Another week...
Another battery improvement presented which will never reach consumers.
Researchers at MIT and Samsung have built a battery that eschews the use of liquid electrolytes in favor of a solid state substance that offers some serious benefits. Most commercial lithium-ion batteries use a liquid electrolyte to transport charged particles and provide power. But there are problems with this – the liquid …
Cool tech! Looks promising! Talk to me when I can buy them on Amazon... we all know the huge need for higher energy density in batteries... and we all know everyone wants to be first to the prize... and we've all read the click-bait-headlines... none of us can buy this new tech yet... it'll probably become available when when Star Citizen is finally released... which is shortly after cold fusion becomes a viable power source.
This post has been deleted by its author
> Another battery improvement presented which will never reach consumers.
This is a tech NEWS website. If you want to know what is available to buy now, check a retail website like Amazon.
The rest of us here know there is a significant lead time when/if concept leads to market.. it should go without saying.
"This is a tech NEWS website. If you want to know what is available to buy now, check a retail website like Amazon."
It's just that a lot of these "new technology" announcements turn out to be vapourware, and we get all hyped up over nothing. Much better by far that we hear news of technologies going into actual trials of a decent scale or, even better, preparing for a mass-market rollout, meaning we actually have something to look forward to.
20 years ago, mobile phones typically ran on NiMH or NiCd battery packs. Recharge cycles were hopeless and battery life was poor.
Today, Li-ion type cells dominate. Are you trying to imply that the NiCd/NiMH packs common in the mid 90s are no better than the Li-ion packs used today?
We'll probably see these on the market in the next 10 years.
Roq: Really, Lead acid? I thought you'd be using a voltaic pile.
>>Today, Li-ion type cells dominate. Are you trying to imply that the NiCd/NiMH packs common in the mid 90s are no better than the Li-ion packs used today?
No, I'm trying to imply that "my laptop lasts longer on a charge!" is a horrible way to argue that batteries have improved.
Actually by VOLUME Li metal cased cells are about same energy capacity as quality NiMH But the NiMH are a lot heavier for same size as plastic cases Lithium (LiPoly)
1980s the NiCd AA was about 450mAH and had a problem with memory effects and dendrite crystal shorts. Now an NiMH AA is about 2500mAH, C cell 5,000mAH and D cell 10,000mAH. But an NiCd is still lower cell resistance. Self discharge is a bigger issue with most NiMH than Lithium. though the Eneloop type NiMH is similar self discharge but lower capacity.
The Lithium type has not as long life (number of cycles) as decent NiMH. But seems to be a materials issue or charger management as some Lithium packs last 4 years and others barely 18 months.
Laptop batteries per charge longer, phone batteries per charge much less than 10 to 15 years ago.
The actual batteries life hasn't much changed in 15 years. About same number of cycles. It's largely the same Lithium tech as 15 years ago.
Some NiMH are better life than 10 years ago and some NiMH are dreadful compared to older batteries.
This though sounds more believable than Aluminium based (instead of Zinc) or other zany batteries reported. I expect if this is affordable it may be in products in less than five years.
This post has been deleted by its author
>I used to get eight hours out of four alkaline AA batteries in my Z88, back in the 1990s.
And how many AA cells did a Psion 5 run on? Joking apart, how much "useful human work" can be done on a charge? If the "useful human work" is proofreading a document, it could be accomplished on a e-ink screen. We now have laptops that weigh next to nothing, and will will see us through a full day of spreadsheets, websites and word-processing. The Psion would allow you to write documents for days on end.
Where a new leap in battery tech becomes more interesting is in areas where the physics is harder to cheat - such as electric vehicles and power tools.
Don't try to tell me batteries haven't improved drastically in the past 10-15 years. My first electric RC airplane ran on NiCd cells and could fly for 3-5 minutes if you didn't push it too hard -- and its max climb rate wasn't great. I recently upgraded that to LiPo batteries (and a slightly more efficient motor). Now it can fly for at least 4X as long, and it's so much lighter that it can climb straight up. Maybe 10-15% of that improvement was the motor. The rest is the batteries.
You do have to treat the LiPo cells with a bit more respect than you did the NiCd ones....
The first handeld cellular phone I used way back in the early 80's was the size of a large brick, weighed as much as a large brick, and had about 20 minutes of talk time. It ran off about a half-kilo of sealed lead-acid cells. IIRC, that model was sold in the UK under the Racal-Redac brand. The size of the electronics and transmit power requirements for cellular telephony have imporoved somewhat since then, but the increase in energy density of Lithium-ion over lead-acid is huge.
[The absolute first cellular phone I had before that wasn't handheld -- there was a radio unit the size of large cigar box that mounted in the car's trunk, with a cable as thick as your thumb that ran up to a control head and handset typically mounted on the transmission tunnel.]
We are trying to tell you batteries have not improved drastically the last 10-15 years, and while you drag in different very much older battery technologies I fail to see why? Lithium-ion battery technology is twice that old and yes, it has improved, but very slowly and not by much.
It improved some up to 2000 and after that not so much. A little higher energy density per volume, less per weight. After that it has mainly become cheaper. So in 25 years we have not really had any new technology in battery technology, just improvement on the old. And in a way this is also really just that.
Computing power per watt* has increased a lot in this period. Also computing power by volume. This means you can have a smaller device that consumes less power and still have a bigger battery by volume. This is not due to better battery technology.
*Or many other usages of electric power, like lighting.
Bullshit. Lithium-ion (especially the Lithium-ion polymer variant) is quickly getting better, especially at charge and discharge rates.
Now you can draw 120 amps continuous or 240 amps peak from a 2000 mAh battery, a few years ago 60 amps continuous was maximum, and peak wasn't much better than continuous.
Now you can charge a LiPo battery in 12-15 minutes, a few years ago it was more than one hour.
OK. It's time to extend the Reg automatic comment generator to pre-populate the comments section of any battery related story with the following two hyperbolic and sophomoric comments:
"We see a new-battery-tech story every five minutes in the Reg but no new-battery-technology has ever come to market!"
and
"You idiot, batteries are a million times better now than they were last week, which proves that every single story about new battery technology heralds yet another breakthrough."
And then perhaps we can all move on, eh?
This post has been deleted by its author
Solid state Li-ion batteries have been around for a few years now, although there is still a while to go until we will start to see them everywhere. ilika, for example, have been working with Toyota to develop solid state batteries: http://www.ilika.com/work-we-do/case-studies/solid-state-batteries
It's easy to be cynical about the number of 'revolutionary battery technologies' that disappear down a black hole, and yes, batteries for portable stuff like phones have improved over the years.
But what hasn't improved much is the technology for bulk storage of solar, hydro etc, the sort of thing that we need to store hundreds of kilowatt hours rather than a few thousand milliwatt hours,
Wake me up when I can get a power pack that stores 500kWh, lasts at least 20 years without serious degradation, costs less than £1000 and fits into the space occupied by my oil-fired boiler.
"The technology isn't remotely ready for commercial manufacture,"
Now that I believe.
As for safety...
Well we've got Phosphorous, which is popular for making incendiary artillery shells. Good for starting fires on combustible material, like wood, fabrics and people. Then we have Sulphur, a key ingredient in friction matches and choking vermin in cargo ships IIRC.
Now my chemistry is very rusty but I'm sort of guessing you could get something similar to a thermite reaction going with this lot. Not as in an actual transfer of Oxygen atoms from Iron to Aluminium (no Oxygen present) but quite a violent redox reaction with oxidation in the sense of electron loss.
Anyone fancy carrying say 20g of thermite in their pocket?
Proceed at flank speed with this say I.
I am claiming prior art on this new material. I definitely saw the structure shown in the picture during a "pharmaceutical experiment" sometime in the early nineties. Though they seem to have managed to get a handle on the rampant snakes and flying octopus, which is more than I ever managed.