In article <cv5462...
@enews2.newsguy.com>, John Larkin wrote:
>>> "Could be manufactured from carbon nanotubes"
>>> sounds awfully speculative to me.
>>Oh, c'mon, John. Sounds like you didn't bother to read the article.
> Well, most of it.
No, I mean the article, not the press release. The IOP leaves its
articles open for the first thirty days of their publication. Since I
wanted to see what had you all riled up, I went and actually read it.
>>I did. It's "awfully speculative," yes, in the sense that these
>>things aren't on the shelves or might not take off due to the vagaries
>>of market capital.
> Or to the laws of Physics, which can be almost as demanding.
If you have a substantive complaint against the results of the
article, make it. At present, all you're doing is engaging in fear,
uncertainty and doubt, using sarcasm and indirectness as tactics.
>> But, having read the paper, I can say that it's
>>not as speculative as you're trying to make it sound.
> Two issues:
> 1. Seems that every researcher who makes some obscure measurement
> includes wild speculation on applications, the favorites being a
> breakthrough in energy production or a cure for cancer. I think they
> do it to get publicity for work that nobody would otherwise notice.
> 2. Electrostatic energy storage will *never* approach chemical storage
> in energy density or cost, by orders of magnitude. That's wired into
> the physics.
Again, I can only encourage you to read the paper.
First, The paper makes no claims about breakthrough processes in
energy production. Capacitors don't produce energy, they store
energy, and nothing in the paper gives any other impressions.
Even more narrowly, this is an improved technique in energy transfer,
since the paper describes a very high tech method for dealing with
a very basic electrical problem-- the equivalent series resistance
(ESR) of capacitor terminals.
Second, the paper makes no claims that this or any other technique
will result in electrostatic storage with greater energy density than
chemical storage. It's just not there.
Third, having read both the press release *and* the paper, I can see
where there might be some confusion. The press release makes
unsubstantiated claims about fuel cells and the like, but that's
simply not in the paper, and is probably the result of either the
authors being taken out of context, being misunderstood, or the
university publicist groping for a gee-whiz application. But it's not
in the paper.
>>(On the other hand, no, they're not going to replace batteries.
>>That's just silly.)
> So if they'd left out the silly speculation, their paper would be more
Except, er, that's not in the paper. The boldest claim you'll find in
the paper is in the conclusion: "...[T]his is an attractive approach
to fabricate electrodes for supercapacitors of high power density."
So, having said all that, I must ask again: Did you read the paper?
Or just the press release?
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net