🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:13:27 UTC No. 16363895
Why are there no batteries which utilize the second ionization potential of atoms?
The first ionizations of Li and Na are 5.4eV and 5.1eV, respectively. But the second ionization of sodium completely dwarfs both of them at 47.3eV.
Wouldn't exploiting this allow us to get much higher energy density batteries? Or is a 47eV too harsh for modern materials to handle?
Reference:
https://periodictableguide.com/ioni
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:33:34 UTC No. 16363924
>>16363895
47 eV simply means that it will steal any nearby electron, the energy difference is huge, the only way to keep it in that state is force all the ions into a similar state and isolate them, aka plasma contained in vacuum.
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:43:48 UTC No. 16363941
Because we already know how to make capacitors that don't explode
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:47:39 UTC No. 16363950
>>16363941
Capacitors are orders of magnitude worse and supercapacitors can't compete against li-ion hybrids and high-C batteries.
Anonymous at Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:49:30 UTC No. 16363953
>>16363895
That's what I've thought when I first red about second electron being one order of magnitude more energy.
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:00:53 UTC No. 16366552
>>16363895
interesting. maybe this is the reason for the push for sodium batteries?
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:09:06 UTC No. 16366572
>>16366552
Dude, they are using only 1e from sodium. Despite sodium being downer than lithium, you don't have more exlectrons in valent orbital. Because it ends with 2s orbital. Literally you get less possible energy because of electronegativity.
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:28:46 UTC No. 16366597
>>16366572
>they are using only 1e from sodium
I mean, yeah, they are now. but maybe they are keeping this as some sort of "open secret" at industrial level or something? the electronics industry is filled with examples of things that "can't get better" until some company out there "discovers" something that magically improves things.
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:01:49 UTC No. 16366637
>>16366597
Well, sodium is better because it's there, not toxic mining necessary. Maybe calcium.
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:09:41 UTC No. 16366656
>>16366637
lithium mining isn't more toxic than salt mining
Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:45:51 UTC No. 16366742
>>16366656
this. I don't get why people think lithium mining is bad... I guess there is more than 1 process maybe? because if they knew how it is extracted at the biggest mines, they would laugh at how reidiculously simple it is
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:11:50 UTC No. 16367630
>>16366656
Salt water is plenty.
You get clorine and hydrogen in first electrolysis.
One could electrolyse salt, but that's a little bit of, electrolysis of ethene and NaOH could work.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:18:16 UTC No. 16368332
>>16363924
Is there an upper limit on the ionizations tolerable by current materials? A quick search shows Teflon/PTFE (which I assume to be the most difficult insulator to ionize) has an ionization of around 9eV, is it naive to believe the upper limit then is just slightly below that?