As a dedicated web-reader, in recent years I’ve been hearing more and more news about the potential applications of carbon nanotubes, specifically in laptop batteries. Traditional lithium ion batteries are due to be phased out with, starting this year, by hydrogen fuel cells which promise to drastically increase the operational lifespan of laptops from ~5 hours to in the region of 40 hours. However, these batteries have to be physically topped-up with methanol as they cannot be recharged in the traditional manner.

Recently the potential of carbon nanotube technology to offer an alternative form of battery has come to light. Offering a simular charge to standard lithium ion batteries, but only requiring minutes, rather than hours to charge fully, carbon nanotube ultracapacitors offer an alternative form of energy storage.

Both new battery developments have their disadvantages (hydrogen fuel cells needing to be refilled and nanotube ultracapacitors having a relatively small charge capacity), but a combination of the two technologies would provide the instant charge & use ability or nanotubes using a conventional power outlet with the optional staying power of (the more difficultly replacable) hydrogen fuel cell which would only be used when the nanotube battery had been depleted. This would drasitcally reduce the necessity of the continual fuel cell replacements associated with a hydrogen-only solution and would allow for extremely rapid recharge of the nanotube battery when an electrical outlet became available. This combination may finally allow laptops to become what they were originally intended for-computers that are relatively independant of location and availability of an electrical outlet for them to be CONSTANTLY plugged into in order for them to provide desktop replacement computing power on a timetable that allows people to actually complete the work they started!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube (wikki)http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/08/mit_cnt_replace_batteries/ (carbon nanotubes as batteries)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3031870.stm (hydrogen fuel cells)

Students Disscuss School of Computer Science Website (development)

http://forum.cogs-bham.org/viewtopic.php?p=31696#31696

the above link points to a topic on the devlopment version of the new department website. (may require membership to the cogs forum)
most students so far, seem to be objecting to the fact it is so heavily based on the main uni web site.

i think valid points include the fact that CS students rely on the CS website more than other departments. Also the new version looks nice (depending on your view of the new uni logo) but is not as functional removing most links from the front homepage. In Computer Science, unlike other departments, where students use webCT to study, students use the staff section (and througth it thier modules) to get lecture notes etc.

The new website seems to be designed to look good primerely for prospective students, and too keep with the corperate Uni image. Students do not seem to like it, however admittedly the feedback only represents a few students views. so far there has not been a single postive comment on the forum. However it is worth remembering that human beings are usually opposed to change.

I personally feel that the current website has all the links anyone would require, where as the new one (in its current form) puts graphical design before functionality. I appreicate the Uni may be putting pressure on CS, and indeed CS may want a new website to look ‘up to date’, but looking good (and i do not like the new uni logo etc.) is less important then it working for the people who use it most.

Ultimately the people who use it most are the student and staff and thier view is the most important. However the Uni (and therefore the department) cares most about new students and money througth investment. this can be seen througth the money invested in the new logo, and the fact the was adopted against the will of most students and staff. so whilst i think a design more along the old one would be better, if it is to an outside audience that the website is based, it is possible that the new one may be more jazzy and attract more investment (even if users perfer the old system)