Slashdot Mirror


Why Batteries Haven't Kept Up

TimWeigel writes "Ever wonder why we can cram ever more computer power into smaller and smaller devices, but we're still (mostly) slaves to the almighty AA? This article on CNN touches on this very important facet of our lives - why the power sources for our Palm Pilots and Gameboys haven't matched the advances in computing power. In a word: physics." I had an interesting conversation with a person who's been doing a lot of research into batteries. Batteries have grown at standard normal industrial rates - which are much slower then Moore's Law, and hence, the source of our problem.

442 comments

  1. Calculus Has Kept Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Calculus has! Everyone needs integration!

  2. Imagine by zeth · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Imagine running a laptop for a month without a single charge.

    That would be great!

    1. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If battery technology would've followed Moore's law, we'd prolly have the same running times as now, since the incentive to design all the battery saving tricks wouldn't have been there...

    2. Re:Imagine by frisket · · Score: 1

      Where is Daniel Shipstone when you need him?

    3. Re:Imagine by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      Imagine running a laptop for a month without a single charge.

      That would sure be nice, I do a lot of development on my laptop and just for shits and giggles one day I decided to do a typical build of a Visual C++ project on battery... unbelievable, each partial build (1 file change out of 10 or so files) would cost me about about 3% battery life!

      I have Redhat Linux 7.2 on a second laptop and just starting that up eats 10% of the battery... ouch!

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  3. Shake? by I+Lost+My+Password · · Score: 0

    My gramps has a clock you just have to shake instead of wind up. Why can't a palm or other device work the same? Put some mechanics in there.

    1. Re:Shake? by pizen · · Score: 4, Funny

      My gramps has a clock you just have to shake instead of wind up. Why can't a palm or other device work the same? Put some mechanics in there.

      Put it in a paint mixer for a few days and have it run for years...

    2. Re:Shake? by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      I think a Palm uses much mroe energy than a clock, so you'd be shaking it every 15 minutes.

    3. Re:Shake? by yatest5 · · Score: 0

      so you'd be shaking it every 15 minutes.

      I think most slashdot users are shaking it wayyyyy more often than every 15 minutes.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    4. Re:Shake? by Maran · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I think a Palm uses much mroe energy than a clock, so you'd be shaking it every 15 minutes."

      Yes, but that's ok for a Windows laptop - finally an excuse to vent your frustrations on it. The "Come on you bas***d! WORK!" annoyed-shake suddenly becomes effective when you provide the CPU with more juice ^_^

      Maran

    5. Re:Shake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, for a Palm this is not a bad idea...I'd guess that the normal motion of walking around with it in your jacket pocket would be sufficient for average use. But that wouldn't include ebook reading.

    6. Re:Shake? by knulleke · · Score: 1

      What if you used the energy gained from shaking to shake the palm every 15 minutes?

      oh wait...

      --
      no sig error.
    7. Re:Shake? by EggplantMan · · Score: 1

      My dad used to have a watch that worked on a similar principle, and to quote him : "One quick jerk-off and you were set for a week."

      --

      ?-|||-----x<*))))><
    8. Re:Shake? by pbrammer · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Scenario: You have 5 minutes left on the "battery" that's in your laptop. Can't shut down now, you're in too deep with whatever it is that you are working on. Are you *sure* you want to go shaking that laptop? You're not concerned about the harddrive heads crashing into the platters?? Or do we need to address that problem at the same time?? Perhaps we need to get rid of the harddrive altogether??

    9. Re:Shake? by hyoo · · Score: 2

      Sounds similar to those Seiko Kinetic watches. I'm not sure if they are mechanical doodads or actually generate an electrical charge.

      This technology would definitly be nice for a PDA if it can scale to provide enough power. Hopefully Seiko didn't grab some generalized patent on this idea =/.

    10. Re:Shake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am wanking as I write this.

  4. Actually by Heem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Batteries have come a long way - at least lets say, more devices use rechageable battery packs now then before. Remember when everything, and i mean, everything that did not plug directly into the wall, used an alkaline? At least now many things just go back on their base and charge back up.

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:Actually by bergie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, if you're traveling it is a bother to carry all the chargers around.

      Also, finding a power plug might be an issue.

      It would be so much easier if the devices could use a standardized charger.

      /Bergie

      --
      Midgard Project - Open Source CMS
    2. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Remember a few years back, an inventor released an alkaline battery recharger to the market that would recharge ANY alkaline battery hundreds of times. It was only on the market for a few months before the battery industry bought the inventor out. Now we have crippled alkaline chargers with "special" batteries that only work on unique chargers (no cross brand compatibility, it's mechanically engineered to be incompatible).
      The multi billion dollar battery industry will always act to protect their revenue stream. They have a cash cow and are not about to give it up.
      I'd have thought the DOJ would have acted on the cartel but it appears to have slipped below their horizon. Industry 1, consumer 0.

    3. Re:Actually by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Batteries have come a long way


      Not that far they haven't. The reason more devices run on rechargables is because the devices have reduced their power usage. It's not because the batteries are massively better.
    4. Re:Actually by HeyBob! · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.electrovaya.com/ for the cool flat, external batteries for laptops - they claim 12 hours @ 10w. Look under Products|Current|PowerPad160 and 120 - expensive though (http://www.electrovaya.com/prod/prod_df00_pop.htm l)

    5. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the "universal" alkaline battery chargers were available from Canadian Tire at one point. Does anyone still have one of them ?
      If so, did they work as advertised ?

    6. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this gizmo patented? If it was, we just have to wait until the patent runs out, and then anyone can sell one of these universal rechargers, right?

    7. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look for the Buddy L or Supercharger bettery renewal systems, they're not technically rechargers. All they do is dissipate the discharge products from the electrode/anode path and allow more of the electrochemical reactions to take place. The renewed batteries are only capable of short low capacity discharges so it's not a universal pancea for alkaline discharge.

    8. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it's more fair to look at batteries the other way: if computers were in the beginning as powerful as batteries, compared to their natural limitations, we would have had 1 Ghz Pentium IV by 1960.
      In summary: it's easy to improve dramatically if you start really bad. (probably one of Murhphy's Laws)

    9. Re:Actually by mmontour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember a few years back, an inventor released an alkaline battery recharger to the market that would recharge ANY alkaline battery hundreds of times.

      Well, that's what the infomercials claimed...

      Now we have crippled alkaline chargers with "special" batteries that only work on unique chargers (no cross brand compatibility, it's mechanically engineered to be incompatible).

      This "mechanical incompatibility" is easily cured with a drill, a wad of aluminum foil, or just by putting an AA cell into the "C/D" position (at least on the Renewal chargers I've used). Also "Pure Energy" brand cells work without modification in a Renewal charger. AFAIK the only mechanical incompatibility is Rechargeable/Standard, not between brands of rechargeable.

      To a first-order approximation, "regular" and "rechargeable" alkalines are the same (and can both be charged by the same charger electronics). However, I believe the battery industry's claims that the rechargeable units have slightly different mechanical and electrical characteristics designed to improve performance (energy capacity, cycle life, not leaking caustic chemicals, etc). YMMV on this point, of course.

  5. more power than a tactical nuke by beckett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    perhaps it's good that efforts have been made to design around energy limitations. while i'm all for better power supplies, designing circuits that use as little power as possible to do a given task means that less is wasted. just look at the amount of excess processing power we have in our computers and how much unnecessary code there is in a standard application.

    engineering around power limitations means smart, efficent designs, not wasteful products that just suck up energy. i think these limitations helped designers innovate.

    1. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      Agreed. It's really too bad that the software industry hasn't been restricted this way.

    2. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by fruey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ahhh yes, but with more energy, certain better designs are possible. Things are getting too small anyway. I love all this handheld stuff but my latest mobile phone has buttons so small I have to use a pen to push the numbers accurately. Stop the minimisation rush and we will have room for proper battery holders again!

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    3. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just look at the amount of excess processing power we have in our computers and how much unnecessary code there is in a standard application.
      ROTFL

    4. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point was that we are being lazy by creating products that require more power than is actually necessary, because as a cultur nothing is forcing us to do so because we take for granted the fact that we can easily say "hey!, just get more batteries". When in truth it should be, "dang were wasting yet anoter set of batteries after only 6 hours?, maybe we should design things a little tighter". I think some companies do take this into consideration, though most probably dont, and continue to use "well known" off the shelf parts. Seems like anything new new, does a pretty good job on power. As for extra code, thats get a bit anal on the whole thing, though I whole heartedly feel that programs are bloated, its a bit of a stretch to say well save power by trimming down our source code, lol.

    5. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He got +5 insightful. What did you get? NOTHING.

    6. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by HMC+CS+Major · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Restricting the software industry this way kills the hardware industry .....

      Chip makers (intel/amd/etc) and hardware vendors expect software producers to write expensive code, that only the newest processors have a chance of running. Thats how they push the newer boxes out the door.

    7. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the times of the 386, techniques such as Karnaugh maps were used to reduce silicon area, and clock gating was used. Also, many layout techniques exist in analog electronics that could be transfered to digital physical design so as to reduce glitches (thus both bit error rates and power dissipation).
      Now I hear that all this is skipped for the benefit of time-to-market. Gee, you even get a complete embedded PC to do the job that a few thousand gates would handle.
      I wish the integrated circuit and system design constraints from batteries had been even stronger !!

    8. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose to use the binary system for telephone numbers, that way we only need two buttons, each being half the size of the phone.

    9. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, what you got to lose? You know, you come from nothing. You're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

    10. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always look on the bright side of life, *whisles* Always look on the bright side of life, *whisles*

    11. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the phone twice as "efficient": use one button, and Morse code.

    12. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Akumapwr · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Ford Motor inc.

    13. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)
      *whistles*

    14. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice if they put those fancy CPUs to some USE though rather then just writting bigger code.

      I imagine that some highly intensive AI spell checker would likely have high CPU requirements, but at least it could offer mabye a 5% or so increase in spellchecker accuracy in guessing what the user was originaly trying to spell.

      Sure it would be practicaly useless, but most of the features out today are compleatly useless. . . .

    15. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 1

      engineering around power limitations means smart, efficent designs, not wasteful products that just suck up energy. i think these limitations helped designers innovate.

      To make desktop apps power efficient really means that they have to start moving towards the real-time domain; the problem with this is that it puts the cost of the software up. It won't happen.

      However, if you look at PDA's and mobile phones (I program mobile phone software for a living at present) when battery life is a feature, great effort is made to save power, both in hardware and software

      Fast efficient algorithms with low memory overhead are employed to reduce RAM and MIPs requirements allowing less power hardware to be used and batteries saved. Additionally techniques such as slow clocking are used so that when the device is largely idle, it sleeps and a much slower clock is used to keep it barely ticking over and saving power. Also, as different parts of the hardware are determined to be idle they are powered down, and powered up again as needed.

      In short, if money could be made from 'trimming' a standard application it would be done, but it isn't a selling point and probably has a negligable effect on the whole system (consider using a LCD instead of a CRT for starters)!

      --
      -- Mike
    16. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like the spellchecker in ms word?

      I am quite fond of the quality of the ms word spellchecker, while I loathe Ispell with a passion (more for personal reasons ... Kuenning is a cocksucker).

    17. Re:more power than a tactical nuke by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Works had a wonderful spell checker, up until 2000 though Word did not let you re-check a manual correction to a word without going through the spell checking process again. Which is just downright icky really, it is assuming that it knows with 100% accuracy any possible word that you might have wanted to spell.

      Netscape 4.7 has the best spell checker in my opinion.

      No wait scratch that, Google does. I wonder how it works, I bet that it is something close to most related searches performed for a sequence of letters similar to the ones inserted. . . .

      There are only three or four oft misspellings of mine that Google cannot correct.

      spellcheck.net works well for when I know that I have not seriously screwed up anything too bad. It lacks any sort of understanding of the vernacular though, and it has almost no tech vocabulary.

      Of course I cross reference everything with Dictionary.com as well. :) If just to make sure that the corrected word is really what I want it to be and not really some OTHER word that is one letter off of my desired word but means something completely different. (lovely language English is in that way. . . . ;) )

      StarOffice actually has a bit better auto-corrector then word does, though I have not (and DO NOT plan on) used the latest version of word. Staroffice will not auto correct anything but a few very common errors by default (a handful really) but once you have it correct a misspelled word it will automatically correct that particular misspelling of the word to the chosen correction.

      Nifty and rather useful. :) Makes it so that I do not have to tell it (or run a find - replace on) the same misspelled word fifty or so times.

  6. Nuclear paranoia by cperciva · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We could have better batteries, if people weren't so paranoid about nuclear technology. It's quite possible to create safe, long-lived, batteries based on nuclear decay -- many smoke detectors are powered by americium decay, and about a decade ago there were plans to use plutonium to power pacemakers -- but there is too much of an anti-nuclear lobby to allow anything of the sort to happen now.

    1. Re:Nuclear paranoia by zeth · · Score: 1

      In Sweden the corportation ABB had come up with a safe nuclear powersupply for the home. It was a couple of years ago, in the 80s I think, but sadly they had to discontinue the research.

      That was too bad. Maybe we need a new government.. :)

    2. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Darwin_Frog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Smoke detectors aren't powered by nuclear decay. The americium is only a source of ionizing radiation, knocking electrons off of oxygen and nitrogen. When smoke enters the chamber of the detector, the drop in current between the upper and lower plates (supplied by a battery or house current) triggers the alarm.

    3. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Thng · · Score: 2, Informative

      many smoke detectors are powered by americium decay
      not quite.. the americium is merely a source of ionizing radiation that makes it easier to detect small amounts of smoke. batteries are still required
      http://www.howstuffworks.com/smoke2.htm

    4. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Sheridan · · Score: 1
      Safe as in this Dilbert strip? (Sorry if you're reading this in an archived story, but that link probably won't work past 18/03/2002)

      ;-)

    5. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Agreed, there were a few on the wearables list looking into the use of the power cells out of those old pacemakers and trying to calculate how many were needed to power the typical wearable pc... turned out to be un-feasable as to the tiny size of the mini-nuke batteries..

      I too am flabbergasted at the paranoia-mongers blocking real advances in power generation.. My God people. we are still using power generation technology from the beginning of the 1900's! True that there needs to be better control over advanced technology power plants but the tree-huggers are really killing any chances of a antimatter generation plant being built.. ("It could split our planet in Half if it blows!", "it might make the trees sad", and other silly comments..)

      The first nuclear power plant was fired up in metro Chicago! if they thought it was dangerous I highly doubt that they would risk blowing up the 3rd largest city in the United states with it back then.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. You know, if subscription would get rid of these kind of posts, I might even consider.

      For this guy, we need a clue-by-4^2...

    7. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      Plutonium is sort of 'the' most poisonous substance know to man, and that is without counting for radiation. just biological poisoning. what would happen if your little kid bashed one open with a hammer?

    8. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that the first nuclear power plant was fired up in Shipping Port PA....

    9. Re:Nuclear paranoia by cperciva · · Score: 2

      Cadmium is also pretty damn toxic, yet we don't restrict NiCad batteries.

      I think there's much more danger of someone cracking a NiCad battery open than there is of someone taking a plutonium RTG apart and breaking open the irridium shells which encase the plutonium.

    10. Re:Nuclear paranoia by BeBoxer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, how exactly would you build an "antimatter generation plant? Or more specifically, where exactly are you going to get antimatter to use as fuel? There aren't exactly big natural deposits lying around. Antimatter might make an excellent method for storing and transporting energy someday, but it is not itself an energy source. It's just like hydrogen in this sense. You can do lots of interesting things with it, but it is not a fuel source because you have to make it and that process takes more energy than you get out of it.

      The first nuclear power plant was fired up in metro Chicago! if they thought it was dangerous

      Actually it was dangerous. Starting up a nuclear reactor in a squash court in downtown Chicago was dangerous then, and it's dangerous today. Just because nothing went wrong doesn't make it safe. The risk of blowing up Chicago was probably about zero. The risk of making a big chuck of Chicago uninhabitable and making a lot of people sick had their reactor caught on fire was very real.

      The public's fear of nuclear power is not entirely unfounded. Fissonable materials are extremely dangerous to humans. You don't really want to be shipping it around all over the place like gasoline. Accidents do happen. And it's very hard to clean up.

      On the other hand, some countries are still actively developing nuclear power. South Africa, I belive, is in the process of building a "pebble bed" reactor which should be quite safe compared to the reactor designs used currently. It is claimed to be meltdown-proof, and the fuel should always stay contained inside of the "pebbles" reducing the risk of contamination. Of course, you still need a plant to manufacture the pebbles themselves, and that plant could turn into a mess if not properly run.

    11. Re:Nuclear paranoia by flegged · · Score: 1, Troll

      aren't powered by nuclear decay. The americium is only a source of ionizing radiation

      So how do you get ionising radiation without nuclear decay? Please tell us. It would be a major breakthrough in nuclear physics...

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    12. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Darwin_Frog · · Score: 1

      The ionizing radiation is not a power source. The battery or house current is. No smoke detectors are powered by nuclear decay.

    13. Re:Nuclear paranoia by pomakis · · Score: 1
      So how do you get ionising radiation without nuclear decay? Please tell us. It would be a major breakthrough in nuclear physics...

      He didn't say that there wasn't nuclear decay. He said that smoke detectors aren't powered by the nuclear decay.

    14. Re:Nuclear paranoia by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Funny
      Antimatter might make an excellent method for storing and transporting energy someday, but it is not itself an energy source. It's just like hydrogen in this sense. You can do lots of interesting things with it, but it is not a fuel source because you have to make it and that process takes more energy than you get out of it.
      Phase 1: Build Antimatter generating plants in the Antartic, using abundant winds, and being happy in the fact that there's not very many people or animals around. Phase 2: ??????? Phase 3: Profit!
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    15. Re:Nuclear paranoia by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      He didn't say there was no nuclear decay, he said that the nuclear decay isn't the source of operating power for the unit. The nuclear decay is used in the smoke detection system. The operational power is provided by batteries, or by plugging it in.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    16. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chlorine is a poison, yet we don't outlaw NaCl, uh table salt. It's called a compound, it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

    17. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Stonehand · · Score: 2
      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    18. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Um, how exactly would you build an "antimatter generation plant?

      dont really know, cince they just now have some antimatter to play with, i am guessing that a few years some scientist will figure out how to make it reqall fricking hot to generate steam or cause a huge number of thermocouples to generate electricity. it's not my job. but any corperation that would do it probably wont because of the hostility in this country towards nuclear energy. Like you said S. Africa are continuing research while here in the USA we happily coddle the gree-freaks instead of researching safer and better uses.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually antimatter was first found in the 1930's. The problem is that in in the 70 year since then the total amount of antimatter produced can be measured in grams. It's the most expensive substance on earth and unless there is a major loophole in baryon and lepton number conservation the theoretical maximum efficiency in generation is 50%(I think its even less when you take into account the kinematics b/c you'd probably be using a beam striking a fixed target and not two colliding beams). Then you have the problems of how you store it safely(probably strong magentic fields) and the energy costs of doing that. I'd say
      using antimatter for energy storage and transport will remain sci-fi for a long long time.

    20. Re:Nuclear paranoia by arkanes · · Score: 2

      As a previous response mentions, it IS dangerous. And they knew it was dangerous, and did it anyway. When they did the first nuclear bomb test, the scientists thought there was a reasonable (well, non-zero) chance that it would set the atmosphere on fire, killing all life on earth, and yet they did it anyway. People will do strange things.

    21. Re:Nuclear paranoia by crudeboy · · Score: 1

      A good example that nuclear stuff is dangerous would be the use of depleted uranium in bombs used by the NATO in Bosnia for instance...

      http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/du-weapon.htm

      or Chernobyl...

    22. Re:Nuclear paranoia by BeBoxer · · Score: 1

      dont really know, cince they just now have some antimatter to play with,

      Actually, they've been making antimatter for years. Making positrons (anti-matter electrons) is not especially difficult. Look up the "Advanced Photon Source" at Argonne. They regularly use positrons as a method of generating high-power X-Ray beams.

      i am guessing that a few years some scientist will figure out how to make it reqall fricking hot to generate steam or cause a huge number of thermocouples to generate electricity. it's not my job.

      Ha ha ha. What? Are you for real? If you have lots of steam or heat, why not just use a turbine to make electricity?

      All right, who took down the "You must have an IQ of 50 to post" sign and let this guy in? Ha ha ha. Or maybe I've been trolled. reqall fricking hot Ha ha ha. That's the funniest thing I've read today. What is a gree-freak anyway? I'm not normally one to pick on grammer, but when it keeps your post from parsing, it's a problem. Check out the "Preview" button sometime.

    23. Re:Nuclear paranoia by jejones · · Score: 2

      I fear you're parroting a bogus claim. (Besides, the anti-dioxin folks claim dioxin is among the most poisonous substance known to man...maybe you could arm-wrestle them over it.) The most poisonous substance known is botulism toxin. People might also wish to read this item by Bernard Cohen on the myth of plutonium toxicity.

    24. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Nephrite · · Score: 1

      Hey, and what about our friendly Linux mascots living in Antarctic?!

    25. Re:Nuclear paranoia by mmontour · · Score: 2, Informative

      So how do you get ionising radiation without nuclear decay? Please tell us.

      X-ray tubes (few kV of DC accelerate electrons into a metal target, producing ionizing X-ray photons).

      Cyclortrons and liner accelerators - alternating radio-frequency fields accelerate charged particles to high energy levels. Shoot the primary beam into a production target and you can make all kinds of other stuff (neutrons, muons, pions, etc).

      Mercury-vapor short-wave UV lamps also qualify.

      It would be a major breakthrough in nuclear physics...

      It was, last century.

    26. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every tungsten filament that emits electrons with sufficiently large kinetic energy >some eV has ionizing properties. However tungsten filments tend to burn through unless in vacuum.

    27. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good example that nuclear stuff is dangerous would be the use of depleted uranium in bombs used by the NATO in Bosnia for instance...


      All the better to rain down death upon our enemies in the fight for freedom! Oh, and if we kill a shitload of civvies directly by pounding them with ordnance and indirectly by radiation poisoning or unexploded cluster-bombs, then so be it. Live free or die. Or both.

    28. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Alsee · · Score: 2

      There aren't exactly big natural deposits lying around.

      I recently did a mineral survey of my property and discovered a large deposit in my back yard. I'm trying to handle the mineral-rights paperwork myself, but the oil-industry has about 400 lawyers burying me in legal documents.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    29. Re:Nuclear paranoia by macemoneta · · Score: 2

      I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    30. Re:Nuclear paranoia by flegged · · Score: 2

      [...]few kV of DC accelerate electrons[...]linear accelerators[...]RF fields[...]

      Yes, yes, I know. But they all require a lot of power; none can be used as a power source, nor could such a source of radiation be effective in a small form factor such as a smoke detector. A small quantity of radioactive material is the only way to get ionising radiation.

      In other words, smoke detectors are powered by nuclear decay in the sense that without it, the devices would not be feasible.

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    31. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buzzz !! The smoke detector uses radio isotopes as a sensor not as a power source. It would have been nice not having to change batteries every year on the smoke detector.

      On the other hand, using radioactive consumer grade batteries is just irresponsible. Who is going to take care of the radioactive waste ? Do you want your kid playing with old batteries ?

    32. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly. but how many clued will use paypal? etc. Subscriptions, alas, are liable to be the filter by which the last remaining bits of clue are eliminated from this swirling chunk filled usenet also-ran.

    33. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retart moron.. how the Frick do you think Nuclear powerplants work?
      Gawd, you are so stupid you smell bad... Like Baloney in fact.

    34. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A good example that nuclear stuff is dangerous would be the use of depleted uranium in bombs used by the NATO in Bosnia for instance...

      http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/du-weapon.htm

      That link is a completely hysterical analysis of the effects of DU use by the military. (Citing studies by the Iraqis? Oh please...)

      Here is a more levelheaded assessment from the WHO. Generally the radiation impact of DU weaponry seems to be small and manageable, particularly if some remediation is undertaken after the conflict.

      Still not so sure I want a radioactive battery in my pocket, though...

      AC.

    35. Re:Nuclear paranoia by displaytest · · Score: 1

      There should be a (-1: Dumbass) or (-1: Didn't Read/Understand the Post/Article)

    36. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      while here in the USA we happily coddle the gree-freaks
      I'm missing something here - don't you still boil water with the stuff at enormous expense over there? How is that coddling the green-freaks? Have your weapons program, have your expensive power plants to show that it can have a peaceful use (in addition to the many peaceful uses discovered since the 50's white elephant of nuclear power) but don't ever be surprised when people laugh at you when it is called "clean" or "cheap".

      Duck and cover!

    37. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Darwin_Frog · · Score: 1
      Yes, in the same way that you are powered by your parents.

      In any case, smoke detectors can also be made with photodetectors and so no ionizing radiation is needed.

    38. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      If antimatter comes into contact with matter -- any matter -- you get a really big kaboom. Figuring out just how big the kaboom will be is a little trickier, but suffice it to say you won't want to be anywhere nearby. The more specific answer to such a question lies in Einstein's good old equation, E=mc^2. For those who don't know/remember, 'm' is mass, 'c' is the speed of light, and 'E' is the energy that said mass can be converted to (which is what happens when matter and antimatter contact -- they both get converted into energy).

      Since the only ingredient required to make antimatter release its energy is matter, there is obviously plenty of 'fuel' to go around.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    39. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      I've actually thought about this idea before. I envisioned replacing those lovely nuclear waste dumps with huge power plants using the used control rods (or some other radioactive waste) for the energy they are emitting. This means essentially free energy for a very long time.

      Of course, if it's possible to make a battery with a small amount of such a material, then so much the better. The quantity does need to be small enough that breaching it won't cause a major ecological disaster. Risk of personal injury to whomever breaches it isn't really a problem, since they have those big warning labels on present-day batteries anyway, and they already contain plenty of hazardous chemicals.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    40. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      What was the basis for the suspicion that it would set the atmosphere on fire, anyway? I know of no significant concentrations of flammable gases in the atmosphere.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    41. Re:Nuclear paranoia by arkanes · · Score: 2

      I don't recall the details and don't feel like lokoing them up, but there was some concern that the reaction, once started, would spread to some gas in the air.

    42. Re:Nuclear paranoia by BeBoxer · · Score: 2

      I know how matter and anti-matter work. Where are you going to get the anti-matter? That's the fuel. And there isn't any naturally occuring on the planet for the exact reason you describe. So please, how are you going to get antimatter without expending more energy than you get out of it? Good lord, do you really think that plain old matter qualifies as 'fuel'? If so, I've got some sand in my back yard. Perhaps you can tell me how to use that to heat my house? Oh yeah, just go pick up some anti-matter and mix it with the sand. Whatever. You're going to have to try harder if you ever want a +1 Bonus. :-P

    43. Re:Nuclear paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Oxy-Clean is powered by the air we breath!!

      (that's as accurate as the other statement)

      Sheesh..

  7. Standardisation by Sircus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's most interesting to me is not the lack of progress in battery technology - it's not Moore's law, but with NiCad, NiMH, LiIon and so forth, there's clearly progress. What interests me is the lack of standardisation in battery sizes. We've had AA (and AAA, and A, and so forth) forever. Why don't we see more standardisation for things like digital camera batteries, laptop batteries and so forth? I understand that there are a bunch of issues such as form factor and suitability for design, but wouldn't standard sizes and capabilities for batteries help everyone out?

    There's the argument that the laptop makers (and so forth) would lose their revenue streams from replacement batteries, but they also wouldn't have to pay a premium on putting the things into the laptops in the first place, if we had newer battery standards which specified the characteristics of a set of 'standard' laptop batteries.

    Perhaps I'm over-optimistic, but I'm certainly hoping that commoditisation eventually leads to not having to buy the 'special' AA rechargeables for my camera, or being able to walk into any computer store and get a new XX for my laptop...

    --
    PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    1. Re:Standardisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      D, C, B, A, AA, AAA etc. are standards, you silly man. Different sizes for different uses, see?

      Why not standarise on one size of paper too? I say we go with B2. That should suit everyone, right?

    2. Re:Standardisation by phunhippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the interesting things is that back in the 50's-60's and 70's was that devices were generally made to fit the batteries. Now a days batteries are designed to fit the devices offering more flexibillity in design. I think thats a fair trade off to have have 100's of battery types and sizes vs have a few desgins of battery shape that everything has to be designed around.

    3. Re:Standardisation by Sircus · · Score: 2

      If it were only hundreds, there'd be a chance your local (largish) computer store could stock them all. My problem is with the fact that between my cordless headphones, my Visor Prism, my VisorPhone, cordless mouse/keyboard, camera, and all of the laptops I use, there's not one single common battery (granted, both the camera and the keyboard use AA, but whereas the keyboard will take any old AA, the camera insists on having Fuji's AAs - it kills anything else in less than two pictures).

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    4. Re:Standardisation by smagoun · · Score: 1

      heh heh......I bet it's going to get worse before it gets better, too. The new breed of Li-poly batteries (like the ones used in the iPod) don't have to take the shape of a standard cell (usually a cylinder). Today's batteries (even laptop batteries - look at an xray of one) are are almost always one or more of these cylindrical cells. Li-poly cells can take any shape, so designers will have even more freedom when it comes to battery size + placement. More freedom = more weird shapes for each device. It would be nice if we could standardize, but I doubt it will happen soon. I'd settle for standardized power requirements so I don't have to hunt for the right wall wart each time I want to plug something in/recharge it.

    5. Re:Standardisation by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      In a couple years, maybe we could all be using energon cubes...

      In the meantime, just take the battery out of the thing you're having trouble with, take it down to Radio Shack, give it to the dude behind the counter and say, "I need one of these".

    6. Re:Standardisation by jedrek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FujiFilm cameras don't really kill non-Fuji batteries as they kill everything but 1600mA Ni-MH batteries, 1800mA dealies are even better. Anything you can get 'on the street' -- alkalines or the like, are pretty much only for emergency use.

    7. Re:Standardisation by jburgess · · Score: 1

      And they will give you a blank, rather dull stare and say "Uh.... look over on that wall."

    8. Re:Standardisation by jandrese · · Score: 2

      If you look around, you can often times find electronics like digital cameras that use standard sized (AA) batteries. In fact most mid range digital cameras seem to opt for the AA route, it's only the exceptionally fancy ones like the Sony Elph series that use custom batteries. The best part about getting one that uses AAs is that the rechargeable AA batteries (like the Rayovac NiMH batteires) have come down in price recently and really do last a long time. Finally, if you get something that uses AAs and you forget your charger on vacation somewhere, you can buy standard Alkaline batteries to hold you over until you can recharge the NiMHs.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:Standardisation by T-Punkt · · Score: 2

      > Why don't we see more standardisation for things like digital camera batteries, laptop batteries and
      > so forth?

      BTW: When you break up such batteries you'll see that they are usually a bunch of standard cells soldered together with some kind of temperature triggered fuse...

    10. Re:Standardisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ah, but laptop manufacturers *don't* pay a premium to put the batteries in. They don't cost all that much to make. However, since they've built themselves a neat little monopoly and you have to buy new batteries from them, they can charge you obscene prices (and do).

      Replacement batteries exist to be a hidden cost in laptop systems.

    11. Re:Standardisation by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative
      • Why don't we see more standardisation for things like digital camera batteries, laptop batteries and so forth?

      I think you sum it up nicely. It's the revenue from spares and replacements. I bought a used laptop with a dead NiMh from eBay for about $270. The battery manufacturer (Solomon) isn't even selling these batteries any more, but there's a generic Duracell equivelant, ranging from $105 for the dumb battery to $150 for the smart version.

      Consider that this pack is pretty much equivelant to 10 x 1.5 (actually 1.2)V MiMh AA's, costing $50 or less for ten good cells. The dumb pack is charging a 100% markup for the form factor and contacts, and (no doubt) a very cheap recharger. The NiMh in my other laptop gets very hot while charging, which is about the last thing you want to happen.

      An interesting how-to on making up an external power pack for a digital camera using 5 x 7Ah F cell NiCd's (totalling about ten times a typical laptop battery's capacity) can be found here.

      To power a 12V laptop, you need 10 x 1.5v cells (which actually deliver about 1.2V each). Using various types of (e.g.) Sanyo NiCd's (although I'd prefer NiMh's, as cadmium is nasty-nasty), you could use:

      • KR-1100AAU : 12 Ah, 240g
      • KR-5000DEL : 54 Ah, 1.5kg
      • KR-7000F : 75 Ah, 2.3 kg
      • KR-20000M : 240 Ah, 6.4 kg

      Compare and contrast with my 3.5Ah pack at about 250g. Even with stock AA's, I'd get over three times the capacity and life. If I wanted to lug a lump of battery around, I could run the thing for days off of battery power. Actually, my laptop expects 19v DC in through the power jack (to recharge the 12v internal battery), so you could multiply all these figures by up to 1.5, if you felt like (realistically) powering a laptop for a working week off of a 7 lbs F cell pack.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:Standardisation by rworne · · Score: 1
      Sony makes the Cybershot and Mavica cameras, and Canon makes the Elph.

      Sony's camera batteries (Lithium Ion based) are some of the best (if not the best) on the market for portable digital cameras and video recorders. The largest size battery for the handheld cameras can give in excess of 5-6 hours of continuous operation with accurate estimations of remaining operating time. The smallish standard battery in my Cybershot camera gives 2 hours of operation as well.

      Heck, they even had a burning battery recall like Dell and Apple!

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    13. Re:Standardisation by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2


      Well, I'd say that the standardization problem that you speak of is dead on. Why, when we need all of these devices to have more power we decide to cram more AA batteries in them.

      But where I differ is that there should be standardized plugs, and the mounting of the batteries should be your own.

      I work in television news, and every station uses a different battery system (But all the batteries are HUUUUGE) in the back of the cameras. They purchase the batteries and the mount, and they go from there.

      So they should sell the mount plate with the battery system, or at least be able to purchase the camcorder mount, PDA mount or the laptop mount that you are looking for with your battery system.

      It works great for professional photographers, whether you use one big battery on the back, or you have three.

    14. Re:Standardisation by Tower · · Score: 1

      I've used the Rayovac Renewals in my dig cam, portable CD/headphone amp... they last pretty well. Fairly close in runtime to a regular alkaline, and they last for ~40 full charges (and usually another 30 decent charges after that). I've been impressed, and apparently saved a lot of money (on a small scale - no new car from these).

      If there are a few choice in cameras that would meet your needs, I'd suggest one that takes standard size batteries... it does pay off in the long run...

      ...geez - that sounds like an ad... but I really do like them, and am using some as I write this (mmmm, good headphones with a headphone amp == happiness).

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    15. Re:Standardisation by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Sony's batteries also cost over $60 a piece.

      After paying $900 for a digital camera excuse me if I do NOT feel like paying another $60+ for a battery just so I can get another hour and a half of use out of my digital camera.

      (5 hours? well sure, as long as you don't have a decent LCD not to mention the LCD backlight. Or an autostabilizer. Or flash. Or anything else actualy, you know, turned ON).

      Sony actualy HORRIBLY overcharges for all of their products. Check out their USB memory stick reader. Simular products from other reputable manufacturers cost $20, Sony's costs _$65_.

      I can only imagine what the pricing markup on that item is. The batteries likely have a simular markup. Though granted the batteries likely cost more to make so the markup is likely not quite as great. . . . it is still nuts.

    16. Re:Standardisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dick! He recognised that standard and said nothing bad about it. He was talking about batteries in devices which are non-standard - like laptops.

      Perhaps you are confused because YOUR laptop runs on AA batteries, but that's because you've got one of those learn-to-spell laptops from Walmart. Real laptops all use custom batteries which they change every model, let alone different brands.

      Oh, and by the way, you stole my username you coward! :-)

    17. Re:Standardisation by ajmarks · · Score: 1

      His point was that every laptop manufacturer requires a differently shaped battery. Why can't manufacturers get together define battery form factors L, LL, and LLL, thereby allowing people to buy a replacement at their local computer store.

      --
      Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
  8. NiMH by lostchicken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Prices have kept up, though.
    I have quite a few Accu-Recharge NiMH batteries that cost me about $10 for four.
    It used to (about 2 years ago) cost 4 times that.
    I'd say that's progress...

    --
    -twb
    1. Re:NiMH by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      too bad... I got 5 packs of 4 AA's of the Accu-rechargable's Ni-Mh 's from home depot on closeout for $1.00 a pack.... yup ONE DOLLAR a pack.

      the $10.00 pricetag is too high for joe-schmoe to pay, while people like me snag everything off of the display when they clearance them.

      Take a look at your local homey-center.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:NiMH by fferreres · · Score: 2

      NiMH is too generic. There are cheapo NiMH batteries nobody wants, and not-so-cheapo NiMH batteries everyone wants (at least the ones that care about the mAh load).

      I recently bought some 2000 mAh batteries and my camera takes about 400 shots before going dead. With 900 mAh alcalines it's about 40 shots and with cheapo NiMH ones it's about 50.

      What do those packs read, regarding mAh? If they are 1600/1800 mAh, they are hell of cheap good ones. Else......

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  9. Another reason... by Indras · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever wonder why we can cram ever more computer power into smaller and smaller devices, but we're still (mostly) slaves to the almighty AA?

    Another reason not touched by the article: compatibility. How many people here would replace all their AA-weilding devices if new batteries wouldn't work in them? Actually, knowing the slashdot crowd, all of them would. But hey, that's the whole point! There's a market for a newer, better battery.

    I always hated my TI-85, fresh batteries at the start of a school year would run out just days before the final exam. My last calculus exam was a whole lot of squinting at the screen with the contrast turned up to 9 :o).

    --
    The speed of time is one second per second.
    1. Re:Another reason... by pizen · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always hated my TI-85, fresh batteries at the start of a school year would run out just days before the final exam. My last calculus exam was a whole lot of squinting at the screen with the contrast turned up to 9 :o).

      Yeah, Tetris really sucked up the batteries in High School Calculus.

    2. Re:Another reason... by davmoo · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention calculator batteries.

      In the early 80's I bought an HP-11c calculator when I first started college. Since then it has seen almost daily use, and in fact lays on the monitor shelf of the computer I am typing this message from so that it is handy.

      Its still using the same set of non-rechargeable batteries that it came out of the box with. I keep figuring "these are gonna die any day now", but they keep chugging along...

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    3. Re:Another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      maybe that just proves that you shouldn't have relied so much on your calculator and instead actually learned the material.

    4. Re:Another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhuhhuhuhhu, you're SO funny! Chrissakes there dipshit, calculators are used to do monotonous shit that needs to be done to solve the task at hand. Sure, everyone can divide 38162.62515 by 86.721 manually, but why bother? It's just a waste of time when the main problem is much more complex.

    5. Re:Another reason... by gantzm · · Score: 1

      Geeez, when I took calculus if the answer was 38162.62515 / 86.721, it was perfectly acceptable to leave that as the answer.

      Usually you would end up with something more like sqrt(pi)/4. The prof was more concerened about you understanding the problem, not working out what the square root of pi was......

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    6. Re:Another reason... by Random+Walk · · Score: 2

      I have a Casio fx-85. Never had to replace any batteries - it runs on solar cells, for many years already.

    7. Re:Another reason... by Indras · · Score: 1

      Usually you would end up with something more like sqrt(pi)/4. The prof was more concerened about you understanding the problem, not working out what the square root of pi was......

      That's why I really enjoy playing around with the TI-89's, they have the option to leave answers in sqrt(pi)/4, if it doesn't simplify down more. But, from what I hear, they're even more of a battery hog than the TI-85's. Maybe someday I'll get one.

      --
      The speed of time is one second per second.
    8. Re:Another reason... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      Glad I have an 89 now. The contrast never needs to be changed no matter the battery level. That, and the screen is _much_ nicer to read. (We won't get into the math features, that's OT...)

      The 89 does get pretty long life off the AAAs... I've done about 2.5 terms on the last set (Duracells(R)), and just put in a new set.

      The other nice thing about the '89 is that the battery level can be directly checked. My BATT indicator wasn't on yet (the batteries probably had another week or two left), but a program called tictex (from tict.ticalc.org) showed they were getting low.

      Sure enough, I took 'em out, and the little powercheck thingies wouldn't change color at all.

      To take a tangent, those built-in battery checkers are one of THE coolest things battery manufacturers have come up with.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    9. Re:Another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people have real-world problems: if you advertise the top speed of your car as 35352.3434 / 235.324 mph it won't help people very much.

  10. americium decay by wiredog · · Score: 3, Informative

    No. Americium decay doesn't power the smoke detector, it's part of the detection circuitry. It provides neutrons that are used in a sort of single purpose mass spectrometer. The power is provided by batteries or the mains.

    1. Re:americium decay by Darwin_Frog · · Score: 2, Informative

      It produces alpha particles, actually. High mass, low energy - just enough to knock electrons away.

    2. Re:americium decay by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative
      Americium decay doesn't power the smoke detector, it's part of the detection circuitry. It provides neutrons that are used in a sort of single purpose mass spectrometer.

      It's even simpler than that, actually --- the alpha particles emitted by the americium ionise the air inside the detector cell, making it slightly conductive. When smoke enters the cell, the conductivity changes and the alarm goes off.

      That's why you can stop smoke alarms by blowing at them --- you're blowing the smoke out of the detector cell.

    3. Re:americium decay by eAndroid · · Score: 1
      That's why you can stop smoke alarms by blowing at them --- you're blowing the smoke out of the detector cell.
      I don't need science to know that. It's more than a little obvious.
      --

      I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
  11. Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Goonie · · Score: 2
    Hmmm. What would happen if you filled a truck with nuclear batteries, plastic explosive, mixed well, and lit the fuse?

    As for your smoke detector example, IIRC the americium is used as the smoke sensor itself, not as a power source.

    I'm all for the use of nuclear technology where appropriate, but having substantial quantities of radioactive material in everybody's Game Boy doesn't strike me as appropriate.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
      Hmmm. What would happen if you filled a truck with nuclear batteries, plastic explosive, mixed well, and lit the fuse?


      You'd fling the nuclear bits all over the place, but that's it.


      Setting off a nuclear device isn't easy. If pwople knew this, they'd probably be more comfortable with nuclear power. (Although I'm not saying that the sight of cooling towers in the distance can be a bit foreboding, but that's probably an irrational response.)

    2. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that one of the current threats we face in the US is terrorists putting together a bomb just like this that would (Appearently, you think harmlessly) fling nuclear bits around... We don't need to make it any easier for them.

    3. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Hmmm...not a fire I would want to roast marshmellows over, that's for sure...

    4. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Flinging nuclear bits all over the place" is known as a "Dirty Bomb", and is a very serious threat to internal security since September 11th.

      Building an actual (detonating) fission device is very, very, difficult, but a dirty bomb is easy (Explosives+Detonator+Nuclear material (Even mid grade nuclear waste would do for most terrorists)

    5. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by davmoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happened when Timothy McVey filled a truck full of commonly available fertilizer, kerosene, mixed well, and lit the fuse?

      Damned near anything can be turned in to a weapon, and most household products, when mixed the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) way can level a large office building. Are we going to ban everything that can cause harm when used in the wrong way? Name me a product that CAN'T be used to cause harm.

      So no, I don't think your fear is reasonable. If it were, we'd all stay locked in our homes, never venturing out, and the Attorney General of the United States would make damned near everything illegal just out of paranoia. Wait a minute...that's already happening...

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    6. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy enough nuke powered game boys and you could level a small city... ...or contaminate a large water supply.

    7. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      The difference is that after they moved away the wreckage, they were able to build another building there without having to wait decades for the radition contamination to be cleaned up.

      I'm as big an advocate for nuclear power as you'll find, but if such things are to be commercially available then they need to be protected in a way that makes them impractical for such terrorist activities, and that precludes them being small enough to be portable.

    8. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can already contaminate a water supply quite easily, even without radioactive material, so what's your point?

    9. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Mahonrimoriancumer · · Score: 1

      Some years ago, I read about a kid who built a neutron gun out of the Americium from smoke detectors. Here is a link to the story.

      --
      So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
    10. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by BlowCat · · Score: 2
      To achieve sufficient level of supercriticality to trigger a nuclear explosion you'll need:
      1. Clean fissile material. At least avoid everything that captures neutrons without producing more neutrons.
      2. High explosives. Not your average TNT.
      3. Special configuration of the device. If you want to reach supercriticality by implosion, you should make sure that the pressure is highly uniform. Gun assembly requires making a target and a gun.
      4. You may need a neutron source to ignite the reaction in some configurations.
    11. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Making a nuclear bomb isn't something some maladjusted geek moron can do in his basement. Aside from obtaining a substantial minimal amount of the proper radioactive material (a hundred thousand gameboys wouldn't have the mass required, even if they did use plutonium), you need a precision device using high explosives to drive a tremendous implosion in on the (perfectly spherical) material. Making this device requires the kind of machining that can only be done by specially-built equipment.

      You *cannot* do this at home. Even if you could collect the nuclear material (without killing yourself in the process) all you'd do is set off a conventional, normal explosion that would blow plutonium dust over a few city blocks. Lung cancer for everyone in the area but *no nuclear explosion*.

      It's a Hollywood myth that some wild-eyed idiot with a deathwish can make a bomb. Only governments have the resources to make bombs.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    12. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Goonie · · Score: 2

      I know that. I was talking about the possibility of a "radiological bomb" - no nuclear detonation, just spraying fallout over a wide area.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    13. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      "Making this device requires the kind of machining that can only be done by specially-built equipment."

      Which was originaly made by. . . .

      A bunch of geeks in a big ass garage. ;)

      Seriously though, one kid built a nuclear power plant, umm. . . . well yah nuclear bombs are quite a ways away, but still, it IS possible.

      The machines can be made, granted for a high cost, and from those machines the more delicate and precise parts for the actual bomb can be made.

      Of course I have no idea how much such a machine would cost. . . .

      "It's a Hollywood myth that some wild-eyed idiot with a deathwish can make a bomb. Only governments have the resources to make bombs. "

      Governments or anybody else with a large amount of money.

      Of course your efficency drops WAAAAY off if your just some lone psycho-genius working on this project, but hell, your crazy, you can wait. :)

    14. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by Vulture_ · · Score: 2, Informative
      Then you get a cheap way to throw a decent amount of radioactive material around a large area.

      It should be noted that a battery wouldn't necessarily need a substantial quantity of radioactive material. If the needed quantity of material is low enough, then such a battery would (in theory) be as safe as a modern chemical-energy battery.

      Contrary to popular belief, humans are capable of withstanding a certain amount of exposure to radiation without any discernible effects. One might argue that chronic exposure to even mild amounts of radioactives would be harmful, but exposure from the occasional breached battery or terrorist attack is hardly chronic (and terrorists have better ways of killing people anyway).

      To my knowledge, the specific amount of such radiation that a human body can tolerate without discernible effects is measured in a unit called REM.

      Also, besides the fact that the human body is simply not affected by a sufficiently mild dose of radiation, it does have some mechanisms for protecting itself against a small amount of radiation. Cells will try to repair DNA that has been damaged by radiation, for instance.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    15. Re:Reasonable fear, wouldn't you say by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Yes... Exactly: from the New Scientist:

      "A plane crash could release 44 more times radioactivity than the chernobyl disaster" (talking about if a plane had crashed into a nuclear power plant.

      There is a neat diagram that has the following stats:

      Amount of radioactive caesium-137 released in terabecquerels:

      • Windscale fire - 1957: 44
      • Chernobyl accident 1986: 89,000
      • Atmospheric nuclear weapons between 1945 and 1980: 740,000
      • If a plane strikes a high-level waste tank at Sellafield: 4,000,000

      That's pretty insane. It's pg.10, issue 2312 - 13 oct 2001 if you want to hunt it down and read the whole thing.

      It's easy to understand why you haven't heard much about it, with all the other 'what if's that where going around after sept 11. Probably didn't want to put any ideas into anyone's head.

      Sure, chances of a nuclear meltdown might have go down alot, and the plants are safer from that particular threat. Buy my no means, can nuclear power alot safe in general.

  12. Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know a lot of us are hoping that fuel cells will replace batteries, but how big does a fuel cell have to be to produce enough power for, say, a laptop computer? Would it be comparable in size to the batteries we have now? What about the generated heat?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1

      > What about the generated heat? Is way less than current battery types (notice it gets very hot in use). Fuel cells generate energy without combustion, that's the trick.

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    2. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by Riskable · · Score: 1

      Well, not sure how companies will implement fuel cell technologies, but think of it like this...

      Because it runs off of fuel, you could theoretically feed the fuel processor from anything. For instance, if you plan on filming non-stop for several hours straight with your camcorder, a fanny pack full of hydrogen (or whatever fuel runs your cell) could possibly get you power for DAYS. Maybe even months!

      The actual size of the fuel processor and fuel cell power section (with optional power conditioner) can be quite small in comparison to the actual fuel container.

      --
      -Riskable
      "Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
    3. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by TeaDaemon · · Score: 0

      I can't find the exact article, but a few weeks ago I was reading about a German company who were at the prototype stage with methanol fuel cells for laptops.

      They seemed to think that 120ml of methanol could power a laptop for about 10 hours, not bad going. The only waste products are water and carbon dioxide and the amount of energy released as heat is quite small due to the much greater efficiency of fuel cells as compared to burning methanol.

    4. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem is that you may not be allowed to use your laptop on the plane because of the fuel.

    5. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by dinotrac · · Score: 2

      Kind of funny from an environmental standpoint.
      Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide, while far less effective, is also a greenhouse gas.

    6. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by fferreres · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm no expert and electricity has always been something misteroius for me but...

      I think the problem of power cells (the ones that already exist and existed for a long time (non-commercial)) is that they hold a big charge (mAh) but it's difficult to reach a given voltage.

      Hence, to duplicate an AA battery you will need a LOT of full cells chained together, and thus the device will be really big (impractical).

      Also, if the fuel cells are not really a BIG improvemt over batteries, they are niche. Because refilling a Metal hidride cell is free. If you Palm can live a month and recharge for free, why would you need a fuel cell?

      So fuel cells will be a niche before becoming widly adopted. Yet, another technologies (atomic batteries, etc) may obsolete them before they see the light.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    7. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Water vapor is self limiting, if it gets too high, then it just starts to rain.

    8. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I'll be damned if I'm going to wander about with a fanny pack full of pressurized hydrogen cells.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by aquarian · · Score: 1

      Compared to a laptop battery, a fuel cell would be about the same size, and generate about the same amount of heat. It's likely we'll see fuel cells that take replaceable methanol cartridges, which will be available in convenience stores just like batteries. They'll be similar to CO2 cartridges. We might have these already, if it weren't for 9/11- there are concerns about small canisters of flammable fluid on airlines, etc.

    10. Re:Fuel cells realistic battery replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, them lecture bottles sure get heavy after a while... Natural gas utilities use gas leak detectors to sniff out methane leaks in pipelines. The detectors burn pure hydrogen in a chamber, which ionizes the methane, causing a voltage differential between two charged plates that registers on a meter. This type of detector can detect as low as 1 part per million methane in air. The hydrogen fuel is supplied in lecture bottles that are about the size of two Red Bull cans stacked end to end. The hydrogen is stored at 2000 PSI, and as you can imagine, the walls of the lecture bottles are very thick and they can get heavy after a while, even when worn fanny-pack style on a belt.

  13. lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    lame article: It ignores fuel cells, atomic batteries and the fact that some people do not seem to care about battery weight / power.

    Example : In 1987 Apple asked potential portable computer consumers to rate, in numerical order 10 different attributes of a system they cared about most.

    Battery longevity came in LAT place... even so apple demanded a pure CMOS system, including CMOS cpu for its portable mac and a non backlit screen resulting in a staggering 10 hour battery life.

    10 hours of use.

    Humorously with no more low power general purpose cpus in existence in 1998 comsumers rated battery duration MOST IMPORTANT, first place above performance.

    Hilarious.

    Apple tried to do the impossible and the "Wallstreet" 300 Mhz G3 Powermac laptop used a low power dvd decoder and dvd drive so that the entire system could do someting no ibm pc could do, or still can do nowadays as far as i know.... play an entire two hour (120 minute) dvd movie at full brightness without swapping batteries once. Just one Lithium ion battery.

    non stop dvd playback.

    now its 2002 and no apple laptop can do that, and i think no comperable highend PeeCee (Wintell) laptop sporting dvd, firewire, fast cpu, etc can play a movie on one battery.

    We are going backwards.

    Example : a Palm Pilot, even the 8 megabyte (yes 8 MB) Palm 3x, lasts almost 30 days of usage on a pair of AA "1100 milliamp-hour" standard alkaline batteries.

    But the color palm eats up batteries because it uses a backlit design, unlike the ingenious Gameboy Advance low poer color screen which requires sunlight but last a long time on its batteries.

    But that article is not very techie. It ignores radioactive batteries, fuel cell designs and other energy sources.

  14. what about capacitors? by liet-kynes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I recall correctly, batteries are basically chemical capacitors. (Two surfaces of different electric potential separated by a resistor) Is anyone out there aware of efforts to make batteries using mechanical capacitors? We make memory chips using microscopic capacitors. What limitations keep us from packing a bunch of those together to make a more powerful battery?

    --
    The second derivative of the space-luck curve is infinite at my nexus, at least on the pong axis.
    1. Re:what about capacitors? by lpaul55 · · Score: 1

      mechanical capacitors: someone was working on flywheel technology for automobiles a few years ago but it didn't get far. don't know why.

      smaller capacitors? if you put a lot of little batteries together you get more voltage but not more power. stored potential depends on total mass, no matter how you break it up.

      --
      ... now back to the bit mines.
    2. Re:what about capacitors? by Bryan+Andersen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even the highest energy density capacitors are easily out stripped by the lowest energy density batteries. Granted thay have made huge strides in the past years with the Ultra capacitors and at some point break even with batteries. You can now get multiple Farad capacitors but that is still peanuts in comparison to an AA battery. On the other hand research may at some point allow them to catch up or surpass batteries.

    3. Re:what about capacitors? by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1, Informative
      > What limitations keep us from packing a bunch of those together to make a more powerful battery?

      Risk of explosion. The tigther you pack the energy, the smaller is the distance, and the greater the risk of a short circuit - and the greater the consequence, as well.

      Remember, batteries, like dynamite, have both poles of the energy component inside. If all of that energy is released at once, your laptop becomes a handgranade.

      In contrast, a car or a fuel cell doesn't have that problem. You store one component in the device and pull the opposing component out of the air (well, yes) on demand.

      The basic concept behind the fuel cells makes it extremely promising. If only they can get the price/capacity equation to balance...

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    4. Re:what about capacitors? by cybergibbons · · Score: 1

      You don't want lots of smaller capacitors joined - you want one big capacitor. Having small capacitors wastes space with packaging, wiring, and insulation.

      Batteries are high energy density and are designed for slow discharge cycles. Capacitors are (generally) designed for quicker discharge cycles. If you got an average battery and charged and discharged it at any rate (50Hz), it would last a very short length of time before failure.

      Granted, however, that new big (1F, 2F up to 10F) capacitors have been made, and are lightweight, but still bulky. Their main application is in power smoothing (rudeboy cars etc.).

    5. Re:what about capacitors? by s20451 · · Score: 2

      Capacitors are used for energy storage in industrial applications, but normally for situations requiring high output current and high peak power, since their internal resistance is usually much lower than batteries. I'm under the impression that capacitors are not as stable as chemical batteries ... besides, have you ever seen a 1-farad capacitor? It's about the size of a pint glass.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:what about capacitors? by couch · · Score: 0

      Gyroscopic problems, if memory serves.

      Flywheels dont like going round corners.

    7. Re:what about capacitors? by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Informative
      someone was working on flywheel technology for automobiles a few years ago but it didn't get far. don't know why.

      Unfortunately, even with current technology in the field of exotic materials, flywheels are too dangerous/unwieldy for automotive use. It's very difficult to control a disk spinning at tens of thousands of RPMS; IIRC, someone was killed when one of the flywheels disintegrated in road testing.

      smaller capacitors? if you put a lot of little batteries together you get more voltage but not more power. stored potential depends on total mass, no matter how you break it up.

      There are two ways to connect batteries. If you connect them in series, you get increased voltage; in parallel, you get increased amperage. Most complex, high-amperage systems use a combination of the two. Your car's battery, for example, is such a hybrid; it has 6 cells, each providing 2 volts, in series so that it can provide the 12 volts your car runs on. In each cell, though, it contains several cells, sometimes up to a dozen, connected in parallel, to provide the needed amperage. If the same cells were connected in series, you'd never have enough current to start your car.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    8. Re:what about capacitors? by shatteredpottery · · Score: 1
      They've got reasonably decent ways to contain a flywheel disintegration. Not perfect. After all, you are trying to contain a respectable fraction of the energy in a tank of gas!

      Not to mention the amusing gyroscopic effects that a flywheel induces. Want to turn the corner? Well, you better hope your tires have enough traction to overcome the tendency of the flywheel to not want to go around the corner.

      That's for vertically-mounted flywheels. If they're mounted flat, they do interesting things to the ride (and hence the handling) of the car, by virtue of the fact that the car needs to be able to pitch and roll somewhat in order to absorb bumps.

      Yeah, there are various things that can be done, but boy is it a lot of work (=expensive)!

      --

      A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire

    9. Re:what about capacitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I recall correctly, batteries are basically chemical capacitors.

      You recall wrong. Twat. In a capacitor energy is stored by moving electrons sideways a bit while leaving them bound to their original atoms/molecules. In a battery, electrons are stripped right off atoms and put on other ones. That's why batteries will always hold more energy.

      Now, if you want a power source which is highly dense and reasonably safe (at least, to everyone but the user :), you could try X-ray initiated fission or beam fusion.

      You can develop it. I'll be cowering over here behind the lead block. :)

    10. Re:what about capacitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen a 1 farad capacitor that was smaller than a shot glass, though it was only rated for 5V. It was able to keep a small motor running for quite awhile.

    11. Re:what about capacitors? by mmontour · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I recall correctly, batteries are basically chemical capacitors. (Two surfaces of different electric potential separated by a resistor)

      Batteries and capacitors are quite different. Batteries use electrochemical reactions that produce a near-constant potential (voltage) across the terminals, until the reactants are used up.

      Capacitors work by polarizing a dielectric material [a physical change, not a chemical one] between two closely-spaced plates. The terminal voltage is proportional to the amount of charge (time integral of current) the capacitor is holding.

      Modern capacitors are approaching the energy capacity of batteries. A 50F 2.3V capacitor holds 132 J of energy, which is equivalent to 120 Amp-seconds (or 33 mA-hours) at 1.1 Volts. This capacitor costs CDN$17.88, compared to $2.17 for a 250 mAh AAA NiCd cell. (prices are from Digikey in quantities of 1000)

      So the capacitor's about 8x the cost for 1/8 the capacity of the NiCd.

      We make memory chips using microscopic capacitors. What limitations keep us from packing a bunch of those together to make a more powerful battery?

      One big limitation is that we only make our memory chips one layer thick (vs. multi-layer capacitors), and that these capacitors are optimized for storing information, not energy. The more energy stored per cell, the more heat is wasted every time that cell switches state.

    12. Re:what about capacitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so we now know it's two orders of magnitude more expensive than standard batteries.

      what about power density? how large is that 50 F capacitor? how about its mass?

    13. Re:what about capacitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The storage energy in capacitors is much less than that in a chemical bond...

      This is basic Physic.

    14. Re:what about capacitors? by mmontour · · Score: 1

      what about power density? how large is that 50 F capacitor? how about its mass?

      Dunno about the mass. Dimensions are 18mm diameter by 40mm length. Look at part#P11066-ND near the middle of this page(pdf).

    15. Re:what about capacitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite why this was modded down I don't know. It's on topic.

      Anyway, as we all know, V=I.R is "good old ohm's law". Put differently, this is I=V/R. For a given motor we will have a particular resistance in the windings. So, if V=100 then I1=100/R. If V=1, then I2=1/R. Which do you think is bigger? Following this on with the power equation, P1=100*I1 and P2=1*I2 gives the *power dissipated in the motor* - this is the important bit. I reckon that I1 is bigger than I2 and V1=100 is bigger than V2=1 so I reckon that means that P1 may just be bigger.

    16. Re:what about capacitors? by jhantin · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, a battery actually behaves as a voltage source in series with a resistor; the higher the battery capacity, the smaller the internal resistance, and as a battery depletes, the internal resistance increases while the voltage remains constant. However, under a constant load resistance, this means that the voltage across the load will decrease since the internal resistance will take up more of the voltage drop.

      Taking your motor example (and ignoring capacitance and inductance for simplicity), the circuit consists of the battery's voltage source, the battery's internal resistance, and the motor's resistance. The current flow is then I=V[battery]/(R[battery]+R[load]). If the battery resistance is a significant fraction of the load resistance, it both decreases the current through the system and decreases the voltage across the load.

      On another note, this explains why paralleled batteries yield higher capacity: 1/R[combined] = sum[i](1/R[i]). For the typical case where all cells are equivalent, this means that R[combined]=R[cell]/numCells.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  15. Standard Cells by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Granted, batteries come in all shapes and sizes and can a lot for a well equipped geek to keep track of. We have to remember that, technically, a battery is a collection of cells that have been wired together. Since batteries are made from cells there are far fewer types of cells than batteries.

    How is this helpful? I had a 486 laptop that I could not find a replacement battery for but Batteries Plus was able to replace the cells in the old battery. When I used to be an instrumentation tech, we recelled batteries all of the time. It was often far cheaper to rebuild a battery than to buy one new. This works for laptops too. If you want to do it yourself, Dremel tools, epoxy and superglue are your friends. Even after paying a Batteries Plus tech it can still be cheaper if you recoil at the thought of wielding the Dremel yourself.

    I'll also point out that the cells in the battery are often held together by metal straps that are sort of punched into the terminals of the cell. If you want to try your hand at battery rebuilding , then you will want to run down a supply of the strips and the punch tool.

  16. "i don't know, i don't like it...." by C_nemo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "They're holding us back big time," said Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future. Had batteries advanced at the pace of the computer processor, "a double-A cell would contain more energy than a tactical nuke."

    sombody slap this guy silly(ooh, someone already did). bateries have evolved big time. the battery in the old 386 laptop in my closet couldn't power a modern lalptop thru' the bios(okay, it probably would, but not much longer).

    The real problem with recarable bateries is people. of you leave the battery fully charged, lat say over the summer, it's broken. the cemical compunds have reacted and formed stable elements(wich won't produce power). I hate to see poeple who leave their cell phones plugged in the wall so it's full when they take it with them once a week.

    ---

    1. Re:"i don't know, i don't like it...." by guinsu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That not really the user's fault. The cell phone should be designed to stop charging the batter unneccesarily.

    2. Re:"i don't know, i don't like it...." by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      As mine is. I have a relatively new Samsung SCH-850 cell phone. The charging cradle for it won't try to charge its (Li-ion) battery if it's already fully charged (though it'll take a couple of minutes to make that determination and switch off). My phone has lost its battery power when left on for long periods of time (during which signal quality was very poor, so it probably switched to analog mode most of the time, which consumes a great deal more power -- I didn't check), but other than that, I have yet to have it die on me. It's a great phone with a great power system; I highly recommend it.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  17. A good and bad example by mikeboone · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a Canon Powershot G1 digital camera. It uses a proprietary lithium-ion battery, about the size of a C or D battery, but more square in shape. This battery is fantastic. The camera can run for hundreds of photos, you can leave the viewscreen on, and use the flash a lot before you have to recharge. Through many charges it seems to have no degradations in performance.

    On the other hand, I have a Dell Inspiron 4000 laptop which has a lame battery. It is also lithium-ion. When I first got my laptop the battery would last about 3 hours before having to recharge. About a year later, it would last barely 1 hour. Dell knows their batteries don't last very long and only warrant them one year (despite the 3 years I have on the rest of the machine!). I found this out when I contacted them 1 year + 1 week after I bought the laptop. I ended up writing a small windows app called BatteryLog to help track your battery performance. You may want to give it a try on your laptop before your year-warranty runs out.

    So basically, it's more than just the technology of the battery, it's also the design and manufacturer. There are some good ones out there!

    1. Re:A good and bad example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rank the above post as "Funny", the guy clearly can't see difference between sizes of viewfinder on his camera and laptop's screen (14''?), add to this CPU sucking power like there is no tomorrow. Bet you using your laptop every day until battery dies? Try this with your camera and watch battery die in similar fashion.

    2. Re:A good and bad example by eplese · · Score: 1

      Just curious, but what operating system were you running? I ask because Windows 95/98 (and probably 98SE and ME) will use up 100% of the cpu all the time, even when you aren't doing anything and it is sitting idle at the desktop. The heat from the laptop will be very noticeable and the fan will turn on very frequently to keep it cool. My guess is that if Win95/98 came preinstalled by Dell, they installed a utility that would have Win95/98 actually halt the cpu for times where it is idle instead of just executing an infinite loop. This way when idle, the CPU wouldn't actually be using 100%. I can't think of the names of these apps, but many exist that fix Win95/98 in this way. So, basically, if your laptop came preinstalled with Win95/98 and you just popped in a standard Win95/98 CD to reinstall it, then you just killed your battery life. Install one of these apps and your battery life will drastically improve.

      On the other hand, if the operating system that you were using was Windows NT/2000 or Linux, FreeBSD, etc. then you would not have to worry about this because these OSs all properly halt the CPU during idle loops.

    3. Re:A good and bad example by mikeboone · · Score: 2

      I'm running the Dell default install of Windows Me. My CPU averages about 60% when I'm using it for normal stuff like the web or email. The fan hardly ever runs (did all the time back when I ran the distributed.net client on it!). I'll have to look into software that might prolong the battery life.

      One of these days I'll install Win2K or even Linux (I do run that on my server though).

    4. Re:A good and bad example by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • I first got my laptop the battery would last about 3 hours before having to recharge. About a year later, it would last barely 1 hour.

      As it's a lithium ion, the most likely cause is that the laptop is fitted with a minimum cost charger which is cooking it slowly to death. Put it this way: why would a manufacturer spend more money to put in a decent charger that denies them repeat battery sales? Hmmm

      I'd advise taking your battery out as soon as it's charged, especially if it starts heating up. Put it back in every few days to keep it charged. Also, you shouldn't need to do a deep discharge on a lithium ion, and you can actually damage a cell by letting it get too low.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:A good and bad example by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • When I first got my laptop the battery would last about 3 hours before having to recharge. About a year later, it would last barely 1 hour

      Tell me about it. I get between an hour and a couple of seconds (really) out of my carefully nursed 16 month old NiMh, replacement cost $150 for a generic version. The joke is that most sellers warranty a minimum of 80% of the rated capacity after one year or so. Anyone got a success story claiming under such a warranty, or is it always "caveat: unless, of course, you abuse the battery, which we can detect by the fact that it's not holding charge, har har"

      I suspect the basic problem is crappy cheapo chargers in laptops, that cook the battery. My NiMh overheats rapidly during charging (I juggle it to try and keep it cool), which is a good way to kill it dead. If you were a manufacturer would you spend more to put in a charger that would reduce your replacement battery sales? I think not.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:A good and bad example by d-e-w · · Score: 1

      Newer Microsoft products seem to be hell on batteries.

      I have a laptop that happily ran Win95 for a while. It got two-three hours of battery life and was very nice when the battery was running low (it started beeping about five minutes prior to the machine shutting off, and suspended to disk if you didn't get to it.)

      One hasty day, I upgraded to Win98 (the IT guy was going to configure it so that I could VPN into the office LAN; he refused to configure anything under win95/linux/freebsd and wouldn't give me the information to do it myself.) The battery life immediately dropped to about 30 minutes, and the machine just dies when the battery goes. It sucked.

    7. Re:A good and bad example by klui · · Score: 1

      Despite of what we have been told, even Lithium Ion batteries have "memory." A friend was complaining about how his cell phone's lithium ion battery last such a short time. I asked him to fully charge and don't recharge until it has been fully discharged for 3-5 times and as a result his battery's capacity has increased. I cannot recall what it was but it was at least 75-100% more time when he left his phone on standby.

  18. the light bulb conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds more like a way to make money then physics... it's a consumable. Whoever invents a better alternative will kill off an industry

    1. Re:the light bulb conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like rechargable batteries? Call in the Majestic 12, Mulder!

  19. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "non stop dvd playback.

    now its 2002 and no apple laptop can do that, and i think no comperable highend PeeCee (Wintell) laptop sporting dvd, firewire, fast cpu, etc can play a movie on one battery."

    the new ibook's can, both 12" and 14"

    fuel cells are not on the market yet as a viable alternative.

    think first --> then post ;-)

  20. Gameboy Advance never need a charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this idea, you could have Gameboys never needing a charge, as these are shaken all the time during play. (does not seem too far fetched!)

    Someone could even design a game "Richter Invaders" which encourages much shaking, which causes high scores and more power!

    Or perhaps a joystick that powers the computer through motions and trigger pulls....

  21. The Way of the Fuel Cell by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Funny

    With Methane-powered fuel cells coming out, why bother about batteries? With methane-powered fuel cells, you can eat beans, stick a hose up your butt and surf pr0n 'till you collapse into a puddle of.. something.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  22. Plastic Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there some research into malable bataries a while back. If you can't reduce the size, at least change the shape to sometning more accomidating.

  23. Nuclear very unsafe and dirty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear is the "dirtiest" of the energy technologies right now: the waste is so toxic there is no place to put it.

    Also, the plants are rather dangerous. Several times in the US we have avoided major catastrophies by mere luck.

  24. clean electric cars = oxymoron by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 2, Informative
    Towards the end of the article:

    The same research that is shrinking cell phones has a higher purpose: an exhaust-free electric car.

    Would somebody please stick a note to that author's forehead - you recharge your exhaust-free car by plugging it into a radioactive and/or hot'n'smoky power station...

    I'm still hanging out for that orbiting solar collector/microwave beam thingie!!

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    1. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Fenris2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of electric cars is to move the polluting emissions from the cars to the generating plants, where it can be controlled more closely. There are already very tight limits on how much sulphur, etc. can go out the chimney at your average coal/oil/natural gas generating plant.

      Nuclear plants are another story. It may very well be possible to design a reactor that produces no waste - that is an engineering matter. Building the thing is a political matter, and thus not subject to the dictates of reason.

      Solar (terrestrial or space-based), wind, and hydroelectric power aren't being built fast enough to keep up with demand, mainly due to their low output and high cost.

      One thing the article ignores is the development of small fuel cells that can use methanol as fuel directly. Methanol (or ethanol) can easily be made from corn, soybeans, or industrial hemp. Such fuel cells could power small devices such as cell phones, PDAs, and laptops for days instead of hours on a few deciliters of alcohol, without noxious ozone and nitrous oxide emmissions.

      --
      ---------------
      Vpered na Mars!
    2. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by andsh · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is some truth in this.

      But you forgot some quite important points - not all power in the world is produced in heat power stations, and even if the source is a power station, it can be much better contructed to emit as little polution as possible with the use of emmisions filters and catalysators. The combustion engine in a car has pretty strict weight/size limitations, heat power plant has not :-)

      OFFTOPIC:
      Wow, my first post on /. after silently lurking for 2+ years! Please congratulate me :-)

    3. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, I guess all the hydroelectric and thermo-electric plants out there are not generating electricity then? How about the massive solar plants out in arizona and new mexico? those dont exist either? or how about a HOME solar plant? easy and cheap nowdays.

      Please, Please also note that Nuke power plants produce a miniscule amount of waste compared to the early 80's and Coal and natural gas power plants also produce very little "evil-toxic-gasses"(tm) than they did in the early 80's (which by the way is when they got the numbers for all the tree-hugger propaganda you read today.)

      yes they put out some bad stuff, but not a whole lot anymore.. and the clean-freaks are making the big corperations afraid of even trying to make new types of power supplies.

      Oh and please dont mention the horrible toxic by-products from solar cell manufacture, rechargeable batteries, etc...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by davmoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Several studies were done by various organizations in the late 80s and early 90s (and its your job to look them up for specific examples) to determine if electric cars were really "green" if you took the emissions from the production of electricy to recharge them in to account.

      The results...even when energy production for recharging is taken in to account, electric cars were found to be MASSIVELY less of an impact on the environment than their internal combustion brothers.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    5. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by pdp11e · · Score: 2

      A word about hot'n'smoky power station.

      The coal power plant has much better energy efficiency and makes much less pollution per kWh of energy produced then the small automotive internal combustion engine. By ?plugging? your electric car to the said hot'n'smoky power station you ARE actually making significantly less pollution.
      I am not advocating fossil fuel energy production and would actually like to see it phased out. Electric vehicles are the step in right direction.

    6. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do what I do - store your car's energy as linear kinetic :>

    7. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by G00F · · Score: 1

      Bah, now that is far from true. Coal is messy, releases more radioactive wastes too that people don't know about.

      Modern cars are actualy quite good as far polution level goes. Cars use up engery to burn up its waste more. Sure it loses a tiny bit of power, but its a lot cleaner. But I'm not done yet . .

      Now lets add in the fact how much power is lost just to get to your house. I wish i could find the link right now, but I think it was something about 50% of the engery makes it on average. Now, cars are cleaner.

      "Electric cars" is a wide spread. Battery, solara, etc. Electric is good, but depending on how that electricy is made, is whats hows it to be good.

      btw, I have read that coal powerplans are not very efficient in any way.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    8. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by mmontour · · Score: 2

      Electric vehicles are the step in right direction.

      Close. Hybrid Electric vehicles (Toyota Prius / Honda Insight) are the step in the right direction. They're close enough to conventional cars that users don't have to make any major lifestyle adjustments (like plugging in their cars every night), but they produce immediate pollution benefits and also get a lot of essential technology like efficient batteries, electric motors, and control circuitry out into the marketplace.

      Maybe some day the internal combustion engines in these hybrid vehicles will be replaced with hydrogen fuel cells, or maybe we'll keep the internal combustion engines but run them on ethanol / bio-diesel[1]. Either way, a hybrid "fuel"/electric vehicle is probably going to be a better choice than the all-electric one.

      [1] There are differences between phasing out fossil fuel energy production, and phasing out hydrocarbon energy production.

    9. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      Nuclear plants are ... Building the thing is a political matter, and thus not subject to the dictates of reason.
      That applies to any powerplant. With Hydro, you need to flood large areas, no-one wants to live near a coal-fired plant, and ultimately, no-one wants to build a power plant unless they can get someone else to put up the capital cost (hence the electricity shortages in some places). People even complain about windmills!

      The point of electric cars is to move the polluting emissions from the cars to the generating plants
      This gets around smog problems. It's impractical to fit cars with eighty metre tall chimneys, but can be done at the power plant. One problem with electric cars using lead acid batteries is that they give off fumes, and you certainly want to keep them all out of the passenger compartment. This creates a design problem, since you want to pack a lot of batteries in for range or performance. Electric motorbikes don't have this problem since the rider is in the open air.

      Methanol (or ethanol) can easily be made from ... hemp.
      Yes, he mentioned hemp, stop giggling and just think of mundane stuff like fibre used to produce rope. It is, of course, easier to produce alcohol from plants with a high sugar content, but a case for using lots of other plant material that is cheap to produce can be made. The price of this approach is falling relative to the oil price.
    10. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      The coal power plant has much better energy efficiency and makes much less pollution per kWh of energy produced then the small automotive internal combustion engine.
      All true, but line losses are a pain. Ultimately you need to produce more energy, but you can at least put all of the pollutants somewhere where they can be managed - and get rid of all the NOx and SOx.
    11. Re:clean electric cars = oxymoron by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      Coal is messy, releases more radioactive wastes too that people don't know about.
      A few years ago some bright spark in advertising in the nuclear industry found out that radioactive rocks are in the ground. He also found out that a lot of the background radiation we experience is due to radioactive material in the ground. He worked out that if you examine large amounts of sedimentary rock you will find as much radioactive material as you will find in the nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power plant. Hence this argument that "coal plants produce more nuclear waste" was born.

      One big flaw in this argument, is that heavy metals are, well, heavy. Ash, as you would expect from stuff that you see flying in the air after combustion, is light. The pollution control systems in power plants are designed to catch very fine grains of ash, and many portions of these systems use gravity to do the work. Now, if you succeed in getting most of the very light ash, right down to sub-micron size, what do you think happens to the heavy metals? Remember kids, the particle size is probably going to be about the same.

      Also, since you still only have small amounts of radioactive material to thousands of tonnes of ash, it isn't concentrated enough to easily detect, let alone have an effect on anyone. What you end up with is ash in a heap that is slightly more radioactive than the average brick, and probably a lot less radioactive than some bricks.

      btw, I have read that coal powerplans are not very efficient in any way.
      In comparison to 100% efficency, certainly not, but in comparison to a small internal combustion engine they are very efficent - for a start they don't have to move their own weight around and you can have a really hot fire. You don't see big oil powered power plants with pistons, you see oil powered plants producing steam and running it through turbines.
  25. Already been done... by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1, Funny

    They called it the Etch-A-Sketch.

    --
    Suck figs.
  26. Rechargable by TechnoLust · · Score: 4, Insightful

    True, but I wish the rechargeable batteries were more standardized. I know they need different sizes for different devices, but there could be SOME standardization. Most devices that use a Lithium Ion battery uses a proprietary size, shape, voltage, current, etc. This is partly because they design the battery around the device, rather than vice-versa, but more than likely is also a marketing decision, because they can charge you out the nose for their special batteries. Unfortunately, if they stop making those batteries for whatever reason, your equipment may soon become unusable. Even rechargables die eventually. I would be more likely buy products that use standard rechargeables, than a proprietary one.

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    1. Re:Rechargable by jandrese · · Score: 2

      No kidding. Have you priced laptop batteries yet? Most of them seem to run about $100US these days. In some cases that's 15% of the entire cost of the laptop!

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Rechargable by fishebulb · · Score: 2

      my battery died for my aging laptop, it still is useable with blackbox and such for editing code. but the replacement battery, $180. probably what i could get for the laptop itself

    3. Re:Rechargable by ceswiedler · · Score: 2

      I was one of the Dell laptop users whose batteries had a chance of catching on fire. Under Dell's replacement plan, they sent me a new battery immediately, and whenever I send back the defective one I get a second battery. That's a hell of a deal... I hardly use my batteries, it's mostly a desktop replacement, but I'm worried about the batteries dying completely someday and making the laptop plug-in only. I'm planning on saving the second battery until the first one dies. Thanks, Dell!

    4. Re:Rechargable by SirKron · · Score: 1

      Batteries are designed around the product because batteries are a high margin item. Rehargeable items may then be produced at a smaller margin becuase the company knows replacement batteries, sold at 400% markup, will recap some of the profit margin.

    5. Re:Rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thanks, Dell!"

      What? For trying to kill you?

    6. Re:Rechargable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crack open the case of that "specialty" battery most likely you'll find a bundle of NiMh AA's or some form of SubC go to your local geek shop/hobby shop purchase the number you'll need to replace the batteries solder them into the old "specialty case" glue the case back together and your done..

      Make sure the new batteries mAh are at least similar to the old batteries and that they are the same "type" of rechargeable, also don't yell at me if you cant find the replacement internal batteries or get the case back together once you try to do this.. So only do this if your up for a possible challenge and willing to risk the death of that battery pack.. And yah there is some chance that you'll crack the battery case open and find battery gel so don't yell at me if that happens to you .. Think of this as an experiment, a dissection, and a possible resurrection of a totally dead "specialty" battery pack.

      But it can be done iv done it many times for myself and friends.. It usually costs me about $20 to replace a (older)laptop battery doing it this way.

  27. nuke batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I had a chem instructor who was a big proponent of nuke batteries and power plants. His argument is it is much better for the environment than burning fossil fuels. The only problem I see with nuke batteries is "what if someone buys a ton of batteries to harvest the radioactive material?"

    Sure it's not going to be warhead quality, but it could still make quite a huge explosion. Plus, animals and small children have been known to swallow small batteries. Not sure I want a nuke battery in someone's stomach.

    1. Re:nuke batteries by Detritus · · Score: 2

      Nuclear batteries (radioisotope thermoelectric generators) usually use Pu238, an isotope of plutonium that is useless for creating nuclear weapons. The problem is that at several thousand dollars a gram for the Pu238, they are far too expensive for most applications.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:nuke batteries by Vulture_ · · Score: 2
      Isn't Pu-238 also considered a waste product? Isn't there a vast stockpile of it in nuclear waste dumps?

      If it is, and there was a sudden, legal, and safe demand for it, I think its price would drop dramatically.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    3. Re:nuke batteries by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

      You may be thinking of U-238, aka depleted uranium. Pu238 production was done by the Department of Energy using a unusual and expensive production process, not the normal process used to convert uranium to Pu239.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:nuke batteries by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      So, there isn't a vast stockpile of Pu-238? What is in those stockpiles? Pu-239? U-238?

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    5. Re:nuke batteries by Detritus · · Score: 2

      There are large quantities of U238 (depleted uranium) left over from uranium enrichment processes. Arms reduction treaties and the retirement of obsolete nuclear weapons have resulted in a large number of Pu239 "pits" that are currently stored in secure DoE facilities.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    6. Re:nuke batteries by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      All of which are potential fuel for nuclear batteries?

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    7. Re:nuke batteries by Detritus · · Score: 2

      No. Their half-lives are far too long. For an RTG, you need a radioactive isotope with a relatively short half-life, such as Pu238 or Sr90. See here.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  28. Flywheels by suitti · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm surprised the article didn't mention flywheel
    batteries. One company reports a 50:1 energy to
    weight advantage over lead acid batteries. (How
    does that compare to Lithium?). You add energy
    electrically - a motor spins up the flywheel.
    You get it out electrically - a generator takes
    energy from the flywheel. To reduce friction, the
    flywheel sits in a vacuum, and uses a magnetic
    bearing. 17,000 RPM. They claim a 5% loss per day. It would
    be nice to be able to add energy at a high rate -
    like at a kilowatt. No memory. When the device
    no longer functions, there are no toxic chemicals.


    I'd like a laptop that runs for 100 hours between
    charges, and charges in a minute. I'd like to
    be able to add energy by hand crank, solar cell,
    car plug or house plug without funky adapters
    to lug around.


    There is talk of putting flywheel batteries on
    the space station. Twin counter rotating flywheels
    reduce torque on the station.

    --
    -- Stephen.
    1. Re:Flywheels by Morphine007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They claim a 5% loss per day.

      Isn't that a little high? I'm no expert on batteries but it would seem to me that this idea would be useful only for something along the lines of continually adding energy to these things (until just before the material would reach its breaking point) and then do a large deceleration to capacitors to store up a shizerload of charge for burst transmission, like say to a lazer.... hmmm...

    2. Re:Flywheels by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      It is very high, but that's not the norm as far as I can tell:

      [http://www.beaconpower.com/products/products.ht m]

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    3. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently you missed the discussion a couple of months ago about using flywheels as replacements for massive data center UPS batteries. Look it up, it was interesting.

    4. Re:Flywheels by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flywheels in portable devices have several drawbacks, the biggest of which is the angular momentum. You can't have a laptop that does a backflip every time it's jostled. And think about the noise and vibration a big, heavy rotor would cause.

    5. Re:Flywheels by glyph42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, uh, if the flywheel has a magnetic bearing and sits in a vacuum, then the flywheel doesn't actually touch any other molecules (ideally) so there's no noise! As for the momentum, this is a big problem. Twin flywheels will reduce the torque (as mentioned) but if it's jostled these twin flywheels are going to want to flip in opposite directions. That's going to be hard on the thing. The magnetic bearings are going to have to be very good. This is where my knowledge stops and speculation begins. I wonder how hard such a laptop would be to handle.

      --
      Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
    6. Re:Flywheels by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, and if you drop it, it explodes with the force of several pipe bombs. I seriously doubt kenetic energy storage is going to be feasible in the near future.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, if you put a flywheel in a laptop, can you recharge the flywheel with regenerative braking when you shut down Windows? :-)

      I'm so ashamed of this joke that I'm posting it anonymously.

    8. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, make them smaller and more numerious. You'll loose some % points in efficeny having to couple them all to the same drive shaft but it offers the possiblity of better balance if they are all kept timed correctly.

    9. Re:Flywheels by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      I have to take that back, I seriously doubt kenetic energy will be feasible in *portable* applications, cars included. I think it is entirely feasible that you could build a kenetic energy storage device either underground in your front yard, or in a box concrete box, that could be charged up for use with solar or the like. Probably mostly useful for people that are "off the grid" though, has a high initial cost.

      For the AC that replied that you could use multiple flywheels with a common "drive shaft", that isn't how flywheel energy works. The flywheel is in a vaccuum, not touching anything physically. Magnets are used to suspend it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:Flywheels by arkanes · · Score: 2

      It'd make a dandy UPS, though. None of the worries abou the gyro effect, it's not mobile so you can armor the case to help contain damage in the case of flywheel disintegration, which shouldn't happen because it's not being jostled and moved all the time anyway.

    11. Re:Flywheels by Winged+Cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a problem for any high-density energy storage application: there's a lot of energy in a small space, so what if it gets released all at once?

    12. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://www.tribologysystems.com/articles/mt10.html
      "TSI has developed a line of patented all-mechanical flywheel batteries of a simple zero-maintenance twenty-year-life design that can be manufactured at lower cost than any competitive product with much lower life-cycle cost, with immunity to temperature extremes and with zero ecological impact, compared to chemical batteries."

    13. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously going to buy a flywheel from a company called "tribology systems" ?

    14. Re:Flywheels by pclminion · · Score: 2
      100 hours between charges, yet charges in a minute? Let's examine the problems:

      Suppose, conservatively, that your laptop draws 20 watts (I'm being very generous). You want it to run at this power for 100 hours (360000 seconds). This is 7.2 megajoules. Now, you want to transfer 7.2 MJ to the flywheel in 60 seconds. This is a power of 120 kilowatts. If you tried to draw 120 KW from a 120V AC supply (like your wall plug) you'll be pulling at an average rate of 1000 amps

      How fast would the flywheel be spinning in order to store 7.2 MJ? Let's assume the flywheel is a cylinder 10 cm long and 1 cm across (so it can fit in the laptop). Let's assume it's made of lead, so it weighs 89 grams. You can check the calculation if you want, but that thing will be spinning at 410000 RPM. Bored, and doing math...

    15. Re:Flywheels by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
      Are you seriously going to buy a flywheel from a company called "tribology systems" ?
      Possibly, but I own a dictionary, so I know what tribology means.
    16. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 cm long and only 1 cm across (diameter) is a bad design for a flywheel. As you probably know the moment of inertia goes as m*r^2, so you want as much mass as possible at large radii. Better would be something like a disc (e.g. CD size), with as much mass as possible in the outer region (kind of like a wheel).

    17. Re:Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need to do is translate the flywheel when you move your PC -- you do not have to change it's axis of rotation. The flywheel's housing can provide the degrees of freedom needed.

      Disclaimer: IANAPhysicist

  29. Why rechargeable batteries can't keep up by valentyn · · Score: 5, Informative
    A must read about rechargeable batteries is the NiCd Battery FAQ from sci.electronics, to be found at members.aol.com/ralph234/cb-page/f_nicd_b.htm . You'll see why NiCd batteries for consumers are merely fool proof instead of high capacity.

    Dump those $15 battery chargers, get a good one, and you'll only need one Set of batteries for every appliance for the rest of your life.

    --
    my other sig is a 500 page novel
    1. Re:Why rechargeable batteries can't keep up by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Wow. Times have changed. Who would have expected a link to an AOL hosted page would get moderated to a five on Slashdot. =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  30. Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Batteries have grown at standard normal industrial rates - which are much slower then Moore's Law

    Moore's Law doesn't say anything about power consumption.

  31. conspiracies(sp) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heck i'm more worried that almost fifty percent of the responets, on the poll, think that it is some kind of conspiracy by the battery companies

    further proof of the dumbing down of the world?

  32. I can always wind it up by jquiroga · · Score: 2

    In a word: physics

    If physics can't compete, let's see how many people will want to generate their own energy anywhere by winding up their electronics!

    1. Re:I can always wind it up by oever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Al the devices on that page have their own type of batteries inside. What we need is wind up batteries of standard sizes.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
  33. Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by redelm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Moore's law, especially the process shrink should _help batteries, not put higher demands on them.

    It is the users/marketers insistance on cramming more "functionality" [aka bloatware] in that gobbles battery life. Quit whining -- we do this to ourselves. The technology is an innocent bystander.

    1. Re:Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by Pengo · · Score: 2


      Hmm... lame ass example. I would like to have my cake and eat it too, and as technology has proved we can. Look at low output chips such as the transmeta, PPC and ARM processors..

      next thing you will say, use TWM instead of KDE or Gnome because they run better on your 486. Doesn't matter how efficient you try to make KDE, it's not going to ever be as efficient as TWM, because KDE can simply do more for you.

      Imagine if we kept that mindset, geezus, none of us would of ever left dos.

    2. Re:Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1
      Imagine if we kept that mindset, geezus, none of us would of ever left dos.

      Some people haven't - or have only just stopped using it, I created a SCADA system to replace an old system only last year, the old system was DOS based. :)

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    3. Re:Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TWM kicks ass.

    4. Re:Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by redelm · · Score: 1
      Nope. Technology simply makes a bigger cake. It is still finite size, and you cannot both have it and consume it. If you eat all the growth, then you will will have nothing to take home.

      Moore's law has done a fine job of keeping up with software bloat. More mature battery technology has not.

      Personally, I don't use GUIs. They're graphical menuing menuing systems: the limited choice of all menu systems which abandon the clarity of the alphabet. I'm very happy running VTs at 160x60 with SVGATextMode. Only when absolutely necessary (every few days) do I `startx`.

    5. Re:Bloat hurts Batteries, not process shrinks by Pengo · · Score: 2


      wow, I wish that my job was simple enough I could get away with such stuff.

      I spend my time with 4 windows open, a web browser, 3 IM windows, email client, Kivio (visio clone) and often using AbiWord.

      I just find these tools productive for me. My friend just does perl web development and might be able to get away with just a terminal, except his testing with a web browser.. oh well

      sounds like your doing a great job of just keeping your life simple :)

  34. I sure hope I can always get dry cells by Mr.roboto · · Score: 1

    The carbon posts in them work great for electrolytical chemistry. 2 liter bottles of hydrogen on the weekends are really fun ;)

    --
    Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
  35. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by lucius · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually, it's not all that difficult. Essentially, complex functions f(z) can be considered as mappings from one (complex) plane to another. Differentiation can then be performed just as in the multi-variable case.

    The beauty is, if your complex function is analytic (smooth) everywhere (or almost everywhere), then differentiation is just the same as in the case of single varable functions of the reals ({f:R->R}), only the variable is a complex number.

    For example,

    d/dx(exp(a*z))=a*exp(a*z)

    for a complex variable z and a complex constant a.

  36. Maybe it's not so bad... by muffen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that batteries have improved significantly over the last few years. I remember buying my first minidisk (Sony MZ-50) a few years back. I could get about 20hours playtime out of it. Recently I bought the new sony minidisk (still MZ series, don't remember the model), and I can easily get over 50 hours playtime with a battery that weights less.

    There are a lot of examples on how batteries have improved. Just look at mobile phones. I had 6 or so batteries for my Ericsson 337 mobile. For the Nokia 8310 that I have now, I have one battery. I think that this one battery easily beats the time I used to get out of the 6 batteries I had for the 337.

    I am aware of the fact that the electronics in these devices have improved such that it uses less power. However, the batteries HAVE improved aswell (they are all Li-ion now, so they can be recharged without beeing decharged completly).

    I think it would be very hard for batteries to follow moore's law. The reason is that batteries have been around for a lot longer, and there is no real driving-force for getting better batteries than the ones we have.

    I mean, it would be nice to get 200hours workingtime on the laptop, but really, what difference does it make? I mean, just buy more batteries. Is anyone willing to pay a lot of extra money for a battery with 200hours instead of 10?

    1. Re:Maybe it's not so bad... by gbrandt · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons for this is that the electronics themselves have gotten more efficient, not that the batteries have become that much better.

    2. Re:Maybe it's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a very good example. Allow me to demonstrate: I bought the MZ-1 in 1993. It has a 6V 900mAH rechargeable cell that plays for ONE HOUR. A battery that could start a small motorcycle, 1 hour.
      I have a JVC player that uses 1 1.2V 1300mAH that can play for 8 hours.
      So you see, the overall energy of the JVC battery is quite a bit lower, but it plays 8 times longer because the electronics have improved.
      One MAJOR flaw with the early Sony products was the linear regulators they used, lots of wasted power. Even the MZ-E2 which used a 3.6V litium-ion battery, only played for 2 hours, because of all the linear regulators.

    3. Re:Maybe it's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congradulations - you've made it clear you didn't even bother to read the whole comment before posting.

      idiot

    4. Re:Maybe it's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I remember buying my first minidisk (Sony MZ-50) a few years back. I could get about 20hours playtime out of it. Recently I bought the new sony minidisk (still MZ series, don't remember the model), and I can easily get over 50 hours playtime with a battery that weights less.

      Congratulations! You just compared different minidisc players AND different batteries. They probably just improved the power consumption of the new minidisc player!

  37. Time domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batteries haven't progressed because they're a dead-end technology. Just ask Tom Bearden

  38. OK, but do your own research by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Consider the "need to know" shortcuts in this article. For example "1859, when the first lead acid battery was made in France". This was the first cell using Planté type plates which are still in use today, but the history of lead acid and other cells goes back a bit further than that. It's a reasonable shortcut, but it does illustrate that this kind of article only skims the very surface. If you want insights, you have to go and do your own research.

    On the other hand, they do make an important point: "Of the billions [of cells and batteries] sold each year, most wind up in landfills and incinerators". Well, that's pretty much true of AA type alkalines and carbon-zincs, but actually clunky old automotive lead acids are now recycled 95% of the time. NiCad's though are death in a tube: nobody wants to touch the bloody things. NiMh's and Lithium Ions are a little nicer, if you can find a local recycler who will handle them. Power Express used to accept small amounts of NiMh's and LiIons by mail, but they've changed their site and I can't find any mention of it now, which perhaps indicates the volatility (ha ha) of the recycling market. If you want some sleepless nights, have a look here for a decent overview of what you can and should be recycling.

    Oops, but then we slip into the land of delusions again: "Batteries, which have long been derided for polluting the environment, will soon do their part to clean it up, MIT's Sadoway said. The same research that is shrinking cell phones has a higher purpose: an exhaust-free electric car."

    Uh huh. Like the T Zero? Again, the site has changed, and I now can't find mention of the technologies, but from memory, it's either 300kg of lead acids (shorter range or quicker death from deep discharges) or nickel metal hydrides (landfill ahoy) with quoted replacement costs and times of $3000 and 3 years for the lead-acids. Yes, that's 100kg of lead, acid and plastic to be recycled every year for every vehicle, or about half a pound (and $2.75) a day. OK, it can be recycled, and the problem is concentrated rather than distributed. But it's a lot of nastiness to deal with, and remember that rules only apply to nice middle income people. Scurrilous low income types are just going to abandon their twenty year old wrecks (complete with 200kg of lead) in the nearest ditch, street corner, or even front yard. We'd better be prepared to treat these things as environmental time bombs and have policies in place to collect and recycle them, with or without the owner's consent. Designing in a large recycling burden just makes less sense than investing in a clean and long lived internal power source.

    I think that the intro sums it up: the problem is chemistry. There's only so much energy you can store in a sealed unit. If we want significant energy density from a renewable source and no ongoing recycling nightmare, then we have to go to hydrogen cells or even good old fashioned alcohol burners. Sealed cell technology is not the long term answer to our energy needs, and we can't just blame the manufacturers for that, seeing as how it's us that keeps buying their products by the billion then (mostly) throwing them in the trash.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:OK, but do your own research by euangray · · Score: 1

      No-one is going to abandon their 20 year old battery-electric wrecks. Even if they did, the batteries (dead or not) are worth money to the recycler. The reason 95% of car batteries are recycled is that it is cheaper to strip out the lead and re-smelt it for new batteries than to mine fresh lead - chances are the lead in your car battery has been round the clock more than once already.

      And, btw, do the math on fuel consumption during the three year life of a battery pack - how many dollars would you otherwise spend on gas over that period?

    2. Re:OK, but do your own research by fferreres · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "The same research that is shrinking cell phones has a higher purpose: an exhaust-free electric car."

      Gone offtopic, but i think the air-powered car is a better solution than a battery powered car. The air-powered cars in production in Spain are a nice example: you charge the car with a home-compressor, and it gives you 200 miles autonomy (present model).

      The exhaust is obviously pure AIR. I'd enjoy the day people put their faces near an exhaust tube to refresh themselves :)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    3. Re:OK, but do your own research by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Combine this with some sort of in-place bicycle or exercise machine and now we can finally fit exercise and conservation into our lives. After all, compressions is a pretty damn simple and pollution free (the mechanism of compression itself) technology.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    4. Re:OK, but do your own research by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd be very confortable driving in a car alongside tanks of high-pressure air. Enough to travel 200 miles? That's a lot of energy that could potentially be released in an accident. What sort of safety measures are in place to save a driver from a broken tank?

      On the bright side, I'm sure that for bystanders it would make a very loud and impressive-looking explosion!

      --

      "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
    5. Re:OK, but do your own research by xenocide2 · · Score: 2

      Ya know, at the moment you're probably riding on a good 15 gallons of highly flammable liquid known as gasoline. I would hope that compressed air is about as safe as the current combustion propelled cars.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    6. Re:OK, but do your own research by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 1

      Gasoline isn't going to cause an explosion generally - there isn't enough oxygen nearby for a whole tank to burn at once. If the fuel tank leaks, it leaks. No big deal unless it starts to burn but you'll still have time to step back.

      A punctured high-pressure air tank will either leak harmlessly or (if crushed) will *FREAKING* *EXPLODE*.

      --

      "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
    7. Re:OK, but do your own research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gone offtopic, but i think the air-powered car is a better solution than a battery powered car.

      Have you seen the liquid nitrogen car?

    8. Re:OK, but do your own research by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the hollywood idea of gasoline.

      Gasoline in a tank generally has very little oxygen present, and the liquid gasoline WON'T BURN. Otherwise, a puddle of gas would instantly vanish like flash powder, instead of burning on the surface.

      In fact, if you had a plastic collapsible container with zero vapor volume, the gas would be inert. Do whatever you want to it, it won't burn, until you let oxygen at it.

    9. Re:OK, but do your own research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can store a lot more energy in a per volume basis - they are called explosives. Virtually all the chemical energy stored in the unstable (typically nitrogen base) compounds are released.

      Batteries on the other hand are more controlled release of energy based on more stable (i.e. contains less energy) chemical bonds.

    10. Re:OK, but do your own research by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Also, you ever noticed how gasoline will put out a match if you put one in fast enough? (Don't ask...) Yeah. You need oxygen. "Burn" is just a fancy word for "oxidize."

    11. Re:OK, but do your own research by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but i better like the BMW liquid nitrogen alternative. It runs like a gasoline car, high acceleration, cute combustion-like noise. It's great :)...

      But IMHO, a compressed air car is better. I like beign able to refuel the car at home, or better even, recharge it with some solar panels in my high mountain house (AD 2047?).

      Also, it's cheaper to transport electricity than to transport nitrogen. The air car makes NO NOISE also (less than an electric car).

      It's very strange...

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    12. Re:OK, but do your own research by brettper · · Score: 1

      it won't burn, until you let oxygen at it.
      So there's no danger of oxidation without oxygen? Who'da thought it?

    13. Re:OK, but do your own research by m0i · · Score: 1

      Really? One can wonder what happened to TWA800..

      --
      have you been defaced today?
  39. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My lithium ion battery in my palmtop gives me a good 40 days of use on a full charge, and at least 28 hours of use playing MP3's with the screen on and showing a visualisation the whole time - and this is reflective TFT with a backlight on too.

    But then the battery costs £240 for something the size of a credit card... :-/

  40. Because of profit by Zapdos · · Score: 2

    Battery distributers make profit from selling batteries at a large markup. Why would they fix that?

    1. Re:Because of profit by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about fixing it? We just want a battery that stores insane amounts of energy and can be recharged a lot. If we have to buy a $200 replacement every 3 years, I think the battery companies would make a good profit.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  41. Good rechargable AA batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Want good AA batteries? Go to Lenmar:
    http://www.lenmar.com/batteries.asp

    I use their NiMh batteries for my Sony digital camera. They last longer than alkaline, and are rechargable. Plus they are cheap. $20 for 4 AA and a charger. $10 without the charger.

    I don't work for the company or own stock. Just happy I found solution much cheaper than Sony's.

  42. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are you fools with your atomic bateries? Do you know what that would entail? Anything powered by atomic energy is basically a steam engine, with the heat coming from a critical mass of fissable material instead of coal. Your atomic battery would have to weigh a couple of pounds just for the fissable material...which only gives you the heat. And you still have to have the apparatus to convert that heat to electricity. Go get a clue...I saw one on the highway over there.

  43. Longer battery life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...equals fewer battery sales.

    Oh, but battery makers would *never* intentionally slow down technological advances in batteries for the sake of profit, would they?

    Nah. Couldn't happen.

  44. profit! by Stiletto · · Score: 1, Troll


    It's more profitable to make batteries you have to throw away and re-buy. No research goes into making batteries last longer, since that cuts down on the amount of battery buying that pays for the research!

  45. Wireless Power - It's Here! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 0

    Ok, It's not really here, but that got your attention. I would love wireless power for things like laptops, Pilots, Digital cameras and their ilk. We've got so many radio waves shooting around everywhere already, why not use them? I am not a physics major or able to do simple sums in my head, ;P but wouldn't microwaves or VLF be useful for this? What about regular radio waves? (wow. someone is going to school me quickly I'm sure.. :)

    1. Re:Wireless Power - It's Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vaguely recall some experiements having been done w/ VLF and microwave power transmission, but the % power loss over distance wasn't pretty.

      Also, anything that got in the way was literally, cooked. With existing concerns (and lack of disproof) of ELF's cancer generating tendencies, do we really want to be putting more high power energy waves in the air?

    2. Re:Wireless Power - It's Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      radio waves and VLF (very low frequency, <30 kHz) are not suitable because of their large wavelength (meters and above) compared to man made structures. That will make them very hard to focus (with reasonable sized antannas) and thus lead to 1) high losses, 2) irradiation of things you didn't want to irradiate (think of mobile phone irradiating your head instead of the receiver antenna of the provider).
      Microwaves (wavelength at centimeters and below, Frequency >several GHz) are more suitable, but you have to take care not to radiate at resonance frequencies of molecules (think microwave) or your transmission will be attenuated. You will also need directional sender/receiver, i.e. parabol antennas, and very good alignment of sender/receiver (impractical for mobile use).
      Better would be the use of optical frequencies (i.e. ligth), easier to focus/confine, but bad conversion ratio from/to electricity. You still don't want to hit anyone with a kW-beam of light (or microwaves or whatever!).

  46. JET by Big+Dogs+Cock · · Score: 1

    I think JET uses/used this technique to get a load of current to the bits which heat up the plasma. I could be wrong though.

    --
    "Under the iron bridge, we fist" - The Smiths, Still Ill
  47. Whoa, dude! by Pope · · Score: 1

    I haven't changed the batterries in my 11c either! The built-in power management in those HPs keeps the batteries good for years.

    Heh, my Dad lost his a couple of years ago, and wanted to buy mine because the new HPs suck! Sorry, Dad :)

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  48. what chafes my ass is... by pyite69 · · Score: 1


    The fact that rechargeable batteries are still
    not universal. Disposable batteries are a joke,
    and really should be outlawed.

    My digital camera came with 4 excellent double-A
    rechargeable batteries. However, later releases
    of the camera did not include batteries. I
    wonder who Duracell had to blow to get them to
    make this change.

  49. AA by ericmc42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    hehehe Man, when I first read that I thought you mean AA as in Alcoholics Anonymous. I was trying to figure out how a small electronic device could drive someone to drink...

  50. miniaturization by forwhomthebelltolls · · Score: 1

    The battery is one of the things but: I remember from good ol engineering days that cooling solutions for computers were also a cause for preventing miniaturization. Good ol fan still does the job inspite of infinite layout changes to manage conductive and convective heat flows better inside a box. In fact in forseeable future, energy generation and harnessing is less likely to be a challenge than controlling its side effects like heating etc. which might be a problem with miniaturization. As an aside, if we actually achieve "a tactical nuke in a cell" I hope our security detection technology also grows as fast, for a peaceful world. This I think is going to prevent too much power being packed in less from being publicly available even of conquered technically.

  51. NEC Polymer Proton Battery by Vortran · · Score: 2

    There is some "new" technology in batteries out there. I read about this 2 years ago (I think right here on /.) and I haven't heard a thing since. NEC published this press release about an AMAZING "Polymer Proton" battery. This indole/quinoxaline polymer electrode technology looks like it would blow lithium ion out of the water. The article says they were planning commerical availibility for October 2000. Anybody hear anything more on this?

    --
    Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
    1. Re:NEC Polymer Proton Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which bits of this articly did you not read... Was that the bits that said that it may one day reach the same storage levels as a lead acid battery. They're talking about replacing storage capacitors.. not regular batteries.

    2. Re:NEC Polymer Proton Battery by MacBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lithium-Polymer technology exists and is widely used in devices like Sony's MiniDisc portables and (better) laptop computers, such as Apple's Titanium PowerBook G4 which gets a staggering 8-hour battery life. The economics of the commodity market of the Wintel universe do not allow for this level of engineering and premium battery technology, so people settle for higher power consumption and lesser batteries that run for about 3 hours.

    3. Re:NEC Polymer Proton Battery by Vortran · · Score: 2

      I read all the bits. For the edification of other readers, I need to point out the differences between "capacitors" and "batteries".

      First, there isn't much conceptual difference. A 2,000 F capacitor that didn't leak would be one helluva good "battery". Likewise, a 2000 mAh battery that could be discharged or charged almost instantly, and had near zero internal resistance (what we're talking about here) might make on OK capacitor. But it sure as heck makes a better battery than it ever will a capacitor.

      And the little "bit" about lead acid batteries states that it "provides 10 times the power of double-layer capacitors and matches that of lead batteries." The article then goes on to suggest use in on board power supply and battery backup applications.

      The things it doesn't say is how badly these things leak and how much internal resistance (e.g. how bad they heat up) they have, but it sounds like pretty little.

      --
      Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
    4. Re:NEC Polymer Proton Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Powerbook G4 does not get 8 hours of battery life. Apple's own site says it gets 5 hours. Real world, it would be closer to 4-4.5 hours. And there's unfortunately no second battery option like in the old G3 Powerbook.
      If you want to promote Macs over PCs, there's other advantages you could try to push. Outright lies just hurt your cause.

      And Lithium polymer batteries are still used in some PC laptops too. IIRC Sony's Picturebook and several other subnotebooks use them.

    5. Re:NEC Polymer Proton Battery by Orion2 · · Score: 1

      There are also mobile phones available with this kind of battery. Ericsson has been using LiPolymer batteries since they first launched the T28s in the autumn of 1999 (at least here in Europe).

      There's one other big advantage of the LiPolymer technolgie: The batteries internally are not made up of individual cells but something more closely resembling jelly. This means you can engineer your batteries into loads of different forms and create for instance fancy looking phones :-)

  52. the problem by ism · · Score: 1, Funny

    The close-sourced technology and the patent system are stifling innovation. Energizer keeps its Bunny and e2 technology to itself, while Duracell has not released the APIs to its M3 technology. It's obvious the patent system needs a complete overhaul, and these companies should open-source their technology. It will help open-source developers immensely. For example, they won't have to find out the hard way that those chemicals can eat right through a table.

  53. Other uses for batteries by paranoidia · · Score: 1

    They left out another good reason for better batteries and that is just holding a lot of energy. I don't have any links, but there's areas in the world that produce enough power for most countries naturally. I know one of these places is the antartic and the wind down there. If we got batteries to transport energy from there to here, we'd be set.

  54. Re:Hilarious. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    "non stop dvd playback.
    now its 2002 and no apple laptop can do that, and i think no comperable highend PeeCee (Wintell) laptop sporting dvd, firewire, fast cpu, etc can play a movie on one battery."

    I can watch a 2 hour DVD on my PowerBook G4 at full brightness on one battery.

  55. Physics sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Write your congressman today. Maybe we can pass a law that changes physics so that we can have better batteries.

  56. Hit the Development Ceiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why we still use the same batteries is because they can't get THAT much better. It's a simple technology, simple technology can only be developed an innovated so much before no more significant innovations can be made.

  57. Another point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We could just as easily argue that computer chips have improved in integration and performance in small packages, but still lack behind in power consumption.

  58. Efficiency by Decimal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What, are you kidding me? Game Boy Advance goes for 14 hours on it's AA batteries. This is due to advances in efficiency, not batteries. Isn't that what we should be more concerned about?

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  59. Good battery charger by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    "Dump those $15 battery chargers, get a good one"

    Any suggestions?

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Good battery charger by complex · · Score: 5, Informative

      the maha mh-c204f. you can read about it at thomas distributing.

      i have this charger, and use it with ni-cds and ni-mhs, and it works great. really saves money. i use nimhs in my discman and my palm, and soon in my minidisc player. i highly recommend both the charger and thomas dist.

      complex

    2. Re:Good battery charger by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Wow, a really helpful post on slashdot, thanks! :)

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  60. shapes of standard cells - why round? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that round cells waste precious space in small devices. Why can't we have standard rectangular cells? Wouldn't it put as many chemical ions or whatever, in something 1/5 smaller?

    1. Re:shapes of standard cells - why round? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do have 12v batteries, which are rectangular shaped.

  61. What a title by drafalski · · Score: 0, Troll
    Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future


    Institute for the Future seems kind of like a name little kids would come up with, I cannot take anything he says seriously.
  62. Re:Welcome to UFDBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Things with Air in them Float", and "Water is wet"

    i) Things with Air in Them only float in a medium denser that air (e.g water).

    ii) Water is only wet in it's liquid state

  63. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmm... I hope you want to say

    d/dz(exp(a*z))=a*exp(a*z)

    for, otherwise, the differential is 0
    (since there's no x in exp(a*z))

    Just being a bit picky :-)

  64. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh?

  65. Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by goyena · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How feasible is it to use electromagnetic waves to transport energy? IANAP (P=Physicist), but a science fiction fan, who once read a short story how solar energy was collected and "beamed" from an orbital to the earth...und woe to any airplane that flew through that beam.

    I was only thinking that since batteries are a problem (because of size and durability) why not take them out of the gadget. Actually, even without being a PhD in Physics I could probably think of many reasons why not, but could anyone tell me how and if this could be feasible?

    Naturally if such a energy transport system were to be possible, it would only be feasible in mostly urban areas with infrastructure resembling that of cell phone networks.

    - Is it possible to transport _enough_ energy (and not lose too much in the conversion?
    - Would a direct line-of-sight be necessary, and would crossing it be hazardous?
    - Would it be possible to "encrypt" this energy to make it possible to subscribe and protect from freeloaders?
    - What types of waves (and/or photon beams?) are best suited for this application?
    - How long would it be before we all die with brain cancer because of the free energy being transmitted around?

    1. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's actually very easy to beam energy with VLF EM radiation. Nikola Tesla worked it out a century ago. Go read what happened to him. Hint: electrical power companies don't like the idea of people being able to "tune in" to power for free.

    2. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >How feasible is it to use electromagnetic waves to transport energy?

      It's a no-brainer. And your current utility setup does exactly that. Electrical power isn't delivered "through a wire", but by the electromagnetic field surrounding the wire.

      Not to mention that the sun, arguably the most important power source of all, does a good job at delivering energy in the form of EM waves.

    3. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, Tesla conspiracy free energy Siberia explosion blah blah

      Look at all of the public paranoia about *stray* fields from power-transmission lines causing cancer, claims of brain tumors from cel phones, and tell me how long you think Tesla's beamed-power schemes would survive in today's world even if there weren't a massive power company conspiracy to suppress them.

      Then you have to look at efficiency, interference with other radio communication, shielding of sensitive electronic devices, and on and on.

      Tesla had a lot of great ideas, but that doesn't mean that every one of them was good.

    4. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a no-brainer. And your current utility setup does exactly that. Electrical power isn't delivered "through a wire", but by the electromagnetic field surrounding the wire.

      That's of course right, but what goyena meant was certainly the e.m. transmission without the use of charges (wire), i.e. free e.m. waves.

      Not to mention that the sun, arguably the most important power source of all, does a good job at delivering energy in the form of EM waves.

      But at a relatively low power density of 1.5 kW/m^2. That doesn't even suffice to power a small car (40 kW at 10m^2). A fact that all those solar energy freaks always miss.

    5. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To answer your questions:

      0) cell phone like system: waste of energy (what happens with the energy that doesn't hit a receiver? It's lost! The majority of energy would be dissipated into the environment.)

      1) enough energy?: yes with optical frequencies. Conversion: no, losses high (LED's for emission, and solar cells for receptions).

      2) direct-line: necessary (or use mirrors, but reflection losses), hazardous: yes! (depending on power density and frequency)

      3) encrypt: no. energy is not information.

      4) probably optical frequencies, maybe IR. anything with large wavelength requires large sender/receiver systems to confine the energy in a beam, so microwaves are the lower limit.

      5) brain cancer: depends on power density and wavelength. example sun: has 1.5 kW/m^2 at optical/IR frequencies. How long do you survive in bright sunshine at noon in summer without shade? (maybe some hours). But 1.5 kW/m^2 is not very much! Every standard power cord in your house transmits 2.5 kW/cross-section-of-cord !

    6. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Would it be possible to "encrypt" this energy to make it possible to subscribe and protect from freeloaders?

      Maybe. Spread-spectrum / CDMA technology basically does this for radio signals - the signal looks like low-intensity, wide-band noise unless your receiver is using the same pseudorandom sequence as the transmitter. Maybe a power receiver using synchronous rectification could use a similar technique.

    7. Re:Wireless energy nets for mobile phones/gadgets by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      IANAP

      Woe to any atmosphere that flew through that beam, too, as it's likely to get really hot or something.

      Yes, it's possible to focus a high-powered laser to 'beam' energy around, like from an orbital to a planet (which is actually a good idea, since the orbital's solar panels are a lot better than planetary solar panels). I guess you could focus other frequencies too, but I dunno about that.

      In response to your questions, I'll answer as best as I can:

      • Electrically powered lasers (as opposed to chemically powered ones) are generally fairly weak, so being able to make a strong enough beam with just electrical energy is questionable. Also, in order to receive the energy being sent, you'd need to un-focus the beam somehow (a prism with a lot of faces, perhaps; you need to un-focus the beam to avoid burning a hole in your solar panels or whatever you are absorbing the energy with, because if you didn't, too much of the energy would be concentrated in too small a space), which might cause some lossage. Also, if you're going to be beaming energy around through an atmosphere, then there will be some lossage of energy, depending on how much atmosphere the beam passes through, and how much of the beam's energy the atmosphere absorbs/scatters.
      • You don't necessarily need a direct line of sight for a laser, as long as it's okay that you drill a hole through whatever's in the way... ;) Yes, walking through a high-powered laser beam is more than enough to slice someone up, or something equally unpleasant. Walking through a maser (focused microwave) beam would cause the poor soul to get cooked. Walking through an xaser (focused x-ray) beam...well...let's not go there.
      • No. You can certainly point the beam at a specific target, though, which is a good way of insuring that only the target receives the energy being transported. The exception is if some obstacle shows up between the laser and the receiver.
      • No clue. Lasers would certainly work in theory, but perhaps other frequencies (or even particles other than photons) would be better.
      • If it's a laser, we won't, since it's directed energy. Some of the energy will be scattered around by the atmosphere, but this is usually minimal. It will need to be ensured that whatever the electromagnetic frequency is used doesn't get scattered around enough to hurt anyone, of course -- beaming around x-rays would probably be problematic at best. Visible light and infrared lasers are really the safest, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if you step outside on a sunny day...
      Another thing to think about is that forming a beam is not necessarily the best way to transfer energy. As you may know, when you have two particles that are 'entangled', any changes made to the state of one will cause the other's state to change in the same manner, at the same time, without regard to distance, as if they were both the same particle. I don't know if this could be applied to energy transfer, though -- usually, if not always, the energy is itself a particle, such as an electron or photon. Note that I don't have much of an understanding for quantum physics, so most of this stuff is probably incorrect. Such things boggle my little brain...
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  66. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by k98sven · · Score: 1

    Not to mention all the other really cool
    properties of analytic functions..

    For example, if the derivative exists, then all
    higher order derivatives also exist!

    Also, all the derivatives have the same space of definition
    as the function, which is not at all the case for reals..

    (For instance sqrt(x) is defined at the origin, sqrt(0)=0.
    but the derivative 1/(2*sqrt(x)) is not defined at the origin, (can't divide by 0))

  67. What happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A and B sized batteries? Were they somewhere between the AA and C cells? Why did they die out, if they existed at all?

    The battery equivalent of the 80186 processor and the DC-5 aircraft.

    "I'd rather be gay than religious or American!"

    1. Re:What happened to... by mmontour · · Score: 1

      See this link

  68. Wow, people are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cnn poll: Do you think there's a chance that battery makers could be moving slowly to advance energy technology in order to keep you buying batteries?

    Amazing... 69% yes, 23% no, the rest undecided. If these companies had something better, then they would release it-- they would slay their competition!

    But then again, CNN is completely liberal, and liberals just can't comprehend capitalism.

    1. Re:Wow, people are dumb by heelrod · · Score: 1

      Yes, we liberals don't see capitalism that way, but imagine this.
      If you develop a battery that is cheap, manufactured easily, and with an accelerated purchase rate, that has a better ROI than a battery that is expensive and lasts much longer.

      but then again, liberals just don't comprehend capitalism;)

  69. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by John_Booty · · Score: 3, Informative

    unlike the ingenious Gameboy Advance low poer color screen which requires sunlight but last a long time on its batteries.

    You were doing pretty good until you called the GBA screen "ingenious". Even in bright light, that thing is horrible. Literally, no hyperbole, that screen is the worst screen ever created. Bar none.

    Having your batteries last a long time doesn't do you any good if your EYES wear out after five minutes.

    --

    OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
  70. Market Laws have more to do with it by Acheon · · Score: 1

    There is only one reason why the semiconductors market follows Moore's Law and the batteries market don't. The more durable the batteries, the less will be sold, so the manufacturers will make much less money. On the other hand, producing faster and faster semiconductors is the only way to force consumers to keep buying more of them.

    --Martin

  71. Sony Clie T415 by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    I don't know. The battery in my Sony Clie is pretty spiffy. Also I am getting longer burn times with a lighter battery with the nightrider digital pro I bought last year. Batteries are getting better, you just have to find companies that actually care enough to use them in their products.

  72. Apples to Oranges by plover · · Score: 3, Informative
    Sorry, but your analogy is very flawed.

    They're two different tools, used for different tasks and designed differently as a result. It's like you're trying to compare how many miles per gallon you get in a motorcycle vs. a chainsaw. One of those measurements won't make much sense.

    Your G1 draws far less current at a far lower rate than your laptop. Your laptop has a hard drive that's probably constantly spinning while you're using it, while your camera's only motor is in the zoom lens. (OK, you might have a microdrive, but that doesn't stay spinning nearly as long as the drive in your PC.) Your camera's backlit screen has about 5 in^2 of illuminated area, but your laptop's screen is closer to 180 in^2, a 36 times larger screen that draws close to 36 times as much power. Flashes are also not a constant power draw. Finally, its off to your CPU to check current draw. Camera CPUs are more closely related to dedicated microcontrollers than they are to the general purpose CPUs found in your laptop. Microcontrollers are designed for minimal current draw, they power themselves down nicely (and frequently. While your Pentium was designed with low power laptops in mind, it still draws a frightfully large amount of current in comparison to the little processor inside your camera.

    If you were able to wire up your camera's battery to power your laptop, you'd find you'd get maybe ten minutes of battery life. There's not magic inside that battery, and that's basically the point of the whole article.

    John

    --
    John
    1. Re:Apples to Oranges by mikeboone · · Score: 2

      I fully understand that my G1 battery would not power my laptop. It wasn't my intention to compare the two batteries directly. What I was more interested in was that they were both lithium-ion batteries, but the laptop's battery has experienced a significant performance degradation, while the camera's has not. I have read that my laptop battery was supposed to be good for around 500 charges. Besides leaving it in a powered laptop 99% of the time, I have had to fully charge it maybe 50 times. The camera battery seems as if it was a better design. It might not scale, I don't know. My point was that there's more to it than just the chemicals involved.

    2. Re:Apples to Oranges by plover · · Score: 2
      I think your usage is probably vastly different. I am assuming you use the laptop more than the camera, and perhaps more importantly you probably drain it more consistently.

      Although I did visit your website, and you had a LOT of photos, so you must use the camera quite extensively. (I really liked some of the Arizona ones.) Oh, and have you built a kite photography rig yet? Your page just linked to a AKA guy's site.

      John

      --
      John
    3. Re:Apples to Oranges by mikeboone · · Score: 2

      John, I do use my digital camera quite a bit, but I use the laptop all the time. I think the biggest problem with the laptop might be that the battery is always plugged into the unit and is constantly being 'topped-off' by the power. You'd think they'd design it to make sure this situation doesn't ruin the battery, but as someone mentioned, that's probably a nifty way to sell more batteries.

      BTW, a lot of the web photos come from scanned 35mm slides...Arizona was entirely 35mm. I've had the G1 for 9 months and it's starting to produce the majority of the web pictures...the Costa Rica album was probably 50% G1 shots. I'll go all-digital when I can afford a good digital SLR.

      I've been slow to get into kite photography. The main problem has been that you need a big kite to lift camera equipment, strong winds, or both. I only have an 8 sq. ft. flowform, and it's too small. I did build a small wooden rig with an ice cube 'timer' which was more of a learning experience than anything else. The disposable camera attached was light but took bad shots on the ground, let alone flying 100 feet up. :) My best results so far were done with a cheap 640x480 digital camera, suspended by the strap, and run up into the air after triggering the 10 second timer. It made for some interesting shots of the beach, albeit slanted by the strap position. Nothing good enough to put on the web yet! For now I just link to a site of someone who really knows how to do it!

  73. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by meatspray · · Score: 1

    dell inspiron 8100 (PC)

    just makes it, you can't do much else afterwards but ou can watch a DVD movie on a single batt.

  74. This is something that has bothered me for a while by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Interesting
    With the computer technology we have, we ought to be able to make exceptionally low power laptops. Fuck the color screen, and the high processing power, just give me enough to do word processing, spreadsheets, and view course material in PDF format and make the batteries last 8+ hours. There's nothing more frustrating than getting on a 6 hour flight and knowing that you're laptop's going to be out of power half way through the flight.


    This is one of the things that really excited me about Transmeta. Here was a company that seemed to be saying "no, it's not top of the line performance, it won't run Quake, but it can do all your work and keep your laptop running a long, long time." Unfortunately, all the OEMs seem to be stuck in a bigger/better/faster mindset, and don't realize that some of us actually miss the early days of laptops.


    Now you've got the same damn thing with palmtops. I'm hearing about iPaqs now that only last 8 hours before they need to be recharged? Fuck that, give me a black and white Palm any day.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  75. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Aexia · · Score: 2

    Hell, my Inspiron 7k is able to watch a movie on a single charge and I got that 3 years ago!

  76. Charge cycles by TFloore · · Score: 2

    Do some looking into how long rechargable batteries last.

    They aren't really rated in months or years, though that's how the warranties are written.

    Rechargable batteries are rated in charge cycles. Charge cycle == discharge and recharge the battery, doesn't matter if it is a partial or a complete discharge.

    NiCd batteries are rated for about 400-500 charge cycles.
    NiMH batteries are rated for about 400 charge cycles.
    Lithium and Lithium Ion batteries are rated for about 300 charge cycles.

    Battery charge capacity falls off as a function of charge cycle lifetime. The closer to the end of your 400 charge cycles, the less capacity you'll see in your batteries.

    How many times have you recharged the battery in your laptop? How many times in your digital camera?

    Yes, the batteries in your digital camera will start sucking after about 250 or 300 charge cycles. Expect to have to buy new ones about that time. Or buy a new camera, which will come with new batteries, whichever.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    1. Re:Charge cycles by mikeboone · · Score: 2

      How many times have you recharged the battery in your laptop? How many times in your digital camera?

      That's sort of hard to answer, since the battery is in the laptop constantly, and the laptop is socket-powered 99.9% of the time I use it. But I estimate that I fully used and charged it no more than 50 times. More like about 30. The camera has had probably 30 or more charges too. I know they're not the same and I don't expect my G1 battery to run my Dell. Maybe I just got a bad laptop battery, but it's too late for me to have it fixed free now. :(

  77. Patent that has not shown up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In denver about 3 years ago, an artist (working at gates batteries ) patented the bright idea of taking the carbon rod shaped core and converting it to a flat sheet that is wrapped like a snail. This increases the surface area of the cathode to the solution increasing the available charge. It was written up in the Denver Post and the company was supposed to produce these. So far, I have not seen anything about them.

  78. Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't quite think that was the kind of power Moore was referring to. If you took the power consumption of the first vacuum tube coputers about 50 yrs ago and multiplied that by 2**25. ...well all I can say is that would require one 1337 cooling system.

  79. Good battery != profit by pkplex · · Score: 1

    I think a reason why normal batteries still exist is because they make companys money.

    Sort of like oil companys not wanting any alternate fuels to be used because their profit is at risk.

    IMO anyway :)

  80. You should see what the Japanese are keepingfromus by ahde · · Score: 2

    My minidisc claims 50+ hours and I can get at least 24 straight with headphones. That's a far cry from 8 (if your lucky) wi9th 2 AA's in a cassette or CD. Maybe it has to do with the motor though.

  81. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that. The Gameboy Advance screen works wonderfully.

    Most of the bitching I've heard comes from nerds who are bitter that the can't play it in their dimly lit caves.

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  82. We are not that far behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To some extent I am happy that there is a battery power and energy (as I hope most of /. realise, not the same thing) constraint.

    For example, my four year old libretto runs hot for three hours on its battery. Extra time (more energy) would be useful, but in something as small as a libretto, it would seem that the power limitation is close, due to cooling constraints.

    As to the extra energy consideration, for portable devices, we are still better looking at lower power electronics, and hence reducing the power and energy requirement. Otherwise we will all end up carrying around devices with the energy capacity of a hand grenade just to surf the web. I cannot say that I personally like that idea.

  83. Taco Snot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in other news, the Illuminati are still keeping that 200 mile-per-gallon carburetor off the market.

    *giggle*

    1. Re:Taco Snot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inventor had a patent, though it was the battery cartel that bought it off ...not the Illuminati or is that the Freemasons ? (insert your favourite sekret society here)
      Whatever, ya'll have fun with the mexi-mucus though.

  84. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    Another fun thing is that you can essentially ignore discontinuities when you integrate complex functions.

    OK, that's not quite true, you have to make a path around the discontinuity, but you can take the the value as the limit of the detour radius approaches 0.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  85. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by lucius · · Score: 1

    Right, sorry.

  86. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by ruzel · · Score: 1
    It also ignores a very important energy storage device that some scientists are developing at Lockheed-Martin's Skunkworks. It's not as radical as you might think -- the flywheel. Here's a clip:
    In this way, the flywheel can substitute for a battery, while offering features that no battery can match. Even the most exotic battery can be damaged if you charge or discharge it too quickly. A flywheel isn't affected by this treatment, and can operate at extreme temperatures, can contain 10 times a battery's power density, and - according to its advocates - should last for decades.

    Here's the whole shebang:
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/ flywheel.h tml

    They claim that this flywheel device should be able to store 10 times what conventional batteries can.
    ______________________
  87. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2


    Yeah, until you try to make that power portable. Try to move it. Then you get that whole flywheel "angular momentum/gyroscope super resistance" thing going on. Kiss that energy bye bye.

    Honestly, energy always eventually goes to its lowest state... but I don't think that kinetic flywheels are the way to store it, because by design you know there is some constant form of resistance that is draining it.

    You would have to have some serious math and technology to get this one together. Feels unapplicable.

  88. to much power by surflorida · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well maybe there is a reason batteries haven't advanced. According to the article Paul Saffo says: "a double-A cell would contain more energy than a tactical nuke." Just imagine how much regulation and radiation there would be.

  89. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just beautiful. You are my fucking hero.

  90. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by lucius · · Score: 1
    Don't get me started on integration in the complex plane.

    The thing here that always seemed almost too sweet to me here was how you could neglect details of the closed contour and just count the residues. Man that shit rocks.

  91. Re:Welcome to UFDBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations, you have once again demonstrated that the average Slashdot drone can not even master the blindingly obvious. Your prize is a month's supply of my sticky spooge. Where should I make the "delivery"?

  92. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by foobar104 · · Score: 2

    non stop dvd playback. now its 2002 and no apple laptop can do that

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Both Apple laptops currently on the market can play "Titanic" (a little over 3 hours) without swapping batteries, assuming you start with a full charge and don't do anything else while you watch the movie. I've done it myself, on a 14-hour non-stop flight to Australia.

  93. It's in your PDA by ChrisWong · · Score: 1

    PalmOS devices do not have battery backups. They do have a capacitor to keep the RAM alive for a minute or so while you change the AAAs. Here is a legitimate use of a capacitor where high density, slow discharge energy storage is not called for.

  94. GB Adv long live esp when you cant see display by SWTP · · Score: 1

    Yes you get very long running time on non-blacklit LCD since a LCD is, in effect, a capactor in designed IE just potential no real current draw but with out the right light hitting it, it might as well be off as in the case of GBA

    Be nice to see how OLED will turn out.

    Digital camera are running into a major roadblock on power. Still cant beleve they are making 1.8 AMP hour AA battries! Sheech short one of those and get on heck of an explosion!

    The micro fuel cells are around 10% efficient but 100 time more efficent thatn a standard chemical power cell.

  95. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by YetAnotherLogin · · Score: 1

    Well, technically, d/dx (exp(a*z)) = d/dx (exp(ax) * exp(iay)) = a*exp(ax)*exp(iay) = a*exp(az) :)

  96. Rechargeables not universal replacements by ChrisWong · · Score: 1

    There is also the discharge problem. That article you cited mentions that NiCDs go flat after 3 months, NiMHs after 1 month. This is fine for digital cameras and such, but you would not use them for a clock, a fire alarm or an emergency flashlight that should continue to work a year from now.

  97. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by MayonakaHa · · Score: 1
    Actually the complaints about the GBA's screen were mostly voiced around its launch.
    When the first games for it were developed, the developers didn't take into account the non-backlit screen and type of material used for it.
    Because of that, many games (Castelvania being one of the worst for example) looked extremely dark. But a lot of the newer games look wonderful!

    Here's a good example. If you have an iPaq, or access to one, turn off the backlight and go into the same amount of light you tried to play your GBA in. Not very easy to see is it? Not unless you have a nice bright background. The default Gigabar skin for instance, sucks without a backlight since it's dark blue.

    And if you really want a backlight for it, then head over to PortableMonopoly's
    His project is coming along nicely.

    BTW: Yes I have a GBA with many of the first games including Castelvania and I have no complaints about it. Yes I have an iPaq also.

  98. Nice Design X Battery by fabiolrs · · Score: 1

    I have a Palm Vx for almost 2 years now and Im becoming worried about having to change its NiCd battery! Its DAMN expensive!!!

    Selling my Palm wouldnt make me enough money to pay for a new battery.

    I believe that designing good bateries that can keep up for hours and are the size of a thumb is important, but lowering the cost of existing ones is good too. Nicier battery would allow designers to create new products which would be smaller but cheap batteries would allow us, costumers, to spend more money with accessories thus making the handheld (just as an example) way more popular.

    --
    Fabio - Sumare/Sao Paulo/Brazil/South America/Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Universe
    http://www.morroida.com.br
    1. Re:Nice Design X Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Palm V uses Lithium Ion battery...
      There are very few devices built with NiCd in the modern days.

  99. This makes for a very fun exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggested this to some psychologists once as a good exercise to study how humans handle facing something that doesn't act like anything they understand.

    Put a spinning wheel in a box. Ask someone to examine the box and describe all significant properties as best they can. :-)

    The idea was suggested to me by a physics test question involving a suitcase with a spinning wheel and an unwary bellhop going around a corner....

  100. It's all a conspiracy by horati0 · · Score: 1

    Batteries exist that last 100x longer than ones on the market right now and are fully compatible with current devices. Problem is, when the technology to do so becomes known, the big battery producers buy up all the patents for the technology from the (mostly) small independent research labs that come up with it in the first place.

    Same reason why we don't have cars that get 300 mpg and lightbulbs that last 60 years. How would these companies stay in business if everyone bought a 10 pack of AA batteries and didn't have to buy any more for 5 years? It's all trickle-down economics.

    I have got to stop reading Robert Anton Wilson.

    --
    The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
    1. Re:It's all a conspiracy by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      A little too much X-Files in your diet, Johnny. Time for some Prozac....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:It's all a conspiracy by horati0 · · Score: 1

      A little too much X-Files in your diet, Johnny. Time for some Prozac....

      Don't you know the Smoking Man is part owner of Duracell?

      --
      The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
  101. me too. by jon_c · · Score: 1

    My Compaq 1720 can play a full length DVD of it's single battery.

    --
    this is my sig.
  102. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about 2 counterrotating coaxial gyroscopes?

  103. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use 2 weels rotating in different direction and you have system with 0 angular momentum

  104. Black Hole power by douglips · · Score: 1
    Um, how exactly would you build an "antimatter generation plant?


    Black holes evaporate, and they evaporate equal quantities of matter and anti-matter. So, you can feed a black hole matter, and get a mix of matter and anti-matter to generate power.

    There are lots of problems such as containment, making sure you don't feed your black hole too much (gets "cold" - insufficient antimatter) or too little (evaporates quickly - no more black hole, and boom.) This is far future technology, but so far theoretically possible.
  105. Rechargeables cannot be universal by ChrisWong · · Score: 1

    Besides being expensive up-front (so many toys come "batteries not included", after all), the problem is that existing rechargeables are not universal solutions. Should I stick an expensive NiMH AA into my $5 clock or smoke detector? NiCDs self-discharge in about 3 months, NiMHs in about 1. So if I want my emergency flashlight to work when I really (and occasionally) need it, it's alkalines for me.

    1. Re:Rechargeables cannot be universal by mmontour · · Score: 1

      You could use rechargeable alkalines.

    2. Re:Rechargeables cannot be universal by ChrisWong · · Score: 1

      I did try rechargeable alkalines with my PalmPilot. The number of recharges is very limited (nominally 25), and they should be topped off often. Each use -- even if partially discharged -- significantly reduces its ability to hold a new charge. It is not clear to me that a rechargeable alkaline -- even if recharged optimally -- has significantly longer life than a conventional disposable alkaline. Moreover, optimal use requires frequent topping off, which rather inconvenient.

  106. Re:This is something that has bothered me for a wh by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The only problem with Transmeta is that you seem to be the only person excited about them.

    Transmeta is a company with alot of promises and nothing substantial to show for them. What a joke.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  107. Electric cars cleaner? by MikeVDS · · Score: 1

    Everytime improved batteries are discussed people always bring up zero-emission cars. Electric cars do not solve any pollution problems. It only redirects the pollution. At least it's not in your backyard but it does not reduce overall pollution. Though it is perhaps a step closer. When electricity becomes clean to produce we can say electric cars are truly zero-emmision.

  108. You've got Nuclear Paranoia! by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The risk of making a big chuck of Chicago uninhabitable and making a lot of people sick had their reactor caught on fire was very real.
    No, it wasn't. The squash-court reactor operated with people standing on it; it did not generate enough direct energy to make people sick from direct exposure, let alone radioactive byproducts to make anyone sick at a distance.
    Accidents do happen. And it's very hard to clean up.
    Contrast and compare to poly-chlorinated biphenyls, a chemical (not radiological) toxin. Now those things are everywhere, and nobody has any suggestions for cleaning them out of the general environment.
    South Africa, I belive, is in the process of building a "pebble bed" reactor which should be quite safe compared to the reactor designs used currently. It is claimed to be meltdown-proof, and the fuel should always stay contained inside of the "pebbles" reducing the risk of contamination.
    The real risk of pebble beds is sabotage/terrorism. The S. Africans are claiming that such a reactor would not require a containment building, which in the post-9/11/2001 world is laughable. A pressure-vessel breach with the reactor at operating temperature would expose a lot of graphite pellets to air, resulting in a radioactive Hibachi a la Chernobyl (I don't know if an incombustible pellet coating such as silicon nitride would be sufficiently rugged to prevent this scenario). OTOH, the pebble-bed is immune to meltdown, so burying it under enough dirt to keep it from being hit by Boeing or Airbus cruise missiles should be sufficient protection.

    Pebble manufacture is probably the smallest problem. If your graphite moderator is sufficiently pure, you can use natural uranium and you have no enrichment or other steps and no byproducts. Yellowcake (uranium dioxide) is probably one of the least-difficult materials to work with; it's been used as a colorant in pottery glazes.

    1. Re:You've got Nuclear Paranoia! by Sibelius · · Score: 1

      Actually, I remember reading about this idea a while back some place. There were very large concerns about encasing the fuel in graphite coatings (this was the original plan) because at the temperature that the reactor would be run at, graphite would immediately catch on fire if exposed to air.

  109. Slaves to the AA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way--they helped me fix my drinking problem! Without them I'd be lying in a gutter somewhere...

  110. Re:This is something that has bothered me for a wh by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Transmeta hedged their entire business model on getting partners early on after the release of the Crusoe and hope Intel or AMD didn't eat their lunch. Intel and AMD did just that, not only did they eat their lunch but they kicked their ass for their lunch money. Duh. I mean come on did Transmeta SERIOUSLY think AMD and Intel weren't working on really low power chips and probably had prototypes working already? Shit yes. They just didn't have a reason to release them as there was no third party competition for the lower power x86 chip market until Transmeta came along.

    You're also forgetting that the display is far more inefficient than the electronics spitting data out to it. A reflective LCD display doesn't use as much power as a backlit display but that comes as a cost of usability. Reflective laptop displays would not work out very well. A small reflective screen works fine because enough incident radiation is hitting the focus of your eye. With a larger screen anything outside of your focus is going to be hard to see which means reduces periphrial vision on the screen. Backlit LCD screens are huge power wasters, only half the light emitted by the backlight even gets to your eye. This is why the iPaq has such shitty battery life, it is a backlit screen that is acutally pretty damn bright. The next big thing in portable electronics is going to be OLEDs. Since the light isn't passing through a filter the display is more efficient and thus consumes less power. As it is your LCD display sucks about a third of the power your laptop uses. Another third is being sucked up by your 5v periphrials like your hard drive and CD-ROM.

    You miss the early days of laptops where they weighed ten pounds and worked for about an hour? I certainly don't. You get ten times the work out of a modern 1GHz P3 laptop than you did out of that old 100MHz Pentium in a much lighter package and uses the same if not less power.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  111. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by lucius · · Score: 0, Troll
    Troll? Troll?

    How the fuck is this a troll?

    Read the fucking parent post: a guy asks a fucking question and I give a straight (and correct) fucking answer.

    There's more fact in this single fucking comment than in the rest of the useless drivel you fools have vomited out on page combined. (For example, every single comment about Moore's law.)

    Fucking idiocy.

  112. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by esonik · · Score: 1

    Anything powered by atomic energy is basically a steam engine

    No, not necessarily. You can convert temperature differences directly in to electricity using the thermoelectric effect. Look up on Radio-Thermal-Generators (RTGs). The are used as energy sources for deep space missions (where solar cells would be impractical). You also don't need (and even don't want) to reach the critical mass! You don't want a chain reaction! You want slow release of the energy!

  113. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by cortices · · Score: 1

    Calm down my son.

    --
    You can't kill the boogey man.
  114. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! But each flywheel still extorts significant torque on its axis when tilted!

  115. Alkaline rechargables by suitti · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Alkaline rechargables seem to work. Things I like are that the charger (Rayovac) can charge a single battery at a time. Several devices I use consume an odd number of batteries.

    Evidence suggests that it's better for the batteries to be stored charged. They can be recharged at any time, so they're more likely ready for use.

    Things I dislike are that they seem to last half the time of NiMH, per charge. Unlike NiCad or NiMH, their voltage drops slowly with use. This makes my walkman's pitch drop slowly. NiCad or NiMH hold voltage until almost out of juice, so the pitch stays nearly constant.

    Rechargable alkalines have extremely poor cold temperature performance. This is bad for powering my telescope in the winter.

    Yet, rechargable alkalines do OK at things that alkalines do - like power wall clocks for months, or sitting in a child's toy awaiting use. My experimentation set has already paid for itself and the charger.

    I wouldn't use them for a laptop or pda.

    I do use NiMH for my Handspring Palm. No, the unit does not recharge them. I pop in my spare set of AAA's every now and then.

    At the moment, batteries are a way of life. Rechargables are cheaper. If there are rechargables, I use the device. I'm not using it up - I can always get another cycle out of the batteries. A battery that gets 100 cycles has got to be more environmentally friendly than a battery that gets one cycle.

    --
    -- Stephen.
  116. not so by BiggyP · · Score: 1

    well, as far as i know most smoke detectors are "Powered" by a standard 9Volt batt. the americium component is used in some manner to detect the smoke.

    maybe i'm mistaken.

  117. You mean *portable* kinetice energy storage... by aquarian · · Score: 1

    Yes, the physical danger of something spinning at tens, or hundreds of thousands of rpm is very real. But flywheels are feasible in more stationary situations- they're already being used in large UPS systems, and solar electricity systems. They're typically installed underground, in such a way that the shrapnel won't kill anyone if the thing explodes.

    They're experimenting with flywheels in buses, etc. Automotive use is theoretically possible, but a long way off.

    The downside of flywheels is the challenge of building a device with moving parts that has to be so precisely constructed, and operate at such high speeds. I cannot stress this enough- the rotors themselves must be carefully engineered, and flawlessly constructed of exotic materials like carbon fiber, etc., just to withstand the centrifugal force of spinning so fast. The principle may be simple, but actually building a flywheel like this is a hell of a challenge.

    So they're expensive to build, and probably won't get much cheaper any time soon. And the cost doesn't scale down with size- so flywheels will probably only be cost effective for large projects, like backup power for mult-imillion dollar computer installations, hospitals, and maybe buses on heavy traffic routes.

  118. Hemp again, good grief... by aquarian · · Score: 1

    Not to denigrate the hemp plant, which may be useful... however, I've noted that anyone who even brings it up seems to be smoking a lot of it, which is the real reason behind their enthusiasm...

    1. Re:Hemp again, good grief... by Fenris2001 · · Score: 1

      Not me, I'm afraid - I'm violently allergic to marijuana, as I discovered when I moved into a dorm room formerly occupied by two hemp "enthusiasts".

      --
      ---------------
      Vpered na Mars!
  119. That's a lot of power by sean23007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here's a good poll question:

    What would you do with the power of a tactical nuke in your pocket?

    Please don't say CowboyNeal...

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    1. Re:That's a lot of power by Vulture_ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Make extra crispy style CowboyNeal bacon! Mmm-mm!

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  120. Re:This is something that has bothered me for a wh by Galvatron · · Score: 1

    Huh, maybe early PC laptops bit ass, I used mac in those days. With all the powersaving options on, I'd generally get 4+ hours of work out of them on a single (NiCad) battery. Granted, a CD rom drive would chew up power, but I rarely need cds when I'm working. I use it for installing software, and sometimes playing games, but in those situations I'm usually plugged in anyway.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  121. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Kymermosst · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've found that there are moderators out there who, if they disagree with you politically, are jealous of the display of intellect you show on a particular post, or just plain don't like you, the following happens:

    They click on your user info page, and mark down all your last few comments when they have moderator points, thus wrecking your karma, and destroying the visibility of your posts.

    There was someone who did that to me, because he didn't like my perfectly valid (if opinionated) post.

    Thus, abuse of the moderation system.

    Of course, this post will be marked offtopic, even though deep-nested comments should NEVER be marked offtopic due to the fact that normal discussion almost always goes off in other directions than the topic, but, I digress...

    I would have marked you back up had I not already spent my moderator points.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  122. Re:what about my Palm Pilot Tazer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, this one's not making it out of the lab, well, outside of the 3 copies kept by staff. PHB - And, as we can see, on slide 132 of my PowerPoint presentation . . .
    ZAPPP!

  123. 100 Hi Power Batteries, and half a pound of TNT..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..mm Wallstreet un-inhabitable methinks.

  124. Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 2

    People are always pushing Lithum Ion, or Ni-MH batteries, I assume because they don't pay any attention to the Ni-Cad world.

    It's been quite some time ago now, (so I'm not sure exactly how long) seems it was about 3 years ago that I was first introduced to Panasonic's Hi-Capacity NiCad batteries. They were about $20 for the recharger & 4 Batteries AA @ 1100mAh. That was a lot cheaper and more powerful than the radioshack hi-capacity batteries that were only ~800mAh at the time (and of course the radioshack reps were telling me they were the most powerful around!).

    Those batteries lasted as long as disposable batteries in 2AA situations. Unfortunately, all NiCads I've come across are 1.25v, so the more batteries, the shorter they seem to last. Fortunately, most devices I use only need 2 AAs (Psion 5mx, Mini-disc, CD Walkman, etc) and the one device I often used that needed more (my Sega Nomad) had an external battery pack, which I connected two more AA cases on, and it worked like a charm.

    The other interesting thing to note, those batteries are working to this day, and apparently aren't any less powerful than they were to start with (still lasting as long as Alkaline AAs).

    So, my whole point is that very good rechargeables do exist, and nobody uses them. The second point being that NiCad manufacuters should look at perhaps two 0.75volt batters (each half-AA height) stacked, so as to get the full standard 1.5v.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Panasonic NiCad by JKR · · Score: 3, Informative
      So, my whole point is that very good rechargeables do exist, and nobody uses them.

      Sigh. One more time, for everyone who missed it. NiCad cells have a FUNDAMENTAL problem. They grow whiskers of Cadmium internally when recharged by simple reverse-DC , which causes internal short circuits. This is why they lose capacity. This is why a large capacitor discharge can sometimes recover them. This is why they suck. If someone makes a good charger (i.e. one that reverses the charging current periodically like the rest of the electro-plating industry has done since the year dot) then NiCads are fine. They are just VERY VERY picky about how they are recharged. What you are seeing is a stream of new chargers on the market (e.g. the one I bought from RadioShack in New Orleans last week). Now, why has it taken so long? Because you can also recharge dry cells (safely!) with such a charger. Now, boys and girls, can you think why Duracell, Ever Ready et. al. might not want such a product on the market>


      The second point being that NiCad manufacuters should look at perhaps two 0.75volt batters (each half-AA height) stacked, so as to get the full standard 1.5v.


      Please go and learn some electro-chemistry. NiCad cells (i.e. the SMALLEST POSSIBLE UNIT of storage) produce 1.2 V, against 1.5 V for zinc-carbon and alkaline, and 2 V for lead acid. You CAN'T MAKE a 1.5 V NiCad battery. That's why NiCad 9V batteries are so poor - the cheap ones used to be only 7.2 V, with the expensive ones being more like 8.4 V. Neither were much good when you needed a real 9 V battery.

    2. Re:Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 1
      This is why they lose capacity.
      I have not experienced any problems with these panasonic hi-capacity batteries. That includes 'memory' effects, or quick discharge. They are today (years after I purchased them, and used them heavily) nearly as good as day one. Though, the one disadvantage of NiCad that can't be worked around (inability to hold a charge for months) is still an issue.
      You CAN'T MAKE a 1.5 V NiCad battery.
      Okay, I'll buy that. How about this... Can you make a 0.75Volt NiCad battery? Yes? Then you can hook together two (in serial) and get a total of 1.5V. It's not even chemistry! It's just basic DC electronics.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Panasonic NiCad by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      No. The reason people are paying attention to Li-ion and NiMH is because they're vastly more powerful than the obsolete NiCd batteries. In all likelihood, they haven't yet gotten past that 1100 mAh mark... I have some C size NiMH batteries here that unload a whopping 2200 mAh!

      The other biggest problem with NiCd batteries is that the cadmium in them is extremely toxic. Don't get it on you! Alkaline batteries are acidic. Li-ion and NiMH are nicer, though they're not magic bullets either in this regard. The point is that NiCd is terrible and needs to roll over and die already.

      As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way. If the battery were larger, you'd be able to get more voltage out of it, since the cells are connected in series. What do you need a full 1.5V for, anyway? Virtually all devices that use batteries are supposed to handle getting 1.2V without trouble, and, AFAICT, they generally do.

      All the NiMH batteries I've been exposed to also have a 1.2V output, in case you care.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    4. Re:Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Li-ion and NiMH is because they're vastly more powerful than the obsolete NiCd batteries.
      You might get away with saying that about NiMH, although NiCad is in a constant battle with NiMH for the position of most powerful. Li-ion doesn't even come close to holding the charge NiCad or NiMH does. Li-ion are only used because of: lack of memory effects, and ability to be quickly charged/discharged making them slightly better in VERY-High drain devices.
      As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way.
      Well thank you all knowing battery god... Try this on for size. If you open up a rechargeable 9V battery you will see a series of 6 very small 1.2V batteries (smaller than Triple A's). So, it's obviously possible for them to make smaller batteries with appropriate voltages, conversly, it's no doubt possible for them to make 1.5V batteries.
      All the NiMH batteries I've been exposed to also have a 1.2V output, in case you care.
      Yes, they are typically 1.2 volts, and ytes I care. Fortunately, I've known this for YEARS and it's always been a problem. As I've said before, in 2 battery devices, rechargeables work fine. In situations were there are more than 2 cells, the undervoltage is much larger, making rechargeables' voltage very inadequate.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Panasonic NiCad by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      Li-ion and NiMH is because they're vastly more powerful than the obsolete NiCd batteries.
      You might get away with saying that about NiMH, although NiCad is in a constant battle with NiMH for the position of most powerful. Li-ion doesn't even come close to holding the charge NiCad or NiMH does. Li-ion are only used because of: lack of memory effects, and ability to be quickly charged/discharged making them slightly better in VERY-High drain devices.
      Then explain why I get so much more battery life out of my digital camera, cell phone, and laptop than the equivalent devices (with brand new NiCd or Alkaline batteries) with the Li-ion batteries they use?
      As for the stacked idea of yours, each battery consists of an array of cells which are already connected in series. In other words, it's already done that way.
      Well thank you all knowing battery god... Try this on for size. If you open up a rechargeable 9V battery you will see a series of 6 very small 1.2V batteries (smaller than Triple A's). So, it's obviously possible for them to make smaller batteries with appropriate voltages, conversly, it's no doubt possible for them to make 1.5V batteries.
      Perhaps, but then their battery life would probably be pretty low, wouldn't it?
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    6. Re:Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Then explain why I get so much more battery life out of my digital camera, cell phone, and laptop than the equivalent devices (with brand new NiCd or Alkaline batteries) with the Li-ion batteries they use?

      Slashdot isn't that place for an electronics lesson, so I'll just say that the reason you get better results with equivalent devices is because they are just NOT equivalent devices. I happen to have a Sony Minidisc MZ-R50 which runs ~7 hours on it's Li-Ion battery, and ~12 hours on 2 AA batteries.

      Perhaps, but then their battery life would probably be pretty low, wouldn't it?
      Not at all. They would last longer as batteries rarely ever go dead in most devices, rather, the device stops drawing power when the voltage drops below the acceptable limit. There would be plenty of other advantages; flashlights would not look dim and yellow, devices that take several batteries will then be able to take advantage of rechargeables. Going back to your questions about Li-Ion, higher voltages are the reasons Li-Ion batteries are more desirable in cell phones, and other high-drain devices.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Panasonic NiCad by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      I happen to have a Sony Minidisc MZ-R50 which runs ~7 hours on it's Li-Ion battery, and ~12 hours on 2 AA batteries.
      Have you ever considered that its Li-ion battery is crappy?
      They would last longer as batteries rarely ever go dead in most devices, rather, the device stops drawing power when the voltage drops below the acceptable limit.

      Sounds like quite a problem. Have you heard of any energy storage devices which can be recharged only with electrical energy, whose voltage is constant, or do their voltages always drop off gradually as they lose their charge? (Note that devices that burn fuel, such as internal-combustion engines or fuel cells, will produce the same voltage until their fuel supply is depleted, which is why I exclude them here. Or can fuel cells be recharged with only electrical energy?)

      Are there any voltage converters and variable resistors that are small enough to be fit into consumer electronics? I'm thinking of bumping up the voltage to something fairly high (perhaps 6 volts in a device which uses two 1.5V batteries), and then automatically adjusting it to the correct voltage for the device via a variable resistor. Or is there a better way to keep the voltage from dropping off?

      I should point out that my Palm IIIxe's display contrast doesn't seem to get any duller, nor its backlight any dimmer, as the batteries wear down to as little as 2V (it takes 2 AAA batteries). It just runs and then finally quits when there's not enough power left. My cell phone also behaved this way when its Li-ion battery was close to being depleted. Are these devices bumping up the voltage as needed, as I suggest, or are they doing something else?

      Rampant curiosity mode off.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    8. Re:Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Have you heard of any energy storage devices which can be recharged only with electrical energy, whose voltage is constant, or do their voltages always drop off gradually as they lose their charge?

      It's just as sad fact of chemical carriers that the voltage drops as the current drops. Mechanical methods like internal combstion engines obviously do not suffere because they do not use chemicals to store energy. Flywheels are likely the best solution for large devices, but not for small, portable devices.
      Are there any voltage converters and variable resistors that are small enough to be fit into consumer electronics?
      You could accomplish something like this, but the voltage conversion would continually cost you power. When you are using some sort of conversion method, a capacitor or transformer of some sort, will use up cureent to increase the voltage... That diminishes most of the advantages of higher voltage. It's really a much better idea to have a power source that can store and supply higher voltages.

      Think of the problem this way. Watts=Volts*Amps

      If you have a 100W lightbulb, and you are feeding it off of a 100V source, you will need to supply it with 1 Amp of power. Now if you double that voltage to 200V, that same 100W lightbulb will only need half the Amps, 0.5A.

      The problem with conversion is Volts=Current*Resistance. To increase the voltage, you have to increase the resistance. The higher the resistance, the more current you will use up to supply that voltage.

      I should point out that my Palm IIIxe's display contrast doesn't seem to get any duller, nor its backlight any dimmer, as the batteries wear down to as little as 2V
      Your Palm is not like a flashlight... A flashlight will take whatever voltage it's given until the energy in the battery is too small for the bulb's resistance. A complex electronic device sets a minimum voltage for itself, and will only take power from the battery as long as the voltage remains above that minimum. Your batteries, when they will no longer power your handheld, are still holding quite a lot of charge, but the voltage is insuffecient. At that point, electronic means of increasing the voltage just a small bit, would be benefital. What would be even more benefital are batteries with higer voltages, so that the point of very-low voltage takes much longer to reach. That way to voltage remains high, without any drain of current to artifically increase the voltage.


      I hope that was informative, but you should look into electronics theory on your own. There's far too much for me to explain, and I really don't feel that teaching electronics here is going to benefit anyone. No doubt there are plent of documents around the internet explaining these things, which would allow you to learn without myself having to spend a lot of time explaining them. Electronics classes are taught at just about every college on earth. There are also tons of books which teach basic electronics.

      The most important thing for everyone to know about batteries is simply that the more voltage, the less current. And always read the labels on your batteries as they tell you exactly the voltage and current, giving you a fair method of comparison. Often the most expensive are not nearly the best.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Panasonic NiCad by unitron · · Score: 2
      "Can you make a 0.75Volt NiCad battery?"

      Probably, but you'd have to use different chemicals, which means it wouldn't be a NiCad (Nickel and Cadmium) anymore.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    10. Re:Panasonic NiCad by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Not true at all. It would be TRIVIAL to make a nickel cadmium battery at a lower voltage by any number of means.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  125. crack it open! by TechnoLust · · Score: 2

    Not bloody likely... most laptops now use Lithium Ion. I wouldn't recommend opening those.

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
  126. 12V is King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need is a 12V motorcycle battery.

  127. Botulism may be more toxic but.. by MrYotsuya · · Score: 1

    botulism doesn't sit in the earth for years, bioacculumate in living beings, unlike PCBs.

  128. Batteries and more... by Hyped01 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Power Technology (almost 4 years ago) seems to have think they made sufficient advances to warrant claims of far better and lighter batteries... but according to them, the major battery manufacturers arent interested... and I'd presume it would be a ridiculous obstacle financially to try to compete with the big 4 (Rayovac, Eveready, Duracell and Exide). Based off alkaline technology, the batteries would be cheap, light (based off the new chemical composition), and according to PT, capable of filling in the role of lead-acid - the current industrial, heavy use and abuse battery of choice (ie: large scale use, heavy load draw, frequent charge, discharge, continuous use and charge batteries such as in cars, electric forklifts, RV's, home power storage units, UPS's, etc).

    http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/balak .h tml (follow links from article for more info)

    IBM announced years ago better battery technology - it appeared in the highest end Thinkpads, and is based off Lithium and other elements (it isnt Lithium-ion), but of course, they are too expensive for say... disposable radio batteries... So, perhaps it is the economies of it that matter... after all, Lexmark, Epson and HP often sell printers at a loss - why? Because they clean up on the consumables... not that I think it is, because I have no knowledge of such, but why wouldnt the battery industry be any different? The less batteries you sell, the less you make. As new battery innovations come out (which usually are negligble and barely if at all noticeable on the "home front" AA, AAA, C, D sized cells), the prices usually go up as well... so though battery life may be increasing slightly, so is the price - at a slightly greater than inflationary rate.

    Dont know, and dont care - it's really irrelevant since the item that the article incorrectly touched on was fuel cells, which ARE available and in use for things such as cell phones and other devices already. Supposedly they are more efficient, last longer, and there are methodws of recharging them (though not yet available)... so the technology does exist, and can be used to replace batteries if only more work were put into it. (currently such fuel cells are disposable instead of refillable).

    - Robert
    FoodPlaces: Baltimore's largest Restaurant Guide

    --

    WebMaster:
    BinFeeds
    XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but

  129. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Perdo · · Score: 2

    I really don't want to see anyone walking around with radioactive batteries. Sure youy can read "Snowcrash" and make the assumption that using radioactive isotopes as power sources is a good idea but you would be mistaken. For example, californium, who's isotopes have generally short half-lives, is a candidate because of the heat it generates. A one kilogram block would but out 10,000 horsepower in heat for about the first half-life period, and of course half and half again after that. Wow, you could power anything with that, but that is the problem.

    A laptop would have twice as much energy as it needs for the first half-life period. We have enough waste heat to deal with. The laptop would have just the right amount of power for the second period. It would not have enough power for the third period. This is a gradual drop off in reality. So your Laptop would have a period of too much heat inside followed by a period of not enough power.

    Gather enough spent laptop batteries and wait 20 years and you have plutonium, one of the intermediate states of decaying californium.

    Fuel cells in laptops suffer the same problem. Computers convert almost 100% of the power they consume into heat. Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity and heat. So nearly 100% of the power derived from a fuel cell powered laptop would be converted to heat. So much heat that active cooling would be required. That would consume power, and generate more heat to produce the power to cool the laptop. Catch 22.

    Theoretically a great source of power but for practical applications absolutely worthless. Your summation ruins an otherwise lucid and informative post.

    The article is about batteries for a reason. No other power source is viable for some applications. Laptops are the primary showstopper.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  130. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Palm 3x uses AAA batteries...

  131. Battery breakthrough from www.blacklightpower.com by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The batteries under development at BlackLight Power, Inc. have an energy density that's a whopping 606 times greater than lithium-ion batteries.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  132. Well, they're SORT of right... by NerveGas · · Score: 1

    But not entirely. Sure, they can't just pull advances out of thier butts - but at the same time, how long have nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion batteries been around for? A looong time. But can you buy some? A very few stores have NiMH rechargeables, but unless you go searching at specialty shops, you're not going to find any regular-sized lithium batteries. If the battery industry was really concerned with getting more power to us, they'd shift production to lithium cells, and then the cost would drop...

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  133. Re:Battery breakthrough from www.blacklightpower.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The specs for the blacklight power process are kind of unbelievable, this sounds like a cold fusion hoax. Some guy named Kevin in PA is the contact for the site maybe it's a joke?

  134. Moore doesn't make batteries by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    "Moores Law" is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Moore worked/works for Intel, and pushed for more development, he didn't just watch.

    The semiconductors being produced today are made with diode junctions much larger than those produced in fairly small University labs fifteen years ago. The trick is to get a lot of these things in a small space - so fabrication is the limiting factor.

    A lot more effort has been applied to semiconductors than has been applied to batteries or fuel cells. For example, zirconia based fuel cells have the potential to be cheap, once the fabrication costs can be brought down.

  135. A flywheel is not a battery by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    I'm surprised the article didn't mention flywheel batteries.
    I'm not - a flywheel is not a battery, it's a spinning mechanical device. You can store energy in it, just as you can store energy by pumping water uphill for a convenient kinetic energy source later on.

    The greater the angular momentum of the flywheel, the more energy you can store, so the bigger and the faster the better. Once the energy requirements of laptops go down, it could be a possibility (for example, like the wind up radio). Currently hard drives and screens consume a lot of power. I had a calculator that needed to be plugged into the wall once, and now most calculators can run on solar cells in fairly low light. I hope to see a laptop running on as little power as that.

  136. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Jaegan · · Score: 1
    now its 2002 and no apple laptop can do that, and i think no comperable highend PeeCee (Wintell) laptop sporting dvd, firewire, fast cpu, etc can play a movie on one battery.

    Well, not to argue the point, but my year old ibook can play more than a single movie on a single battery. If Wintel's can't, I can't say I'm really surprised.

  137. grammar check by tunah · · Score: 2
    When I used to be an instrumentation tech, we recelled batteries all of the time

    Repeat after me: When I used to be an instrumentation tech, we resoldbatteries all of the time.

    (Note to the humour impaired: -1 Not Funny, not -1 Wrong.)

    --
    Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
    1. Re:grammar check by Bronster · · Score: 2

      Repeat after me: When I used to be an instrumentation tech, we resold batteries all of the time

      Shirly you mean resoldered batteries all of the time?

    2. Re:grammar check by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Actually, that wasn't a grammatical error. The syntax is fine. It just didn't mean what he thought it meant.

      --
      -no broken link
  138. What in the world? by MegaFur · · Score: 1
    Ever wonder why we can cram ever more computer power into smaller and smaller devices, but we're still (mostly) slaves to the almighty AA?
    *squinting* What? Oh yeah! Ok. For a minute there, I was thinking, "What have laptops got to do with Alcoholics Anonymous?"

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  139. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
    That's why moderators only get 5 mod points. It's also why there is a meta-moderation system.

    And wouldn't you know it. Your post instead winds up +3, Informative, and no negative moderations. I always find it ironic when people rant about how their wonderfully intellectual posts are going to be modded down into oblivion, and they wind up getting modded up to +4 or +5.

    --

    The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  140. Re:lame article, ignores fuel cells, atomic batter by Monte · · Score: 1

    Yeah, until you try to make that power portable.

    IIRC the primary application for the flywheel "battery" was site-power backup... IOW, portability wasn't an issue. In fact I think they were burying the things.

  141. +1, GBA screen bashing by festers · · Score: 1

    Please, I'm so tired of the whining. I've had a GBA for a while now and the screen is excellent. You use the same light you use for book reading. There are lights available if you need to hide your GBA under your covers past bedtime. I've played for hours at a time and have yet to experience "eyes wearing out". Spare us the bandwagon GBA bashing.

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  142. It's no hoax by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Please visit the Hydrino Study Group for an in-depth, scientific discussion of the BlackLight Power process.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  143. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

    I never claimed my posts were "wonderfully intellectual," what I claimed was, that they are "perfectly valid (if opinionated)."

    ... going to be modded down into oblivion, and they wind up getting modded up to +4 or +5.

    Karma-whoring at it's lowest :)

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  144. Re:Can you differentiate complex numbers? by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

    You're right. I'm the one who claimed your posts are 'wonderfully intellectual'.

    --

    The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  145. moderator complaints by TI-83 · · Score: 1

    dude: 1) no moderator will dare to mark your post down: it's about moderating. anything one does against this will prove your point.

    2) A lot of moderators are open-minded: there are plenty of diverse, modded-up discussions on slashdot. if yours aren't there today, perhaps they will be tomorrow. it's not like there is much logic behind it: what people happen to read, what happens to strike them. with enough people, this should bring up all kinds of diverse points.

    3) it is off topic. My first thought, as I read it, "If I was a moderator, I actually would mark this down." Then I realized, there really isn't any other forum for this type of complaint. I don't think there should be, because it would get repetitive quickly, and not reach much of an audience (headline: "moderators biased!" ... next week ... "unfair moderation!" etc.) But, it is good to have a reminder every once and a while -- "absolute power corrupts absolutely" though that's a little extreme to say about moderation (=

    anyways, this post is a lot more offtopic than the first one. ah, well.

    --
    &&stuff;
  146. Re:This is something that has bothered me for a wh by ajmarks · · Score: 1

    There's nothing more frustrating than getting on a 6 hour flight and knowing that you're laptop's going to be out of power half way through the flight.

    You could just take a spare battery with you.

    --
    Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
  147. Some qualification by TeaDaemon · · Score: 1

    As far as the article I saw was saying, the methanol was going to be sold in 120ml sealed cartridges, no more dangerous than a sealed battery unit. This was specifically to ensure safety in situations like planes/trains/hazerdous environments. (Also to provide a revenue stream on cartridge sales at $3-5 a shot.) As far as water and carbon dioxide being greenhouse gases, that's true, I'm not going to dispute this. However, methanol is normally produced in bulk by the fermentation of vegetable matter, the carbon in question having been absorbed by that vegetable matter during it's lifetime. Consequentially methanol from vegetable sources is carbon-neutral, it's use does not increase global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

  148. Flywheels used succesfully on Buses by Belly+of+the+Beast · · Score: 1

    Before WW2 Several US bus lines used large (apx 2m diameter) flywheels. The cool thing about these for transport is that you can use regenerative breaking to recover energery that would otherwise be lost to heat in breaking. For buses you can "trickle chanrge" them all night long. Also with a bus you can afford the overhead (mass and cost) of shielding. As long as you orient the axis vertically you have no problem with the gyro effect. In a true emergency you can also shut these flywheels down quicker than you might think using magnetic breaking (of course you're going to burnout your coils so it's a one time option) The flywheel buses worked especially well in Hilly Seattle. Of course Detroit bought up most of the metro lines and shut them down before 1950 but that's another issue.