Looks impressive on paper
Just like other technologies did.
And "Silicon wire" for the Anode? sounds tricky to make and expensive.
Boffins builds lithium battery that can't explode
Scientists from Stanford University in the US have worked out how to build a lithium-sulphur battery that doesn't require a lithium metal electrode. That, they say, will make it free from the "serious safety issues" that have been holding the technology back. Lithium-sulphur is seen as a strong contender for the next …
-
-
-
Monday 15th March 2010 16:43 GMT Sean Timarco Baggaley
Oh please.
It's exactly the same f*cking policy they've had for years on the iPhone and iPad. It's much, much easier (and cheaper) to just send the things off to their recycling centres.
Many countries—particularly in the EU—require manufacturers to take care of recycling their products, so this is just a trivial extension of the same logistics and infrastructure. It's certainly cheaper
The customer gets a new (or refurb, which Apple defines as "including a brand new casing") replacement unit instead.
The *effect* is identical: you get a product back which works and holds its charge. This is all the customer actually gives a shit about; how it's achieved—a big factory in China, or some guy in an Apple Store's storeroom with a screwdriver—is utterly irrelevant.
-
Tuesday 16th March 2010 08:58 GMT JC 2
@ Oh please.
I'd have to disagree with the idea that the effect is identical. I take good care of my personal electronics and do not think a refurb with a new casing is a sufficiently valuable trade-off, nor do I find any electronics worked on by some low pay junior technician to have been handled well in the process.
No thanks, I'd MUCH rather replace the battery myself even if it means heating up the ole soldering iron to do so. Then again, I cringe every time I need to take my automobile to a mechanic instead of having to DIY too, as the quality of most work these days leaves a lot to be desired.
Lastly, it is not much easier and cheaper to send a device back and forth than it is to just order a compatible battery and pop a gadget apart unless the designer takes measures to prevent that. These batteries don't use alien tech, just order the right size or smaller form factor and Bob's your uncle. Quick, and probably less than half the cost.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 15th March 2010 21:27 GMT Ed Blackshaw
However, the IUPAC name is Sulfur
Which just goes to show that our transatlantic cousins have more influence over such matters than they should. Glod alone knows what the RSC were thinking when they accepted this spelling in the UK, over the historical spelling with the ph, which had stood for over 600 years...
-
-
Monday 15th March 2010 13:25 GMT Neil 7
@hplasm
Don't worry mate, I got it and entirely agree with you - what the fark is this "sulfur"?
The battery in this article sounds like just another example of battery tech that will end up going nowhere.
And what a disappointing final paragraph, it actually makes me wonder why this is news at all. "Boffins make less dangerous battery, manages only 5 recharge cycles" sums it up. I'll take my chances with the pyrotechnic variety batteries as they're far more useful in the long run.
-
-
Monday 15th March 2010 14:43 GMT MinionZero
Its an interesting glimpse of whats possible.
I find this research interesting as it shows another way to theoretically go beyond lithium-ion batteries. Its obviously not finished technology but I just don't get the narrow minded criticism of this *research*. Sure its disappointing its not finished, but its research. Progress moves forward regardless of if you learn something doesn't work just as you move forward if you learn something does work. The point is you still learn whatever happens. In inventing anything, each obstacle in turn needs to be worked around and research like that takes time to *learn* what does and doesn't work, to finally workout how to solve the problems at hand.
Im frankly dismayed at the narrow minded criticism. History is filled with examples of the top inventors in the world who had to suffer similar onslaughts of sickening laughter and criticism at every move they made. So cut inventors and researchers some slack.
I'll leave the last words to no less than Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
-
Monday 15th March 2010 14:44 GMT James Micallef
energy density
Bertone are already using lithium-polymer batteries that have a claimed 1000 Wh/kg, they're already in production since last year, just saw it yesterday at the Geneva motor show . No word on number of charge/discharge cycles but is being used in a car that's already available for sale now so must be in the high hundreds at least (1000 = daily chareg for 3 years, not bad for reltively new tech)
-
Wednesday 17th March 2010 13:32 GMT Craig 28
Re:Narrow-minded criticism
Couldn't agree more. If it can be made to work in the future then the research is valuable. If it can't be made to work then they've at least tried it and ruled it out which is almost as valuable since it helps the original goal of finding a better battery technology. No glory in failed projects but they are just as important as successful ones overall.
Plus the cathode tech might be transferable to other concepts.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
