just an arbitrary labelling of the two atomic components. An atom is electrically neutral if it has the same number of electrons and protons. It has a positive charge if it has more protons than electrons, and a negative charge if it has more electrons than protons. Protons are are very strongly bound to their respective atom, and thus don't 'flow' anywhere. Only electrons are able to readily flow between conductive atoms.
So, the negative terminal of a storage device (be it battery, capacitor, or some form of electrical generator), is the terminal with an excess amount of electrons. You can think of the positive terminal as having an excess amount of protons, though this isn't technically acurate. It really has a deficiency of electrons.
Thus current actually flows from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.
| capacitors can only release their charge very rapidly. |
While capacitors can discharge very rapidly, they don't have to. They'll only discharge at whatever rate the circuit they're connected to allows.
I think what you are referring to there is the fact that capacitors are not able to hold a charge indefinitely. Technically, neither are batteries, but they can hold their charge far longer than capacitors. This is largely a result of how the two devices store these charges. Batteries store their charge chemically. Lead acid, nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion, even your zinc/copper potato battery, all go through chemical changes as they charge or discharge. This makes them more stable electron storage devices, but because these chemical reactions can only occur so fast, it also limits how quickly they can charge or discharge.
Capacitors store their charge... 'mechanically', for lack of a better word. The electrons are stored in the material used in the capacitor without actually changing the composition of the material. So all those electrons are ready to flow out of the capacitor, and are, in fact, constantly trying to do just that. Even if the capacitor isn't connected to anything at all, those electrons will slowly dissipate into open air. This also happens with batteries, but because a chemical reaction has to occur to release the electrons, it happens far, far slower.
Aside from energy density, the other significant disadvantage capacitors have over batteries is that they continuously drop voltage as they discharge. You can charge a 12 volt battery, then discharge it down to as low as 20-30% of capacity, and it will still provide close to 12 volts of potential. If you charge a 12 volt capacitor, it is only at 12 volts when it is fully charged. As it discharges, the voltage drops. This makes it problematic to use as a power source.
| Thus current actually flows from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. |
| At some point, batteries will be replaced by arrays of capacitors. |
| the current flows from positive to negative despite the actual particle flow |
Last edited on
Where can I learn this stuff? Can you point me to some useful references and tutorials on then net? Relative key words I can search for would also me nice.
| the current flows from positive to negative despite the actual particle flow |
It should be noted that particles flow from negative to positive only in solid matelials. In liquids and gases positive particles flow from positive to negative, and negative particles - from negative to positive.
The flow of the current is considered to be the direction of positive particles for some reason.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Conventional current (AKA electric current) flows positive to negative. The definition of electric current is the flow of electric charge, or the rate of flow of electric charge. The charge flows by means of electrons in conductors, ions in an electrolyte or both in the case of a plasma. The polarity of the flowing charge flow is not considered while making measurements.
What you can say is that the electron motion in a conductor is in a opposite direction to the conventional (or electric) current.
What you can say is that the electron motion in a conductor is in a opposite direction to the conventional (or electric) current.
I was speculating about how they could implement it, but Ii'm fairly sure capacitors will replace chemical batteries. But as I say the technology would need to improve.
See, an inherent problem with voice recognition is that people add artifacts to their speech depending on their mood etc. For example, someone who's becoming frustrated will start speaking faster or sighing. A person can still easily understand someone speaking faster than normal even if some syllables are unintelligible. People can also understand context without being explicitly told to do so, and can differentiate an order from normal speech, or recognize word patterns they've never encountered before.
Computers are, sadly, much dumber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh8VfFH78jY
Computers are, sadly, much dumber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh8VfFH78jY
Saying 'Conventional current' flows from positive to negative is largely an irrelevant statement. In the majority of situations where 'Conventional current' is being referred to, the actual direction of flow is of no real importance.
Where the actual direction of flow IS important, however, is when it comes to understanding how semiconductor devices actually work. While one could learn the basics of using an NPN transistor without understanding how it works, you'll never get beyond a basic usage without that understanding.
And in order to understand how semiconductor devices work, it is an absolute requirement that you understand how electricity flows through them. Trying to understand how they work using 'Conventional current flow' thinking would be an exercise in futility.
It is a definite possibility, but capacitors will first have to close the enormous gap in energy density they have with batteries. Ultra-Caps were a step in the right direction, but that gap is still, by any definition, huge. And battery technology has been advancing all the while as well, though I think the bigger advances are being seen in electronic power consumption these days, which would benefit any given storage medium equally.
It's also possible that, 50 years from now, we'll see wireless forms of power as the predominant replacement to batteries. There are a few more hurdles to overcome there though.
Where the actual direction of flow IS important, however, is when it comes to understanding how semiconductor devices actually work. While one could learn the basics of using an NPN transistor without understanding how it works, you'll never get beyond a basic usage without that understanding.
And in order to understand how semiconductor devices work, it is an absolute requirement that you understand how electricity flows through them. Trying to understand how they work using 'Conventional current flow' thinking would be an exercise in futility.
| I was speculating about how they could implement it, but Ii'm fairly sure capacitors will replace chemical batteries. But as I say the technology would need to improve. |
It is a definite possibility, but capacitors will first have to close the enormous gap in energy density they have with batteries. Ultra-Caps were a step in the right direction, but that gap is still, by any definition, huge. And battery technology has been advancing all the while as well, though I think the bigger advances are being seen in electronic power consumption these days, which would benefit any given storage medium equally.
It's also possible that, 50 years from now, we'll see wireless forms of power as the predominant replacement to batteries. There are a few more hurdles to overcome there though.
What about hydrogen fuel cells?
By the way, http://i35.tinypic.com/vvpr7.png
Exscuse my bad drawing...
By the way, http://i35.tinypic.com/vvpr7.png
Exscuse my bad drawing...
Last edited on
Fuel cells in general are just another form of storing electricity chemically. Where they differ from batteries is the material used to store the power is consumed in usage, but could be refilled with new material rather quickly as well. In this case, hydrogen.
Through a catalyst, hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules (not to be confused with hydrogen and Oxygen atoms) combine to form water. These water molecules share more electrons between them, thus the extra electrons from the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are freed up, and this is where the electricity comes from.
There are a couple problems with fuels cells in general, and hydrogen fuel specifically.
1. Current fuel cells require rather exotic and rare materials for the catalyst, such as platinum for a typical hydrogen fuel cell. These rare materials would make it difficult to mass produce these fuel cells for worldwide consumption. Catalysts using more common materials need to be developed.
2. Hydrogen as an atom is in abundant supply on this planet, there are two in every molecule of water. Unfortunately, it's the Hydrogen molecule (composed of 2 hydrogen atoms bonded together), that is the form that's useful as a source of energy, and this form is
a. Not nearly as common.
b. Still rather difficult to produce ourselves in quantities sufficient enough to become a major source of world energy.
c. Difficult to store and transport.
Through a catalyst, hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules (not to be confused with hydrogen and Oxygen atoms) combine to form water. These water molecules share more electrons between them, thus the extra electrons from the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are freed up, and this is where the electricity comes from.
There are a couple problems with fuels cells in general, and hydrogen fuel specifically.
1. Current fuel cells require rather exotic and rare materials for the catalyst, such as platinum for a typical hydrogen fuel cell. These rare materials would make it difficult to mass produce these fuel cells for worldwide consumption. Catalysts using more common materials need to be developed.
2. Hydrogen as an atom is in abundant supply on this planet, there are two in every molecule of water. Unfortunately, it's the Hydrogen molecule (composed of 2 hydrogen atoms bonded together), that is the form that's useful as a source of energy, and this form is
a. Not nearly as common.
b. Still rather difficult to produce ourselves in quantities sufficient enough to become a major source of world energy.
c. Difficult to store and transport.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| jRaskell Wrote: Saying 'Conventional current' flows from positive to negative is largely an irrelevant statement. |
If you say so.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
All I was pointing out in my post was that when you talk about current flowing from positive to negative, you are taking in terms of Conventional current and when you talk about current flowing from negative to positive you are taking in terms of electron motion or flow. i.e. I was defining the terms that are used (at least in my neck of the woods).
If you think defining terms is irrelevant, so be it. It was always relevant to make it clear what you where taking about when I was at uni.
If you think defining terms is irrelevant, so be it. It was always relevant to make it clear what you where taking about when I was at uni.
Last edited on
| If you think defining terms is irrelevant, so be it. |
I never made such a general statement, nor even inferred it.