Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:35:03 UTC No. 16370966

>>16370955
Expensive, hard to make, inherently unsafe and like 10 times worse specific energy than a normal lithium battery.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:38:49 UTC No. 16370971

>>16370955
Superconductors are limited by the amount of current they can carry. Even with hundreds of amps, you likely won't be able to store any more energy than a supercapacitor

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:44:25 UTC No. 16370979

>>16370955
The energy it takes to keep superconductors cold is just no practical. Superconductors can only be used in space. Sorry anon

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:45:27 UTC No. 16370982

>>16370966
>10 times worse specific energy than a normal lithium battery.
>>16370971
>Superconductors are limited by the amount of current they can carry.

I anticipated your answers and asked why/how >>16370955
>Is there a limit to how much charge you can shove in a loop? If so what mechanism limits how much charge they can hold?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:03:11 UTC No. 16370995

>nobody knows what causes the capacity limit
/sci/ has fallen.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:06:28 UTC No. 16371000

>>16370995
physical strength and critical field/critical current.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:13:06 UTC No. 16371008

>>16370982
>If so what mechanism limits how much charge they can hold?
lorentz force tearing the materials apart
also something to do with the cooper pairs falling apart or something

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:25:37 UTC No. 16371018

>>16371000
>>16371008
So basically a bunch of same sign charges packed together that all repel each other and somehow push on the material itself to blow it up

So isnt that a problem every single storage medium for electric charges would have? How can lithium ion batteries be more dense in charge than something which is literally made up of tightly packed electrons?

Because batteries do have a charge differencial between 2 capacitors, thats how they work, but surely the charge density is less in batteries than in superconducting coils, otherwise they too would tear themselves appart from electromagnetic repulsion

So if thats the limit for coils, how are they not still better than batteries who clearly operate way below the structural limit from repellent forces?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:42:30 UTC No. 16371042

>>16371018
superconductors aren't "literally made up of tightly packed electrons", they're conductive ceramics. they're no more densely packed than any other material.
>So basically a bunch of same sign charges packed together that all repel each other and somehow push on the material itself to blow it up
no, it's the lorentz force tearing apart coils through magnetic fields.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:55:31 UTC No. 16371058

>>16371042
>they're conductive ceramics. they're no more densely packed than any other material.
But that contradicts the replies that state the limit to charge density comes from the repellent force between charges

If superconducting coils reach that limit but more conventional batteries do not, even though both store their potential energies in asymetrically charged banks of electrons/(ions for batteries) then the basic principle is the same, a material with a bunch of charges of the same sign
So if superconducting coils are almost ripping themselves appart but batteries arent that implies the charge density is higher inside coils when filled near max capacity than inside batteries
So they should be denser

>no, it's the lorentz force tearing apart coils through magnetic fields
Why doesnt the same happen inside the capacitor banks (are they called cathodes/anode or are only the connection points called that?) of batteries?
Clearly the answer seems to be that the lorentz force/magnetic repellent is not as strong in batteries as it is in coils (assuming similar levels of structural integrity/tensile strength)
Which can only be the case if the charge density is lower in the batteries than in the coils

Basically why dont batteries tear themselves appart if they are at a higher charge/volume density?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:02:08 UTC No. 16371066

>>16371058
Batteries store energy as non-charged compounds and release it during the redox reactions.
Capacitors suffers from internal forces but electrons are freely moving so forces inside the plates aren't a problem and between the plates are distributed in a large area. That's the advantage of capacitors, they scale easily. Batteries are far better than capacitors to store energy.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:12:03 UTC No. 16371076

>>16371066
>Batteries store energy as non-charged compounds and release it during the redox reactions.
They do? I thought batteries had negatively charged ions on one side and positively charged ions on the other
Thus electrons flowing between them when they are connected

If the energy is stored as neutral compounds that means they have to have the other charge present to get a neutral average which should reduce the energy density

I feel like you’re describing petrol and fuel cells more than batteries

Yeah I checked and lithium ion batteries work with Li+ on one side and neutral LiC6 on the others

So youre wrong batteries do store electric potential with charged materials

So my question is if your Li+ bank is far from ripping itself appart how can you claim it has a higher energy density than a bank of electrons flowing freely inside a superconducting material, where said electrons are packed so tightly that if you add anymore the entire ring flies appart ?

That just isnt coherent

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:21:45 UTC No. 16371096

>>16371058
>comes from the repellent force between charges
nobody said that. the repellant force comes from magnetic fields generated by parallel currents, i.e. the magnetic half of the Lorentz force. Lorentz force =/= coulomb force.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:23:43 UTC No. 16371099

>>16371066
>Batteries are far better than capacitors to store energy.
For now. Nanomanufacturing will change that.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:24:50 UTC No. 16371102

>>16371076
batteries simply move electrons around to oxidize and reduce things, they are not capacitors.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:32:15 UTC No. 16371114

>>16371076
NTA, but I get your confusion.
As there is not electrochemical reaction, your superconductor battery would not be a battery, as a battery is an electrochemical energy storage device.
In any case, you little game is just spitballing sci-fi stuff. Superconductivity is not the same physical property is as capacitance. Even though kwh/kg supercapacitors are theoretically possible, their quality would have nothing to do with superconductors.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:34:50 UTC No. 16371121

>>16371099
You can literally know the max possible capacity of a capacitor, it depends of only 2 things regardless the shape: k of the dielectric and dielectric strength. You don't need 'nanomachines', the industry has achieved what's possible with dielectrics because they're simple, you don't need nanofabrication to make nm or um insulators, you simply use stretching (polymer films) or chemistry to form nm-thick dielectrics.
Battery-supercapacitors hybrids outperforms any supercapacitor or conventional capacitor but they're still inferior to batteries because the 'capacitor' aspect is a waste of space. In general chemistry bonds outperforms physics to 'store' energy, kinetic energy (and gravity) is the only exception but obviously it isn't that useful or simple as batteries (see KERS).

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:35:29 UTC No. 16371126

>>16371096
>the repellant force comes from magnetic fields generated by parallel currents, i.e. the magnetic half of the Lorentz force. Lorentz force =/= coulomb force.
But this is the same when they discharge

If you short circuit a capacitor its the same as a superconducting coil

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:37:32 UTC No. 16371134

>>16371096
Also how come very high wattage wires dont fly themselves appart?

For instance I heard that singapore made a big wire all the way from australia for their electricity

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:39:29 UTC No. 16371139

>>16371121
>In general chemistry bonds outperforms physics to 'store' energy
In general, yes. That's why we don't have those supercapacitors yet. But electrochemistry has hard limits too. And we haven't seen the end of supercapacitors. Not even close.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:18:51 UTC No. 16371217

>>16371134
they do. high current electromagnets need to be bolted in place or the windings will come flying off, and you can see them visibly slam against their constraints when they're powered on.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:50:23 UTC No. 16371290

>>16371217
Imay jusr have hada crazy idea that could remove the problem completely but testing it would be very expensive

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:19:01 UTC No. 16371339

>OP gets annihilated in less than 10 mins by first reply
>proceeds to seethe for hours
Many such threads.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:19:20 UTC No. 16371938

>>16370955
energy storage systems:
heat graphite to 2400K, use solar pannels to discharge energy via light.

flywheel storage with a twist: remove need to exotic materials to widthstand g-force by encasing entire wheel in a magnetic bearing, make the wheel a flexible cable; see lofstrom's launch loop

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:00:08 UTC No. 16372710

>>16370966 >>16370971 >>16370979
Not just wrong but also remarkably wrong.
Superconducting magnetic storage has been considered, even for low temperature materials.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:10:33 UTC No. 16372731

Do we limit all Population in whatever is considered where all of it is? Or is life rapidly expanding?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:30:19 UTC No. 16372773

>>16372710
What is a magnetic flux line?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:52:34 UTC No. 16372826

>>16372710
may we see those SMS?

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:20:02 UTC No. 16372891

>>16370955
https://www.linquip.com/blog/superconducting-magnetic-energy-storage/

>A SMES plant would need a loop of roughly 0.5 miles to produce commercially useful storage levels of roughly 5 GWh (3.6 TJ) (600 m). This is usually depicted as a circle, though it could be more of a rounded rectangle in practice. In any situation, a large quantity of land would be required to accommodate the installation.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:32:15 UTC No. 16372918

>>16372891
That's 10-300 times worse than a battery.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:19:10 UTC No. 16373035

>>16370955
>shove a lot of electricity or electrons of whatever all flowing in the same direction
>then the electricity just keeps spinning in there forever
>I found the concept from the game Terra Invicta

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:41:52 UTC No. 16373325

>>16371290
obvious drukpost aside, I do wonder if doubling back the windings would eliminate Lorentz repulsion, sort of like picrel.
it would be more like a superconducting wire-wound "resistor," and have very little inductance afaik

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:49:08 UTC No. 16373339

>>16373325
Bifilar coils are self defeating because you remove the self-inductance. You need that inductance to store energy.

Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 23:34:19 UTC No. 16373395

>>16370955
>I found the concept from the game Terra Invicta
When are you casuals going to understand that fiction writers string together cool, science-y sounding words to make up their bullshit future tech systems and scenarios?

My favorite remains the "dark matter nebula" from Star Trek:TNG. If you could actually point at something and say it's "dark matter", then it wouldn't be "dark" anymore and would have a conventional name, like "zero mass gravitons" or some bullshit like that.