Can this battery be charged in less than 30 seconds?
There are multiple problems with the claims made by this company.
The first of them, being ohms law, and simple thermo-dynamics.
For a typical Samsung phone of capacity 2.6 Amp hour, charging in 30 seconds requires an amperage, as the article says, of 360 amps.
That is 1800 watts!
At 5 volts, on a 2 foot charge cable, like the one in the video, assuming a 10 gauge copper wire, (which is being incredibly generous given the flat, thin, sleek cable they appear to use)
this results in a loss of 28.80 Percent of the energy on the cable. 518 watts are being released as heat.
This amount of energy dissipated in the wire should be causing the jacketing to melt, or possibly even breaking the wire leads.
The problem does not get much better as we increase the voltage.
At 40 volts, our amperage becomes 45 amps, and loss on the aforementioned ideal cable becomes 81 watts. (still pretty similar to the spec of older incandescent lightbulbs)
40 volts is not terribly great to be working with, on an open set of banana plugs, like the ones in the video. If they touched any metal, the results would be bad.
At 80 volts, 22.5 amps, we still lose 19.8 watts to the wire, but this is at least no longer heating the wire up. However, this is getting into the range of being painful to touch, and possibly even lethal.
One has to wonder exactly why this guy is not being more cautious, even handling the bare ends at
0:15 in the video.
Assuming we are running 120 volts mains line voltage (at least 120 volts is mainline voltage in the US) thats still 15 amps. We are drawing a lot of power here, and possibly blowing lower rated breaker circuits. (quite a few household plugs in the US are 15 amp, some being 20 amp)
No mention is made of any sort of heat dissipation measures being taken on the side of the battery, either. Graphene, with a sheet resistance of 670 ohms per square, is at a much higher resistance than conventional battery technologies. This make the assertion that what we witnessed in the video being 30 seconds of 1800 watt power being charged, patently absurd.
A wikipedia article is directly quoted in the article
which according to its talk page, is poorly written, along with being short in length.
It seems to reference quantum dot technology, in other words, semiconductors on a nanometer scale.
The assertion here is that they have used a peptide based process to make a battery and/or capacitor (they don’t really clarify which it is) out of carbon/graphene semiconductor material, on a nanometer scale. (dubbing it “nanocrystal”)
The process itself seems to be rooted in reality, referring to the nature.com paper “ peptides as biological semiconductors”
However this paper makes no mention of the process’s use as an energy storage device.
We have written on people using words like nanocrystal electricity to scam people previously, of course. It makes for a cool sounding buzzword.
Of further confusion, is the image they chose to go with in the article on syncwithscience.com, referring to an entirely different storage technology, aqueous electrolyte supercapacitors.
This energy storage technology is rooted in reality, paving the way for better supercapacitors:
These capacitors use an aqueous solution composed of sodium perchlorate (best known for its role as a precursor for rocket fuel),
however there is a catch. The video was published to youtube in 2014, and the research paper of korean origin was received by nature.com 14 october, 2016.
Unless storedot had some kind of exclusive deal with the authors of the paper, years before it was ever published, there is no possible way the battery presented in the video is of the same technology.
In the paper they are able to achieve a specific energy of 36.3 Wh/kg (the paper mistakenly refers to this as energy density, but this is to refer to power by volume, not mass. I will chalk this up to a language difference.)
This is good news, as even the most ideal supercapacitor on the market has only achieved 15 Wh/kg.
However, if we are to run the math, assuming a 2.6 Amp hour battery (5 volts, 13 watt hour) like is in my Samsung J3, this comes out to a weight of .3581 kilograms, or a little over .78 pounds. This is using the ideal specific energy presented in the aqueous paper, which as mentioned, is unlikely to be the technology this “battery” runs on. Running the same calculation, at a specific energy of 15 Wh/kg, yields: 1.153 Kilograms, or a whopping 2.5 pounds. This is highly unlikely.
It may be a personal viewpoint, but that video does not seem to present someone handling an object in excess of ¾ of a pound.
The most ideal supercapacitors on the market today have an energy density (watt hours per liter) of 8.
This results in a volume of 1.625 liters. The object presented on screen is massively smaller than this figure. Even if we are to assume an enhancement in volume of twice the current markets leading supercapacitor, it would still be larger than the package we are presented on screen.
By several accounts, the math does not work in favor of this being a real, working device. Their references are shaky, and unverified. This seems like “research paper shopping” in an attempt to fool investors into forking over money.
The video is most likely smoke and mirrors. That charge cable is carrying no energy. The phone has its factory installed, lithium ion battery. The giant case on the back contains some form of microcontroller to indicate to the phone application via bluetooth that the giant, unwieldy connector has been plugged in, and to begin moving the cheesy battery icon to the “charged” state. A custom phone application can be written to make the graphic move, in less than half an hour.
When the person goes back to the home screen, the information bar on top is suspiciously absent, a pretty good indicator that they do not want you to see the phones own charge status indicator.
We are never presented with readings from actual bench diagnostic tools, such as a multimeter.
This video is nothing more than high tech sleight of hand, in an attempt to fool optimistic people, and separate them from their money.