> You and some other critics here... You're probably referring to me, since I've been posting all over this thread and I did nothing to preface my criticisms.

> You and some other critics here... You're probably referring to me, since I've been posting all over this thread and I did nothing to preface my criticisms. I really didn't mean to "take the author to task," and I was as astonished and happy as you were to see this piece in Wired. This was just something I became interested in when the news first hit, and for whatever reason I've enjoyed talking about it and breaking it down more than usual. The only thing I'd criticize him for was that he's basing his back-of-the-envelope on some arbitrary things (the 6V rating and choice of a ceramic/mica dielectric, for instance) rather than trying to base it on an appropriate lower bound. Had he done the latter he would've reached the same conclusion but with a far less outlandish example. It's only bad because relatively small supercaps which would have worked for his example do exist (much to the chagrin of the news stories he's criticizing), and his example makes it look like he's suggesting otherwise.