[Bored chemist]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.


Are you really to dim to realise that without being told, or are you trolling?

[Yahya (OP)]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.

It is for power stations and places where no many houses .

[Bored chemist]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.

It is for power stations and places where no many houses .

So what?
Either it will be in an empty space- in which case my comment about the stupid use of land is right, or it has neighbours who will not want their roof ripped off.

Are you really to dim to realise that without being told, or are you trolling?

[Bored chemist]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.

It is for power stations and places where no many houses .

So what?
Either it will be in an empty space- in which case my comment about the stupid use of land is right, or it has neighbours who will not want their roof ripped off.

Are you really to dim to realise that without being told, or are you trolling?

empty space on the sky not on the ground.

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.


Are you really to dim to realise that without being told, or are you trolling?

[Ophiolite]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?

Because, if the wind stops suddenly you will be dragging a cable through their property and will wreck stuff.

It is for power stations and places where no many houses .

And where there are no houses there are roads, farmland with crops or livestock, rivers, power lines, hedgerows, fences . . .  the list goes on. Your idea is impractical on almost every level. There is an outside chance that it could be developed into something of interest. Unfotunately your refusal to admit to its current failings  ensure that it will never be anything more than a concatentation of nonsense.

[Yahya (OP)]

There is an outside chance that it could be developed into something of interest. Unfotunately your refusal to admit to its current failings  ensure that it will never be anything more than a concatentation of nonsense.

What do you think this something it could be developed into and I will give you 1 million dollars ?

[Yahya (OP)]

https://spectrum.mit.edu/winter-2011/super-springs/
"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries"

"And, unlike batteries, which become harder to recharge over time, the energy stored in super springs should stay constant. Livermore says: “Think of your grandmother’s watch. It’s likely that the spring still works, and how many times has it been ‘recharged’ [rewound]?”

"They also have high power densities — they can release a large amount of energy quickly"

[Yahya (OP)]

energy density of steel spring is 0.0003 Mj/kg if it is 1000 times that then it is 0.3 Mj/kg close to energy density of lithium ion battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

[Bored chemist]

There is an outside chance that it could be developed into something of interest. Unfotunately your refusal to admit to its current failings  ensure that it will never be anything more than a concatentation of nonsense.

What do you think this something it could be developed into and I will give you 1 million dollars ?

It could be developed into a situation comedy.
More realistically, it could be developed into an illustration for a high school lesson in how not to post on a science forum.

energy density of steel spring is 0.0003 Mj/kg if it is 1000 times that then...

But it isn't.

[Yahya (OP)]

energy density of steel spring is 0.0003 Mj/kg if it is 1000 times that then...

But it isn't.

I gave you the link of MIT and quote:
https://spectrum.mit.edu/winter-2011/super-springs/
"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries"

[Bored chemist]

Seen the price of carbon nanotubes?

[Kryptid]

What do you think this something it could be developed into and I will give you 1 million dollars ?

You don't have a million dollars to give.

[Yahya (OP)]

What do you think this something it could be developed into and I will give you 1 million dollars ?

You don't have a million dollars to give.

right

[Yahya (OP)]

Seen the price of carbon nanotubes?

https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes/
According to the link it costs 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg,  let's say it is storing 20 watt for 4 hours will need a kilo gram of this material costing $1000, this amount of energy is 80wh costing 200$ using lithium ion batteries , then carbon nanotube is more expensive than lithium ion but it last longer:

"And, unlike batteries, which become harder to recharge over time, the energy stored in super springs should stay constant. Livermore says: “Think of your grandmother’s watch. It’s likely that the spring still works, and how many times has it been ‘recharged’ [rewound]?”

And carbon nanotube is abundant.

And other features that is not available in lithium

[Bored chemist]

According to the link it costs 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg,  let's say it is storing 20 watt for 4 hours will need a kilo gram of this material costing $1000, this amount of energy is 80wh costing 200$ using lithium ion batteries , then carbon nanotube is more expensive than lithium ion but it last longer:

And, once again, you show how bad you are at this sort of thing.
" 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg"
No, that's $15,000 per Kg

So, it's more than 10 times the price of lithium technology.
And you are ignoring the other infrastructure costs.

[Yahya (OP)]

According to the link it costs 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg,  let's say it is storing 20 watt for 4 hours will need a kilo gram of this material costing $1000, this amount of energy is 80wh costing 200$ using lithium ion batteries , then carbon nanotube is more expensive than lithium ion but it last longer:

And, once again, you show how bad you are at this sort of thing.
" 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg"
No, that's $15,000 per Kg

So, it's more than 10 times the price of lithium technology.
And you are ignoring the other infrastructure costs.

If you you chose 15$ and click " select options" and chose your amount as 1000 grams it will give 1330$ for each 1 kg
 instead of 1500.But this its price at larger amounts:
https://www.ctimaterials.com/product/industrial-grade-multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes-10nm/
it costs 450$ for each Kg about double the price of lithium ion battery. it is even cheaper for larger amounts:
select your amount as 10 000 kg it will give 4350$ instead of 4500$. othor options are here:
https://www.ctimaterials.com/product-category/industrial-carbon-nanotubes-products/

[Yahya (OP)]

some are extremely cheap like this one:
https://www.ctimaterials.com/product/industrial-grade-multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes-20-40nm/

which costs 19,900$ for each 100 kg the same price as lithium ion batteries but has better features than lithium ion batteries

[Bored chemist]

some are extremely cheap like this one:
https://www.ctimaterials.com/product/industrial-grade-multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes-20-40nm/

which costs 19,900$ for each 100 kg the same price as lithium ion batteries but has better features than lithium ion batteries

Do you think the cheap stuff is the good stuff?
Or do you think the material that stores a thosand times more energy than steel is going to be a special grade that's expensive?

BTW, you seem to have missed the importance of a word or two here

"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries"

[Yahya (OP)]

some are extremely cheap like this one:
https://www.ctimaterials.com/product/industrial-grade-multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes-20-40nm/

which costs 19,900$ for each 100 kg the same price as lithium ion batteries but has better features than lithium ion batteries

Do you think the cheap stuff is the good stuff?
Or do you think the material that stores a thosand times more energy than steel is going to be a special grade that's expensive?

But the most expensive one is 4330$ for each 10  kg       https://www.ctimaterials.com/product-category/industrial-carbon-nanotubes-products/ , and it gets cheaper for larger amounts, because carbon nanotube is abundant it could be used in large amounts i.e tonnes to store a lot of energy:
"Industrial Grade Carbon Nanotubes are well suited to large volume, cost sensitive applications that require the superior strength that CNT addition can provide in a product.  Available by the kg or ton."
.The only solution for grid scale storage . beside it lasts longer than lithium ion batteries

BTW, you seem to have missed the importance of a word or two here

"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries"

Energy density is in fact more than 1000 times steel spring:
"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries. They also have high power densities"

And in this site:
https://www.northeastern.edu/rise/presentations/carbon-nanotube-springs-for-high-energy-density-high-power-density-portable-power-systems/

 "offer excellent energy storage per unit weight – more than 1000x greater than steel springs"

[Bored chemist]

If- and it's a big if- it turns out that springs made from nanotubes are economically viable as an energy store there's still no reason to suppose that your gears system will be used to harvest that energy.
Once you add the great big gearbox, you will find that the energy storage density isn't anything likes as good as it looked.
As I said, you have failed to look at the infrastructure.