Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
> You may be highly disappointed running at 1.4 > volts/cell. Well aware of all the limitations involved here, the use of a variac to try the schemes from the power grid ect. I have done all of these things before. A simple comparison here is apt however. A typical industrial size browns gas torch MUST use at least a 220 VAC grid power source. I have a 5 hp 220 VAC input AC motor that can rotate at 3450 rpm or so. There is no such thing as a 120 VAC single phase 5 hp motor, or electrical engine, but it can be done at twice the input voltage. The residential electrical consumer is also limited from the higher efficiency available with three phase motors. So it should be simple to see that with a 10 hp gasoline input to the power device, a single phase power grid can barely compete. even at 220 VAC input. We are not concerned with efficiency here, only the volume of power necessary to create the pressure of hydroxy flame necessary to power a torch. This is different from the automotive combustion engine enhancement brought upon by use of electrolysis gases introduced into the combustion chambers; here I am speaking of an easy more practical way of creating a situation where the sole output is the browns gas torch itself compared to how it can be procured by wall grid electrical means vs independent gas engine driven permanent magnet generator means. Sincerely HDN
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
On Sep 26, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: Because the (car) alternator has its field regulated, it is designed to constantly produce 12 or 13 volts, probably even at the lowest rpm available to it by idle of the automobile. The PMG site however claims that high amperage extraction at low rpms must be avoided as it will overheat the stator windings. The one I am purchasing will be used for a small Brown's gas torch; driven by a 10 hp lawnmower engine. What this means is that the generator that developes higher voltage at higher rpms will have a load that "kicks in" only after a certain rpm developes. This is to be negotiated by the number of cells in series that the unit employs. It would seem then that my variable speed drive will come in very handy here. As noted with 40 cells in series, the thermoneutral electrolysis point only being 1.4 volts/cell, this implies that the load should kick in at 56 volts from the generator, which is probably just under mid range engine rpm for an automotive application. HDN You may be highly disappointed running at 1.4 volts/cell. I'd suggest buying a cheap diode bridge, or 4 cheap diodes to make a bridge, and then running the 40 cells (if 40 is the only number you can try) on 120 V house current first. If you have a variable transformer, then try running at various voltages just to see what your best design point is. Variable transformers can be obtained new for as little as $100. I bought a bench top model years ago and have been amazed at all the things it has been handy for. I often use it in series with a transformer cannibalized from an old battery charger for low voltage stuff (I sometimes add my own secondary windings), or a transformer from a microwave for HV stuff. If obtaining hydrogen at minimum energy per volume is your goal, then you may be better off running at 12 VDC regulated and 2.4 volts per cell, or 5 cells in series to make a unit, and 8 units in parallel, or some such series-parallel arrangement. For what it is worth, a cheap and very good electrolyte I've found is made by saturating water with ordinary lye, and then diluting it 3:1, i.e. with 2 cups of water per cup of saturated lye. For variable transformers see: Ebay: Just query "variable transformer" Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/yatya58 McMaster: http://www.mcmaster.com/#variable-output-transformers/=3t4581 http://tinyurl.com/y92fe4j Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess
Note - URLS below have spaces and asterisks inserted because my ISP blocks my sending references to them, assuming I am sending spam. The tinyurls work. On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Jack O Suileabhain wrote: John Hutchison of British Columbia approached fractionally Tesla's results and was immediately shut-down and relieved of his research data & equipment by a joint contingent of Canadian & United States goverment's 'officials.' This is simple factual history. John Hutchison is an amateur extraordinaire. It is easy to see why he might be evicted given the extent of the equipment he kept and used in his *apartment*. See: http://gu * ns.con * nect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/John/ http://tinyurl.com/mrfzub Must have made the neighbors uneasy! That said, the response by authorities was wholly inappropriate, to say the least. And his stuff was taken on more than one occasion. For more on the latest invasion see: http://www.g * eocit * ies.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/ index.html http://tinyurl.com/yefmpb8 This has been a topic of discussion here. Consider: On Mar 18, 2000, at 7:21 PM, William Beaty wrote: ( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website bi...@eskimo.com http:// www.amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L http://www.g * eocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html John Hutchison Raided At Gunpoint By Canadian Police Reporting From Shreveport, Louisiana UNITED STATES Word has been received this morning, Saturday, 18 March 2000, that John Hutchison has been raided at gunpoint by Canadian Police. John's apartment in New Westminster, British Columbia, was raided at 2 PM Friday, 17 March 2000, by gun-wielding police searching for firearms. An antique gun collection owned by Hutchison was confiscated in its entireity. According to Hutchison, a phone call was received at about 2 PM Friday, stating that it was the police, and asking John to answer his door. Hutchison states that there were 8 to 10 individuals pointing weapons at him, only two or three of whom were in uniform. The rest were dressed in dark clothing. Hutchison was handcuffed and placed on the outside steps while police searched the apartment. No warrant was claimed or shown at any time. Police stated only that there had been an anonymous complaint that firearms were being brought into the apartment. Police also called in an "electrical inspector" to examine John's lab equipment. This is the famous "Hutchison apparatus" with which John produces the renowned "Hutchison Effect." Additional individuals dressed in suits were brought in who took extensive photographs of the Hutchison apparatus. Hutchison indicates that these persons had an "official air" about them, and that they might be Government agents, especially given the confiscation of the original Hutchison lab, which took place while John was out of the country in 1990. None of these persons showed any identification. Those who have followed John's career of invention and innovation will recall that his first laboratory was forcibly seized by the Canadian Government on 24 February 1990 by the direct order of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulruney. The Government has retained the lab in spite of a court order by Judge Paris of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to return it. A previous raid on John Hutchison's apartment involving his collection of antique firearms occured in 1978, and processing took two years. The confiscated antiques were returned at the order of Judge Paris. These events occured under the administration of former PM Joe Clark. The present raid follows close on the heels of a recent successful levitation performed 11 October 1999 which was videotaped by John. The effect was achieved after six days worth of attempts. However, neighbors called local police to complain about Hutchison's experiment. It is unclear whether something in their apartment levitated, although there is no other way known at this time that they could have been aware of the levitation experiment that was in progress. The neighbors in question live across the street from Hutchison. The sound of approaching sirens was recorded on the video soundtrack of Hutchison's camcorder during the experiment, and video of some emergency vehicles and personnel was obtained. Further updates on the situation will be posted promptly on this website. Mark A. Solis Shreveport, LA USA Webmaster for John Hutchison On Mar 19, 2000, at 9:12 PM, Michael T Huffman wrote: Yo Bill! If this is the Hutchison that was able to melt metals from a distanc
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
Harvey Norris wrote: > --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence Subject: Re: [Vo]:Car >> Alternators Vs Old Style Generators To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: >> Saturday, September 26, 2009, 10:05 AM >> >> >> Chris Zell wrote: >>> The last car to use generators that I'm aware of was >> the VW Bug. I >>> suppose alternators were cheaper to build. > What a coincidence, I remember an incident where my (pre 70's?) Car > Me Ghia? VW had its alternator go out, and was in fact surprised to > learn it was instead a generator. Your post made me remember this. A > freind has a porsche engine in the older VW busses they made. >> That would make sense. Once cheap reliable high current diodes >> became available, the alternator design appears simpler. >> >> On the other hand, I've always heard that alternators are preferred >> because they perform better than generators at low RPM -- in other >> words, their "power band" is wider, which is important for >> something which turns at a fixed rate relative to the engine (no >> transmission on the generator). I've never checked that claim out, >> however. > Because the (car) alternator has its field regulated, it is designed > to constantly produce 12 or 13 volts, probably even at the lowest rpm > available to it by idle of the automobile. The PMG site however > claims that high amperage extraction at low rpms must be avoided as > it will overheat the stator windings. The one I am purchasing will be > used for a small Brown's gas torch; driven by a 10 hp lawnmower > engine. What this means is that the generator that developes higher > voltage at higher rpms will have a load that "kicks in" only after a > certain rpm developes. This is to be negotiated by the number of > cells in series that the unit employs. It would seem then that my > variable speed drive will come in very handy here. As noted with 40 > cells in series, the thermoneutral electrolysis point only being 1.4 > volts/cell, this implies that the load should kick in at 56 volts > from the generator, which is probably just under mid range engine rpm > for an automotive application. HDN This sounds like you actually want 56 or more volts from the beast, yes? I seem to recall that you can dink the built-in regulator in a typical automobile alternator and get out very high volts from it. Where I read this, exactly what you have to disable, or how high the volts can go before the alternator does an auto de fey, I don't recall just now, unfortunately. >> Most of my experience with generators comes from the old flathead >> Willys Jeep engines we used in my father's boat, back in the day. >> (Two in succession; first replaced when the cylinder walls rusted >> through, due to use of an open cooling system in brackish water. >> It's a tradeoff -- a closed system is more expensive, more complex, >> and takes more maintenance, but an open system requires replacing >> the engine block every ten years or so.) >> >> >>> >> >
RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?
I appreciate the answers but find that they generate more questions in the same direction. As of 1998, cloud electrification was still generally termed a mystery. It's difficult to see how small charges over large distances still cooperate to create a lightning bolt as a focused phenomena , either between clouds or sometimes repeating to ground without dissipating the generating cloud. Swirls of air that create the huge charge should push things apart and prevent concentration of charge.and the discharge of huge narrow currents. It's hard to overcome the image of putting a charge into a small cloud chamber filled with smoke or other particles and seeing it all vanish instantly. As for space charges in a vacuum tube, patent 6465965 makes interesting claims about electron screening. If the Edison effect cuts off all current, then it's hard to see how. A traffic jam can slow traffic down but need not stop it altogether. Electrons continuing to boil off should build up to resolve the current flow standoff from filament to plate. I will study the old low plate voltage tubes to see how this fits. The patent asserts that space charge in a tube is a quantum effect of virtual particles setting up a semi-stable cloud of charge. I wonder if any physicists agree?
Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Jack O Suileabhain wrote: > If we were Tesla now our tower mast would be configured from > Fullerene/Carbon Nanotubules with a Bose-Einstein super conductor core. This post needs a glossary. Terry
[Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess
*Nikola Tesla's success at Wardenclyffe circa 1908: Setting the record straight* -Tesla's 'derrick' @ Wardenclyffe hit a gusher; not in crude oil; but rather in tapping a heretofore unknown parallel spectrum-region of extremely dense Electro-Plasma making the first initial ZPE/Zero Point Energy-bridge made by mankind in more-or-less 'modern-times.' Tesla's huge 'towering' success has oft since been erroneously called a failure by the ignorant, uninformed, &/or by those intentionally misleading. John Hutchison of British Columbia approached fractionally Tesla's results and was immediately shut-down and relieved of his research data & equipment by a joint contingent of Canadian & United States goverment's 'officials.' This is simple factual history. By the by; you can 'describe' this phenomenon 'mathmatically;' but how odd that those that have actually 'achieved the mark' did 'not' in point of fact 'get-there' by tortured sophisticated mathmatic exegesis as the 'spear-head' of their research. We love our math; but climbing a Jacob's-Math-Ladder to get 'there' may 'not' exactly be the centre-track to physics-heaven, even while it provides the necessary 'bread-crumb' bridge to engineer the subsequent R&D of our great discovery(s). Case Point: Even the contemporary physicists & electrical engineers of post-Tesla years could 'not' achieve Tesla's results even though they had access to Tesla's notes & technical data. They simply did not have the power of imagination to envision those forces &/or dimensions that were manifest & obvious to Tesla. And it's not for-nothing that Einstein said, "Imagination is more important that Knowledge." I do believe that I've seen/heard the misinformed claim that, "Tesla's Wardenclyffe Power Tower was a 'failure;'" enough for several life-times. To Tesla if a project/experiment yielded any 'new' data, then that was the definition of success. After all; Nikola Tesla was a 'real' scientist not mediocre'd into pedantically telling us all what something is 'not,' but rather ceaselessly seeking to 'know' every secret treasure locked within his focus of research tirelessly. Tesla created that tower as a electro-plasma-toroid field-booster to magnify the planet's geo-tectonic-&-meteorlogical-electro-magnetic flux grid; both atmospherically & extra-atmospherically. Tentatively the planet's population would hopefully be able to 'tap' that wireless power field-grid at will for free power. Westinghouse didn't like the sound of 'free-access;' but also some other strange & wonderfully-terrible experimental results mitigated the further developement of that technology to our new future. A that future is the dream that we are all on the thresh-hold of. But Tesla had to 'dream' it first; and so he was, & now we are 'here.' Nikolai Tesla was the consumate scientist-researcher. No data was extraneous nor superfluous to him. Tesla did not ever bother first discounting any result as routine nor prozaic. Each nuance of new data bore significance. And all other data; even that data observed previously; had new added significance in light of the new data. In the Tesla domain nothing was ever discounted due to a momentary lack of lucid interpretation of said data. He just never-ever took anything for granted. So he was always on the verge of discovering the wondrous &/or the terrible. Tesla was not a classically educated physicist. Tesla was a quantum-leap in hyper-intuitive analytical consciousness. The whys and wherefores of the timing of Tesla's advent could boggle philosophers for a very long time. But because the wild-card iconoclast existed we have the basis for nearly all of what we call 'modern' technology. The times were pregnant with Faradays, Marconis, & Edisons, & young Einsteins yet the Maestro Unifying Force was then, and is still, Nikolai Tesla who largely either 'set' them upon their respective courses or propelled their genius to greater heights & challenges. In short, Tesla maximised his world. And that's his ultimate genius. Tesla's Tower experiment @ Wardenclyffe, Long-Island shore yielded wondrous & unexpected results leading Nikola into insights that are yet kept vaulted. But with our minds we can pierce that paranoid's veil of secrecy because the genius of Tesla is indestructable energy that still maintains active contextual integration within the planet's living organic-psychic gestalt; that's us. Our dreams & intuitions are not vagrant happenstance but rather within a stream of indestructable contiguity & continuity. * * *We've some cool new materials that Tesla would've loved to have had access to. Just now the carbon &/or silicon nano-tubule electrode techology announcement is fantasitic news that Tesla would have loved. The Wardenclyffe Tower was masted by a Tesla designed 'lightening' rod that went as deep into the rock strata axially under the tower as the tow
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 10:05 AM > > > Chris Zell wrote: > > The last car to use generators that I'm aware of was > the VW Bug. I > > suppose alternators were cheaper to build. What a coincidence, I remember an incident where my (pre 70's?) Car Me Ghia? VW had its alternator go out, and was in fact surprised to learn it was instead a generator. Your post made me remember this. A freind has a porsche engine in the older VW busses they made. > That would make sense. Once cheap reliable high > current diodes became > available, the alternator design appears simpler. > > On the other hand, I've always heard that alternators are > preferred > because they perform better than generators at low RPM -- > in other > words, their "power band" is wider, which is important for > something > which turns at a fixed rate relative to the engine (no > transmission on > the generator). I've never checked that claim out, > however. Because the (car) alternator has its field regulated, it is designed to constantly produce 12 or 13 volts, probably even at the lowest rpm available to it by idle of the automobile. The PMG site however claims that high amperage extraction at low rpms must be avoided as it will overheat the stator windings. The one I am purchasing will be used for a small Brown's gas torch; driven by a 10 hp lawnmower engine. What this means is that the generator that developes higher voltage at higher rpms will have a load that "kicks in" only after a certain rpm developes. This is to be negotiated by the number of cells in series that the unit employs. It would seem then that my variable speed drive will come in very handy here. As noted with 40 cells in series, the thermoneutral electrolysis point only being 1.4 volts/cell, this implies that the load should kick in at 56 volts from the generator, which is probably just under mid range engine rpm for an automotive application. HDN > > Most of my experience with generators comes from the old > flathead Willys > Jeep engines we used in my father's boat, back in the > day. (Two in > succession; first replaced when the cylinder walls rusted > through, due > to use of an open cooling system in brackish water. > It's a tradeoff -- > a closed system is more expensive, more complex, and takes > more > maintenance, but an open system requires replacing the > engine block > every ten years or so.) > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
Chris Zell wrote: > The last car to use generators that I'm aware of was the VW Bug. I > suppose alternators were cheaper to build. That would make sense. Once cheap reliable high current diodes became available, the alternator design appears simpler. On the other hand, I've always heard that alternators are preferred because they perform better than generators at low RPM -- in other words, their "power band" is wider, which is important for something which turns at a fixed rate relative to the engine (no transmission on the generator). I've never checked that claim out, however. Most of my experience with generators comes from the old flathead Willys Jeep engines we used in my father's boat, back in the day. (Two in succession; first replaced when the cylinder walls rusted through, due to use of an open cooling system in brackish water. It's a tradeoff -- a closed system is more expensive, more complex, and takes more maintenance, but an open system requires replacing the engine block every ten years or so.) > >
Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
Harry Veeder wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> If an electric field exists outside and parallel to the current >> carrying> wire, and the wire is a loop it implies the electric >> field lines would >>> form a closed loop. However, this is not suppose to possible. >> Certainly it is. It's only possible, however, if there's a changing >> magnetic field in the loop. Curl(E) = -dB/dt. > > Ok but it concerns a constant current so the magnetic field is constant too. > >> But in any case, exactly *how* would you arrange to have a current >> carrying resistive wire carry a current in a closed loop? Where's the >> EMF coming from? Answer that and you'll see how the field outside the >> wire plays out. > > I mean the emf together with the wire form a loop, i.e. a closed circuit. > I can see how the construction of the electromotive force (such as a > battery) might prevent an electric field inside the wire from forming a > loop, if the > emf does not harbor an electric field. But it does -- that's exactly what causes the EMF. > However if there is an electric > field outside the wire then shouldn't the field go around the emf to > make a closed loop? No. Try to draw a picture of what you're thinking of and I think you'll see the problem. First, a battery is just a fancy capacitor with a major chemical boost to the energy storage capability, so for our purposes we can replace it with a capacitor. Now, let's draw the thing (horrible Ascii graphics; unit width font, please, or it won't look like anything): <-- - / \ | || ^ | || | V || | | - plate <-- + plate | \ | | / -| <-- |- --> | | --> <-- I've shown a roughly square wire loop, with a capacitor in the bottom "leg" of the loop, and I've shown arrows next to the wire indicating the direction of the E field at all points. The capacitor plates are labeled "+ plate" and "- plate". Around the capacitor, note that the E field points the *other* *way* from the field near the wires. In fact the E field *never* forms closed loops except when there's a changing magnetic field contained inside the loop. Otherwise the E field starts and ends at charges -- it's anchored to charged particles at both ends. That's as true inside a wire as it is outside a wire. > >> In other words, you have, essentially, hypothesized a closed loop of >> wire with an E field pointing along the loop all the way around, and >> then asked how there can be an E field in the *air* going all the way >> around the loop. Well, how can there be such a field inside the >> wire to >> start with? > > > In Weber's electrodynamics the electric field is a mathematical fiction, > a mere calculating device, so this "paradox" is not an issue. There is no "paradox" here. As to the field being a fiction, yes, I am aware that you can treat it as such, but it works equally well to treat it as real. And treating it as real has the advantage that radio waves are nice, intuitive objects, made of fields; if we assume that there's no field there it gets more confusing. > Of course, the > emf is real because it is what does the work to maintain > a charge imbalance in a closed circuit. In the wire, yes; in a simple closed loop of wire, no. You must have something driving the charges around the wire. > > > >> Last I heard the Lorentz force, F = q(E + vxB), fully explained the >> behavior of charged particles in E and B fields. >> >> Do you know any evidence that this is not the case? > > > The ball bearing motor?!? Touché! Thanks; I'll read these and comment later, but it may be a while. I've got some other "off-list" email on the BB motor I have to dig through as well; I've gotten behind. > > ok,ok, three of the four published papers listed below support a > prediction based on Weber's force law. Admittedly these three were all > done by the same person. > > > i) V. F. Mikhailov. The action of an electrostatic > potential on the electron mass. Annales de la > Fondation Louis de Broglie, 24:161–169, 1999. > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-241/aflb241p161.pdf > > ii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of an electrostatic potential > on the inertial electron mass. Annales de > la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 26:33–38, 2001. > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-264/aflb264p633.pdf > > iii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of a field-less electrostatic > potential on the inertial electron mass. > Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 28:231– > 236, 2003. > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-282/aflb282p231.pdf > > The next one repeats the experiment in (i) bu
RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?
This is not a static process, but the success of thunderstorm electricity results from the kinetic ratio of two ongoing process. One suspects that the rate of formation of free charge in the cloud, caused by friction between water crystals pulling protons off of one, exceeds the rate of free charge loss (that is, there is a relatively long dielectric relaxation time (1))). Hence, a net build up. 1. MELCHER, J.R., "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, Cambridge, (1981). t 02:28 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote: There is, it's just overcome by the forces causing the separation of charge... Understand that just as in a chemical battery, there is an active process keeping the charges separated, and it has to do with the turbulent columns of air moving vertically inside the cloud. It's been about 19 yrs since my involvement with this topic as a grad student, but back then there were at least two competing hypotheses as to the microphysics of cloud electrification. Not sure if that has been resolved or not... but convective cumulus clouds are not the nice calm gentle-looking puffs of cotton that they appear to be!! They are quite turbulent inside with significant regions of vertical shear... If I remember correctly, the vertical structure of a cumulus cloud has a positive region at the bottom, a pancake region of mostly negative charges near to the freezing level (~mid-cloud), and a positive region near the top... -Mark From: Chris Zell [ mailto:chrisrz...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion? I was wondering if anyone knew a thorough answer to the question: How can a charged thunderstorm exist? I've asked meterologists this question but no one has any answer. How can a cloud carry any charge at all? Why doesn't the charge cause the cloud to instantly dissipate? If we can demonstrate electrostatic precipitation with a small cloud chamber, how can any thunderstorm exist at all? Another mystery: How can an electron cloud exist in a vacuum tube? How can it hold itself together? It just seems to me that there are exceptions to the idea that like charges always repel - a notion that might guide us to free energy. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2394 - Release Date: 09/25/09 05:51:00
[Vo]:Liion's Roar
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23516/ Longer-Running Electric-Car Batteries Silicon-nanotube electrodes may enable lithium-ion batteries to store 10 times more charge. By Katherine Bourzac Wednesday, September 23, 2009 In an advance that could help electric vehicles run longer between charges, researchers have shown that silicon nanotube electrodes can store 10 times more charge than the conventional graphite electrodes used in lithium-ion batteries. Silicon storage: This image of a bundle of silicon nanotubes was made using a scanning-electron microscope. Credit: ACS/Nano Letters Researchers at Stanford University and Hanyang University in Ansan, Korea, are developing the nanotube electrodes in collaboration with LG Chem, a Korean company that makes lithium-ion batteries, including those used in the Chevy Volt. When such a battery is charged, lithium ions move from the cathode to the anode. The new battery electrodes, described online in the journal Nano Letters, are anodes and can store much more energy than conventional graphite electrodes because they absorb much more lithium when the battery is charged.
