I disagree, this doesn't look misleading at all because they're comparing them to solar cells. Sure solar panels produce power on the hundreds of watts scale, but the individual solar cells that...
I disagree, this doesn't look misleading at all because they're comparing them to solar cells. Sure solar panels produce power on the hundreds of watts scale, but the individual solar cells that comprise them are producing power in the 1-2 watt range. So I'd argue that a nano generator producing 1 watt is completely comparable to a solar cell. It's the same magnitude.
I should have been clearer, the critical point is "if" in that statement. It's technically true, but horribly misleading to the general public, and I think your comment here further reinforces how...
I should have been clearer, the critical point is "if" in that statement. It's technically true, but horribly misleading to the general public, and I think your comment here further reinforces how misleading it is since it mislead you.
Nanogenerators produce picowatts to nanowatts. A picowatt is 1 billion times less than a milliwatt. A nanowatt is 1 million times less than a milliwatt. I don't think anyone can truly intuitively understand how small these numbers are.
Nanogenerators never produce anything anywhere close to the magnitude necessary to power macro-scale devices. Not even when many are used together (if they can, IDK since this is not my area of expertise).
I'm not following what you're saying at all. The power generation potential isn't in the name as the article describes it. They're describing previous versions of these generating ~10 milliwatts...
For instance, if a traditional nanogenerator produces ten milliwatts of power, this new technology could increase that output to over 1,000 milliwatts, making it suitable for energy harvesting in various everyday applications.
I'm not following what you're saying at all. The power generation potential isn't in the name as the article describes it. They're describing previous versions of these generating ~10 milliwatts vs the new ones producing ~1,000 milliwatts. 1,000 milliwatts = 1 watt which is why I'm making the comparison to solar cells which have a comparable output.
Can you clarify what exactly you think I'm mislead on? This paper in Nature from 2017 (Triboelectric nanogenerators as flexible power sources) outlining the current state of the field at the time which had results around 8 mW/m^2, 121 mW/m^2, all the way up to 500 mW/m^2. So if we take that middle value of 121 mW/m^2 and bump it by the 141 fold increase discussed in the article we'd be at 16,940 mW/m^2 or about 17 W/m^2. A pretty typical solar panel output is in the range of 100-200 W/m^2.
So yes, the power output output of the nano-generators being discussed here are lower than solar cells, but not outrageously so. Having dug through the literature, they're technically an order of magnitude lower. However, I stand by that being an relevant and completely fair comparison. Please let me know if I'm missing the point you're trying to make because I feel like we're looking at two different issues somehow.
Looking into this, I'm confused. I can find articles discussing the power outputs of nanogenerators but I cannot tell if these are theoretical or experimental numbers nor what the sizes of these...
Looking into this, I'm confused. I can find articles discussing the power outputs of nanogenerators but I cannot tell if these are theoretical or experimental numbers nor what the sizes of these NGs are. Those numbers are important because their power outputs seem to be in W/m^2 and the fact that I cannot find an actual photograph of an NG (only graphics from scientific papers) makes me think they either don't really exist or are incredibly small.
It also doesn't seem to be a hugely active field of research and I haven't yet found a non-Chinese researcher's name, so I'm a bit skeptical of the field's practical applications with modern technology.
These are not theoretical, however best I can tell they still live at a small scale in university labs. This literature review published in Nature in 2017, Triboelectric nanogenerators as flexible...
These are not theoretical, however best I can tell they still live at a small scale in university labs. This literature review published in Nature in 2017, Triboelectric nanogenerators as flexible power sources, has some pictures of the devices from some of the experiments discussed. For lab tests these are going to be small and thin devices hand made by the researchers. But that's how batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells started and continue to advance. So there's no pictures of these as a commercial product, but you can see some close up pictures of the materials. They're not very exciting, thin films with layers of the semi-conducting material.
I think you're right that this isn't a very big field. However if a group really has figured out how to make them produce 141 times more power than previous versions then I suspect the field will grow due to more grant funding available. At that scale smaller wearable sized pads would be producing power output comparable to something supplied from a AA battery and that's a pretty practical level of power output for low power electronics. Especially if you paired it with a battery that's recharged by the movement.
If you don't have a good reference for the mW/m^2 output discussed in the papers, have a look at my other comment higher up. It's entirely possible I made a math error, but compared the power output of the nano-generators to solar panels as a comparison.
The only problem is in the name: nanogenerators produce nanowatts or less.
Horrible science writing, as usual for many journalists.
I disagree, this doesn't look misleading at all because they're comparing them to solar cells. Sure solar panels produce power on the hundreds of watts scale, but the individual solar cells that comprise them are producing power in the 1-2 watt range. So I'd argue that a nano generator producing 1 watt is completely comparable to a solar cell. It's the same magnitude.
I should have been clearer, the critical point is "if" in that statement. It's technically true, but horribly misleading to the general public, and I think your comment here further reinforces how misleading it is since it mislead you.
Nanogenerators produce picowatts to nanowatts. A picowatt is 1 billion times less than a milliwatt. A nanowatt is 1 million times less than a milliwatt. I don't think anyone can truly intuitively understand how small these numbers are.
Nanogenerators never produce anything anywhere close to the magnitude necessary to power macro-scale devices. Not even when many are used together (if they can, IDK since this is not my area of expertise).
I'm not following what you're saying at all. The power generation potential isn't in the name as the article describes it. They're describing previous versions of these generating ~10 milliwatts vs the new ones producing ~1,000 milliwatts. 1,000 milliwatts = 1 watt which is why I'm making the comparison to solar cells which have a comparable output.
Can you clarify what exactly you think I'm mislead on? This paper in Nature from 2017 (Triboelectric nanogenerators as flexible power sources) outlining the current state of the field at the time which had results around 8 mW/m^2, 121 mW/m^2, all the way up to 500 mW/m^2. So if we take that middle value of 121 mW/m^2 and bump it by the 141 fold increase discussed in the article we'd be at 16,940 mW/m^2 or about 17 W/m^2. A pretty typical solar panel output is in the range of 100-200 W/m^2.
So yes, the power output output of the nano-generators being discussed here are lower than solar cells, but not outrageously so. Having dug through the literature, they're technically an order of magnitude lower. However, I stand by that being an relevant and completely fair comparison. Please let me know if I'm missing the point you're trying to make because I feel like we're looking at two different issues somehow.
Wouldn't nano in this case reference the size?
Definitely.
A milliwatt is much more than a nanowatt. These new, improved nanogenerators supposedly produce a whole watt!
Looking into this, I'm confused. I can find articles discussing the power outputs of nanogenerators but I cannot tell if these are theoretical or experimental numbers nor what the sizes of these NGs are. Those numbers are important because their power outputs seem to be in W/m^2 and the fact that I cannot find an actual photograph of an NG (only graphics from scientific papers) makes me think they either don't really exist or are incredibly small.
It also doesn't seem to be a hugely active field of research and I haven't yet found a non-Chinese researcher's name, so I'm a bit skeptical of the field's practical applications with modern technology.
These are not theoretical, however best I can tell they still live at a small scale in university labs. This literature review published in Nature in 2017, Triboelectric nanogenerators as flexible power sources, has some pictures of the devices from some of the experiments discussed. For lab tests these are going to be small and thin devices hand made by the researchers. But that's how batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells started and continue to advance. So there's no pictures of these as a commercial product, but you can see some close up pictures of the materials. They're not very exciting, thin films with layers of the semi-conducting material.
I think you're right that this isn't a very big field. However if a group really has figured out how to make them produce 141 times more power than previous versions then I suspect the field will grow due to more grant funding available. At that scale smaller wearable sized pads would be producing power output comparable to something supplied from a AA battery and that's a pretty practical level of power output for low power electronics. Especially if you paired it with a battery that's recharged by the movement.
If you don't have a good reference for the mW/m^2 output discussed in the papers, have a look at my other comment higher up. It's entirely possible I made a math error, but compared the power output of the nano-generators to solar panels as a comparison.