News Feeds

Could invisibility cloaks become a reality? New research brings this science fiction concept a step closer, with a breakthrough software package that simulates how waves interact with complex materials.

Several fields of mathematics have developed in total isolation, using their own 'undecipherable' coded languages. Mathematicians now present 'big algebras,' a two-way mathematical 'dictionary' between symmetry, algebra, and geometry, that could strengthen the connection between the distant worlds of quantum physics and number theory.

A groundbreaking study takes advantage of advanced spectroscopic methods and theory to shed light on the intricate processes involved in converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into valuable chemicals like ethylene and ethanol. This research holds significant promise for advancing sustainable practices in the chemical industry.

Scientists have developed an accessible software solution specifically designed for the analysis of complex medical health data. The open-source software called 'ehrapy' enables researchers to structure and systematically examine large, heterogeneous datasets. The software is available to the global scientific community to use and further develop.

Extreme conditions prevail inside stars and planets. The pressure reaches millions of bars, and it can be several million degrees hot. Sophisticated methods make it possible to create such states of matter in the laboratory -- albeit only for the blink of an eye and in a tiny volume. So far, this has required the world's most powerful lasers, and the opportunities for experiments are correspondingly rare. A research team has now succeeded in creating and observing extreme conditions with a much smaller laser.

Extreme conditions prevail inside stars and planets. The pressure reaches millions of bars, and it can be several million degrees hot. Sophisticated methods make it possible to create such states of matter in the laboratory -- albeit only for the blink of an eye and in a tiny volume. So far, this has required the world's most powerful lasers, and the opportunities for experiments are correspondingly rare. A research team has now succeeded in creating and observing extreme conditions with a much smaller laser.

A new study reveals how different synthesis methods can profoundly impact the structure and function of high entropy oxides, a class of materials with applications in everyday electronic devices.

A new study reveals how different synthesis methods can profoundly impact the structure and function of high entropy oxides, a class of materials with applications in everyday electronic devices.

A new article analyzes in depth the physical problems associated with DNA packaging that have often been neglected in structural models of chromosomes. The study demonstrates that the multilaminar organization of DNA, proposed from previous experimental research, is fully compatible with the structural and functional properties of chromosomes. This organization can be explained by weak interactions between nucleosomes, which are the repetitive blocks that fold the DNA double helix.

How can computer models help design microbial communities? Researchers examined the development perspectives of so-called synthetic biology. In a new article, they explain why computer-aided biology has an important role to play.

Astronomers have directed NASA's James Webb Space Telescope to examine the outskirts of our Milky Way galaxy. Scientists call this region the Extreme Outer Galaxy due to its location more than 58,000 light-years away from the Galactic Center. (For comparison, Earth is approximately 26,000 light-years from the center.)

Researchers mined the molecular foundations of cancer and uncovered a new reason chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T cell therapy) fails in some patients. This discovery has fueled new strategies that incorporate antibodies and gene editing to improve the outcome of this breakthrough treatment for patients.

Researchers have been able to initiate a controlled movement in the very heart of an atom. They caused the atomic nucleus to interact with one of the electrons in the outermost shells of the atom. This electron could be manipulated and read out through the needle of a scanning tunneling microscope. The research offers prospects for storing quantum information inside the nucleus, where it is safe from external disturbances.

Researchers have been able to initiate a controlled movement in the very heart of an atom. They caused the atomic nucleus to interact with one of the electrons in the outermost shells of the atom. This electron could be manipulated and read out through the needle of a scanning tunneling microscope. The research offers prospects for storing quantum information inside the nucleus, where it is safe from external disturbances.

A research team has made a major discovery by designing molecules that could revolutionize computing.

It’s hard to tell which mainstream media outlet is the most biased against Israel when covering the war, but if I had to choose it would be two British sites: the Guardian and the BBC.  Now, an article in the Torygraph (shown below) reports on a new analysis of the Beeb’s behavior in just the four months following the Hamas massacre of October 7. The report concludes that the outlet violated its own guidelines for impartiality over 1,500 times in just those four months. The Torygraph report is echoed in another report in the Times of Israel, which you can read for free pieces by clicking on the second headline below. But it’s sufficient to read the first piece, as it’s longer and more comprehensive.

You can read the Torygraph piece by clicking below, but if it’s paywalled, you can find it archived here. The whole report on the BBC, called “The Asserson Report,” is here, and if you want to judge its veracity, go have a look, though the pdf is 200 pages long.

The breaches of impartiality, which show a pattern of excoriating Israel and downplaying Hamas’s terrorism, involve not only biased reporting (see bar graph below) but also the use of biased reporters and material on the BBC’s Arabic channel. The main analysis involves reporting analyzed by AI for the use of certain words, like “genocide,” but it goes beyond that.

An except:

The BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during the height of the Israel-Hamas war, a damning report has found.

The report revealed a “deeply worrying pattern of bias” against Israel, according to its authors who analysed four months of the BBC’s output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media.

The research, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, also found that Israel was associated with genocide more than 14 times more than Hamas in the corporation’s coverage of the conflict.

On Saturday, Danny Cohen, a former BBC executive, warned that there was now an “institutional crisis” at the national broadcaster and called for an independent inquiry into its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

. . . .The Asserson report analysed the BBC’s coverage during a four-month period beginning Oct 7, 2023 – the day Hamas carried out a brutal massacre in southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking another 251 into Gaza as hostages.

A team of around 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists contributed to the research, which used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million words of BBC output.

Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.

“The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth,” the report said.

It also found that the BBC repeatedly downplayed Hamas terrorism while presenting Israel as a militaristic and aggressive nation.

It claimed that some journalists used by the BBC in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict have previously shown sympathy for Hamas and even celebrated its acts of terror.

The report claims that a number of BBC reporters have shown extreme hostility to Israel, including BBC Arabic contributor Mayssaa Abdul Khalek, who is said to have called for “death to Israel” and defended a journalist who tweeted: “Sir Hitler, rise, there are a few people that need to be burned.”

. . . the report’s analysis of BBC coverage found that Israel was associated with war crimes four times more than Hamas (127 versus 30), with genocide 14 times more (283 versus 19) and with breaching international law six times more (167 versus 27).

Here’s a figure showing the disproportionality in the BBC’s coverage of Israel vs. Hamas.  Given that Hamas has explicitly endorsed genocide and commits far more war crimes and violations of international law than does Israel, the longer blue bars are a palpable indication of bias in reporting:

The Torygraph article goes on in this vein, and of course reports that Jewish groups are extremely concerned, as are some politicians—even former Labour party members (e.g., Lord Austin of Dudley, now an independent) and Tories like Julia Lopez, the shadow culture secretary, and Sir Oliver Dowden, the shadow deputy prime minister.

One matter of concern is the Beeb’s dogged reluctance to label Hamas as a “terrorist group”. The Times of Israel says this:

The report found that, though the BBC said in October that it would describe Hamas “where possible” as a “proscribed terrorist organization,” Hamas’s designation as a listed terror group was only noted 3.2 percent of the time.

The BBC, of course, disses the Asserson report:

A BBC spokesman said: “We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context.

Well, the bar graph above clearly shows there’s something worth investigating, and if you’ve actually read the BBC on the war, as I have, you’ll see that yes, they’re clearly biased against Israel. For example, the BBC was one of the first to jump the gun when a misfired Islamic Jihad missile hit the parking lot of Al-Ahli hospital, blaming the “hit” on Israel. The reporting journalist, international editor Jeremy Bowen, wouldn’t apologize (though I think the BBC did).

The BBC also had to apologize when Israel sent Arabic-speaking doctors and others into Al-Shifa hospital to help evacuate the patients. That was a gesture of humanity, but the Beeb (and Reuters) said, wrongly, that the IDF was targeting Arabic speakers and medical personnel in the hospital.  These are two cases I remember, but I’m sure the report gives more. At any rate, read the report  if you’re concerned. The BBC apparently repeatedly jumped the gun, and in a way that falsely accused Israel.

A bit more:

The report identifies 11 cases where it claims BBC Arabic’s coverage of the war has featured reporters who have previously made public statements in support of terrorism and specifically Hamas, without viewers being informed of this.

The report accuses Mr Bowen, one of the BBC’s most respected journalists, of bias against Israel, in breach of the corporation’s editorial guidelines.

Mr Bowen, who is taking part in a BBC Masterclass on “reporting war impartially” next week, is accused in the report of “excusing Hamas terrorist activities” and of “stressing the callousness of Israelis”.

These are not just words, but incidents.  The article concludes with more incidents involving both Bowen and Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s chief international correspondent, who’s accused of downplaying the October 7 massacre

Well, the results are no surprise to me, but the fact that a 200-page report on bias in a major media outlet was even created is surprising. I haven’t looked at whether the Beeb itself has reported it, but they should. It’s news, Jake.

The Times of Israel report (click headline below) largely echoes the Torygraph, but there are a few items quoted in the report that the ToI mentions (one is above) but the British paper doesn’t.

“Sir Hitler, rise” indeed!

I wonder what a study of the New York Times or Washington Post would show. . .

An area of missing Antarctic sea ice twice the size of Texas adds to concerns that the ice has seen a lasting “regime shift”, with consequences for ecosystems and global ocean circulation

A new book looks at the latest scientific insights versus a key question in astronomy and space science.

It’s tough to answer a scientific question, with a just data point of one. How special are we, and how common (or rare) is the story of how life arose on the Earth in the grander drama of the cosmos?

A new book out this week entitled Is Earth Exceptional? The Quest for Cosmic Life by Mario Livio and Jack Szostak looks at the scientific state of answering this key question. The book offers a sweeping view of the nascent science of astrobiology, a multi-disciplinary field melding biology, chemistry, astronomy and more.

Astrophysicist Mario Livio is also the author of Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein, Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists that Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe and The Equation That Couldn’t be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry.

Co-author and Nobel laureate Jack Szostak worked on the Human Genome Project and was the co-recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for discovering how telomeres defend chromosomes.

The basic premise of the book looks at the riddle of how the basic building blocks of life—from amino acids, RNA and the first cells—emerged on Earth. Could the same processes by common elsewhere?

An artist’s conception, of an Earth analog. Credit: NASA

Remember Rare Earth from about 20 years back? That book definitely made ripples in the fledgling field of astrobiology, by positing that a series of rare circumstances led to life to arise on the Earth. Is Earth Exceptional? Updates the science on this question and debate a generation later.

Exceptional Earth

The book doesn’t shy away from some pretty extensive organic chemistry in the first half. It’s rather tantalizing to researchers that simple life came into existence almost as soon as the conditions were ready for it. Was this a fluke, or a cosmic imperative? The chemistry of primordial life is a big mystery. Is Earth Exceptional looks at the latest findings, and what breakthroughs may be imminent in the field of astrobiology.

We live in an amazing time, a golden age of astronomy that may give us hard answers to these questions in our lifetimes. SETI searches, exoplanet surveys, and space telescopes such as TESS, JWST and the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope (set to launch in 2027) could bare fruit this century. The book points out that even a null result—however disappointing—could still be profound.

JWST’s direct views of an exoplanet. Credit: NASA/ESA/CSA/Alyssa Pagan(STScI)

The answer could come from missions to worlds in our own solar system searching for signs of life past or present on Mars, Europa or Titan. The book deals with prospects for life on worlds in our solar system, and implications of such a discovery. Farther afield, detections of signs in exoplanet spectra could also herald the detection of exobiology on distant worlds.

An artist’s conception of ‘Orbilander’ on the surface of Saturn’s moon Enceladus. Credit: NASA

For example, we now have the ability to see what’s known as the Vegetation Red Edge. This would be a very strong hint that photosynthesis was afoot via chlorophyll. This is a molecule that—as far as we know—only arises due to life.

A conceptualization of Earth’s ‘Red Edge’ due to vegetation. Credit: NASA

All amazing thoughts to consider, as you read Is Earth Special and ponder the state of modern astrobiology.

The post Book Review: Is Earth Exceptional? appeared first on Universe Today.

Two days ago I reported that Simon Fraser University had adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, which I don’t think I have to explain any further, as I’ve written about it in detail (see the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report). This is heartening to some extent, as for years my own school was the sole upholder of neutrality. But it’s also disheartening in that 110 universities, both public and private, have adopted Chicago’s policy of Free Expression, but a mere five have adopted institutional neutrality, an important policy meant to buttress free speech.  Schools just can’t seem to resist the urge to make moral, political, and ideological statements; clearly, their desire to “be on the right side” outweighs their desire to adopt freedom of speech.

Here are the five schools that have embraced institutional neutrality:

The University of Chicago
Simon Fraser University (see also the link above, noting the problems with their statement)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Vanderbilt University
Columbia University

And of course Columbia and Simon Fraser bear watching—Columbia because of its toxic history and Simon Fraser because its policy has problems.

Well, these don’t add up to 110 schools, but five is better than none.  And now, with the announcements of both Penn and Stanford that they too are adopting institutional neutrality, while Yale is thinking about it, we have seven universities pledging neutrality and one seriously studying the issue.  Could it be that American colleges and universities are finally realizing the palpable advantage of staying neutral on moral, political, and ideological issues?

Here’s Penn’s announcement from two days ago, written by its interim President and taken taken from Penn Today, the school’s official newsletter.  (Perhaps the policy was prompted because the previous president, Liz Magill, after a lame performance on free speech  before a House hearing, was forced to resign last December after pressure from alumni, donors, and others. The statement below denies, however, that this was the motivation.)

An excerpt; I’ve put the key words are in bold. It seems that if Penn, which has been around for ages, only now has realized the value of not chilling speech!

Today, Penn is introducing two new institutional positions: a statement of University Values and a statement Upholding Academic Independence. These statements sit alongside two older collections of words, one from last year, and one from 1755.

The words from 1755 comprise our Latin motto, Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, commonly translated into English as “Laws without morals are useless.” These few words communicate deeply. The motto urges us to do what is good and practical, and also what is right. This spirit has guided Penn for centuries, and I am proud to be part of an institution built upon such a motto.

. . . Today, we introduce a statement of University Values. [Check the link; the “values” are very skimpy.] These values are also a product of our long history, and yet re-presenting them in new words today carries added importance. Over the past months we have found ourselves reacting to the events of the world and responding to events on our campus. Both the Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community and the University Task Force on Antisemitism called for an explicit articulation of our values to help guide us through these challenges. Like the committee that developed In Principle and Practice, the Task Force and Commission sought and received broad input about our values from the Penn community. The current statement reflects this input and aspires to capture what is distinctive about Penn. Our values were always there and are best revealed through our actions. But the words we use to express them are guideposts along the way. I urge you to read and reflect upon those words.

Today, Penn also introduces Upholding Academic Independence. Over the years, and with increasing frequency, leaders across the University—indeed across most universities—have made public statements in response to external events. By and large, these messages sought to provide acknowledgement and solidarity following often horrific circumstances. Although well-meaning, these institutional messages fundamentally compete with the free and unencumbered creation and expression of ideas by individuals. Going forward, the University of Pennsylvania and its leaders will refrain from institutional statements made in response to local and world events. By quieting Penn’s institutional voice, we hope to amplify the expertise and voices within.

The release of this new guidance should not be construed as fear to take a studied position. Quite the opposite, it is a confirmation of our commitment to academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Likewise, the timing should not be interpreted as a response to past or upcoming events, or prior institutional positions. We will, of course, continue to communicate about policies and activities that have direct relevance to the University’s missions and its operations. This new guidance represents the culmination of intensive deliberation about how Penn and its leaders can best support our mission and our community—now, and moving forward.

I see one loophole in their statement: they won’t comment on “local and world events.”  But that doesn’t keep them from making ideological or political statements that arise not from world events, but from societal changes in views or values.  For example, they could still make statements about the value of equity or DEI, which are not based on any events in particular but on the Zeitgeist. It would be far better if they simply said they wouldn’t take any “University positions on political and social action, with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University,” as the late President Robert Zimmer emphasized.

So Penn people, keep an eye on your school and see if it adheres to its principles.

In the article below (click to read), the National Review reports the Stanford as well has just put into practice institutional neutrality. Stanford, of course, has been roiled by political turmoil, with many students explicitly coming out against free speech (remember Judge Duncan?).

First, a comment they make about Penn’s policy:

Penn has repeatedly weighed in on prominent public events in recent years, condemning the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 and celebrating the jury conviction of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, in April 2021.

The decision to move toward neutrality comes after the Ivy League school was embroiled in campus protest throughout the previous academic year. Campus police dismantled a 16-day pro-Palestinian encampment toward the end of the spring semester, and former president Liz Magill stepped down following her widely criticized testimony at a House hearing on campus antisemitism in December.

And a tweet just sent to me. The caption may be a bit exaggerated since this is just a display of history books, not the full history-book section, but it’s still reprehensible and morally obtuse:

Breaking: The University of Pennsylvania has changed its bookstore’s “history” section to exclusively propaganda books demonizing Israel.

It is no wonder the university breeds a student body that is radicalized, considering these are the books they push on them. pic.twitter.com/9KiFQqhFS3

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) September 10, 2024

And here’s an excerpt from the NR’s article about Stanford, whose policy seems better than Simon Fraser’s or Penn’s because it hews more closely to the Kalven Principles:

Stanford University’s faculty senate adopted an institutional-neutrality policy in May, which the university’s Board of Trustees commended this week. 

“When speaking for the institution, Stanford University leaders and administrators should not express an opinion on political and social controversies, unless these matters directly affect the mission of the university or implicate its legal obligations,” reads a portion of the “Institutional Statements Policy” adopted by the Stanford faculty senate in May. The policy applies to “Academic Organization Executive Officers of the University,” which includes leadership, vice provosts, deans, and others, but not to the directors of centers or institutes within the university. 

In formally adopting a policy of institutional neutrality, the universities are following the recommendations laid out by University of Chicago faculty in their 1967 “Kalven Report,” produced amid nationwide protests against the Vietnam War.

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” reads the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report. “It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”

The problem with this is that it doesn’t apply to departments, centers, or institutes, all of which fall under the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principoles (I’m proud that this clarification by President Zimmer was something I helped forge):

The principles of the Kalven Report apply not only to the University as a whole, but to the departments, schools, centers, and divisions as well, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e., these essential components of the University should not take institutional positions on public issues that are not directly related to the core functioning of the University.

Finally, Yale has created a committee to study adopting institutional neutrality, at least according to President McInnis’s announcement (click to read):

An excerpt (my bolding):

Although I am only beginning to gather your suggestions, one topic has emerged as top of mind for many people in our community: the question of when Yale, as an institution, speaks on issues of the day. This topic also has been central to a national discussion in higher education over the past year. Recognizing that members of our community hold multiple views, I write to announce that I have convened a committee to address the question.

I have asked the committee to examine when the university, or those speaking on its behalf, should comment on matters of public significance, weighing the value that Yale places on engaging with the wider world as well as the university’s commitment to fostering an environment of diverse viewpoints and open dialogue and debate. To be clear, I am not charging the committee with revisiting the vital and robust protection for the free expression of individuals within our diverse community. Rather, the committee’s focus is on the role of Yale itself as a speaker.

. . . . The committee will host listening sessions over the next few weeks to solicit feedback from students, faculty, and staff. Information will be posted online. Community members who are not able to attend in person—including alumni—can share their perspectives via a webform, which will be open until the end of the last listening session.

The question is not WHEN Yale speaks on issues of the day, but WHETHER it speaks on issues of the day. (One exception, mentioned in the Kalven Report, is that speech about “issues of the day” is okay when it bears directly on the university’s mission to foster teaching, learning, research, and free discourse.)  Do we really need another committee to study the issue? Well, I guess so, but they should begin by reading the Kalven Principles and then see if there are any good reasons for deviating from them.

h/t: Simon

I have written previously about the concept of structural batteries, such as this recent post on a concrete battery. The basic idea is a battery made out of material that is strong enough that it can bare a load. Essentially we’re asking the material to do two things at once – be a structural material and be a battery. I am generally wary of such approaches to technology as you often wind up with something that is bad at two things, rather than simply optimizing each function.

In medicine, for example, I generally don’t like combo medications – a single pill with two drugs meant to take together. I would rather mix and match the best options for each function. But sometimes there is such a convenience in the combination that it’s worth it. As with any technology, we have to consider the overall tradeoffs.

With structural batteries there is one huge gain – the weight and/or volume savings of having a material do double duty. The potential here is too great to ignore. For the concrete battery the advantage is about volume, not weight. The idea is to have the foundation of a building serve as individual or even grid power storage. For a structural battery that will save weight, we need a material is light and strong. One potential material is carbon fiber, which may be getting close to characteristics with practical applications.

Material scientists have created in the lab a carbon fiber battery material that could serve as a structural battery. Carbon fiber is a good substrate because it is light and strong, and also can be easily shaped as needed. Many modern jets are largely made out of carbon fiber for this reason. Of course you compromise the strength when you introduce materials needed for the energy storage, and these researchers have been working on achieving an optimal compromise. Their latest product has an elastic modulus that exceeds 76 GPa. For comparison, aluminum, which is also used for aircraft, has an elastic modulus of 70 GPa. Optimized carbon fiber has an elastic modulus of 200-500 GPa. Elastic modulus is one type of strength, specifically the resistance to non-permanent deformity. Being stronger than aluminum means it is in the range that is suitable for making lots of things, from laptops to airplanes.

How is the material as a battery? The basic features are good – it is stable, can last over 1000 cycles, and can be charged and discharged fast enough. But of course the key feature is energy density – their current version has an energy density of 30 Wh kg. For comparison, a typical Li Ion battery in an electric vehicle today has an energy density of 200-300 Wh kg. High end Amprius silicon anode Li ion batteries are up to 400-500 Wh kg.

So, as I said, the carbon fiber structural battery is essentially bad at two things. It is not as strong as regular carbon fiber, and it is not as good a battery as Li ion batteries. But is the combination worth it? If we run some numbers I think the answer right now is – probably not. What I don’t know is the cost to mass produce this material, which so far is just a laboratory proof of concept. All bets are off if the material is super expensive. But let’s assume cost is reasonable and focus on the weight and energy storage.

If, for example, we look at a typical electric vehicle how would the availability of this material be useful? It’s hard to say exactly because I would need to see the specs on a vehicle engineered to incorporate this material, but let’s do some rough estimates. A Tesla, for example, has a chassis made of steel and titanium, with a body that is almost entirely aluminum. So we can replace all the aluminum in such a vehicle with structural carbon fiber, which is stronger and lighter. Depending on the vehicle of course, we’re talking about 100kg of carbon fiber for the body of a car. The battery weighs about 500 kg. The carbon fiber battery has one tenth the specific energy as a Tesla Li ion battery, so 100 kg of carbon fiber battery would hold as much energy at 10 kg of battery. This would allow a reduction in the battery weight from 500 kg to 490 kg. That hardly seems worth it, for what is very likely to be a more expensive material than either the current battery or aluminum.

Of course you could beef up the frame, which could have the double advantage of making it stronger and longer lasting. Let’s say you have a triple thick 300 kg carbon fiber frame – that still only saves you 30 kg of battery. My guess is that we would need to get that energy density up to 100 Wh kg or more before the benefits start to become worth it.

The calculus changes, however, when we talk about electric aircraft. Here there is a huge range of models but just to throw out some typical figures – we could be talking about a craft that weighs 1,500 kg and battery that weight 2,000 kg. If the body of the craft were made out of structural carbon fiber, that could knock 150 kg off the weight of the battery, which for an aircraft is significant. For a commercial aircraft it might even be worth the higher cost of the plane, given the lower operating costs.

What about at the low end of the spectrum – say a laptop or smart phone? A laptop might be the sweet spot for this  type of material. If the case were made of a carbon fiber battery that could allow for a thinner and lighter laptop or it could extend the battery life of the laptop, both of which would be desirable. These are already expensive, and adding a bit to the overall cost to improve performance is likely something consumers will pay for. But of course the details matter.

Given all this – is the carbon fiber structural battery ready for commercial use? I think it’s marginal. It’s plausible for commercial electric aircraft and maybe laptops, depending on the ultimate manufacturing cost, and assuming no hidden gotchas in terms of material properties. We may be at the very low end of viability. Any improvement from this point, especially in energy density, makes it much more viable. Widespread adoption, such as in EVs, probably won’t come until we get to 100 Wh kg or more.

The post Carbon Fiber Structural Battery first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.