Slashdot Mirror
Batteries Continue To Suck
pvt_medic writes "As technology continues to grow, and we see more and more of a shift to portable electronic devices in our daily life, we are still constricted by one simple thing: Batteries. Newsweek has an interesting article about the lack of development in battery technology. 'Ironically, in our headlong rush to create sophisticated untethered computing, the most problematic technology turns out also to be the oldest: those nondescript metal cylinders that never seemed to be included with our Christmas toys.' And for those of you who would like an extensive overview about batteries, ExtremeTech.com has a nice overview."
There is actually a real use of these, see http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=700&dbid=0
Its pretty cool, because you always hear about fuel cells, but almost never see a commercial application.
Hopefully once they make it smaller...
"Had batteries advanced at the pace of the computer processor, a double-A cell would contain more energy than a tactical nuke." - Paul Saffo
I suppose that would be somewhat hazardous wouldn't it.
At least a current day leaking battery will leave a nasty burn mark on my table, not burn thru the table and into the concrete floor underneath.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
why the generic alkalines only last for 5 seconds in my digital camera. I mean, maH is maH right? voltage is voltage? what the hell.
They could be built now, from radioactive waste, using the same really simple technology used aboard space missions..
Such a small amount of material per battery would make it safe, but would last years... ( not forever, but with teh way things are designed these days, at least long enough for the device to fall apart...)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Since desktop computers can suck hundreds of Watts from the outlet to drive powerful CPUs that can execute bloated applications at a reasonable speed, programmers have become very sloppy. In a portable device that is no longer possible. Maybe this will expand a job market for people who know how to run efficient code.
I commute by bicycle. Now that it is getting dark early, and I bike through heavy traffic, I have several bike lights:
- One 10-Watt halogen light with a lead-acid battery. It's lasted me for several years, but is starting to loose it's charge.
- 2-3 blinking lights which take any old AA & AAA batteries.
I'm getting sick of having to toss the discharged alkaline batteries all the time, and am looking for a replacement.
Since I'm comparing the prices of the different kinds of batteries and chargers, I'd also like to compare the different toxicity levels.
Are NiMH's safer then NiCADs or Alkalines?
Ironically, my lead-acid battery gets the most frowns, but it seems like it's actually one of the least toxic options. There are several places near me which recycle lead-acid batteries (They strip the batteries, neutralize the acid, and take the lead; all in-house).
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If battery technology isn't going to progress, how about some changes to the building codes to add more public power outlets? Perhaps improvements in power supplies to make them smaller would help as well.
It seems simple, but even with recent inovations in other energy storage (fuel cell, etc), we won't see anything small (battery-wise) coming to market for some time. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Here's a recent press release about an alternative to chemical batteries. It's a storage capacitor made of porous carbon. Supposedly can store twice the charge of lead acid batteries, recharge in 1 minute and last indefinitely. Sounds relatively simple.
I don't think that there is such a battery pitfall. My iPAQ Pocket PC uses it's own built-in lithium battery and that could easily last me a week a regular usesage, with a few games here and there. Furthermore, my Nomad Zen MP3 player gets over 12 hours of life on it's built-in lithium battery, as well. That's well more than I need considering this: It is extremely easy to hook up these built-in battery units to the wall/computer to recharge. When I get home after the day I just plug my pocket pc into the cradle and let it charge and sync, and my MP3 player charges from the USB cable that I already have it plugged into to transfer files. I'm not a mobile phone user, but the two examples I listed are very high on the portable electronics market and I haven't noticed a problem with battery life at all.
-----
Make Love not [Browser] War!
Like these?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Diesel submarines have batteries that last for years. What do they use?
Until you short one with something you care about. 50C of charge flowing down something in a fraction of a second (or 50-500A of current) is not what I want to think about. "Instant disintegration" comes to mind.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
Batteries have come so far, but microprocessor power conservation has come a lot farther. Laptops have backlights and hard drives (which haven't come as far), but there are cpu's meant for embedded systems that get 100 MIPS+, have a few hundred k to several megabytes of onboard memory.. and flash for permanent storage. All told, these setups are not that special and consume only about 10-30 mA under full load.
If you only need about 10-20 MIPS, then there are embedded systems CPUs that will run for months on AA batteries. If it doesn't seem like much, keep in mind the 286-10 was only several mips.
Fuel cells suck ONLY because no one ever commercialized fuel cells 30 years ago.
Fuel cell technology should have been the next leap forward. But it's taken a long time because most investments in fuel cell has been centered around space applications... where light weight, high-performance electrical power is a requirement.
An incredible amount of fuel cell technology was developed in the 1960s and 1970s for space programs - and when you make money on space programs, the bean counters know that there is no reason (financially) to look at other potential markets. That was simply a sign of the times.
Unfortuantely, now most fuel cell expertise has been lost to the retirement of industry experts. Much of the "innovation" in recent years is merely a rehash of research done 30 or 40 years ago, but forgotten because no one back then had a vision for using fuel cells to replace (terrestrial) batteries.
I contend that many modern fuel cell related ideas and patents are really old ideas that have been rediscovered by a new set of researchers unfamiliar with the developments of the past.
It's like we just lost 30 years of ful cell development... too bad, because if the corporations that originally developed this technology had their shareholders in mind, they'd have a slightly longer vision and would be leaders in a new industry.
It does with age. Imaging making as many sticks of TNT as batteries and giving them to everyone. You honestly don't think that would be a problem?
The battery pack for my Nikon 5700 uses 6 rechargeable NiMH batteries. I can take 200+ photos with one set of batteries. Using flash lowers that to about 150 photos. I usually take an extra set with me just in case, but I've never had to use them. I'm well pleased with the batteries.
Just a few years ago I owned a simple 35mm camera that used a non-rechargeable proprietary battery. It was expensive and good for only a few rolls of film. Yeah, things have improved since then.
There are two ways to increase the life of a portable device. Either give it more juice, or cut the current draw.
It seems to me, that there is a brighter future in making existing technologies more energy efficient, rather than increasing the load of the power source.
Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
A battery that knows whether or not it is in use. Perhaps it would be possible for another voltage to trigger the chemical compounds in the first place, that is, when there is no voltage across it, the chemicals are relatively inert. A while ago I read (possibly on slashdot?) of a substance which is a liquid when any current is going through it, and a jelly-solid when it isn't.
Now the downside to this avenue is that each battery would have a battery (likely internal). However this wouldn't have to be nearly as big-- by design, make a very low current required to start/stop the chemical process in the larger battery, which is now free to be much more caustic in nature. Now the battery may still explode from mal-use, then again a passive fuse element could also be added which makes sure the battery permanently becomes in it's inactive state.
I'm not saying we know how to do half of this, it's just one option we can persue. Another option is fundamentally chance the amount of electricity anything handheld uses. This would be happening right now, but every time we make something more efficient, we make it faster so that it's consumption is more or less equal (usually more).
The instructors was somewhat insane, but what he said makes sense. He's also a considered a leading authority on Extra-Terrestrials. For as insane as he was, they classified a bunch of basic research he did into application of nuclear physics. You also couldn't find a problem in the book he couldn't solve. He was really smart about his physics, and it's applications. He taught all of the electronics classes.
It's also backed up by my emperical evidence of picking up the light bulbs that are 130v instead of 120v last longer in fixtures over the last 5 or 6 years. They aren't any more expensive then the bulbs you pick up a Walmart.
Kirby
hu... outlets are 120 volts AC. you wouldn't want near a 120 volt DC outlet! and he was talking about the peak at ~170 (though he said rms, which he's wrong but he really meant peak). the rest of course, is dead on.
btw, there IS longer lasting light bulbs that almost never burn out. i can't remember the reason why they are longer lasting though
Yea I realized my mistake right about when I clicked submit. A and D are just a little too close together.... Good thing I'm not an EE or we might see some dangerous products coming out.
I'd actually be curious to know how they did that, thicker filament maybe? Less wattage? Different method all-together?
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
The non-rechargable batteries gotten much better, going from the Zinc cells to the modern alkalines -- the capacity has gone up greatly (a factor of 10 or so?) And then there's the non rechargable lithium cells that can hold MUCH more (and costs more too, of course.)
Also, and perhaps even more importantly, the rechargable cells have gotten much better recently. Maybe fifteen years ago, you'd buy 500 mAh AA NiCd cells ... now most people buy 1800 mAh NiMH cells, and for a few dollars more, you can get 2100 mAh AA NiMH cells.
(Quick aside, NiCd vs. NiMH: NiMH have more capacity, but usually cannot deliver as much current in a very short period. NiMH cells do not suffer from voltage depression (often mistakenly called `memory'). NiMH cells are not as environmentally unfreindly as NiCd. NiMH cells usually don't last quite as long as NiCd cells. But for the most part, for most applications, NiMH and NiCd cells can be used interchangably.)
And more recently, Li-Ion and Li-Poly cells have really come of age. These cells often have energy densities and power densities several times greater than what NiCd and NiMH cells have. Li-Ion cells were extremely fragile and could not handle abuse at all, but the new Li-Poly cells are overcoming many of these shortcomings.
Ten years, electric R/C planes were very rare. Now, thanks mostly due to the improvements in batteries, they're found all over the place, and they can perform just as well as the glow and gas powered planes in many cases. All three types of batteries (NiCd, NiMH and Li-Ion/Li-Poly) have improved greatly recently, and all three are quite popular with pilots today.
(Li-Poly especially looks incredibly promising for the future -- today, some planes with motors powered by them can often fly a full hour on a single charge, and things are getting better all the time.)
In short, I don't agree with Michael Rogers at all -- there's all kind of developments being made in batteries. It's just that they're not happening fast enough for him :)
(Semi-relevant aside: I have a TRS-80 Model 100 laptop computer. It's powered by 4 AA batteries, and it lasts a very long time. Perhaps the problem isn't the batteries -- maybe it's the laptop makers who use CPUs that use so much power!)
130V bulbs last dramatically longer because their filaments run much cooler than 120V bulbs (they have larger and thicker filaments, hence a greater surface area to dissipate heat). This is great for longevity, but it comes at a heavy price in efficiency. The lower filament temperature shifts the bulbs emission spectrum towards the infrared (Planck's Law) reducing the amount of visible light produced. This reduction in efficiency will require more electricity to produce a given amount of light. When all is said and done it takes far fewer resources to make higher temperature bulbs that are more efficient than to keep one long life bulb chugging along. Of course, if resource/energy efficiency is a concern halogen and fluourescent bulbs are far better than any conventional incandescent.
There are also other techniques to increase the longevity of regular bulbs. Since the most likely time for bulb failure occurs at switch on, using a switch that only activates at a zero-crossing of the voltage waveform minimizes the turn-on stress. The inrush current to a cold bulb can be on the order of 10x the running current (an incandescent filament is an extremely non-ohmic load because its resistance varies dramatically with temperature). It's this high current that causes high stress on the filament (the motor effect can cause the filament to twist violently). From what I've read, this technique is often used on navigational beacon lights (these lights also use over-rated bulbs to gain lifetime at the expense of efficiency).
Another technique to minimize turn-on stress is keep the bulb running 'warm', that is to pass enough current to keep the filament at a temperature just below that needed to produce visible light. The relatively high temperature raises the resistance of filament, thus dramatically reducing inrush current. According to some theatre techs that I know, this technique is extensively used in theatre and television where a light failure could ruin a show.
I might look into making such a thing myself someday, if I get sufficiently bored or I could use it for credit in some lab class. As it is, I'll more likely switch to all rechargables and accept the hit in mean time before power loss in those picky devices.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
While NiMH batteries (and NiCad and to a much lesser extent, Alkaline batteries) will self discharge over the course of a a few weeks to a few months depending on the battery, you can greatly slow down the rate by storing the batteries in the freezer. I keep all my charged up batteries in the freezer sealed in a zip-lock baggie where they will store for a long time without losing much of their charge.
Don't laugh but nuclear batteries are also feasible mass production artifacts, just no one would want them because they would fuck up the env, so bad idea.
Indeed. In fact, there are quite a few ways of generating nuclear power without building a full blown reactor. The coolest part is that your battery life would be determined by the half-life the the material used as a power source. If they could find a heavy element with a realistic life-span of about 3 years (the average life of a computer), then we'd have a winner on our hands. Plus, the actual amount of radioactive material would be tremendously small (think ounces per hundreds of people). If the waste became a concern, a standard battery slot could be developed so that batteries with longer lives could be manufactured. Those 10+ year batteries could simply be moved from computer to computer over the years.
The real problem is that people freak when you use the words "nuclear" or "radioactive". Maybe we should call them "magic" batteries?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...or a solar cell used to recharge the compound that best recharges with a slow, small current? Ah, but we need fast discharge, yes? Don't they make these things called capacitors? I am kind of shocked that nobody else has mentioned solar power. Seems obvious. -T
^..^
I don't use a regular flashlight due to the low use time, breakable bulbs and the need for spare batteries. The Eveready LED folding lantern is a small brother to the florescent folding lantern. Great for reading and lighting the entire inside of a tent. 200 hours of light means a spare set of AA's is just insurancen not a nessacity. If you want a tiny spot of light like the Forever Flashlight provides, the Brinkman long life LED light runs on 2 AA batteries. I like to see more than just a spot, so I haven't ever changed it's batteries yet. It's useful for looking for signs in the dark where a wide pattern light won't reach the distance. The brinkman is about the size of a AA maglight and is waterproof. The Inova X5 is just about industructable, weather tight and the brightest of my LED lights, but is the most expensive to feed. It uses 2 camera lithium cells so a battery change is about $12. The CampCo 3 LED torch uses 3 regular AAA batteries and feels light and breakable like the forever flashlight. It works OK, but it seems lightweight and flimsy. The Coast TechTorches are a good personal light complete with belt carrying case and screw on diffuser. They put out a lot of light in a small size, but they use N cells so they are ot the cheapest to run, but they are much cheaper to use than the Inova.
So in a nutshell, I use the Eveready the most in the tent and home for book reading. I use the Inova for daily use because of the brightness and it fits nicely in the Mag Light belt pouch. I keep a Brinkman in the car glovebox as a standby and the CampCo by the bed for the trip down the hall in the middle of the night.
Fry's has the Forever light on it's shelves. I tried one. It puts out much less light then any of the above lights. With it's lense, it has a small light pattern like the Brinkman. With the Brinkman I get hundreds of hours of brighter light without having to shake it and it's much smaller. The AA batteries are not hard to find. Most of the time I want a wider pattern to light a bigger spot than my footprint size spot on the ground.
The truth shall set you free!