A new spin on battery technology
Summary
Topics
Charged by the application of a very strong magnetic field, the Magnetic Tunnel Junction (MTJ) contains a set of nano-magnets - zones some 5 nanometers across in a zinc-gallium-arsenic-magnesium matrix - which absorb energy and then release it over time. Although the effect had been predicted, the size and duration of the result was not.
"We had anticipated the effect, but the device produced a voltage over a hundred times too big and for tens of minutes, rather than for milliseconds as we had expected," said one of the researchers, in a story in ScienceDaily. "That this was counterintuitive is what lead to our theoretical understanding of what was really going on."
I've yet to dig through the paper in Nature to find out how far this is from being useful as a power source - as the current device is a few hundred micrometers across, it's not going to be storing megawatts. But it's the sort of thing that could be created in vast arrays, like any semiconductor device, and if they're getting to the bottom of the underlying physics then the same effect could be used in many different configurations.
What may be much more interesting than just power storage is the fact, mentioned almost in passing in the press release, that the current delivered by the MTJ is spin-polarized; the electrons are predominately spinning in one direction.
That's hot news for spintronics, which, together with graphene, has the most exciting potential for fundamentally new computational devices. Spin logic could work much faster at much lower power than even today's finest electronics, because it doesn't rely on currents flowing and the consequent unavoidable loss.
And, as the researchers say, if this discovery leads to new insights into basic magnetic theory, there are almost no limits to how profoundly it could affect modern life. Which is a bit over the top - just not that much.
This article was originally posted on ZDNet.co.uk.
Talkback Most Recent of 27 Talkback(s)
-
sounds a little overhyped to me
how many times did I read about 'revolutionary' technologies that failed the real life test.
Linux Geek12th Mar 2009 -
Yep.
Most people don't realize just what's involved in moving something from
the lab to a production line.
frgough12th Mar 2009 -
Yeah, plus...
Considering the spin polarization is only a "predominantly" type of side effect, it really can't be utilized with the consistency needed for digital circuitry. Do we really see a future where getting results which are "predominantly" correct from our computers is good enough? Not likely.
BillDem13th Mar 2009 -
Predominantly
It depends. If by predominant they mean 99.999% of the electrons, then this would be reliable when you use enough electrons. If they mean 50.0001% then not. But if they are using the word correctly, then it's closer to 99.999%, the needed consistency is there, and future computing is not at risk.
pdf61619th Apr 2009 -
Yeah
It's called "Fuzzy Logic".
"Fuzzy logic is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set
theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise. "
Fuzzy Logic principles are incorporated into consumer products NOW.
Jkirk32797th May 2009 -
Most people don't Write in ZDNet Either
So one would hope we could expect a higher awareness of the principle you mention among ZDNet authors/editors.
I hope people at ZDNet are listening;)
mejohnsn13th Mar 2009 -
Was the discovery of LED over hyped?
This and so many other HUGELY important discoveries were UNDERHYPED, like the transistor. I remember the cats-whisker diode radio I made using a crude crystal of germanium.
And then the first transistors, Miracles. Plasma screens? Flux gate compasses? Crystal timebased circuits? Non volatile solid state memory? Teflon?
pessimist12th Apr 2009 -
And you sound like
the body of scientists who, when shown Alexander Volta's invention - the storage battery - told him they weren't interested because it had no practical application. Give it a minute to develop before crapping all over it, maybe?
compudog7th May 2009 -
RE: A new spin on battery technology
Yea, they should just stop trying new things. You know, this internet thing was for the sharing of information. If this article spawns two or three other researchers or univerisities implementing this, and they can find a use and application, that would really be something.
mkeiser@...13th Mar 2009 -
But Wait:
most industry researchers are NOT watching ZDNet for this kind of information: they are watching publications like Nature.
And guess what: this ZDNet article is largely based on the Nature article, which came out earlier.
So no, your reasoning does not justify the way it was covered here in ZDNet.mejohnsn13th Mar 2009 -
There's lots of wasted money back in history
It's lost in the mists of time but Southern California Edison gave unGodly amounts of money during the Depression in the 1930s to Cal-Berkeley Physics so guys like Lawrence and Oppenheimer could waste it on high-energy physics experiments.
The electric company was looking for breakthroughs in the costs/efficiency of long distance power transmission. Poor stockholders never got a thing for their money.
lost in Texas13th Mar 2009 -
risk
Yeah, well, that's part of the risk of being a stockholder.
Also, why are you all harping on attempting innovation? Innovation is what drives our species forward. Although I can understand that right now we really need to focus on stabilization, but as we all know, the people with money to burn will do what they want with that money.
Batteries are one of those things that have have relatively remained stagnant in their development.
midenginedrift13th Mar 2009 -
But you don't know which spending will be wasted when you spend it
You cannot decide what to research on based on the return you think you'll get from it, as you never know where the next big thing will come from.
For example, if you had asked in the late 19th century "What should we spend our money on to get the most benefit for medicine?" no-one would have answered "fooling around with electrical discharges in a vacuum". Yet that was the right answer as it led to x-rays.
Roger Bamforth3rd Apr 2009 -
Wasted money
Yeah, and the U.S. government temporarily CLOSED the patent office in the late 19th century because there was nothing left to invent. Just a few more exciting, forward-thinkers like you and maybe they never would've re-opened it.compudog7th Jul 2009 -
RE: A new spin on battery technology
'Spintronics' sounds like it is spin in the metaphorical sense of the word;)
At least it sounds like that when stated as in this article: losses do NOT result from current flow, they result from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You will have them even WITHOUT current flow through resistors.
Now the losses may prove dramatically less than in ohmic conductors, but we won't know for sure until devices are constructed.
Or until someone does a COMPLETE analysis of the thermodynamics of 'spintronics'. But if we had that, we wouldn't have been surprised by the output in this article, would we?
mejohnsn13th Mar 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
