3 ms·
It's also not a capacity. As is usual with any news article on battery technology, terminology is completely muddled between energy density and power density.
by mnw21cam 6y ago
It's also not a capacity. As is usual with any news article on battery technology, terminology is completely muddled between energy density and power density.
The article actually uses the words "energy density", but then gets utterly confused about it.
Also, why measure power/energy per unit area? It's much more useful to measure per unit volume or per unit mass.
- baybal2 6y agoMy assumption they talk about milliampHOURS
- throwawayffffas 6y agoYour assumption is indeed correct, see the original article in joule. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30516-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS254243512030516X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30516-X?_r...
- rozab 6y agoFor someone who doesn't know jack about batteries: What voltage is that at, and why don't they just use watt-hours?
- tuatoru 6y agoAccording to the article linked in your sibling, it's a Zinc-Silver oxide chemistry, so Wikipedia says 1.55V nominal. Summary at https://www.mpoweruk.com/silver_oxide.htm https://www.mpoweruk.com/silver_oxide.htm