Conspicuously missing is any mention of energy density. Who cares about power density. That's juste how fast it can discharge. We don't need capacitors that can discharge faster. All capacitors are already much better than batteries with respect to power. We need capacitors that can store more energy. Capacitors typically suck at that and this article doesn't give any indication that these new ones are better.
I really don't want to come across as nit picky but is this one time when changing a linkbait headline to something more descriptive would help - on the iPhone this page did not render thE actual text for a full half hour (subjective) and I spent all that time with my brain whirring but not in gear - it was a little frustrating<p>A headline like "DVD Graphene sheets store charge super fast in lab" would have helped me shift the various articles into my own working memory whilst the page loaded.<p>Downvote with comments please<p>(And I seem to get the general idea that Graphene will be big, but this is unlikely to be the killer app)
Am I the only one to think "hey, I could try this at home?" 1) prepare carbon slurry 2) pour on dvd 3) etch with LightScribe DVD drive... 4) Peel of graphene layer ...?<p>I wonder what, exactly, goes into the carbon slurry and if it's necessary to etch a particular pattern with the LightScribe.
I don't know much about the technology of this, but I used to play with capacitors during my teenage years and if this works even half as advertised it would be truly life altering. We could have "hybrid" solutions of a capacitor combined with a battery with the capacitor acting as a buffer to improve battery life.
Using Graphene to build supercapacitors is not a new idea as this video suggests. Here is an article from 2.5 years ago in PhysicsWorld describing another team doing almost the same thing:<p><a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/26/graphene-supercapacitor-breaks-storage-record" rel="nofollow">http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/26/graphen...</a>
I'm not a scientist. I can't not say anything how this could be a revolution but if you want learn the basics about Graphene. Start with this video on youtube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX8ClPVkD1g" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX8ClPVkD1g</a> and then to this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmVnHgwOZs" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmVnHgwOZs</a> or just search it on youtube. This helps me a lot to understand. Have fun.
I'd love to see this technology being incorporated into Tesla's batteries. With super-fast and long lasting charges their cars might become viable in countries where charging stations are either incredibly rare or nonexistent.
I wrote this last time too:
Having a better conducting, higher surface area electrode is a huge step. BUT it doesn't really change the fact that a carbon based supercapacitor requires an electrolyte to form the double layer, and all existing electrolytes have a breakdown voltage below 5V. What we need is a better electrolyte. In calculating energy storage in a capacitor, the energy increases exponentially with voltage, while linearly with capacitance.
Hi - 1st post on Haker news. Please be nice :)<p>Aren't debates over energy density of super conductors v. Li-Ion batteries missing the important point, relative cost?<p>E.g. If the energy density is 1/4 lower but the cost is 1/40th as much then electric cars get ALOT more viable. Can anyone guess at the relative cost?
I don't quite understand the maths behind all this but it certainly sound positive overall. It normally takes a while for things to get to the consumer but how long do we think it'll take to get to us or cars? Will it even get to consumers?