3 ms·

> For a non-rechargeable battery, I guess the limit is 1kg * c^2. Assuming it is antimatter-based you can double that capacity by consuming air. But that just

> For a non-rechargeable battery, I guess the limit is 1kg * c^2. Assuming it is antimatter-based you can double that capacity by consuming air. But that just turns it into a fuel tank for an internal annihilation engine and hardly qualifies as battery anymore.

microtherion 7y ago
This is Tesla we’re talking about. They’d probably ship this with a footnote in the owners’ manual: “Any use of this doomsday device for purposes other than a battery is prohibited. Do not operate outside containment field.’
founderling 7y ago
Aha! So the most efficient mass based rechargeable battery would be one that while loading creates antimatter and while being used burns that antimatter with air (or other stuff) it takes from the environment.
JshWright 7y ago
> hardly qualifies as battery anymore Why not? There are plenty of battery technologies that use air as an oxidizer.
- slavik81 7y ago
  It follows from the definitions of a battery and a cell: > battery: a container consisting of one or more cells, in which chemical energy is converted into electricity and used as a source of power. > cell: a device containing electrodes immersed in an electrolyte, used for current-generation or electrolysis. An antimatter reactor would not be a battery because it would not contain any cells. Additionally, because it converts nuclear energy into useful power, not chemical energy.
zaroth 7y ago
You all really took this question and ran with it in a way that totally avoids answering the practical question at the core — how good are these batteries going to get over the next 20 years? The answer is really, really good. Fast charging, long rang, 1 million mile lifespans. Add on top of that the ability to connect into a smart grid and earn money by buying energy off-peak and selling on-peak, and the ability to double as an emergency generator for your home.

microtherion 7y ago

This is Tesla we’re talking about. They’d probably ship this with a footnote in the owners’ manual: “Any use of this doomsday device for purposes other than a battery is prohibited. Do not operate outside containment field.’

founderling 7y ago

Aha! So the most efficient mass based rechargeable battery would be one that while loading creates antimatter and while being used burns that antimatter with air (or other stuff) it takes from the environment.

JshWright 7y ago

> hardly qualifies as battery anymore Why not? There are plenty of battery technologies that use air as an oxidizer.

slavik81 7y ago
It follows from the definitions of a battery and a cell: > battery: a container consisting of one or more cells, in which chemical energy is converted into electricity and used as a source of power. > cell: a device containing electrodes immersed in an electrolyte, used for current-generation or electrolysis. An antimatter reactor would not be a battery because it would not contain any cells. Additionally, because it converts nuclear energy into useful power, not chemical energy.

zaroth 7y ago

You all really took this question and ran with it in a way that totally avoids answering the practical question at the core — how good are these batteries going to get over the next 20 years? The answer is really, really good. Fast charging, long rang, 1 million mile lifespans. Add on top of that the ability to connect into a smart grid and earn money by buying energy off-peak and selling on-peak, and the ability to double as an emergency generator for your home.