Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cold fusion on the battlefield... (batteries)
Message-ID: <5469@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 89 03:04:46 GMT
References: <5138@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5170@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5197@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>What about carrying batteries and recharging them at the Armored Transport
>or other resupply point?  This requires a certain level of battery technology,
>which I know nothing about.  The power problem becomes like the ammo problem;
>how much does it (in batteries) weigh and how do we resupply - not cost.

Battery technology is best described as neolithic.  And that's being
generous.  Batteries are huge and immensely heavy for their energy content.
There are various experimental designs that improve on this somewhat, but
the word is "somewhat", not "greatly".

(Case in point:  a diesel-electric sub devotes a considerable fraction
of its weight and volume to batteries, and in return gets an underwater
endurance of a day or two at a speed of maybe two knots.  I trust it's
clear to everyone why nuclear subs were such a radical advance...)

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu