Talk:Nanowire battery

PHEV
"For 5,000 cycles (minimum required for a plug-in hybrid vehicle), the remaining active Li would be reduced to well under 1% of the amount of Li present in the cathode initially" nice joke. leaf and volt batteries are rated 1000 to 1500 cycles.

POV
This article reads like a single professor's biography, not an overview of a field of research. Hithisishal (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On this point: It should be noted that this professor did not invent the nanowire battery. The 3D battery design (including nanowires) was proposed three years before this work was published. The cited example only uses a silicon anode. Without an intercalation of the anode and cathode, greatly increased power density is not possible because the diffusion of lithium through organic liquid electrolytes is slow. In order to have a true "nanowire battery", the intercalation architecture is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.79.117 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the Cui focus and added a germanium prototype as well. I'll pull the tag. Lfstevens (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any sense in such improvement?
Capacitance of usual graphite anode is 372 mA·h/g while capacitance of typical cathode is 100-180 mA·h/g. It means that main limitation of Li-ion battery is its cathode,not anode.There seem to be no sense to increase capacity of anode if there is no corresponding improvement in its cathode.It will not be able to increase energy density.Possibly, no more than just a few percents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley(talk) 13:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So what? You are citing capacities per gram, not limiting capacities. The numbers per gram of the anode and the cathode dont have to 'keep up' with each other. You can have 10grams of the cathode for every 1 gram you have of the anode. Even if cathode technology doesn't improve at all, improving the specific capacity (per gram) of the anode will still result in net weight loss.


 * Imaginary numbers: So now lets say you have 2grams of cathode and 2 grams of anode material to have equal capacities. If the anode technology advances 10x but cathode capacity stays exactly the same, then you will need 2 grams of cathode (same as before) and .2 grams of anode (10% of what you had before) to have equal capacities. The net weight of the battery still decreased substantially.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.75.24 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear 74.58.84.243,


 * The author wrote:


 * > In order to take advantage of this anode advancement, an equivalent cathode advancement is required to achieve the increased storage density.


 * So, the author is already acknowledging the issue, although your numbers help accentuate the burning question.


 * I was driven crazy by the author's ambiguity of whether the advance in cathode technology happened or not. But the predicted time-frame for a prototype was based on an interview with Dr. Yi Cui at Stanford University, as mentioned in the footnote, and implies that advances in cathode technology are underway.


 * Perhaps it is not surprising that the author provides Zero clues regarding the new cathode technology, which implies: 1) They don't want to give away the farm, and 2) They have made sufficient progress to make a prediction.


 * Fortunately, nothing can go wrong.


 * (And no one made any suggestion that the new cathode technology would be applicable towards advancements in cold-fusion technology.)


 * If the author had been more forthcoming by simply stating that the Standford team is also making advancements in cathode technology -- but details cannot yet be released, the article's ambiguity would have been eliminated.


 * Coincidentally, I'm listening to some current-events on the radio. It brings up the question of how can technology that is developed in the United States be protected so that profits can be realized in the United States.  But perhaps that's going off on a tangent.


 * --Nei1 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it`s very interesting, that Silicon is able to intercalate 4.4 Lithium ions per one its own atom.
 * It would be interesting to see a picture of such intercalation process.
 * But even more interesting why there is no chemical material which is able to intercalate similar amounts of
 * HYDROGEN ions.Protons are almost sizeless and seems to be even easier to intercalate,since there is no need
 * for expansion-extraction.If such material would exist we could make cheap and interesting hydrogen-ion battery
 * or air-breathing fuel cell.Stanley

108.17.138.24 (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Not sure if this helps but...
 * 1) In a battery, the reactions happen on the surface of the anode and the cathode.   By introducing nanotubes, the surface area is enlarged many fold, thereby allowing the anode to absorb more ions simply because more surface area is available.
 * 2) By mixing Lithium polymer and Carbon nanotubes together, they have been able to create a cathode that is capable of better performance ( also because of exposing more usable surface area).
 * 3) As was noted previously, Silicon works considerable better as an anode for Lithium.  Previously that didn't matter much since by absorbing the Lithium ions, Silicon would grow to 4 times its normal size, and this swelling would invariably cause cracking, breaking, and eventually failure (within only a couple of cycles).  However, it has been found that using Silicon nanowires, they do not break ( much ), because their size is just too small to break.
 * 4) Some work is being done to investigate using a heterogeneous blend of Carbon nanotubes and Silicon nanospheres as an anode.  It is believed that this combination may allow full utilisation of the higher density of Silicon, as well as allowing faster charge/discharge through the highly conductive Carbon nanotubes.

re pointwithin silicone nanowire battery article
In this article, the writer in regard to a half-cell version of the silicone nanowire battery, makes the comment: 'However .... would have no commercial value'.I'd like clarification on this. Is he saying that, because [1] It would be too expensive to make, or [2] It would last so long ( i.e. be too good) so that the manufacturers wouldn't make repeat sales of them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.183.228 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a nanowire battery...
This electrochemical cell is a so-called half cell consisting of Si nanowires on the positive pole (also termed cathode, place of reduction during discharge) and bulk Li at the negative pole (called anode, place of oxidation during discharge). Moreover, the concept of using nanowires as an electrode material doesn't provide any meaningful storage capacity, energy density or power density in an hypothetical storage device due to the large void density of nanowires. If one would term every research material system he is investigating a "battery", we would fill up pages after pages about what are actually new anode or new cathode systems. This work has been published in a high ranking journal (=famous but not necessarily of much scientific interest...), got attention but has no battery deliverable value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.230.34 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nanowire battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201112628/http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-nanowire-010908.html to http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-nanowire-010908.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221095444/http://www.amprius.com/technology/battery101/ to http://www.amprius.com/technology/battery101/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)