Exactly so.
They’re getting ~microwatt per square centimeter for a single sheet, albeit with a material not optimized for this application. And they think it’s stackable. But don’t expect to run your walkman off it any time soon.
One microwatt per square centimeter works out to one watt per 10 square kilometers. I think I might be able to get more power from rubbing a balloon on my hair.
No, it doesn’t.
I recall energy scavenging/harvesting was a big topic a decade two ago. Basically, it was the belief that sensors could be powered from mechanical vibration that naturally occurs in the environment.
Haven’t heard much about it lately.
Try 10 square meters for one watt. 10 square kilometers would generate 1 megawatt.
Still not high power density, that’s for sure.
I get the feeling many of these types of researchers measure a voltage somewhere and proclaim “Eureka! Free energy!” Not realizing, of course, that voltage isn’t power.
Voltage is easy to produce, and is often free. Power, especially high exergy power, is not so easy to produce, and is never free.
Still not quite right. 1 µW per cm2 = 1 W per 100 m2. That’s 10 meters squared, not 10 square meters. And 10 square kilometers would generate 100 kW.
Note any actual device would be stacked; it’s not like a solar panel.
Are there really many of these types of researchers?
The lead scientist is from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. MIT, no. The UMass department seems to be ranked 55 in the U.S. That’s good enough that I don’t think there are a lot of researchers, of that type, making dumb public mistakes about voltage vs. power.
I’m no scientist, but I read history of science. It seems to me that the way these things work is that a genuine scientist finds some effect that is incredibly tiny. Then they, and others, try many ways to ramp up that tiny effect into something useful. Usually they fail. And sometimes they succeed.
Is it probable that a century from now, the Univerisity of Massachusetts will be known a the birthplace of low-cost safe climate-positive energy production? Right now, with what I know – probably not. But some press coverage, even if the probability for permanent success is a bit low, is reasonable.
Thanks. I came up with your answer first, then changed it. All in my head, no paper or notes. D’oh!
No. Getting that feeling is a symptom of reading the university press office regurge instead of the actual paper.
Yes, that’s another good point: not everything can be “scaled up.”
Well…