Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Bacteria Powered Batteries 306

Posted by Hemos from the it's-elementary-chemistry-my-dear-watson dept.
Agent Provocateur writes "SpaceDaily reports on a battery that is powered by chemical reactions caused by bacteria. A Pentagon-backed project, University of Massachusetts researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American, say the battery's source is an underground bacterium that gobbles up sugar and converts its energy into electricity. Their prototype device ran flawlessly without refuelling for up to 25 days and is cheap and stable." The chemistry behind this thing isn't really that complex - keeping the bacteria alive and kicking during that time is prolly the tougher part - you can read more on Al Jazeera, and USA Today. Now, what about replacing this battery?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bacteria Powered Batteries More

Bacteria Powered Batteries

Comments Filter:

  • My battery died... (Score:5, Funny)

    by pcraven ( 191172 ) <paul.cravenfamily@com> on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:30AM (#6899084) Homepage
    Now when we say our battery died, we'll mean it literally.

  • 'Cheap and stable' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:32AM (#6899098) Journal
    While this development certainly sounds interesting, calling something cheap and stable based soley on a prototype wihout major major long-term testing seems to be jumping the gun a little.
    • What happens when these batteries rupture, bringing cultured bacteria to the surface to wreak havoc on all living beings?

      I'm telling you, it's SARS from cars. /tinfoil
  • Finally my B.O. is more than just a pretty smell...
    • That'll be how you recharge them. Once they die, just stick them under your arms for five minutes. Either that or leave them in my kitchen for a few seconds.

  • One more piece to the puzzle (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:34AM (#6899121) Journal
    This sounds like a neat power source for nano-technology. Power the nanobots off the sugar in the bloodstream.

    And some get entered just to remove sugar from the bloodstreams of diabetics. Where do I sign up for that? (I'm a type II diabetic already, this could stave off more drastic treatment for years.)
    • Well, if a massive bacterial infection sounds like a good cure for diabetes, you might want to sign up for my new cure for the common cold: a shot of malaria. ;-)

      But the idea of sugar-powered nanobots is pretty nifty, so give yourself a triple word score & I can avoid the "M" word. Seems that those nanobots would need some pretty sophisticated membrane technology, though...

      • Re:One more piece to the puzzle (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Monday September 08, 2003 @01:44PM (#6901640)
        Doesn't it rather depend on what the bacteria do? I can practically guarantee that you have several massive bacterial infections currently. Fortunately almost all such infections are either non-harmful, or even benign (as in one step short of symbiotic).

        There would be nothing particularlly strange about designing a bacteria that could eat sugar and churn out insulin, with the levels of insulin dependant on the level of sugar. Of course, you'd need to design it to be extremely resistant to mutations, because I can thing of several mutations that would benefit the bacteria, but not the colonized individual. (And you'd probably also need to design it to be suseptible to some particular unusual anti-biotic. Preferably one that isn't used for any purpose besides removing mutated colonies.)

    • No offence intended, but rather than waiting for nano-robots to cure you, perhaps you should eat proper foods and exercise. That would stave off more drastic treatment for years, certainly.
      • Many people have genetic pre-disposition to diabetis. I'm one. Exercise will and does help, but the big problem is the trauma to my system (cancer) has caused some of my system to start to slow down. Net effect is diabetis.

        My brother had part of his pancreas burned out, thus causing diabetis. This was much better than periodic temporary paralysis.

        So, before you spout off on "diet and exercise", you might check into the facts.

        Oh, and my mother was a type I diabetic, from age 10 onwards. Her diabetis was

        • Re:One more piece to the puzzle (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dot.Com.CEO ( 624226 ) * on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:05AM (#6899392)
          As I said, no offence had been intended. I sidestepped diabetes by apparently a very very narrow step last year. My sugar levels were pretty high and I managed to put them down to normal levels through a sugar-free diet and regular aerobic exercise. I also know people who have diabetes and they simply don't care, which is weird enough since the consequences can be grave, if not lethal. One of them reflected what I thought was the point of your post "there will eventually be a cure so why should I diet", something I find stupid, especially since he's fast approaching 200 kilos. It was that attitude I was replying to, not the specific of your situation - you actually have my sympathies as well as my apology for any offence perceived.
    • Once we can make nanobots, I'm sure we'll be able to copy the electicity creating process of the bacteria in a significantly more efficient and more controllable nano-design (without needing much of the unneeded material in a bacterium: a lot of wasted overhead).

      In addition to type II diabetes, would also be great for obesity and those who just want to eat more. Super-size me!

    • Mr. Fusion (Score:3, Funny)

      by ThenAgain ( 627263 )
      One step closer.
    • Of course, this was the concept behind the Dracucell [slashdot.org], which theoretically will be able to extract about 100W from the bloodstream (though actual efficiencies will be quite a bit below that).

      I suspect Dracucells will do wonders for the diabetic population.

      --Dan

  • Scary. (Score:5, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:36AM (#6899134) Homepage Journal
    Walk away from the conference table for a few seconds, when you come back there are no doughnuts left! Just a laptop and cell phone sitting there innocently. They'll never tell....

  • The Matrix is Real (Score:5, Funny)

    by toofanx ( 679091 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:36AM (#6899135) Journal
    . . . for the bacteria.

  • Jolt! (Score:3, Funny)

    by nherc ( 530930 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:36AM (#6899137) Journal
    So, that case of Jolt will now keep BOTH you and your laptop going for that all-nighter! Very convenient.
    • So, that case of Jolt will now keep BOTH you and your laptop going for that all-nighter! Very convenient.

      Until the Code Red virus strikes...

  • Obligatory Beowulf reference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:38AM (#6899146) Homepage Journal
    The downside, however, is that it's a slow process. That cup of sugar could take weeks to digest. Still, a slow but steady trickle of electricity can be used to charge up a battery, which can then discharge large amounts of power when needed.

    Obviously stacking a large cluster of these in a battery [reference.com] type configuration would solve the voltage/current supply issue.

  • I can see the commercials no (Score:3, Funny)

    by yoshi1013 ( 674815 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:38AM (#6899148) Homepage
    "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the cell phone turn on, the cell phone turn on..."

  • All I know is (Score:3, Funny)

    by Multiple Sanchez ( 16336 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:39AM (#6899160)
    When the bacteria take over, there is gonna be MAJOR payback.

    • Re:All I know is (Score:4, Funny)

      by jaf ( 121858 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:49AM (#6899255) Journal
      Can't believe nobody said it yet, but

      I for one welcome our new bacteria overlords..

  • Are nationalities that important? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:39AM (#6899167) Homepage
    ...researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American...
    My question of the morning -- what is the point of providing the nationalities of these researchers in the article description? Is it supposed to affect how we view the research that has been conducted?
    • That's just to overcome everyone's assumption in the US that unless stated otherwise, it was invented here, back in WWII.
    • Excellent point. Notice that the Al Jazeera version mentioned the nationalities, but the USA Today version didn't.

      I wonder whether Swades Chaudhuri is an American born in India (or of Indian descent), or an Indian citizen? It isn't relevant to the research, but it could reveal Al Jazeera's spin.

      Also notice how Al Jazeera said that was a "Pentagon-backed" project at the top of the article, while USA Today said it was DOD funded way down at the bottom.
      • In most countries outside the Western hemisphere, there are still few immigrants from non-neighboring countries (unless of course they come from the colonizing countries). So the idea of nationality is still very strong and significant. Al Jazeera would have mentioned the nationalities even if the researchers were Chinese and French.

        Also, outside North America the Pentagon is the symbol of American military and people use "Pentagon" and "American army" interchangeably, most of them haven't even heard of "D
    • Yes - now only the slashdotters that hate both India and America will say this research is useless/incomplete/redundant.

  • I'll save a fortune! (Score:3, Funny)

    by stu_coates ( 156061 ) * on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:40AM (#6899172)

    If this comes through my fridge could be self powering by using that really old yoghurt that's in it! ;-)

  • Home brew power (Score:2, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    My underwear could generate a few megawatts.

  • 83%? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:41AM (#6899190) Journal
    83% Efficient? Thats impressive, if true. If you think that a typical car engine is only 20% efficient. Maybe one day you could run your car on Glucose..

    • Re:83%? (Score:3, Informative)

      by simong_oz ( 321118 )
      You can't compare the two - a car engine, ie. internal combustion engine, works on a heat cycle and so it's thermal efficiency (which is different from mechanical efficiency) is limited by what is known as the carnot cycle efficiency (=[Th-Tc]/Th; google for "carnot cycle" if interested further). The carnot cycle efficiency for internal combustion (petrol/gasoline for the Americans ;-) !) engines is about 59% (going from a hazy memory here), average car engine efficiency is more like ~32% so the efficiency

      • Re:83%? (Score:2, Informative)

        by adeyadey ( 678765 )
        Well done, I was waiting for you to spot that.. :-)

        The 83% does not include the loss in any electric motor, nor in any of the other circuitry/mechanics..

        I suppose where you live as to the % you get out of a car engine - manufacturers figures are usually very optmistic. In some citys you spend a lot of time in jams, with the engine idling over. Someone commputed the average speed in London of traffic to be about 11 mph. I would guess 32% is rarly achieved by a normal petrol car user in London.

        THen we get
      • And that is 83% of the sugar electrons passed on to the circuit, which isn't neccessarily the same as all the energy available in the sugar for chemical reactions generally.

        Sam

    • Re:83%? (Score:3, Funny)

      by cactopus ( 166601 )
      83% Efficient? Thats impressive, if true. If you think that a typical car engine is only 20% efficient. Maybe one day you could run your car on Glucose..

      Damn... and then putting sugar in someone's gas tank won't be a way to disable their car...

  • Bio-cybernetics? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SealBeater ( 143912 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:41AM (#6899191) Homepage
    I wonder how safe these bacteria are? Not in any fearful way, but could they
    be used to power an artificial heart, getting the sugar from the body? Perhaps
    power artificial limbs?

    SealBeater

  • Deja Fuel? (Score:5, Informative)

    by greenhide ( 597777 ) <`moc.ylkeewellivc' `ta' `todhsalsnadroj'> on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:42AM (#6899193)
    There was an article on this nearly a year ago [slashdot.org]. As soon as I saw this, I assumed I was looking at a dupe. However, the earlier battery was developed in England, and part of the goal was to eventually have the battery run not off of pure sugar, but rather garbage. As you can imagine, witty comments about Mr. Fusion and the general cleaniness level of geeks [slashdot.org] ensued.

  • Batteries for Christmas! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Instead of kids needing batteries for toys, they'll all be going, 'mommy, can I have a pet battery for Christmas?'.

    Now your Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger really does have power, and it really morphs too, albeit into a green blob of goo that will probably stain the carpet and be toxic to eat.

  • Chemistry question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot@rzb x . o rg> on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:43AM (#6899201) Homepage
    It doesn't state how much sugar it needs, nor the cost for electricity based on sugar prices. Any chemist know how 83% efficiency translates into cost and amount of sugar needed for a certain amount of power consumption?

    • Re:Chemistry question (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You don't need a chemist for that. Simply take the Calories per gram of sugar (google: 2.44 Calories (kilocalories) per gram).

      83% of that is ~2 Calories.

      1 kilowatt is equivalent to 14.34 kilocalories per minute, which is about 7 grams per minute.

      So, about 420 grams of sugar (a bit under a pound) is needed to produce 1 kilowatt.

      However, as the article states, it takes a long time to produce the energy (how long i don't recall, nor feel like looking), so essentially to charge up a chemical battery for the
      • 2.44 Calories (kilocalories) per gram).
        83% of that is ~2 Calories.
        1 kilowatt is equivalent to 14.34 kilocalories per minute, which is about 7 grams per minute.
        So, about 420 grams of sugar (a bit under a pound) is needed to produce 1 kilowatt.

        Interesting. And my googling shows global raw sugar prices are around 5-8 cents per pound, meaning about 5-8 cents per kilowatt-hour. That is far cheaper then my local electrity prices.

        My googling on sugar prices turned up a signifigant anomoly thought. For some reas
        • For some reason US raw surgar prices seem to be about triple the "world" price.

          Tarrifs.

          IIRC, the US has some pretty high tarrifs on cane sugar. Not that there's a domestic sugar industry to protect, but there is a huge corn syrup (and other corn products) industry. Think Archer Daniels Midland. Think lobbying groups.

          And yeah, it's the reason that drinks like Coca-Cola use corn syrup instead of real sugar as the sweetener.
    • Well, in the US, sugar (crystal, cane, etc.) prices are kept artificially high through protectionism. Maybe these germs can run off of corn syrup?

      It got so bad that American companies were importing iced tea mix to extract the sugar and get around the tariff. That soon got caught. Some American companies actually would have a Canadian branch/company convert sugar to molasses, import the exempt molasses, and convert it back to sugar. That got caught, too.

      The price difference got bad enough that the Lif

    • If you feed these things caffeine with the sugar they are much more efficent but they get a bit edgy particularly in the morning if they don't get all the caffeine they are used to.

  • I can hear the radicals now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:45AM (#6899216)
    Free the battery bacteria!
    No slavery for electricity!
    How many Rhodoferax died for your Walkman today?
    Single-celled life forms are people too!

    Et cetera, et cetera....
    • All wackiness aside, this is an interesting point. Of course the article is sparse but I assume the battery allows for A) the bacteria to consume as much sugar as they wish, and B) allows them to reproduce as often as possible. And as far as I can tell, that is the sum purpose of existence for these little guys.

      So then the question of 'slavery' all comes down to perspective: is it slavery when there is in fact no limitation on your lifestyle? Or is the 'sense' of slavery enough (i.e. to feel enslaved i

  • HEH! (Score:3, Funny)

    by CheeseEatingBulldog ( 703915 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:45AM (#6899220) Homepage
    Coffee sweetners become the new unleaded.

  • Unreleased picture of prototype... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ryanvm ( 247662 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:45AM (#6899224)
    Amazingly, I've been able to obtain this confidential photograph of their prototype [wisc.edu].
  • Do you get higher voltage from the caffiene?

    Interesting bacteria.

  • Don't hold your breath (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rolken ( 703064 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:48AM (#6899243)
    "Where we are now is where solar power was 20 or 30 years ago." So we have a few more decades to bicker about it while they make a working device.

  • This won't fly, literally (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now when they x-ray your laptop at the airport, either:

    a) your batteries will all die or
    b) they'll mutate into a super hero or villan and take over the city.

    Regradless, this is just another typical slashdot "Technology of the FUTURE!" article about something that we'll never hear about again. 99% of all "new technology" articles on slashdot just sort of fade away.

  • applicable on humans? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dharash ( 652371 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:52AM (#6899278)
    The process that is core to this experiment(breaking down of sugar ) takes place in our bodies also.
    How long will it take for researchers to come up with a method to tap the extra energy in human beings(that usually gets converted to fat)? And then, when your cell goes dead - you'll have to eat more sugar :-)
    Further imagine what would happen if some major energy company decided to couple this knowledge with genetic cloning? Welcome to the real world!

  • it all depends on the dose... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jlemmerer ( 242376 ) <xcom123@SLACKWAREyahoo.com minus distro> on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:53AM (#6899286) Homepage
    even if we use "harmless" bacteria, nobody knows how they will influence our health and above all - the ecosystem - if they really are cultivated in large masses to satisfy the market for battery's. so what if the "living battery" is depleted, how do you prevent the bacteria from spreading like a wildfire and eventually mutating in something harmful? before this tech should go into large scale production, massive, and i emphazise the word !massive!, tests about the implications on human immunesystem and the ecosystem of this sort of bacteria should be conducted

    • Re:it all depends on the dose... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:03AM (#6899372) Homepage Journal
      Are you planning to eat these batteries or something? I'd imagine the bacteria would be prevented from spreading by being outside of it's natual habitat, underground.

      I've got a scary fact for you. All of the surfaces around you are covered in bacteria. Even that chair, even your bottle of soap, even the water faucets. You cant get away from them. They're everywhere. If you aren't in a full fledged panic yet, you might remember that humans have lived with bactera for as long as their have been humans. The vast majority of them are harmless to humans.

      It's also unlikly that a company would release a battery that killed everyone who bought it, and traditional batteries aren't exactly nice to the environment, so the bar is not set very high for these things to be more eco-friendly.
      • well i know that bacteria are everywhere... but nobody (except pharma and wmd company's) actually produced them in great masses an released them in an everyday product. also bacteria are very well known for the fact to mutate rather rapidly and spread REALLY fast.

        • yoghurt for starters (Score:5, Insightful)

          by wadiwood ( 601205 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:52AM (#6899751) Journal
          Yoghurt contains mass produced bacteria.

          Most soft cheeses like Camenbert and Brie depend on bacteria for their production.

          Bacteria is used in most sewerage treatment plants.

          You're hatching them in your gut and every day you shit them. Multiply that by everyone in your city, the world etc and be very afraid. Ie you are mass producing them.

          Did you know living in an environment artificially depleted of bacteria (eg too much bleach), can increase your chances of things like Asthma?

          Bacteria are used every day by farmers to control other pests like mould and fungus and caterpillers (dipel). (Ironically penicillin is a fungus to control bacteria). Bacteria are also important to good quality soil and natural recycling of vegetation and animal manure.

          It probably wouldn't be a good idea to eat your phone battery, but that's no reason to be afraid of it.

          Bacteria only multiply out of control in very favourable conditions. That's why they say you should keep your food refrigerated or boiling ie keep your food at temperatures not conducive to growing toxic bacteria like some salmonella.

          I suppose you still eat chicken or eggs? The salmonella is not completely eliminated, only minimised...

          And bacteria doesn't generally "spread" really fast without help.
        • What on earth do you think goes into all those cakes and bread you eat? And thats not even considering the dairy products you put on them...

          Yeast. .(Yeesh)

    • Are you just assuming that nature doesn't come up with new bacteria all the time, or that the world is empty of bacteria before we humans enter the scene?

      In either case, nature is going to do what it's done with every human creation. Grind it under her foot if it deighns to get out.

    • Wow, you sound just like a BAN DMHO [dhmo.org] lunatic.

      You have about three or four POUNDS of bacteria in and on your body. It is essentially "cultivated in large masses" by your body. Those bacteria already "spread like wildfire" and they constantly "mutate".

      -
    • While I agree that any biotechnology has the potential to do harm as well as good, have you considered exactly what you're saying here? Do you know how many extremely deadly toxins are used in conventional battery production? In the batteries themselves? Lead, arsenic, cadmium, just to name a few. Billions of these suckers end up in the trash where they can't be burned, crushed, or buried without serious environmental concerns.

      These organic batteries, on the other hand, could be easily sterilized when

  • Battery Abuse (Score:3, Funny)

    by niko9 ( 315647 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @09:54AM (#6899296)
    So if I catch someone recharging a half discharged battery do I report [aspca.org] them?

  • The prototype made by Lovley and Chaudhuri cranks out only a tiny amount of current -- enough to run a calculator or Christmas tree lights.


    A calculator uses really tiny amounts of current compared to Christmas tree lights. My calculator hasn't had a battery charge in years, and my watch has a calculator in it too. Christmas lights got to use hunderds of times more power in comparison.

  • Someone tell the Wachowski brothers.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:03AM (#6899371)
    We've now got a solution to the whole Matrix enigma. The machines can just unplug all the humans and harness bacteria instead.

    I can imagine the new movie already....
    "You are the One-Celled, Neo."

    "You bacteria are a disease, a plague on this planet... but I guess you already knew that...."
    "Somehow he's found a way to copy himself. 'Mitosis,' I think he called it."

  • Ok, bacteria aren't yeast, but (Score:5, Funny)

    by e-gold ( 36755 ) <jray&martincam,com> on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:06AM (#6899394) Homepage Journal
    I'm still wondering if this variety of battery would have any ethyl alcohol output...

    I could use a laptop battery that puts out a nice little shot of vodka for the end of the day. This feature could also motivate users to take very-good care of their bacteria.
    JMR

  • well... (Score:2, Funny)

    by mantera ( 685223 )

    I wonder if this means energy plants in the future will be pretty rotten places.

  • Effects of heat? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by popo ( 107611 )

    Interesting story. Given that the power is generated by bacteria, my first question would have to be: Is an optimal temperature required for bacterial function / electrical generation?

    Maintaining a warm environment for the sake of the bacteria would certainly rule out plenty of uses from cars to flashlights, and most importantly: that little light that goes on when you open your freezer.

  • Great! Now my battery can get a virus too. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:28AM (#6899584)
    As biological systems, these battery bacteria should be susceptible to a host of illnesses -- viruses (called bacteriophages), mold, other bacteria, etc.. Swiping a packet of sugar from the restaurant to fuel a laptop might get you some extra surfing time (about half an hour according to my back-of-the-envelope-calcs) or it may get you some nasty battery disease. Will we need public service announcements on practicing safe laptop recharging?

    Sugar may be cheap, but sterilized sugar solution in a handy refill cartridge will cost a pretty penny. And, yes, it only means more sweet spam.
    • in a petri dish in your home. At least I hope that they make the batteries with an open standard and none of this "It's broken, go buy another one because opening it with a screwdriver violates our intellectual property and would release oh so dangerous components into the wild"

      if the batteries get widespread, they should come with instructions on how to replace the bacterial colony inside them, and detailed safety data sheets. After all, alexander graham bell spilled a lead acid on himself when making the
  • If I see the word 'prolly' instead of 'probably' one more time I'll scream, is 'probably' so hard to spell? And you only save two letters!
    Stamp it out before it's ...

    ...oh, no it's already too late [google.com] *sob*.

    • wats ur prob? lngwg alwys evolvs. lemme ax u somfin, do u use cntractns? prolly do, sinc u sed "I'll". dis is no diffrnt, u only sav 2 lttrs.

      Ow. That sprained my language center.

  • Dear god, kill me now (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @10:41AM (#6899664) Homepage

    Just as I was getting set up to rant, I discover that "prolly" is now a recognised acronym for "probably" [acronymfinder.com].

    To newspeak is good. I did plus ungood thoughtcrime.

  • Arthur C Clarke beat them to it - again (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:06AM (#6899865) Homepage
    Arthur C Clarke talked about this years ago in one of the Rendezvous with Rama trilogy [2think.org] - technology from the giant spiders IIRC.

  • Bacterial Matrix (Score:3, Funny)

    by defishguy ( 649645 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:18AM (#6900006) Journal
    Somewhere, there is a tiny bacteria named NEO being offered a blue pill.....
  • "You can read more on Al Jazeera and USA Today".

    Wow. Is that a first? Is Al Jazeera to be considered a reputable media outlet? Does it deserve linking from a Slashdot site?

    I don't know how well their technology coverage is, but I do know that their "World news" is highly skewed and biased.

    Yeah, USA Today is certainly not #1, but compared to Al Jazeera, it's superbly honest.
    When was the last time Slashdot linked to the Inquirer?

    • Al Jazeera is one source among many (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:57PM (#6902625)
      Funny -- I read their story first, mostly to see if I could spot any particular bias or overriding point of view. I will say, the Al Jazeera project clearly identified the Pentagon's connection to the project:

      In a Pentagon-backed project, University of Massachusetts researchers Swades Chaudhuri, an Indian, and Derek Lovley, an American, say the battery's source is an underground bacterium that gobbles up sugar and converts its energy into electricity.

      They didn't go on to show any especial suspicion about that, they just noted it. Later on, at the end of the article, they described the Military applications -- "the US Department of Defence was interested in it for powering underwater microphones and sonar to spot passing ships and submarines." They were quite positive, all told, describing the batteries as remarkable for a proof-of-concept. They mentioned applications in impoverished areas, using batteries working from sewage for example.

      On the other hand, USA Today didn't mention the Pentagon connection, describing the scientists only as being "at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst." The USA Today story was considerably shorter, lacked Al Jazeera's detailed description of how the thing worked ("...each side containing a graphite electrode and separated by a membrane. On one side was R ferriducens swimming in a glucose solution, which it broke down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and electrons. The electrons were transported to the nearby electrode...") and just generally read much more superficially.

      I wouldn't describe the Al Jazeera story as amazingly well-written -- it included some grammatical slips that read as if they'd been made in translation -- but it was a more complete bit of reporting by far, and showed no determined bias other than noting the military connection in a neutral way, IMHO.

      I'd bet the story's submitter included that Al Jazeera link because it's just plain better. Take a look yourself.

      (And as far as the world news thing goes, you should try to understand why it is that the Arab world watches this channel rather than the Western World's channels, which they see as bought and paid for by US corporate interests. It is a point of view, and you might want to understand it even if you don't agree.)

  • Nothing new about this (Score:3, Informative)

    by mesocyclone ( 80188 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @12:40PM (#6900806) Homepage Journal
    I built a bacterial fuel cell (from their description, identical except for the bacterial species) as a high school science project in 1964! We just used some bacteria from the Kansas River.

    It worked... dump in sugar, get out current.

    I think what is new here is the high level of efficiency.

  • existing robot runs from bacteria fuel-cell (Score:3, Informative)

    by rtv ( 567862 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @02:25PM (#6902252)
    The Intelligent Autonomous Systems Lab [uwe.ac.uk] at the University of the West of England has demonstrated a robot doing phototaxis, powered entirely by a microbial fuel cell [uwe.ac.uk].

  • Lysol should have a field day with this one. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Frobozz0 ( 247160 ) on Monday September 08, 2003 @04:01PM (#6903295)
    Lysol. Kills 99% of airborne bacteria. Now with patented Dura-kill for those tough to reach batteries.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close