Disregarding engineering limitations, what's the highest amount of energy that can be chemically stored in a one cubic centimeter battery?
bout tree fiddy
>>53522876
>Disregarding engineering limitations
This is why everyone hates physics majors
>>53522876
unlimited.
>>53522876
>Disregarding engineering limitations
infinite energy
Unlimited energy!
With sufficient negative energy we can bend space such that an arbitrary amount of space can fit in one cubic centimeter. If we bend this space into an infinitely long tube, we can store an infinite amount of energy in the tube by shining a laser in one end.
*it does however take an infinite amount of time to get energy out
depends on the mass, so unlimited energy as space-time compression increases
see: uranium
Easy, if we spin up an infinitely strong flywheel to the relativistic rotation rates we can store an infinite amount of energy.
If the flywheel is made of a reasonable material with nuclear binding strength(neutron star crust), then it has nuclear energy density.
Around enough to blow up the better part of a state
>>53523345
with a sufficient amount of negative energy we can fit an arbitrary volume in one cubic centimeter, thus we can store an infinite amount of hydrogen and oxygen in one cubic centimeter
Because we have infinite volume we can store a fuel cell in there too and get UNLIMITED ENERGY!
>>53522876
theoretically, take one cubic cm of the heaviest material we know, and then claim e=mc^2 on it.
eihter way this question is retarded
>>53523345
ever heard of chemical engineering
>>53522876
Without "engineering limitations", you can compress matter to ludicrous density. For black holes of star-like mass, the mean density inside the event horizon is already something on the order of a billion tons per cubic centimeter, but I don't know of any limits that modern physics puts on the maximum possible density of matter, so it may as well be infinite. At this point, chemistry does not apply as everything is reduced to tightly packed elementary particles.
>>53522876
Disregarding engineering limitations you could use metallic hydrogen and use a microscopic fuel cell. Metallic hydrogen has about the same density as lithium, but twice the energy density. You also wouldn't need an anode since you could use oxygen in the air.
Disregard the fact that metallic hydrogen is hypothesized to require pressures of over a million atmospheres to be stable and that current small fuel cells have an amperage measured in fractions of milliamps.
>>53523345
just give up and rephrase your question, and be more specific
>>53524465
>You also wouldn't need an *cathode since you could use oxygen in the air.
Damn 50/50 chance and I got it wrong. Not like the rest of my post isn't a complete ass-pull, but whatever.
y'all are just lazy. The real answer is 42.
all these people confusing infinite and unbounded is really triggering me
>>53524465
So metallic hydrogen has a density of 0.8 g per cm^3, and an energy density of 142 MJ /kg.
So 1 cc can store 113,600 joules of chemical energy.
Theoretical max efficiency of fuel cells is 83%. So we can get ~94,288 joules out.(assuming fuel cell has negligible volume)
This will probably be pretty hard to beat in terms of chemical energy storage.
>>53524357
>but I don't know of any limits that modern physics puts on the maximum possible density of matter, so it may as well be infinite
well eventually it'll collapse into a singularity, so not infinite. If we say a neutron star is the densest thing we can get, we have about 5.9*10^17 kg/m^3. Divide by a million and we get 5.9*10^11 kg/cm^3. E = mc^2. So energy in joules = 5.9*10^11 * ~9*10^16 = 5.3*10^28 joules. A joule is a watt-second, and the sun outputs about 4*10^26 watts, so if we used up the battery at a rate equal to the sun's power output, it'd last about 100 seconds.
willfully disregarding all the subtleties of relativity and assuming that you can convert mass to energy like this, of course.
>I SAID CHEMICALLY
yeah well fuck you, chemistry is just a special case of particle physics.
This fucking thread. All but
>>53524892
are retarded.
>>53522876
>Disregarding engineering limitations
infinite
>>53524963
no, phisiks is merely a sector chemistri
>>53522876
>Disregarding engineering limitations
Just use a black hole bro
enough to power 3 iphones for 10 minutes
>>53525269
I used your mom's black hole last night
had way too much mass
>>53524963
>special case of particle physics
Jesus fucking christ you kids are getting stupider every year.
>>53522876
If you're ignoring engineering limitations, and you don't consider the combustion apparatus as part of the battery, then a liquid hydrogen fuel cell would probably do pretty well.
for how long? I'm pretty sure that some obscure element with atomic number in the range of 10^100, whilst forming a black hole, would still qualify as "chemical energy" in terms of the electrostatic attraction with other molecules.
In fact, generalizing even more, you can fit 2 opposite charged black holes in 1 cm^3, or even better, one black hole containing an arbitrarily large amount of chemical energy (although useless, it's still stored there, which is the main task)
>>53523345
Split the atom,
You now have more energy than you could possibly store and will probably even have it 1 billion years later.
>how much energy can you chemically store?
>>53522876
the universe before the big bang
>>53524892
At that pressure, wouldn't the atoms start fusing to make helium? At the very least, the 'battery' itself would be extremely hot, even idling.
>>53525516
You're right about the battery being very hot. Not so much about a fusion reaction. But we're ignoring the engineering limitations here, remember?
The real problems with what that anon proposed are 1) The energy density he cited isn't for liquid metallic hydrogen, it's for compressed gaseous hydrogen, which leads us to 2) we don't really know much about metallic hydrogen or its energy properties, as we've never been able to do any real testing with it in a lab.
I think that anon may have been thinking of regular old liquid hydrogen.
disregarding engineering limitations, you could store 1.6kWh of energy in 1cm^3 of tungsten thanks to mass-energy equivalence
>>53522876
3 joules.
