Slashdot Mirror


Li-Ion With 300% More Power, Minutes to Recharge

Battery Nut writes "Altair Nanotechnologies claims to have found a way to reduce Li-Ion recharge time to minutes, as well as increase battery power by 300%, according to this press release. Seems they have received some good feedback by certain experts about thier work: "Two eminent experts in battery technology, Dr. K. M. Abraham and Dr. Vassilis G. Keramidas, have expressed strong support for Altair's work. " So is it a new revolution in battery technology, or hopeful hype? Stay tuned, their quarterly conference call is Thursday Feb 24th at 11AM." Anyone else think snake oil?

408 comments

  1. Snakeoil? by IainMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    No - It's lithium.

    1. Re:Snakeoil? by Emperor+Igor · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      But, cap'n, she can't take no more!

    2. Re:Snakeoil? by khrtt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Current lithium batteries are slow to recharge because they have a high internal resistance, and low tolerance for overvoltage. A typical battery cell with 3.6V idle voltage takes no more than 4.3V when charging, and the .7V drop over the internal resistance allows very little current through the battery, which is why it takes 3hr to recharge fully.

      The article gives no details, but they talk about nanomaterials in the elctrodes. My best guess would be, they came up with a way to increase the surface area of the electrode, lowering the internal resistance a 100 fold or so. Expect this battery to explode in your face if shorted.

    3. Re:Snakeoil? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll just expect this battery to come with an internal fuse, instead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Snakeoil? by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Current lithium batteries are slow to recharge because they have a high internal resistance, and low tolerance for overvoltage. A typical battery cell with 3.6V idle voltage takes no more than 4.3V when charging, and the .7V drop over the internal resistance allows very little current through the battery, which is why it takes 3hr to recharge fully.

      Actually, LiIon has a low internal resistance - it's somewhere between that of NiCd and NiMH chemistries (when new). However, as it ages (i.e., the moment it leaves the factory), the internal resistance gets higher and higher until it can no longer usefully power the load (generally 2-5 years after manufacture).

      The reason LiIon is slow to charge is because it requires a complex charge regimen. Plus you can't trickle charge them (destroys them). So you charge them at a constant current up around 90% or so, then switch to constant voltage until the cell stops accepting charge. Then you stop and switch off the charger until it drains to around 95% (estimated), and do a CV charge again.

      The end result is you get around 90% charge very quickly, but the last 10% take forever as the charger puts in less and less current.

      Charge it incorrectly and they go boom.

    5. Re:Snakeoil? by enosys · · Score: 1

      What if there is a short circuit within the battery instead?

    6. Re:Snakeoil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if someone puts a small nail across the fuze to keep it going to get just that bit more out of it?

      I smell lawsuit.

    7. Re:Snakeoil? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What if there is a short circuit within the battery instead?

      I suspect each individual cell will be built with a current-limiting device in such a way as to make such a short impossible so long as the cell physically unmolested. From an engineering standpoint, this is trivial.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Snakeoil? by GoRK · · Score: 1

      Expect that this battery has several failsafe internal current limiters to prevent it from exploding in your face. Heck, even some lithium (not li-ion) 9V batteries have a little current limiter in them as they are easily shorted.

    9. Re:Snakeoil? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
      But what if the fuse doesn't work? Then you're still left with an exploding battery. Then what?

      WTF are you talking about? A "fuse [that] doesn't work" is one that's already burned out. There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through. Fuses are safety devices. Fuse manufacturers are very careful for reasons of liability. Your "what if" is as irrelevant as "what if tires were TRIANGULAR?"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:Snakeoil? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      What if someone puts a small nail across the fuze to keep it going to get just that bit more out of it? I smell lawsuit.

      I smell a dumbass. You really thing they'd use a glass cartridge snap-in fuse on a Li-ion battery cell? Get a clue. It'll likely be a self-resetting current limiting device built into each individual cell. There will be no place to put a nail across it, bridge it with a piece of coathanger, or screw a penny in behind the burned out one.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Snakeoil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through.

      You haven't been on this planet long have you?

    12. Re:Snakeoil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never underestimate the ingenuity and persistence of fools.

      (engineers or users alike)

    13. Re:Snakeoil? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Relevant quote:

      three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price

      Their NOT claiming three times the power at the same size and weight (which would really make me suspicious) but at the same price - which while technically interesting, is not as revolutionary. Heck, they could just be using slave labor for the price reduction.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    14. Re:Snakeoil? by bluephone · · Score: 3, Funny
      Your "what if" is as irrelevant as "what if tires were TRIANGULAR?"

      I have a patent on triangular tires.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    15. Re:Snakeoil? by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      But a per-cell 10A current limit would waste about 1W with 0.01ohm MOSFET switches... and current-sensing MOSFET usually drain ~1-10% through the sense lead as well. For a 12-cells battery, this is 12W more that the battery package must dissipate on top of the cells' internal losses during normal operation.

      Since cells are unlikely to short one another out unless the battery pack has been physically compromised - at which point individual cells may have also been damaged, per-cell current limit seems simply wasteful overkill - pack-wise current limit would suffice for most handling accidents.

      On the other hand, I am totally for built-in charge-controllers/equalizers - they prevent cell reversals and optimize battery capacity, incidentally reducing the risk of (sometimes catastrophic) premature cell failures.

      In any case, no amount of charge control or current limiting can protect against manufacturing or engineering defects or end-user stupidity.

    16. Re:Snakeoil? by dual_boot_brain · · Score: 1

      No, it would have to be trilithium. Dilithium would only get you 200%

      --
      There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
    17. Re:Snakeoil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:Snakeoil? by traveyes · · Score: 1

      ha, i bet you don't have the trademark: Triangle Tires

      .

    19. Re:Snakeoil? by TheOrange · · Score: 1

      What is funny about the snakeoil thing, is that it is surely a response to the last battery improvement story someone posted. Remember? It was total bullshit about some sticker you put on your battery, and someone at slashdot bought into their PR.

      Burned from the last time, they put "Snake oil?" in the heading, but this time it is something with some research behind it. Not saying it isn't possibly crap, but it looks _way_ more legit than the last thing.

      Anyway, someone needs to seriously work on their bullshit detector.

    20. Re:Snakeoil? by clem9796 · · Score: 1

      Kinda like this BS sticker for your fuel tank.. and only $299 each, it's a steal!!

      "...holographic frequencies into the gas tank and changes the molecular structure of the gasoline"

      http://www.chris-longhurst.com/carbibles/index.h tm l?menu.html&retrofitdevices.html

      If you're up for a good chuckle. i saw it a couple months ago, and can't find a link to the site anymore.

      --
      IANALOOA
    21. Re:Snakeoil? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through.

      You haven't been on this planet long have you?

      Cite me an instance of a fuse labelled (say) 3A, but having a 15A thickness of fusible material inside, and making it past QA at the fuse factory. Honestly, mis-rated fuses are like triangular tires. They really don't happen by accident. I don't know what planet you think we're on.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    22. Re:Snakeoil? by releppes · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a big capacitor to me!

    23. Re:Snakeoil? by khrtt · · Score: 1

      There are these things called "supercaps" - some my old palm m105 used one for backup battery - and I know about it because the sucker was defective and I had to replace it.

      There are also nickel-based batteries (NiCd especially, NiMH to some extent) that can be discharged and recharged safely in minutes, with a smart enough charger.

    24. Re:Snakeoil? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "I have a patent on triangular tires."

      No wonder you're piss poor and posting on slashdot.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    25. Re:Snakeoil? by tzanger · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? A "fuse [that] doesn't work" is one that's already burned out. There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through. Fuses are safety devices. Fuse manufacturers are very careful for reasons of liability. Your "what if" is as irrelevant as "what if tires were TRIANGULAR?"

      Nothing is infallible, and I'm willing to put money on there being at least a half dozen lawsuits over fuses which failed to protect their load, and not through misapplication. Fusing is big business (I work in the power electronics field) and while they're a hell of a lot more reliable than breakers, they're not perfect.

      Remember that fuses are like MOVs in that respect -- you can't test them without damaging them.

    26. Re:Snakeoil? by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Supercaps are totally useless for anything but low current discharge -- sure you can pack 5F into a tiny space but the energy practically dribbles out of it. They're *great* for backup batteries for things like your Palm, though.

    27. Re:Snakeoil? by frankenbox · · Score: 1

      Keep it out of the automotive industry. They have a way of selling now, and recalling later. They would have to put warnings on new vehicles- "Danger, this car explodes on impact" Wait, they already did this with the Pinto...

    28. Re:Snakeoil? by frankenbox · · Score: 1

      Pop goes the weasel....

    29. Re:Snakeoil? by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      I have a patent on triangular tires.

      I have a patent on triangle. Expect a call from my lawayer.

    30. Re:Snakeoil? by soopah · · Score: 1

      You seem to be talking more about an external short, and a fuse should work in the case of an external short, but it could still fail because something could short the fuse (cross the distance between the ends of the fuse, or even jump the distance through some other medium, like air, water, etc.). OK, this is very unlikely, but it could happen.

      However, one failure mode of Li-ion cells is an internal short. The positive and negative electrodes of cells are very close together where the cell is closed, where the header and can are sealed together. Usually there is an insulator of polymer or glass or something like that. That can possibly degrade, be over compressed, or for some other reason fail and allow an internal short. No fuse will prevent this, unless it is inside the cell, in the tabs used to connect the cell can and header to the internal electrodes foils.

      Also, an internal short can happen when foreign contaminants (metals bits, shavings, chunks of electrode coating, etc.) stick through the insulating separator materials between the rolled up electrodes, or if anode crystals (copper or Lithium) grow through the separator materials. Then a fuse cannot help you. The cell will still short.

      Not all cells have fuses anyway. The fuses are usually between cells in the battery pack. Some cells have PTC headers that are not really fuses, but when they heat up or have a lot of current pass through them they increase in resistance rapidly. They are typically made with a carbon conductor material in a polymer matrix. When the polymer heats up it expands and the carbon particles separate cutting off the current. It doesn't actually cut it off completely but it makes it very small.

      So a fuse is not a safety panacea for a high energy low resistance cell.

      Finally, almost everything you add to the cell and battery pack will increase resistance and reduce the power output of the battery and increase the heat generation of the battery and cells. Heat is not good. If you want to charge up very fast you need higher current and lower resistance. Adding a fuse is counter to this need to keep resistance low.

  2. Snakeoil???? by lecithin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not everybody thinks so. Altair's stock has gone from $2 to $4+ this past week. It topped out at over $6 last Friday. Their average volume is at 6.6 Million. Yesterday, they doubled it.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Snakeoil???? by no+parity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, we all know the stock markets are never wrong.

    2. Re:Snakeoil???? by quanminoan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Investors are by no means scientists - you should never judge a scientific discovery by its effect on the stock market...

    3. Re:Snakeoil???? by darkov · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you think that is good you should check out SCOX.

    4. Re:Snakeoil???? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I certainly hope it isn't snake oil. It would be nice to be able to watch a DVD movie on my laptop all the way through on battery alone. I always miss the ending because the battery runs out 10 minues before the movie ends!

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    5. Re:Snakeoil???? by HanB · · Score: 1

      The only reason I can think why the SCOXE stocks are doing so fine is that speculants speculate that the other speculants believe everything SCO says.

    6. Re:Snakeoil???? by Zoyd · · Score: 1, Informative

      IO ERROR writes:
      > I certainly hope it isn't snake oil.
      > It would be nice to be able to watch
      > a DVD movie on my laptop all the way
      > through on battery alone.

      Power is not energy. NiCad has more power per weight than LiIon. LiIon has more energy per weight than NiCad. This new technology might not give LiIon any more energy per weight than it already has.

    7. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just check out www.thinfilm.se, it was the company that ballooned the parent company ballooned like mad constantly because of them. They were selling snake oil, a bunch of respectible Ph.D.'s stood up and said "never going to happen", the stock dropped a little, then a suit stood up and said "Oh those Ph.D.'s only say it can't happen because they don't know how".

      When the scientists at Opticom/Thinfilm said "it won't happen, we can't possibly afford to do it", the stock dropped a little, then the guy in the suit came out and said "Well, let me handle the business side, it won't be a problem".

      Guess what, total vaporware from the start, but the the idiot investors all believed the suit, not the scientists and now 2 years later it's just a bad memory.

    8. Re:Snakeoil???? by OmniVector · · Score: 2, Informative

      try ripping the dvd to your hard drive first. that greatly reduces power consumption

      --
      - tristan
    9. Re:Snakeoil???? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a whole school of daytraders who base their speculations on hype. Hype being more predicatble than innovation.

      The only question is... do you dump the stock before the conference call, or do you expect the hype to endure?

      But yeah, 6500mAh AA cells? Not in one press release.

    10. Re:Snakeoil???? by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doing fine? Their current stock value is sco 4.06 that compares to 20 dollars a year and half ago.

      Note: anyone looking for SCO look up SCOXE, it used to be SCOX, but now SCOX is someone else.... very confusing.

    11. Re:Snakeoil???? by file+cabinet · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Snakeoil???? by lecithin · · Score: 1, Funny

      Who finishes porn DVDs anyway?

      --
      It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    13. Re:Snakeoil???? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0

      SCOX isn't someone else. It is an invalid stock listing code.

      Yahoo

      E*Trade

      SCOXE is vaild. SCOX won't be used again for a while.

    14. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An iBook has 6 hours and a Powerbook has 5 hours of play

    15. Re:Snakeoil???? by DickBreath · · Score: 1, Funny

      I certainly hope it isn't snake oil. It would be nice to be able to watch a DVD movie on my laptop all the way through on battery alone. I always miss the ending because the battery runs out 10 minues before the movie ends!

      I agree. Its frustrating. Batteries die right before the, um, well, I mean, the climax.


      More seriously, would super fast recharge times on Li-Ion transform Flaming PowerBooks into Exploding PowerBooks? That would really put a damper on my, um, movie watching.

      Then, imagine not just flaming cell phones, but exploding cell phones. Especially if you carry them in the pockets next to your, um, precious.

      What kind of product liability will there be when the inevitable exploding cell phone happens?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    16. Re:Snakeoil???? by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 0
      So that's why people with intel laptops are always glaring at me and my powerbook as I watch the special features.

      Although it could be because I hate headphones :-)

    17. Re:Snakeoil???? by vondo · · Score: 1

      If you do SCOX on the NY Times site, you get Sciax Corp, a penny OTC stock.

    18. Re:Snakeoil???? by ghjm · · Score: 1

      We already have exploding cellphones. But the fast charge phase probably wouldn't occur while the phone was in your pants pockets, because most people don't have an AC outlet there. I don't see much reason to suppose that the fast charge time would make the batteries any more likely to explode while slowly draining.

      -Graham

    19. Re:Snakeoil???? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I guess it changed because they went from Nasdaq National Market to Nasdaq Small Cap.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it changed because SCO is out of compliance with NASDAQ rules and is under threat of delisting.

    21. Re:Snakeoil???? by Sircus · · Score: 2, Informative

      SCOX will be used again as soon as SCO do their filings. SCOXE just means Nasdaq have sent them a delisting notice due to delinquent paperwork requirements. If SCO manage to recover from that status, they're back to plain SCOX. Personally, I'm hoping for SCOXQ...

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    22. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The battery technology is only one of the ALTI initiatives.

      They are also doing DOE research on hydrogen fuel cells, providing nano materials for drug delivery and joint venturing with Western Oil Sands in Canada to extract titanium from oil recovery waste.

      http://www.altairnano.com/

    23. Re:Snakeoil???? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Anyone who needs reinforcement on this point should go do some searches on Bre-X. I remember getting some junk mail from some investing company years ago that was really pushing them. A month later, the scandal hit the news, and the stock went into freefall. Worse than Enron, IMHO, though not of the same size.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    24. Re:Snakeoil???? by wes33 · · Score: 1

      >> try ripping the dvd to your hard drive first. that greatly reduces power consumption

      actually I find ripping a dvd just plays hell with my battery life :)

    25. Re:Snakeoil???? by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Not everybody thinks so.

      I'd have bought in but I'm still long on palladium futures.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    26. Re:Snakeoil???? by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that an AC outlet in your pants? Mind if I plug in my rechargable vibrator?

    27. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya it's real, but 300% must be a mistake, it should be 30%. They're not the only ones who has this tho, least Sony has it too.
      http://www.physorg.com/news3061.html

    28. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *I* have an AC outlet in my pants, baby. Want to.... plug it in?

    29. Re:Snakeoil???? by demachina · · Score: 1

      It isn't confusing and SCOX isn't someone else.

      It is standard practice to tag high risk companies with the scarlet letter 'E' which happened to SCO last Friday. It basicly means they are on probation and are on notice that they are going to be delisted from the Nasdaq, pending a series of hearings and appeals, and SCO stops violating Nasdaq and SEC regulations, which they did when they failed to file their 10-K on top and also failed to file it when their extension ran out:

      From theStreet.com:

      "SCO said it has not filed its 10-K because it is examining matters related to the issuance of common stock as part of its equity compensation plans."

      You have to assume there must have been some really shady stock or options handed out to their executives, that are either so shady they are taking forever to untangle, or their accounting is in a shambles, or they turned out to be illegal and they are struggling to figure out a way to brush the mess under the rug.

      Their parent company Canopy is in a complete shambles too so if the options involve Canopy its possible SCO can't figure out what happened since there was a mass executive firing at Canopy and law suits have been filed. Apparently Ray Noorda and his wife are suffering from old age and are no longer able to manage the day to day affairs of the company and their children and a couple sets of executives are engaged in a life or death battle to seize control of Canopy and destroying it in the process.

      From watching the SCO litigation against Linux and the apparent pump and dump stock scam by Darl and company it was pretty apparent that SCO and Canopy had gone institutionally insane and proof that is in fact the case is now apparently surfacing.

      SCOX stock is holding up remarkably well considering the numerous potential down sides of their current situation:

      A. There may have been illegal or unethical copensation to someone
      B. or their accounting is in such a shambles they don't know who got what
      C. They might get delisted from the Nasdaq which means they will end up being traded over the counter or on the Pink Sheets which severely limits their liquidity(it will become very hard to dump any stock if you buy it). OTC and Pink Sheet stocks tend so be bought only by people who are making a long shot gamble(for example that SCO wins its case against IBM).
      D. They will probobably lose their case against IBM
      E. Their SCO Unix business is cratering as all of their established customer base is bailing on them, presumably to Linux, and no new customer is going to touch them with a ten foot cattle prod.

      --
      @de_machina
    30. Re:Snakeoil???? by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of the lower internal resistance. If you can rapidly charge a battery, it can be rapidly discharged as well.

    31. Re:Snakeoil???? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Not everybody thinks so. Altair's stock has gone from $2 to $4+ this past week.

      That just shows that the stock has gone up from $2 to $4+ this past week, not that it isn't snake oil. Time to short Altair perhaps?

    32. Re:Snakeoil???? by Neph · · Score: 2, Informative
      For anyone else wondering what the "Q" suffix means: NASDAQ fifth letter codes

      I agree, I would be delighted to see SCOXQ.

    33. Re:Snakeoil???? by syukton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The simple solution is that the battery pack would have a "charge" port and a "discharge" port, and the "discharge" port would be internally current limited, but the "charge" port would not. You could simplify the interface by making one male (disharge, say. like the terminals of a car battery) and the other female (charge) so it would be impossible to discharge the battery through the un-limited charge port. Add some power diodes and your'e set. Then when you're charging, the charger takes care of playng nanny for the battery, ensuring it doesn't explode. When you're discharging, the battery's own internal resistance limits current flow so the battery doesn't explode.

      This is just an issue of packaging though and has nothing to do with the new technology of the article itself.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    34. Re:Snakeoil???? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Well on several trading websites SCOX brings up SCXC
      I'm not sure why.

    35. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $20? When was that? We have held on for over 2 years - no where near $20. Did I miss something?

    36. Re:Snakeoil???? by HanB · · Score: 1

      In november then went below $3, and to my amazement ever since they went up again and are now at a stable $4. Well that doesn't make sense to me since all news so far has been bad for them.

    37. Re:Snakeoil???? by green1 · · Score: 1

      this is a constant gripe of mine... it won't give a single second of longer battery life, instead it will give a battery that is a fraction the size... someone seems to have decided that just under 1 DVD length of time is the "optimum" life for battery on a laptop, I have an old laptop with a nicd battery that takes up the front half of the laptop and a new laptop with a liion battery that takes up less than half the space, they both have the same run-time, the newer laptop with newer battery has newer technology allowing a smaller battery to perform the same, but why didn't they keep the battery the same size and let it run longer????

    38. Re:Snakeoil???? by ars · · Score: 1

      It's talking about internal resistance - not just some added resistor after the package.

      The internal resistance can be thought of as how quickly the chemicals in the battery can recombine.

      It doesn't help at all to add a resistor after the battery - it can still recombine it's chemicals quickly (and have a runaway meltdown). Adding a resistor just adds energy loss via the resistor!

      If all you were worried about was an overload condition at the terminals, then what you need is a fuse!

      --
      -Ariel
    39. Re:Snakeoil???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Long term investors hoping for a turn around once all this garbage pans out. They figure it cant really get much lower.

      We'll see about that tho.

    40. Re:Snakeoil???? by syukton · · Score: 1

      Initially I said "current-limited" and it was a geeky faux pas to later reference such a phenomenon as "resistance" when it is possible, indeed, to limit the flow of current without resistance. A properly configured JFET with a feedback loop will do the job, if I recall correctly.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  3. Seems about due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Why do you think snake-oil? If that's your intuition, why not wait until seeing more info and then post it? That's what a real editor would do.

    1. Re:Seems about due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A real editor wouldn't have posted this ...

    2. Re:Seems about due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's what a real editor would do."

      Wait, are you implying /. is a real news site? And here I thought it was just a source of rumor and conjecture!

    3. Re:Seems about due by scubaed · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those that don't want to take the time to look at the article (and before it gets /.'ed), here is the meat:

      "The nanomaterials Altair is developing are the next generation of electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries and Altair's research and product development is laying the ground work for a new generation of ultra high power lithium ion batteries." commented Dr. K. M. Abraham. "A key requirement to the above applications is the ability to recharge the battery very quickly, for example in a few minutes. Current Li Ion batteries are incapable of such quick charge times because of the chemistry of the anode materials. Altair has found a solution to this with their nano-sized lithium titanium oxide."

      "Altair's nanomaterials, which have a virtually zero strain crystal lattice, eliminate the main cause for battery electrode material fatigue, which limits rechargeable battery life, increasing the number of recharge and discharge cycles from a few hundred to many thousand cycles," said Dr. Vassilis G. Keramidas. "I find Altair's development strategy and proposed research direction sound and a necessary step in establishing the Li-Ion electrochemistry as a viable contender for large battery applications."

      Sounds promising (though if I hear the nano prefix again it'll make me barf). So no, it's not a new way to recharge batteries Li-Ion batteries, it's new batteries that can be recharged faster.

      Let's hope that they can manage the lawsuits after the first batch starts to catch fire.

    4. Re:Seems about due by biglig2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A real editor? You're new here, aren't you?

      (Sorry folks, I can never resist this one!)

      Back on-topic, it is of course reasonable to be sceptical until more info is available, perhaps even more so when it's something this important. Batteries are the main hold-outs still resisting Moore's law, and as such any advances are very important.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    5. Re:Seems about due by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Never mind charging faster, giving them a longer life is what appeals to me. My ipod's battery is getting old...

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    6. Re:Seems about due by fearofcarpet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This all sounds like BS to me. Our lab is part of a nation-wide program to develop new battery technologies and I have no idea why they claim lattice strain as the main cause for eletrode fatigue... The problem with ANY battery is that ions have to move as the battery is charged/discharged. These ions are all lithium in lithium-ion batteries (AKA lithium rocking chair or rocker batteries). The material between the electrode compartments has to be a insulator able to transport Li+ reliably. Since liquids in batteries are not such a good thing they use various gel mixtures for this medium (and the rate of ion diffusion is inversly related to viscosity). Every charge/discharge cycle more an more ions get stuck and hence lower the capacity of the battery over time.

      The "problem" electrode as far as I know is actually the graphite (like the stuff in pencils) end which get's reduced and forms a lithium salt. When you hook up battery the graphite re-oxidizes, sending the electrons through the circuit and Li+ through the insulating medium. Most "nanomaterials" focus on increasing the surface area of this electrode to allow for more efficient (and rapid) charge storage/discharge. At the other electrode is some (probably cystalline) inorganic oxidant which does break down over time. My guess is that they just found some new inorganic electrode material that is slightly better and they, like EVERY other lab, are claiming they've "solved" the Li-ion battery problem. I've seen way too many talks from people claiming essentially the same thing to put my grains of salt away just yet.

      But hey, I'm not on the nanobattery (did you barf?) project and am by no means an expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong... FYI "nano" makes me want to puke too. Every week there is some jack-ass giving a talk about "nanomaterials" that are MICROns in size and characterized with MICROscopy. In chemistry land (where I live) a nanometer might as well be a mile (except electrons tunnel more frequently) 'cause atoms are really freaking tiny and that's what we've been using to build our materials for over 200 years : )

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    7. Re:Seems about due by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      The "problem" electrode as far as I know is actually the graphite (like the stuff in pencils) end which get's reduced and forms a lithium salt.

      How's that? AFAIK, you can't form salts with carbon (aka graphite). Only with things like halide ions.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    8. Re:Seems about due by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      How's that? AFAIK, you can't form salts with carbon (aka graphite). Only with things like halide ions.

      I can guarentee you it is possible to form salts with basically every element on the periodic table. Halide salts are sometimes called "simple salts" or "mineral salts". You don't usually hear carbanions (or carbocations for that matter) referred to as "salts", but if you mix lithium metal and graphite (which is a carbon allotrope, but "carbon" and "graphite" are really not the same thing; graphite is a form of elemental carbon) you will in fact produce carbon anion / lithium cation ion pairs. Almost every commercial drug is packaged as a salt (usually an amine salt) to make it water soluble and boner pills are certianly not simple halogens : )

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    9. Re:Seems about due by Alsee · · Score: 1

      if I hear the nano prefix again it'll make me barf

      Oh don't worry. Tomorrow Slashdot will be running a story on our new femptotechnology. I've got a new battery using a femptomaterial constuction and femptocrystal anodes for longer recharge life and a three dimensional femptofractal surface for greater energy density. The electron migration only occurs over femptodistances yeilding negligible resistive losses and can achive far higher current ratings. The outer casing has an embedded femptothickness BatMax layer producing a femptowavelength/femptotimescale femptofield effect that keeps the femptocrystals from becoming disordered.

      My corporation name is Applied Femptotechnologies, stock symbol FMTO. Fempto, it's the next big thing!

      You can look forward to a string of new product announcments from us in the coming days and weeks: cosmetics, catalytic converters, paint, solar cells, breast implants, medical test equipment, golf balls, microchips, condoms, everything from applesause to zeppelins!

      We're on the bleeding edge and we don't need no stinking band-aids!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Seems about due by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative
      From this page:

      The successful utilization of a carbon host to store lithium ions in the rechargeable negative electrode has led to the commercial development of lithium-ion cells. In commercial cells, the positive electrode is primarily a lithiated metal oxide, which also contains graphite to improve the electronic conductivity of the electrode.

      The electrochemical reaction at the negative electrode in lithium-ion cells is the intercalation of lithium ions into graphite: the lithium ions in the electrolyte enter the space between the layer planes of graphite during charge. The distance between the graphite layer planes expands by about 10% to accommodate the lithium ions. The resulting material can be chemically represented as LixC6. When the cell is discharged, the lithium ions are removed from the graphite structure and return to the electrolyte. The maximum amount of lithium ions that is stored in graphite is equivalent to x = 1 (LiC6). Other carbons have been used which yield values of "x" that may be greater or less than one. One of the attractive features of this electrode is long cycle life that is observed when the reversible insertion and removal of lithium ions occur without mechanical degradation of the graphite structure. Currently, lithium-ion technology represents the most rapidly growing (in production volume) rechargeable battery system in the world.

      So, it doesn't appear to be a true ionic salt, in the sense that something like lithium chloride would be. This sort of intercalation is a good demonstration of how while "chemical bond" usually conjures up an image of solid spheres connected by a rod, like in those plastic model sets, in actuality a bond can be delocalized. In particular, there is a fascinating group of substances known as the metallocenes which feature a metal ion sandwiched between planar carbon rings. Not bonded to a carbon, but instead complexed with the entire aromatic ring structure. Graphite consists of planes of these carbon ring systems fused together to form a planar sheet (graphene). While strong covalent bonds hold carbon atoms in a graphene plane together, far weaker forces hold the planes together, so that lithium ions can squeeze in between and take up residence. As such, lithium ion batteries are quite different from, say alkaline batteries in that rather than the production of current by a reduction/oxidation reaction between a pair of substances. In Li-ion batteries, the potential is provided by lithium ions themselves shuttling out of the graphite lattice- as the grandparent noted, they are sometimes referred to as "rocker" or "swing" batteries because of the back-and-forth movement of Li ions through use and recharge cycles.

      In general, carbon has some rather limited and screwy ionic chemistry, owing to its place on the periodic table- there's a distinct preference for covalent rather than ionic bonding - even carbon halides are generally considered covalent. Carbocations and carbanions are both important species in organic chemistry reactions, but in most cases are not very stable- they tend to be transition states that end up as an uncharged final product. There are of course many known organic ion compounds- acetate ion, from acetic acid (vinegar) is a familar example- but generally it ends up being other atoms in the compound, usually oxygen or nitrogen, which can actually be said to carry the charge most of the time. Even in organometallic compounds, generally the metal-carbon bond has covalent character- there are some important exceptions though, usually brought about using very strong nonaqueous bases like sodium amide. Even "carbide" compounds are generally network solids, which is to say, covalent. Calcium carbide, CaC2, might qualify, though if you try to dissolve it in water, you do not get carbide ions in solution, but rather acetylene gas. You can of course make ionic compounds out of any element- just provide the

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    11. Re:Seems about due by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Wow; what a great, informative post. Thanks!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    12. Re:Seems about due by Jimmy+Nail · · Score: 2, Informative

      I actually work as an engineer in the industry for what it's worth. A few things. As other posters have pointed out, their claims are careful and consistent- they seem to have a high power/current material.

      First, this is very possible. Nearly ALL work in Li-ion right now is focused on two areas- lowering costs and increasing current. Capacity is kind of at a practical limit (safety concerns) right now and companies are looking elsewhere for development. Achieving higher currents (and thus power) in a li-ion cell is seen as a very achievable and profitable goal so every company is chasing it.

      Actually, two new REAL high power cells were recently announced. This isn't just new cathode material, there are shipping product. See these press releases related stories:

      http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jan05/292378.as p
      http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200412/ 04- 060E/

      I can promise you that these cells are not vapour. They are shipping right now.

      Lastly, a fantabulous material does not a cell make. If true, they've got about 1/10 the way to actually cranking out batteries. Making a li-ion cells is damn hard and the electrode materials are only a small part of the overall picture. The two battery companies mentioned in the press releases above achieved their high power designs through about 20% material innovation and 80% mechanical/physical design and configuration.

      Long time reader, first time poster,

      -JN

  4. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Anyone else think snake oil?"

    Someone's trying not to look so stupid this time around...

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

  5. Hmmm... by clawDATA · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it uses cold-fusion?

    --
    "This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope Val Kilmer can prevent the russians from stealing it!

    2. Re:Hmmm... by maxume · · Score: 0

      By which you must mean, make sure the russian people get it, not the evil energy mobster. It was a bad movie, let's not remember as anything else.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what has Val Kilmer got against the russians using macromedia products neway

  6. BEV time ! by savuporo · · Score: 1

    If true, pure battery-electric vehicles will totally own all ICE vehicles. Although they do quite well already with "common" li-ions.

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    1. Re:BEV time ! by Hasai · · Score: 1

      Hm, maybe; but before we can jump to that conclusion we first have to see if a) the technology is workable, and b) it can scale to high torque/high current applications.

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    2. Re:BEV time ! by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      Or you can keep ICE vehicles and get super long distances out of them.

  7. Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by Takeel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When did Slashdot start posting messages from stock pumpers?

    1. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      "When did Slashdot start posting messages from stock pumpers?"

      I believe the SCO stories set this precendent...

    2. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When the SCO lawsuits started, I think.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by m50d · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since Taco realised he could buy the stock just before posting the story? :)

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by meestaplu · · Score: 0

      That was a while back, actually.

    5. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by Timothy+Chu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I had known I could post stories on this, I would've done so last week when I sold at $2.75 :(

    6. Re:Slashdot: home of stock pumpers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats one of the benefits of subscribing!

  8. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
  9. Genetic Experiments? by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I RTFA and couldn't figure out the precise technique that Altair Nanotechnologies used to breed this super-Lion with 3x the power of a regular lion.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Genetic Experiments? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      They took your standard lion and grafted four asses to it.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Genetic Experiments? by Hacksaw · · Score: 0

      Ummm, duh?

      When have you ever seen precise descriptions of an as yet unreleased physical technology? This is the stuff that patents were actually for, where the developments costs are heavily tied to a physical process. I bet their lawyers edit every communication that goes out the door.

      They'll make a mint, if it's true.

      --

      All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.

    3. Re:Genetic Experiments? by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree that they'll make a mint if it's true! But if these super-Lions ever escape from whatever zoo or nature preserve we put them in, it will mean a heap of trouble!

      --
      I'm a big tall mofo.
    4. Re:Genetic Experiments? by Gridpoet · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude...hello??
      Its a LIGER! Everyone knows that!

      --

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!

    5. Re:Genetic Experiments? by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      We'll just release the giant gorillas, they should be able to take care of the Super-lions.

    6. Re:Genetic Experiments? by smithmc · · Score: 1


      They took two cows and stapled 'em together.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:Genetic Experiments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Altair cheated and used a crossbreed between a lion and a tiger. A combination which is known for its skills in magic and greatly increased energy density.

    8. Re:Genetic Experiments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You wont find what you're looking for because it doesn't exist, nor was it ever claimed. I RTFPR, and easily understood is said:

      "These new materials allow rechargeable batteries to be manufactured that have three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price ..."

      There is no claim of increase in power density here, only a claim that it can be made at 1/3 the cost.

      Cheaper, yes, but super battery this makes not.

    9. Re:Genetic Experiments? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      They took your standard lion and grafted four asses to it.

      I believe you'll find that Voltron has prior art on this.

  10. Hopefully... by mrv00t · · Score: 0

    ...this is not based on the stickers!

    -mrv-

  11. Insta-flip by djsmiley · · Score: 0

    i can have my laptop with a full battery in just 3 minutes too.

    i carry a spare charged battery, one runs out, i flip her over and swop em. Instant charge, 8hour lovely hours of web browsing.

    Maybe i should just rtfa....

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    1. Re:Insta-flip by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it gets a bit compicated when you want to insta-charge your tZero, Venturi Fetish or simply have a Tango

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  12. Actually, 200% more power by CrazyWingman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone needs to go back to math class. The article actually says the batteries will have "three times the power" of today's batteries. That amounts to 200% more power, not 300% more.

    1. Re:Actually, 200% more power by ghoti · · Score: 1

      It's three times the power, but the increase is only twice the original power. 1x+2x=3x ...

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    2. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Hanji · · Score: 1, Funny

      That would be correct if he said the new batteries had 300% the power of the old ones. But the old ones already have 100% of their power, so the new ones have (300 - 100)% = 200% more power.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    3. Re:Actually, 200% more power by TheAlmightyQ · · Score: 1

      Actually, no.
      200% more + 100% original = 300% total = 3x the power.

      --
      I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
    4. Re:Actually, 200% more power by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      But if you were to say the battery had 100% more power, you wouldn't be saying it had no more power. You'd be saying it was twice as powerful.

    5. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 0
      So, you're telling me that 50% more (a common advertisement on food products) is actually 0.5x the amount?

      I sure as hell hope you're not done with your math classes over at UTexas.

    6. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Angstroem · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually...yes.

      1x: 0% more
      2x: 100% more
      3x: 100%+100%=200% more

      And that one even got rated "informative", sheesh.

    7. Re:Actually, 200% more power by cablepokerface · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you want to buy this new battery, it generally means your old one is 'empty', so 0% charged and then 300% holds up.

      *clears "Post useless slashdot comment" of daily to-do list*

    8. Re:Actually, 200% more power by m50d · · Score: 1

      No, that's 300% power, not 300% more power. If they had 5/4 times as much power, that would only be 25% more power, though 125% power.

      --
      I am trolling
    9. Re:Actually, 200% more power by ralatalo · · Score: 1

      300% of the power = 200% more.... if you're adding you have to subtract out the original which is 100%.

    10. Re:Actually, 200% more power by ralatalo · · Score: 1

      no, 50% more is 1x + .5x = 1.5x

    11. Re:Actually, 200% more power by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      0% empty to 300% of what?
      300 times zero is zero

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    12. Re:Actually, 200% more power by jtrask · · Score: 0

      Damn, I wish I had smart people like you in my math class. I made this argument on the first test of the year and got docked 8 points because my math teacher saw 2x as being 200% more. 8 points. Agh, it still pisses me off...

    13. Re:Actually, 200% more power by maxume · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you choose to use more. The new batteries are reported to have 300% of the power of current batteries. Is this 300% more, or 200% more? Sure, I wouldn't use more in a multiplicative sense, but maybe the article poster did...so it is probably more of a semantic error than a math error.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:Actually, 200% more power by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Initially I was 100% bored with this thread. I am now 200% MORE bored with this thread. 100% + 200% = 300%. The problem is semantics. If we put this thing in math terms we would all agree, but we are putting it in english. It is therefor up to interpretation. (as is my spelling ability) Even if its an incorrect intterpretation :D Move along. theres nothing to see here. These are not the math whizes were looking for.

    15. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just put more power in the batteries and call that 10?
      These go to 11! That's more power!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:Actually, 200% more power by jridley · · Score: 1

      Actually yes. From the top of the page:
      increase battery power by 300%

      It doesn't day a battery with 300% the power of a current battery, it says a battery with 300% more power. That's not right, it's 200% as the grandparent said.

    17. Re:Actually, 200% more power by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      if you try this : new battery reported to have 100% of the power of current batteries, the answer should then become obvious that 300% of the power is 200% more.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    18. Re:Actually, 200% more power by cablepokerface · · Score: 1

      *clears "Recieve reply to useless slashdot comment" of daily to-do list*

    19. Re:Actually, 200% more power by smithmc · · Score: 1

      So, you're telling me that 50% more (a common advertisement on food products) is actually 0.5x the amount?

      No, "50% more" would be 150% of the original, i.e. the 100% from the original value, plus 50% more. Similarly, 3x the original is the original 100%, plus 200% more.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    20. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3 is 300% of 1.
      3 is 200% (of 1) more than 1.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    21. Re:Actually, 200% more power by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      I know all that stuff. Why do you think I posted the last sentence?

      I was just using the sentence to say how far off the person I was replying to was in that particular thing.

  13. sweet! by m00j · · Score: 1, Funny

    2 comments and already /.ed!

    Or they have a power outage and their UPS batteries are flat...

    1. Re:sweet! by kevinx · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's those inconsiderate jerks who read the article before they post. Now all of us who posted first can't read it.

  14. Electric Cars? by tonywestonuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A recharge time of 2 mins is about the same time it might take me to refill my car, So this makes it quite viable as an alternative 'fuel'.... However, the cables from the 'pump' would have to be hugely thick to carry that sort of power.

    1. Re:Electric Cars? by Basje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      about the size of a current fuel hose?

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    2. Re:Electric Cars? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Generally, cables need to be large to carry lots of current. Power isn't directly involved. You could double the voltage, keep the current the same and significantly increase the power involved without being less safe. A cable's capacity ratings are in current and the breakdown voltage of insulation.

    3. Re:Electric Cars? by borkur · · Score: 0

      do NOT lick the cable before plugging your car.

      --
      Thursday; as it is, as it was and as it ever shall be: pork chop night
    4. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure but do you want to plug an 11KV connector into your car?!

      i would think the maximum safe voltage for any connection method you could trust peoplr to plug into thier car would be at most a kilovolt maybe considerablly less.

    5. Re:Electric Cars? by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      you dont have bare wires and crocodile clips. you'd use some kind of protective plug on the end (that [somehow] only lets power pass through it when its in the socket, in the car)

    6. Re:Electric Cars? by forand · · Score: 4, Informative

      You cannot do this while charging a battery. The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery or you will start doing funky things with the battery.

      This is more clear when you realize that current is exactly what is needed to charge a battery. The battery needs to move electrons from one pool to another this is moving current.

    7. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You won't want too high a voltage or you may have arcing hazard occuring too. I would think that you would want high amps to do a quick recharge. The problem with high amps would be that heating of the cables would probably be limiting. Normal cells are 1.5 Volts each anyway so the current recharging would be proportional to the amount of power to be stored. Power = V*I in Direct current. But V = I*R
      so Power = I^2*R
      V = volts
      I = amperes
      R = resistance

    8. Re:Electric Cars? by WoodieR · · Score: 0

      thick - like about as thick as a typical north american gas pump hose/nozzle combo ?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    9. Re:Electric Cars? by pklong · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Mmmmm 11KV in a Petrol station. Mmmmm big arc's. Mmmmm big fireworks.

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

    10. Re:Electric Cars? by StressedEd · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think the parent poster is referring to the ohmic losses due to transmission of power. Power dissipation is proportional to current squared.

      P = I^2 R

      for an Ohmic system (any sensible cable), so if you want your cables to remain cool, I must be reduced, hence V increased.

      This is of course why national grids are at 10s-100s of KV.

      Of course once you want to use it to charge a battery, you have to use a transformer (or equivalent) to reduce the voltage and increase the current, something that would have to happen as close as possible to where the battery is.

      Having said all that, I can't see petrol station forecourts dispensing a heady mixture of petrol and 10KV high power spark machines just yet, at least not with guys like this around! ;-)

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    11. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you can't have a voltage reducer on the car to make it more convienent than having 2 gauge wire from the 'pump'

      Will the pump only allow dc?

    12. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wiring problem isn't in the connection between the battery and the rest of the normal circuitry - its in with the charging circuit. Given the ratio of charging time to running time (2 minutes vs say 200 minutes), this means that the wires that are used to charge the battery need to handle 100x the current that the rest of the circuit needs. This leads to a honking fire-hose cable if trying to charge a car.

      There is a way of compensating.

      All large(>2 cell) Li-ion battery packs have a charging circuit connected directly across the battery to handle the actual details of charging it. This circuit is typically a switching regulator that can accept a much higher voltage and convert it to what the battery needs to charge. And since the circuit is right next to the battery, it can use much smaller + shorter wires without losing as much power.

      The main reason Li-ion batteries need the regulator is that they need a 1% accurate voltage supply to properly charge them - it is easier to have the regulation circuit right next to the battery instead of trying to deal with kelvin voltage sensing or some similar messiness. Additionally, if you go searching for "battery charge balancing", you'll find some other reasons why you need a regulator circuit connected directly to the battery.

    13. Re:Electric Cars? by Mr+Tall · · Score: 1

      The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery

      Err.. what? The voltage must be higher than battery voltage to charge it. That's why your car alternator kicks out about 13.5 volts while your car battery is 12V.
      Obviously sticking 11KV across a battery is a Bad Thing, but you could have some funky electronics in the car to deal with that and bring it down to more sensible levels.

    14. Re:Electric Cars? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You could double the voltage [] without being less safe

      Double the voltage? Naaah, ya pussy. I say crank it up to 500KV.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:Electric Cars? by cow-orker · · Score: 1

      The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery or you will start doing funky things with the battery.

      No, you need more voltage to charge a battery, otherwise no current will flow and nothing would happen. The voltage cannot be too high, for the high current would then cook the battery.

      ...and all of this has nothing to do with refuelling electric cars. Batteries are cells connected in series, which increases their voltage. And even without serial connection, there are switch mode regulators that would basically allow the car to be connected to some high voltage which is then reduced to something appropriate for the batteries without much loss.

      BTW, what moron modded the parent "insightful"?

    16. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Having said all that, I can't see petrol station forecourts dispensing a heady mixture of petrol and 10KV high power spark machines just yet,

      I don't want to see a 12 volt spark at a petrol station.

    17. Re:Electric Cars? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Wrong!

      To charge a battery, you must apply reverse voltage at a HIGHER voltage than the battery, otherwise it will never charge. Your 12V car battery is charged at around 14V. A higher voltage results in a faster charging. However, battery composition must be compatible with the higher charging voltage. If you try to charge a battery too fast, it can heat up and cause bad things to happen. You can also shorten the life of the battery, both due to heat and overdriving the chemical reactions.

      Nothing about LI-ION batteries, but quite a bit about car batteries

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Electric Cars? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Uhh... You can't charge a battery by connecting a voltage with a lower potential than the battery itself. You can't go too high above the voltage of the battery, but for most battery types 1-2 volts above the voltage of the battery is good. For lead-acid batteries (12.5 volts) they charge well at 14.5 volts. If you hooked up something less than 12.5, you would only discharge the battery, not charge it.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    19. Re:Electric Cars? by anadem · · Score: 1

      gee, where was Tesla all these years? Did you never hear of transformers? Of course the cable to the car can have higher voltage, just transform and rectify before the battery, duh.

    20. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P = I^2 R = V^2/R
      And, if I must be reduced, V must also be reduced. BTW, who is your physics TA in your college? He should be ashamed of himself.

    21. Re:Electric Cars? by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Right - the circuitry that causes a trickle charge is often attached directly to the battery. Mod parent up.

    22. Re:Electric Cars? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      You cannot do this while charging a battery. The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery or you will start doing funky things with the battery.

      You could connect and charge the batteries in series. Heck, that's what your 12 volt lead-acid battery is: six 2 volt lead-acid cells connected in series. They just happen to all be in the same box.

      Do some clever stuff with relays to join your battery banks in series during charging, and drop them back to parallel when you're done. I would expect that you'd also probably have some smart little regulators across each cell to monitor the charging process, since Li-ion batteries tend to be somewhat finicky beasts.

      All that said, I would expect a ton of heating/cooling problems during charging if you tried to scale these batteries up to electric car sizes. Even if you could deliver sufficient energy, I suspect you'd melt anything in the middle of such a structure....

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    23. Re:Electric Cars? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      No, more like a foot or two. We're talking thousands of amps.

      Assume 24 volt system, charging at 24 volts (you wouldn't want transformers etc onboard the car, they would be super heavy to handle this and would melt the car anyway):

      20 gallons of gas = 20*121 MJ/gal = 2420MJ

      1J = 1W*1S
      2min = 120 sec
      2420E6 W*S /(120s) = 20.17E6 Watts

      20.17E6W / 24V = 840,278 Amp

      However, the Prius uses 500 volt motors, as I understand it (http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/priuslandsp eed.htm

      500V:
      40,333 Amp

      500V and 10Min:
      8067 Amp

      I do wonder if you could charge the cells in series and discharge in parallel? Thus the system could perhaps be chaged at say 50kV, but the motors use 500V.

      Regardless, if the batteries didn't charge at 99.9% efficiency the car would melt into the ground if you tried to charge them in 2 minutes.

    24. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT!! If the voltage you attempt to use to charge is LESS than the batteries voltage it will not charge. You charge a battery by reversing the flow of electricty to reverse the chemical reaction that generates power. If the voltage is lower than what the battery produces the current flow is not reversed and no charging takes place.

    25. Re:Electric Cars? by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      *sigh* replying to ACs.

      Still if I don't people won't understand....

      I don't think you don't understand the problem. The point of a power transmission system is to supply the load with a certain amount of power. The scenario can be understood by simply considering two resistors in series, one representing the resistance due to the power line, the other due to the load.

      The aim of the game is to minimise the power wasted in the transmission line for a given amount of power supplied to the load.

      P_load=I V_load
      so
      I=P_load/V_load
      Now, the power lost in the line is P_line
      P_line=I^2 R_line
      Since I is the same in the load and the power line (they are in series)
      P_line=R_line P_load^2/V_load^2
      Hopefully you can see that the power lost in the line is inversely proportional to the load voltage.

      This is why power lines run at such high potentials. Decreasing R_line is expensive and only has linear dependence, you don't want to reduce P_load since that defeats the point of a power line, leaving just one option, increasing V_load.

      The situation is more complex with AC power of course since their is capacitative coupling between the line and the ground. This this is an extra source of loss that can be visualised like this. For the interested reader, much of the energy is actually transmitted in the field surrounding the line, not as is commanly thought in the metal making up the line. Look up the Poynting vector and work it out for a pair of wires if you are interested.

      BTW, who is your physics TA in your college? He should be ashamed of himself.

      I will pass on the message.

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    26. Re:Electric Cars? by babyrat · · Score: 1

      And how are you supposed to induce current without voltage?

      If the voltage were kept below that ofthe battery it would drawthe current from the battery...kind of why your alternator puts out 14 volts to charge the 12 volt battery in your car.

    27. Re:Electric Cars? by madfgurtbn · · Score: 1

      I think your assumption that the batteries in a Prius carry the same energy as a 20 gal tank of gas is incorrect. The big limiting factor of electric cars is the power density of the battery. That is, pound for pound, gasoline stores far more energy than a pound of battery.

      That's why the car has both a gas motor and an electric motor. The electric system provides the torque for acceleration, while the small gas motor provides keeps it going down the road.

      Your calculations should be based on the batteries , not gasoline.

      BTW, a pair of half-inch wires would be adequate for up to 300A, according to this site

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    28. Re:Electric Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way you would reduce the cable size at an automotive recharge station would be to use a high voltage in the cable but step it down before it reaches the battery. Supose the cable had 450 volts at some high frequency, like 600Hz. The recharge cable would have some kind of coil on it's end that butts up next to a coil on your car and the two would make a transformmer.

      Such a system would work in the rain and by pretty much fool proof and fast.

    29. Re:Electric Cars? by madfgurtbn · · Score: 1

      20 gallons of gas = 20*121 MJ/gal = 2420MJ


      Another serious problem with your calculations is ignoring the relative efficiency of gasoline and electric systems.

      I don't know how authoritative or accurate this information is, but this site says electric motors are in the neighborhood of 80% efficient, with gasoline in the neighborhood of 40% efficient.

      So even if you could somehow create a fully electric car with the same weight and driving range as a gasoline car, your calculations are incorrect because the 60% of the energy stored in the 20 gallons of gas you base your calculations on is lost in the conversion to mechanical energy by the motor.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    30. Re:Electric Cars? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the energy flux at a gas pump is huge. A gallon (3.8 liters) of gasoline contains about 120 MJ, so at 3 gallons per minute, that comes out to about six megawatts of power flowing into your car. That's the electricity usage of a small town.

    31. Re:Electric Cars? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      WTF? .6 * 8000 amp = 4800.

      Do some math on your own or shut the hell up.

      Obviously that was a fast calculation. Jesus christ man! No shit the calculations aren't 100% right!

    32. Re:Electric Cars? by madfgurtbn · · Score: 1

      Do some math on your own or shut the hell up.

      Nice.

      I don't expect back-of-the-envelope calculations, such as you posted, to be 100% correct, but your example implies that quick 'fueling' for electric cars is infeasible because it would be necessary to deliver 8000+ amps to the vehicle.

      That sounded crazy to me, so I looked through your numbers quickly. I thought that if electric cars cannnot be rapidly re-fueled, they will never be economically viable, so I thought it was worth 5 minutes of my time to look through your numbers to see if they made any sense. They didn't. Rather than leave that 8000A number Out There unchallenged, I pointed out two significant errors in the assumptions-- the power density of gasoline vs batteries, which is huge, and the relative efficiency of electric vs gas motors --you can't say a 40 percentage point difference in efficiency can be ignored in this situation.

      Is that a reason to tell me to shut the hell up? If you are that thin-skinned, you shouldn't be posting to the internets. Nowhere in my replies was I impolite. If you don't want people to reply to your posts, then you probably shouldn't post them.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    33. Re:Electric Cars? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      My response was inappropriate, I do admit.

      Your replies weren't impolite per-say, just annoying. I intensly dislike people who don't do their own math. Even with your assumptions, which are valid, my point is not invalid: You wouold need a many inches thick cable to charge a car that fast.

      You failed to do 2 seconds worth of math to show that even in my most optimistic case (500V system, 10min charge) your 60% difference plus your comment about 300 amps in a 1/2" wire only prove my point: even if I am off by a factor of 10, the system would need at minimum an inch thick cable, or around 3 pair of 1/2" cables. Then you said I was wrong.

      When you respond, pay attention to the actual point; you attacked the best case then acted as if it meant something. It didn't. Be constructive. You're entire focus was trying to prove me wrong. You simply can't do that. Why? Because I wasn't trying to be right! I was tossing out numbers with the obvious first word of ASSUME at the beginning of all the math.

      You COULD have said 'I disagree with your assumptions' and then proceded to show your own, and work through the math. Then I, and many others, would have respected the post as informative and interesting. You didn't. So I didn't.

  15. Yes, by TupperTrenine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its probably fake, but wouldn't it be so nice if it was real? Maybe, just maybe, Moore's law has caught up with batteries?

    1. Re:Yes, by RadioTV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does the density of transistors on a die have to do with battery power? Why is it that people who don't have any idea what Moore's law actually says think that they can use it anywhere they want. I saw a sign for two fish sandwiches for $4. Does that mean that Moore's Law has caught up with the fish sandwich?

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    2. Re:Yes, by Khazunga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are a lot of people who defend Moore's law is a particular case of a more general law, stating that science evolves on an exponential scale. So, we might end up calling this exponential growth Moore's law, even if Moore only observed that effect in transistor density. I'd not call it wrong.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    3. Re:Yes, by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I saw a sign for two fish sandwiches for $4. Does that mean that Moore's Law has caught up with the fish sandwich?


      That depends. Were fish sandwiches two for $8 six months ago?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Yes, by RaguMS · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that Moore's Law has caught up with the fish sandwich?

      Only if the amount of fish per sandwich has doubled in the last 18 months. Sure, 2 fish sandwiches for $4 might get you twice as many fish sandwiches for your dollar but you still end up with the same amount of fish per unit sandwich.

    5. Re:Yes, by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      What does the density of transistors on a die have to do with battery power?

      Err, to put it short: smaller transistors lead to smaller charges that have to be moved when switching, which leads to lower A. If you don't raise V to get larger f you get lower W.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:Yes, by RadioTV · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but go back and read the grandparent to get the proper contetext for my question. This article is about getting more power from a battery, not making the best use of power that we already have.

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
  16. .....yeah, and not only oil.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....it looks like snakes chewed up that cable, too....

  17. BatMax is better! by ghoti · · Score: 3, Funny

    We don't need this crap, we have BatMax!

    --
    EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    1. Re:BatMax is better! by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      Was there ever an explanation for that story being posted?

      ~Lake

    2. Re:BatMax is better! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh CRAP! I tried putting a BatMax sticker on one of these new Super Li-Ion batteries. . . . there was this blinding flash of light and I got sucked into some bizzaro alternate universe where George Bush was re-elected! CRAP CRAP CRAP! This SUX!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:BatMax is better! by ghoti · · Score: 1

      I think the explanation is CowboyNeal ...

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    4. Re:BatMax is better! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I got sucked into some bizzaro alternate universe where George Bush was re-elected! So you're the one that stepped on the butterfly!

  18. What about titanium-germanium batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Sure, they don't work very well, but TiGer is a killer product name.

    1. Re:What about titanium-germanium batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, finally! Marketing has conquered the chemistry department.

      Wanna buy some l33t NaNO boots? Just keep them away from water ... oh, and the NO will probably blow away.

      And how about a cheap LiMo car? Or better: A WAr battle helmet? (Advertisement: "Hey, where did the Ar go?") Or the FrAg gaming mouse ball? Or ZnORe sleeping pills?

      The possibilities are almost endless, and often poisonous.

  19. Seems almost reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the article, they use a Lithium titanium oxide nanomaterial. Best gues, the nanocrystals typically have little or no stress and a low defect density, as well as an extremely high surface to volume ratio. All of these should improve the efficiency and speed of the battery operation. This might also increase the speed that the battery can discharge. Of course, I am not a battery specialist. Just in nanomaterials development. Might not be snake oil. Assuming all the accolades are true... well, Altair doesn't have a reputation for falsifying data. I look forward to seeing this develop.

    1. Re:Seems almost reasonable by autophile · · Score: 0
      .. well, Altair doesn't have a reputation for falsifying data. I look forward to seeing this develop.

      ...said the pump-n-dump schemer.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    2. Re:Seems almost reasonable by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yep, it might be feasible. It very likely also will cost a bundle to produce compared to current batteries. The extra power and fast charge are great features, but I'm already put off by the $100 + a shot price for the batteries in my current laptop. I'm scared to think what these new ones might cost. Even if it's not snake oil, I'm not going to get my hopes up that I'll actually be them.

    3. Re:Seems almost reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look kids, astroturf!!

    4. Re:Seems almost reasonable by Alceste · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's actually not true. Nanometer sized crystals have large surface to volume ratios than bulk crystals, creating more surface defects per unit mass. The defects within a bulk crystal can be annealed to an equilibrium number, the same as those in a nano-crystal per unit mass. Thus, since battery performance is based on unit mass, you need the name weight of nano-crystals or bulk crystals to get the same capacity (to an order of magnitude, some papers show that surface defects actually INCREASE capacity, nifty stuff).

      In addition, Li(z)Ti(x)O(y) is a system that undergoes phase changes during Lithium intercalation and deintercalation (as the battery discharges the "z" goes from 1 to 0). So the crystals are being made a-new with each charge discharge cycle (increasing cycle life, but this is something that also happens in the bulk, no need for nano whatnot).

      Interestingly, the energy/power density with lithium titanium oxides is actually lower than that for carbons. A battery with a lithium cobalt oxide cathode and a lithium graphite anode will have a maximum potential of 4.2 V. The battery in question in the article actually sits around 3.0 V.

      Finally, the failure mechanism for lithium ion batteries is not the anode, but the area just outside the anode called the SEI layer. This is a passivation layer formed adjacent to the anode by reaction of the neutral lithium with the organic electrolyte. This layer forms initially by irreversibly consuming some lithium, but if the charge/discharge rate is moderate it becomes stable and actually protects the anode. If the charge/discharge is too high, though, the layer breaks and more lithium is consumed to repair it, thus diminishing capacity. After enough of these cycles the batter will dramatically lose capacity.

      Thus, the breakthrough in question must deal with a way of maintaining a stronger SEI layer, but it is most definitely at the cost of a lower potential battery.

    5. Re:Seems almost reasonable by julesh · · Score: 1

      The extra power and fast charge are great features, but I'm already put off by the $100 + a shot price for the batteries in my current laptop.

      Yeah, well, most of that $100 is because laptop/mobile phone batteries are expensive. You can get 6v 50Ah li-ion batteries for not a lot more than that, if you find the right supplier. Only problem is, they're not exactly the sort of thing you could lug around with you. But they'd run your laptop for weeks if you did... Essentially, most of that $100 is because the battery is small and light and packaged in a design suitable for your laptop (which varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, of course). Doubling the cost of the cell technology would probably only add $30 onto the cost of the battery.

      Except, of course, that your laptop manufacturer can get away with charging pretty much whatever they want for the batteries, so they probably will.

    6. Re:Seems almost reasonable by cgori · · Score: 1

      wait.

      someone who knows something about the topic posted on slashdot.

      i think the world is ending.

      (seriously, thank you, that's a great post)

  20. Laptops and Electric Cars by zioncity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This bodes well for everything that runs on batteries that can take advantage of this.. with some exceptions like Lead Acid batteries of cars and such. Just think.... my iBook and Powerbook laptops last much longer on a fresh battery than a comparably equipped Intel Mobile Pentium based laptop or even more energy conservative chips... point being... the 5 hours my iBook can get could be well past 10 with intensive use and energry saving stuff set to a minimum. This will bode well for all. Now my PCs can run over 2-3 hours max of use when not using a DVD. Whoo hoo. Plus maybe now electric cars can get a full 300-500 miles of city driving or such, and hybrids will benefit as for smaller batteries with a similar range/capacity. Now if improvements in technology like this could spur other improvements to make life easier and more affordable for all.

    1. Re:Laptops and Electric Cars by odyrithm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just think.... my iBook and Powerbook laptops last much longer on a fresh battery than a comparably equipped Intel Mobile Pentium based laptop or even more energy conservative chips...

      Yes because Intel based laptop manufacturers would never think to use this tech in there laptops. Mac users are so much more intelligent than PC users and this proves it once and for all!

      --
      moo
    2. Re:Laptops and Electric Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but Mac users believe that PC users are living 5 years in the past. My 1.7GHz Pentium-M notebook (which performance-wise kicks the crap out of a Powerbook) easily lasts 5 hours, and the battery is about 9 months old.

    3. Re:Laptops and Electric Cars by eboot · · Score: 1

      I think he's saying that the ibooks get a higher charge with the same current level of technology because of efficiency. IANAZ but I think that's the reason.

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    4. Re:Laptops and Electric Cars by Kevin+DeGraaf · · Score: 1

      even more energy conservative chips

      This is Slashdot. Prepare to be modded down for using the term "conservative" in a positive light, i.e. without attaching "idiot" and/or "redneck".

      --
      We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
  21. Charge capacity? by stanleypane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given the current state of battery life, I'm inclined to think this technology might bring along other trade-offs. Current Lithium batteries tend to lose their full charge capacity after using them for a while. If these batteries charge faster and retain more power, what's to stop them from losing that capacity just as quickly?

    Personally, I'd be happy not having to replace a battery because it becomes useless after a while. They aren't cheap, and they lose their life too quickly. I guess 2 out of 3 wouldn't be bad, though.

    1. Re:Charge capacity? by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      The prius batteries are estimated to last 12 years. They are warrantied by Toyota for 8 years. They accomplish this by putting in safe guards to make sure the battery does not completely discharge etc. If proper care is taken one can get a very long life out of current batteries. I am guess similar tatics can be taken with these batteries.

    2. Re:Charge capacity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The prius batteries are estimated to last 12 years. They are warrantied by Toyota for 8 years. They accomplish this by putting in safe guards to make sure the battery does not completely discharge etc. If proper care is taken one can get a very long life out of current batteries. I am guess similar tatics can be taken with these batteries.
      The prius batteries are NiMH not Li-ion. Different materials, different chemistry.
    3. Re:Charge capacity? by mackman · · Score: 1
      Well if you (gasp) read the article...

      "Altair's nanomaterials, which have a virtually zero strain crystal lattice, eliminate the main cause for battery electrode material fatigue, which limits rechargeable battery life, increasing the number of recharge and discharge cycles from a few hundred to many thousand cycles," said Dr. Vassilis G. Keramidas.
  22. Read the article? by jsimon12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as this is NOT some sticker that creates a magnetic flux in the battery via the Hotzman effect, then I will be willing to say it might not be snakeoil.

    Read and judge for yourself

    1. Re:Read the article? by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as this is NOT some sticker that creates a magnetic flux in the battery via the Hotzman effect, then I will be willing to say it might not be snakeoil.

      It's the flux capicitor that manages the whole thing.

  23. Hard hat required by bo0ork · · Score: 3, Informative
    Assume your laptop has 4000 mAh (or 4 Ah). Triple that is 12 Ah. If my old memory serves, recharging 12Ah in 5 minutes would then require 144 ampere.

    They should add a warning label: "May require personal nuclear reactor, shrapnel shields and additional fire insurance payments."

    --
    Does everything include nothing?
    1. Re:Hard hat required by Professeur+Shadoko · · Score: 1

      Generating this power is not such a big deal.
      Of course your laptop adapter would be MUCH bigger..
      But I'd be really worried about the temperature of the battery after the charge.

    2. Re:Hard hat required by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      That 4000 mAh is at 12V, surely. So at 120 or 220V it's closer to 10A, which is much more reasonable... if still fairly heavy for normal mains circuits.

    3. Re:Hard hat required by ghoti · · Score: 1

      But that would be done at a much lower voltage. Stepping down from 110 to, say, 11 volts (to make it easier) would mean the power supply would only draw about 15 Amps from the mains (if it was 100% efficient). So that should be doable.

      But the question is, how do they get rid of all the heat that must be generated in the battery?

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    4. Re:Hard hat required by pong · · Score: 5, Informative

      My laptop battery has a voltage rating of 10.8. The amount of energy in Joules on a battery with a voltage of 10.8V and power rating of 12Ah, would be

      E = 10.8V * 12Ah = 129.6Wh = 467 KJ (3600 J/Wh)

      E = P * t, so P = E / t

      P = 467 KJ / (5 * 60) secs = 1555W

      1555W is less than many hair driers

    5. Re:Hard hat required by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You'd still have to step it down to 12V at 144A to actually charge the battery. 144 amp conductors are slightly huge. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Hard hat required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most chargers are about 90% eficient. This means that this system will disipate about 160W while charging. You might just want a heatsink on that battery.

    7. Re:Hard hat required by Secrity · · Score: 1

      144 amps x 12 V = 1728 watts

      Some 120 or 220 hair dryers consume 1800 watts at volts. The problem is handling 1800 watts at 12 volts.

      The actual power required will be considerably more due to the inefficiencies of the various bits involved in charging a battery.

      Even if the input power was practical, the wires between a 12 volt battery charger and the battery would need to be about as heavy as car battery jumper cables. A battery charger that would provide 144A at 12V would be bigger and weigh more than the laptop.

      Could this mean that these really fast charging batteries would have to be high voltage in order to not require a ridiculously heavy charger?

    8. Re:Hard hat required by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      duh! hold it underwater while its charging.

    9. Re:Hard hat required by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Thing is, your hairdryer runs on 10X the voltage. Take a 2200W hair dryer: it's gonna draw 20A in operation (P=I*V). To recharge a 10.8V battery applying the full 2200W while recharging, you need to provide 200A. Considering most laptop batteries are in the range of 22Wh, your battery would be recharged in about 36 seconds assuming it survived.

      It's quite simple: a 10V battery of 30Wh (my laptop battery) requires 300mA to recharege in 10h, 3A to recharge in 1H, and 30A to recharge in (1/10)h.

      Anyone have some more details on the charging system?

      Jw

    10. Re:Hard hat required by mikeplokta · · Score: 1

      No, because those 12Ah are at 5V, while the mains supply is 110V, 22 times as high (and twice as high again in Europe). So you would actually need a bit under 7A, which is perfectly reasonable.

    11. Re:Hard hat required by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      1555W is less than many hair driers
      Wow! F*cking big hairdrier you use! I heat my whole living room with a 1kW heater.

      1.5kw is not a lot anyway. Your main point stands.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    12. Re:Hard hat required by ottffssent · · Score: 1

      That's assuming 100% efficiency.

      If the charging circuit (including battery) is 85% efficient during charging, you'd need 1555/0.85 = 1830W, and your charger / battery would be pumping out 275W of heat.

      If you assume 90% efficiency, you're only talking about 173W of heat. At 95% efficiency, a mere 82W.

      Then comes the power supply for this. Wall warts are in the 50% efficiency range; computer PSUs top out at about 90%. Even supposing you could make a special-purpose device 95% efficient, and the battery / charger is also 95% efficient, you'll be burning over 80W in the power supply and another 80W in the battery and charger. The total power losses are great - you're at 95% efficiency after all - but the heat to be dissipated would very quickly become problematic. Think of running a high-end Opteron or mid-range P4 for 5 minutes. You'd need a pretty beefy heatsink, and a fan too.

      This doesn't mean it can't be done, of course. Some applications can handle that heat load, and one presumes the batteries can also be charged in 20 minutes to generate a quarter the waste power. It seems unlikely, but if it really works, I'll take 5.

    13. Re:Hard hat required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason to think they'll use 10V batteries. My laptop has a 15V one. Cars are migrating from 12V to 28V.

    14. Re:Hard hat required by jwdb · · Score: 1

      That's fine - cut the current in half. 100A is still sufficient to melt most wires and to overload the battery itself.
      There's a reason you can't recharge batteries fast - it's an inefficient process that generates much waste heat. 100A, 20V -> 2000W which will lead to far more heat than a battery can safely dissipate while it's recharging.

    15. Re:Hard hat required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only catch is that if your household is wired for 15A fuses on the wall outlet, then you may only operate one of this charger and nothing else. That's assuming the charger is having > 86% efficiency converting 120V down to 10V.

    16. Re:Hard hat required by philipgar · · Score: 1

      I just don't think this sort of power input is feasible for most portable applications. I think of a quick example as my laptop. I have an ibook who's power adapter tends to get warm while under normal usage, but gets almost uncomfortably warm while recharging my battery. To the point where I don't think you could safely operate it much hotter. Thinking about charging over a 5 minute time versus a 2 hour time (while it takes longer to charge then 2 hours the first 2 hours are so are the most intense portion of the charge and give the battery the majority of its charge) is scary. This gives us a factor of at least 30 times (assuming that only half the current used by the charger is for running the laptop and the other half goes for charging) more power needed by the invertor. This technology is just simply not feasible for a laptop scale. The cables would be too thick, and the power supply would be entirely too hot. I don't want my powersupply to weigh more than my laptop (something apple has done a great job keeping small btw). Also the idea of a charger that size becomes quite expensive, especially considering how little it would be used to its full capacity. Unless houses come with DC invertors built in this doesn't make sense for most consumer electronics. Cars are a different story. . . with one exception. I'd assume these batteries will cost a bit more then conventional Lithium Ion batteries... and conventional Lithium ion batteries already cost more per watt of stored energy then lead acid batteries. Assuming lead acid batteries cost about $80 (im underestimating for a reason), and a laptop battery costs at least that much. . . even if half of it is pure profit to the laptop manufacturer, thats probably at least $40 in battery costs. Well I'll tell you what I'm not going to start my car with a laptop battery.. . . Im not going to start one with 20 of them I don't think. Seems the feasability of this technology may be more of a limiting factor afterall. Phil

    17. Re:Hard hat required by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, most are between 1500 and 1800 watts. Oh, sure, you might be able to find a travel sized on at 900 or 1200, but they're pretty weak.

      In comparison, I had an "instant" hot water heater that could provide 1.5gal/min (iirc) at about 130F. It used 9500 watts. I had to gang two of them together to get an endless-boiling-water faucet. And, btw, it was very cool. Talk about a jump start for your pasta!

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    18. Re:Hard hat required by kureido · · Score: 1

      Sure, 1500W isn't too hard to deliver when you've got 120V coming out of the wall. Voltage is a measure of energy per unit charge -- at 120V, carriers are lot more excited than they are at 12V, so you can deliver the same power with less current. Try charging a 12V battery with 120V, though.

      To deliver 1500W at 12VDC, you need 125A of charging current. You'd probably want 4AWG copper for this. Compare that to the 12.5A your hair dryer is pulling through 14AWG wire.

    19. Re:Hard hat required by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      You'd still have to step it down to 12V at 144A to actually charge the battery. 144 amp conductors are slightly huge. :)

      Heh. Yeah, like 4 inches diameter huge. I can't imagine we'll be seeing any laptop AC adaptors with any of these on the end of the cord. Not to mention the size of cord (cable?) you'd need...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  24. Ooh, I could use this about now... by gearmonger · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think I'm running low on pow

    1. Re:Ooh, I could use this about now... by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      Parent poster is a liar! If parent's computer ran out of power, there would be no time to hit the submit button. :-)

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  25. What I'd guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since the site is obscured.

    Is that their trade off would be in reliability, and that this might be alleviated by building a conditioner into the charging mechanism.

    But if it's even usable over a period as short as a year, I'd still say it's a stock to buy.

  26. Fast chargers already on the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Varta PS 6 charger. It charges batteries in 15 minutes. That's fast enough for me.

  27. I tried to RTFA but... by zeux · · Score: 1

    It's only a 'press release' so I'm not convinced...

    But if it's not vaporware, this would be a huge breakthrough in many fields.

    Maybe you just think about cell phones or laptops or even electric cars, but when I read this I see a huge advance for renewable energy production.

    That's one huge problem for solar cells since they need to store energy for use during the night. The same can be said about the wind farms.

    Actually that's the big advantage of the dams, they can store water and produce energy only when needed.

    I have been waiting for such an announcement for years. But I remain skeptical, as the news doesn't come from a reliable source.

    Does anyone have a better link?

    1. Re:I tried to RTFA but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      about the dams/artificial lakes.. they can be also used to store energy made from other sources(nuclear etc, hell, even solar if you had enough of it to matter..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  28. Power or charge? by MartinG · · Score: 1

    I don't want more power, I want more charge supplied at the same power.

    Perhaps that's what they mean.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    1. Re:Power or charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad physics always hits in the family joules, doesn't it?

  29. YASS by Eminence · · Score: 0

    Yet Another Slashdoted Site... This one went down so fast I wasn't able to read the article refered to, it went so fast mirrordot didn't manage to make a copy of it... Wow! That was it, the real, good slashdoting.

  30. Skewed? by Dausha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Anyone else think snake oil?"

    Doesn't that sort of skew perceptions a bit much? I mean, leave we dotters to trash the article, the company, the product and explain why if it ran Linux the world would be a better place. But to come right out and abjectly claim snake oil seems a bit much to me.

    Next, you'll be telling me that you can't fit a GB of data on a 1 in. HHD, or that the Flood is not visiting SoCal (the Biblical Flood, not Halo2).

    Assuming you're right with the snake oil. At least they're only hurting stock holders and not the Open Source community by suing IBM. Stock holders by the nature of buying stock assume the risk. If this is a press release to induce a pump-and-dump, as seems to be hinted, then the SEC will be looking for them.

    But, if they can get faster charging, higher capacity battries, then maybe my laptop can weigh less. I mean, if most car's MPG and tank capacity give them roughly 300 miles of range, why should the industry let you get away with using your laptop unplugged for more than 2 hours?

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Skewed? by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if in a field where a lot of research is done, showing a history of small gradual improvements, one company starts claiming a factor 3 increase out of nowhere, such a comment is valid.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Skewed? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Maybe a little off-topic, but basically the reason you can't run a laptop 8h off batteries is... the user. Everyone wants _only_ the latest and greatest, and wouldn't take anything less than a 3.6 GHz in their new laptop. (Even if it means they can't even actualy use it on the lap any more, or not without cooking their genitals.)

      You could run a laptop for a ludicriously long time if it was a slow CPU. My old Psion 5 ran something like two _weeks_ on two AA batteries. And it didn't require active cooling either, you know. Then again, it was just an ARM CPU.

      Someone _could_ even make it PC compatible. I figure something like a 100 MHz 486 or maybe even a 200 MHz Pentium MMX manufactured in 90nm process, would use up ridiculously little power. In fact, it wouldn't even need a heatsink at all. It also wouldn't need a north-bridge that needs cooling of its own. And FFS, I don't need a 3D accelerated graphics card in it either.

      Except there wouldn't be much of a market for it, hence not much incentive to make one.

      So here's my take: even if they invented a battery that stores 10x more power, people would just start wanting dual Xeons and an 120W GeForce 6800 Ultra graphics chip in their laptop. And let's put 10,000 RPM hard drives in it this time around.

      Oops. We're back to 1 hour battery life, and this time you better have asbestos gloves to use it.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Skewed? by DrewCapu · · Score: 1

      It's not snake oil.

      According to my trainer, it's flaxseed oil.

    4. Re:Skewed? by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      I think the snake oil quip is just the *ss covering strategy of scientifically illiterate editors who were bitten when they *did* post something that was snake oil last time. Basically, they can't tell the difference.

    5. Re:Skewed? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      But to which part of your body does your trainer apply it?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    6. Re:Skewed? by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      you're right. as much as slashdot thinks it is, it is not a news site. i don't think a single person that writes stories for this site has even taken journalism 101.

      there is so much bias and prejudgement in the words of many of these authors that it almost gives me heartburn to read some of these stories. what's worse, is when an author mentions something bad, and the whole freaking discussion lights up very much Jihaad style.

      Go read Suck.com's old parody of Slashdot and see just what's changed in almost 5 and a half years. Nothing. Same stories day in and day out, same design, same judgemental attitude.

      This is not a news site. Don't expect it to reflect actual journalistic principles.

    7. Re:Skewed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to wait for the SEC to investigate, your money is already gone. Enron anyone?

  31. Great! by Wordsmith · · Score: 0

    Now my laptop running CherryOS will never run out of power!

  32. Slashdoted already.... by andreweb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Waiting for mirrors....

  33. Article on Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    More detail and not yet Slashdotted; http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050210/080729.html

  34. Patents by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They do have pending patents on things like that all over the world, but of course that doesn't really mean anything (anyone can have a patent pending on pretty much everything, and even if granted that doesn't really mean all that much...)

    --
    Donate free food here
  35. No, it's the ISD that will get them, by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real problem with new fangled almost-magic batteries is going to be the liability from ISD (Instantanious Spontanious Discharge). I've seen a video of a test with a lab rat, and all I can say is you'll want to keep these things out of reach of rodents! (And that I'm glad I wasn't there to watch it in person!)

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:No, it's the ISD that will get them, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ISD (Instantanious Spontanious Discharge)"

      that sounds a lot like "explosion"
      which, if you're talking about (relatively) high energy density, makes sense.

    2. Re:No, it's the ISD that will get them, by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Even regular LiOn batteries are held to be "explosives" by FedEx. I tried to purchase an Emergency Personal Indicator Rescue Beacon (EPIRB) powered, of course, by a LiIon battery.

      No dice to air mail to Alaska. Why? Because the batteries are dangerous.... Hmm. Gotta be careful of that Palm Pilot. Makes me (almost) want to stand up in the aisle of an airplane holding said device and shout "I've got a bomb!" No, wait, probably ought not to do that....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:No, it's the ISD that will get them, by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Are they explosive when already discharged?

      Also, this leads to an interesting question.... How feasible would it be for people who mean us harm to use high energy batteries to build a dangerous weapon that they could take on a plane. Not that we currentyl restrict dangerous items like canes or those cue sticks which separate in half (and make nice clubs), so I am not sure this is a real issue.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:No, it's the ISD that will get them, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      for people who mean us harm to use high energy batteries to build a dangerous weapon

      Dubya, is that you?

    5. Re:No, it's the ISD that will get them, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a big expensive metal fountain pen. Hide a bunch of Mercury in the resivior in a bladder, put a little ink in front. Viola. Super-fast disintigrating Aluminum. Fortunately, it's at least a 'little' harder to get a hold of these days.

      Or hide a LOT of mercury in a reserve laptop battery.

  36. Not a Hype by Compile+'em+all · · Score: 4, Informative

    The site is already down. And it doesn't look like another hype(at least to me). It seems that those guys have actually done something. Read on :

    RENO, NV--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 10, 2005 -- Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. (NasdaqSC:ALTI - News) announced today that it has achieved a breakthrough in Lithium Ion battery electrode materials, which will enable a new generation of rechargeable battery to be introduced into the marketplace, as well as create new markets for rechargeable batteries. These new materials allow rechargeable batteries to be manufactured that have three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price and with recharge times measured in a few minutes rather than hours.

    The technical achievements are being praised by the battery community as truly remarkable and will likely enable a new generation of rechargeable battery to be produced. Altair has confidentiality agreements in place with some of the world's leading battery development companies to evaluate and commercialize these battery electrode materials.

    Altair's research and development efforts were allowed two new patents (announced on January 7th and 14th, 2005) and a National Science Foundation grant was successfully completed in January, 2005, by Altair. New markets for fast charging batteries will include the handheld power tools market increasing the productivity of, for example, construction workers while lowering their overhead costs. Other markets include hybrid electric vehicles, portable electronics and medical surgery tools -- solving the problem of electrical wires all over the operating room floor.

    Rest of article can be found here
    http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050210/080729.html

  37. Coral cache couldn't catch it BUT... *MIRROR* by caryw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's the press release on a different site:
    http://press.arrivenet.com/aut/article.php/584418. html
    Feel free to rip this server a new asshole as well.
    Slashdot better not be teasing me with vaporware again! I get angry when teased!
    --
    Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play

  38. Scotty by Netsensei · · Score: 0, Funny

    "Scotty, I need more power!"

    I can see the package already in front of me: "Uses Altair TimeTravel Technology(tm)"

  39. Plausible. by jcr · · Score: 1

    If their improvement is a matter of increasing the surface area of the lithium particles, then the claims aren't at all unreasonable. We've seen many instances in the last few years of materials improvements increasing performance.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  40. More Nanotechnology miracles! by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they should get together with the battery life extender nanotech guys
    (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/28 /03192 39&tid=126&tid=100&tid=137&tid=1) and make a battery that you charge up once for two minutes and it runs for the lifetime of the battery or yourself (which ever is longer)...

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  41. 300% More Power or Last For 3x Times the Charges by the_crowbar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only article I could get to said that the technology "will allow a tripling of battery life." That would seem to indicate that it will make the batteries last for three times as long rather than hold 3x more power at once. It would be nice to have a battery that held 3x the power, but a battery that needed replacing every ~3 years vice every year would be great as well.

    Any one else interpret it the same way?

    Cheers,
    the_crowbar
    --
    Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
  42. 300~% more power is good, but I want more capacity by DFJA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can't RTFA because it's /.ed, but it looks to me like they have increased the power capability by increasing the surface area within a given volume so that it can produce a larger current, much in the same way that the lungs can produce a large exchange of O2 and CO2 due to their large surface area.

    This has nothing to do with capacity, which presumably is unchanged from more conventional technology.

    Not a bad thing in itself of course, if it expands the market for which LiIon is suitable.

    --
    43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
  43. As soon as..... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1


    a) ==== dollars going out for expenses ====>
    b>
    As soon as (b) overtook (a) by a large enough margin. :(

  44. Improves reception too! by tbase · · Score: 1, Funny

    I already bought one of these on eBay. You just stick it on the back of your battery, and you get 300% more life, 500% better reception, and it blocks the gamma rays from giving you skull cancer. And the best part, it was FREE!!!!L@@K!!!W@W!!!!!NIBMOMC!!1111!!A+++PWRSELLE R with the charger I bought.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  45. 1 Hour charge?! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    186 Mph is great and all that, but that is on a 1 hour charge. They need to extend that to at leat 4 hours (and preferably 6 or 7 or more) in order to compete with Gas/Diesel on long distance drives. And to 4 hours at a minimum for daily commuters (rush hour sucks in some places). This may help extend Electric to the daily commuters, but it won't do for the long distance driver. Also, the long distance drivers will require a quick (less than 20 min) charging time total. The commuters can recharge their car overnight in the garage.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:1 Hour charge?! by Trackster · · Score: 1
      No, they don't have to compete with Gas/Diesel at all.



      Since many households already own multiple vehicles they can use electric vehicles as main vehicles and fire up the dinosour burners when they need to go long distances.


      Also, it's probably been said a thousand^1000 times by now, but the vast majority of drivers very rarely drive distances beyond the reach of even common lead-acid EV range (which stinks). This goes double for urban dwellers.

    2. Re:1 Hour charge?! by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

      How about putting a small gas-powered generator to charge the batteries on long trips?

    3. Re:1 Hour charge?! by saider · · Score: 1

      Since many households already own multiple vehicles they can use electric vehicles as main vehicles and fire up the dinosour burners when they need to go long distances.

      Why have 2 cars with one largely collecting dust? Just use a hybrid design. With more power from batteries, you can use a smaller gas engine.

      Also, as said earlier Power != Energy. The batteries may be able to deliver more power, but their energy density has not changed. Since it takes a certian amount of energy to get from point A to point B, this advance is not likely to impact the automotive issues.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:1 Hour charge?! by savuporo · · Score: 1

      "Just use a hybrid design. "

      The trouble with hybrids is that is you are dragging around the dead weight of ICE fuel and engine itself all the time PLUS the batteries. A more sensible approach would have an ICE trailer for long trips.

      Also, BEVs arent wasting energy for idling which AFAIK hybrids still do. And just think how much of idling does an engine do when driving in peak traffic hours.

      Plugin-hybrids like Prius+ project are a step in the right direction, but it would be nice to have the ICE as a completely optional part of the car. And, BTW, li-ion powered prototype BEVs already have a comparable range to common production cars.

      The only two real issues remaining are recharge times and cost. Recharge times could be alleviated with quick-swap battery backs and alternatively ICE trailers. Costs are dropping thanks to portable computing and communication devices that always demand better batteries and if automotive industry would start mass producing BEVs some eceonomies of scale would surely kick in to reduce costs further.

      So, dude, where is my ELECTRIC car ?

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    5. Re:1 Hour charge?! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "A more sensible approach would have an ICE trailer for long trips."

      Now that's putting the cart before the horse.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:1 Hour charge?! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      How about putting a small gas-powered generator to charge the batteries on long trips?

      I've often wondered why they don't do this. Finland (i think it was) created a diesel bus that was electric propultion but used a diesel generator to charge the battery. It was very efficient and almost silent. I'm surprised they haven't done this yet with cars.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    7. Re:1 Hour charge?! by saider · · Score: 1

      The trouble with hybrids is that is you are dragging around the dead weight of ICE fuel and engine itself all the time PLUS the batteries.

      The ICE engine usually runs to provide supplimental power (to drive air conditioners, boost performance, etc) in addition to the batteries. A 10kW ICE can be very compact.

      Also, BEVs arent wasting energy for idling which AFAIK hybrids still do. And just think how much of idling does an engine do when driving in peak traffic hours.

      If designed properly, the idling ICE should be recharging the batteries.

      A more sensible approach would have an ICE trailer for long trips.

      This requires people to plan out all of their trips. I'd not want to hear from the person who had to make an unscheduled long trip and was unable to get home to pick up the ICE trailer. Granted, this is rare, but I think the gains (convenience, increased range and performance) of the ICE engine outweigh the costs (lower efficiency).

      People often buy vehicles, not for how they will use them 95% of the time, but rather for that other 5% of uses. This is why SUVs are so popular. Hardly anyone ever goes off road or carries a large load in their car on a regular basis. But people like being able to go to the store and get some lumber, or load up 6 kids to go somewhere. Having two vehicles may be more efficient, but it is not very convenient. If a car isn't convenient, it won't sell, no matter how efficient it is.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    8. Re:1 Hour charge?! by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, sitting in rush hour traffic shouldn't matter with an electric car. If you aren't moving, you shouldn't be draining your battery. (Power requirement for cell phone/music/other device should be minimal compared to actually moving the car.)

      That's one of the great advantages of electric cars (and hybrids) - there isn't any wasteful idling of the engine.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    9. Re:1 Hour charge?! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Aircondishoning. It eats up a significant amount of power (maybe not in realtion to the engine, but it's not trivial either). As for the commuting and a 4 hour charge. The reason I say that is because I know of people who commute 120 miles a day (total round trip). That's two hours at highway speed, but when you get into a city that slows down. Or, if you have a slow day on the interstate (which is the norm around DC where I live). A two hour commute isn't uncommon. And you want heating/aircondishoning in winter/summer. That will eat up a good chunk of power. Also, since in a pure electric you don't have an ICE (strange acronym, considering what we're talking about) the only way to generate heat is by heating elements.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    10. Re:1 Hour charge?! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Also, BEVs arent wasting energy for idling which AFAIK hybrids still do. And just think how much of idling does an engine do when driving in peak traffic hours.

      Actually, the Honda Civic Hybrid shuts off the engine when you stop. And starts it up very quickly when you hit the gas/acceleration pedal. I have test driven one, this is true. Surprised me when it did that and I was expecting it. I am currious to see how the Accord Hybrid does.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  46. I think your math is wrong... by DarkMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't belive that the claim is that thier new batteries have three times the capacity of a current Li-ion battery. They are claiming three times the power, which I read as meaning that the peak discharge power is three times greater.

    This is a lot more reasonable, from my understanding of Li-ion batteries. The theoretical energy capacity isn't three times current batteries, IIRC, so trippling that is unreasonable. But three times the discharge rate is not impossible, and brings them into the range of NiMH batteries, maybe even Lead-Acid. Coupled with the superior energy density of Li-ion, that's very very nice.

    This matches well with the claim of faster charging - the limiting factors for charging and dischargeing are related in batteries.

    So, your sums become 4Ah in 5 minutes, or a much more reasonable 48 amps. A lot, yes, but not beyond what's currently done with medium current applications.

    Reading the press relase as I did above imedialty makes is much more reasonable, although I'd love to get more details. There's a lot hingeing on the word 'power', depending whether you read it in a technical or common definition, so much so that I wouldn't want to depend on it.

    1. Re:I think your math is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that:

      1) It is plausible that technology that allows a faster charge rate would allow a faster discharge rate

      2) An increase in capacity would be too big a selling point to underplay - it would be explicitly stated

      3) Neither of the two experts quoted mention an increase in capacity - the first talks about the charging rate and the second about the number of charging cycles

      I am all but certain that it means power in the technical sense and not capacity.

    2. Re:I think your math is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think lead-acid only likes to be discharged at 1C maximum (meaning that you can completely discharge a battery, with reasonable power loss in 1/1C = 1 hour). However, you can cheaply buy huge car batteries, so they can dump a lot of current.

      Li-ion's for RC electric airplane hobbyists are sold with discharges at 5C (1.0/5 = 20 min discharge), although I'd guess it would be better to estimate discharge rates in the 2C or less (1/2C = 30 min or more), especially if you don't want the battery to die an early death.

      NiMH has max discharge rates in the 5C-10C range.

      The winner in terms of relative discharge power is Nickel-Cadmium. I remember discharging an NiCd battery pack in 5 min (1.0/5min = 20C !) while playing with RC cars. However the NiCd capacity is very limited, and it ended up being sidelined by the newer technologies.

  47. Hype by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

    Heres the kicker: It says 3 times the power at the same PRICE. Not the same weight or volume They've basically found new materials that allow them to produce 3 batteries for every 1 they used to produce, and these batteries have fast recharge capabilities. Nothing to see here, move along...

    --

    1. Re:Hype by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      There's nothing impressive about fast recharge capabilities? Damn, apparently I'm an idiot then because I always thought "woudln't it be awesome if my cell phone took the same amount of time to refuel as my car does?" Or my iPod. Or my iBook. Or maybe someone's Civic Insight.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
  48. Eminent? by Raleel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How come I cannot find anything on the two guys mentioned above? Very very little that doesn't relate directly to the press release. I found a little on Dr. Kerimidas at http://www.valence.com/BoardMembers.asp but hardly anything on the other. If they are so eminent, why aren't there any papers? Citation?

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:Eminent? by bunco · · Score: 1

      VG Keramidas (you typo'ed his name in post) has his name on all kinds of academic research papers... google away.

    2. Re:Eminent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raman Spectra of Oxides with the Fluorite Structure
      VG Keramidas, WB White - Cited by 12 - Web Search /> Raman spectra of oxides with the fluorite structure. [The Journal of Chemical
      Physics 59, 1561 (1973)]. Vassilis G. Keramidas, William B. White.
      The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2003 - link.aip.org

      Reflectance-difference spectroscopy: a new look at semiconductor crystal growth by MBE and OMCVD
      ? , JP Harbison, MK Kelly, VG Keramidas, MA Koza, AA ? - Web Search ... OMCVD Authors: Aspnes, David E.; Bhat, Rajaram J.; Colas, Etienne G.; Florez, Leigh
      T.; Harbison, James P.; Kelly, Michael K.; Keramidas, Vassilis G.; Koza, M ...
      Proc. SPIE, 1989 - adsabs.harvard.edu

      Reflectance-difference spectroscopy of GaAs crystal growth by OMCVD
      ? Aspnes, RJ Bhat, AA Studna, MA Koza, VG Keramidas - Web Search ... of GaAs crystal growth by OMCVD Authors: Colas, Etienne G.; Aspnes, David E.; Bhat,
      Rajaram J.; Studna, AA; Koza, MA; Keramidas, Vassilis G. Affiliation: AA ...
      Proc. SPIE, 1990 - adsabs.harvard.edu

      Growth of buried metal aluminides and gallides and of rare-earth monopnictides in compound ?
      ? , S Mounier, LT Florez, VG Keramidas, JG Zhu, CB ? - Web Search ... comparison Authors: Palmstrom, Chris J.; Sands, Tim D.; Harbison, James P.; Finstad,
      TG; Mounier, Suzanne; Florez, Leigh T.; Keramidas, Vassilis G.; Zhu, Jane G ...
      SPIE Proceedings, 1990 - adsabs.harvard.edu

      [PDF] Gas Evolution in Li-Ion Rechargeable Cells Antoni S. Gozdz?and Robert K. Jaworski
      PC Tarascon, CN Schmutz, GG Amatucci - View as HTML - Web Search ... 3 2 4-. -4L 2. g. 8. CD. s. 2-. )-> 12 i! E. O-. - 0. ... Frough Shokoohi, Caroline Schmutz,.
      Glenn Amatucci, and Vassilis Keramidas. who made the PLiONTM technology ...
      argreenhouse.com

      ErAs epitaxial layers buried in GaAs: Magnetotransport and spin-disorder scattering
      SJ Allen Jr, N Tabatabaie, CJ Palmstrom, GW Hull, ? - Web Search ... encouragement and support of our colleague Vassilis Keramidas and useful ... JP Harbison,
      HL Gilchrist, and VG Keramidas, Appl. ... G. de Gennes and J. Friedel, J. Phys ...
      PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 1989 - link.aps.org - adsabs.harvard.edu - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

      [PDF] FABRICATION AND PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTIC Li-ION BATTERIES WITH BONDED UNTREATED ?
      AS Gozdz, I Plitz, A DuPasquier, T Zheng, T ? - View as HTML - Web Search ... We thank Dr. Glenn Amatucci for numerous discussions and Dr. Vassilis Keramidas
      for his ... at http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/search-adv.htm) 4 G. Venugopal, J ...
      argreenhouse.com

  49. Yes...but by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

    Will the battery lifetime drop to 6 mos?

    I'm not so keen on my iPod dying quicker..

  50. Sounds good but I'll bet... by imrec · · Score: 1

    what they DON'T tell you is that it only works in a zero gravity 932K environment at 40.001 KPa!!

    --
    Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
  51. new virus ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anyone else think snake oil?

    No just a serious case of Vassilis Keramidas

  52. How does this compares to Lithium Polymer? by homerito · · Score: 1

    How does these batteries compare to Lithium Polymer Batteries?

  53. Link to research. by MiddleHitter · · Score: 1
    It looks like Altair hired one Dr. D. Ladislav Kavan of the Heyrovsky Institute to analyze the battery potential of Li4Ti5O12.

    From the abstract, his analysis finds Li4Ti5O12 to be a high-surface area material with a very large ability to hold a charge.

    One word of caution, I notice the phrase "Dr. Kavan employed scientifically sound experimental procedures and test protocols to study these materials", which sounds a little self-promoting. I guess that's what peer review is for!

    Critical Review in PDF

    Enjoy the light reading!

    --
    I don't fear computers, I fear the lack of them. -I. Asimov
  54. Re:Anyone Else Think Slashdot Editors Fail Grammer by ledow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Grammer? Surely you mean grammar? And also, only put question marks on sentences that are questions. If you're gonna be picky about other people, take the time to get it right yourself.

  55. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Altair's nanomaterials, which have a virtually zero strain crystal lattice, eliminate the main cause for battery electrode material fatigue, which limits rechargeable battery life, increasing the number of recharge and discharge cycles from a few hundred to many thousand cycles," said Dr. Vassilis G. Keramidas.

    Quoted from the Yahoo! article here: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050210/080729.html

  56. Nuclear is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The problem is the more densely used lithium is, the more dangerous it is. And normal LiIon batteries are really pushing the extremes of safety now.

    Of course if your only other option is nuclear laptop batteries then maybe they're not so bad.

    1. Re:Nuclear is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And in what way is lithium density at issue here?

      If you RTFPR, rather than rely on those with little or no reading comprehension skills to interpret it for you, you would note that the claim is not a battery with 300% more power, but a battery that can be made at 1/3 the cost.

      "These new materials allow rechargeable batteries to be manufactured that have three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price ..."

      The charging time claim is much more interesting.

    2. Re:Nuclear is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read the article again. Preferably after brushing up on your comprehension skills.

    3. Re:Nuclear is better! by diablomonic · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think you guys are misunderstanding: 3X more POWER not SPECIFIC POWER ie: 3 the power output in watts, not energy content in amp hours X volts, basicly, similar energy content, but you can get that enrgy into and out of the battery much more quickly, and it has a much longer life.

      Doesnt sound like snake oil to me, as using nano structures vastly increases surface area available for chemical reactions to take place, which speeds reaction times, so id give it a 80% chance of not being a con. Also quite usefull as low comparitive power output (as compareed to energy or specific power)is one of the drawbacks of lithium, and hell, whos gonna complain at an extra few thousand charges?

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
  57. lithium polymer batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just do what the RC guys do... push your batteries to the limits! watch out for fires!

    http://www.thunderpower-batteries.com/html/batte ri es.html

  58. Combine with the battery extender sticker by noidentity · · Score: 1

    that goes on the back of the phone and you will get... well 300% the battery life of a normal Li-Ion battery.

  59. 3x max current, not capacity by fhage · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique &newsid=7681 "The nanomaterials Altair is developing are the next generation of electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries and Altair's research and product development is laying the ground work for a new generation of ultra high power lithium ion batteries," commented Dr. K. M. Abraham. "A key requirement to the above applications is the ability to recharge the battery very quickly, for example in a few minutes. Current Li Ion batteries are incapable of such quick charge times because of the chemistry of the anode materials. Altair has found a solution to this with their nano-sized lithium titanium oxide."

    Current Li batteries are very limited in their max current. This make them poor choices for high current applications, like electric motors. It won't make your laptop run any longer, but you'll be able to charge it 3x faster.

    1. Re:3x max current, not capacity by satacoy · · Score: 1
      Actually the latest generation of Li-Polys that are commercially available have some pretty impressive discharge rates. I just bought a Polyquest branded pack that can discharge at 37 amps continuous, and can temporarily provide current in the 49 amp range.

      The radio control crowd is eating these up, as the weight to capacity ratio is great, and the discharge rates are reaching NiCad and NiMh levels.

      Some of the newer Kokam cells are capable of discharging at 20C, giving some of the larger packs a 50+ amp continuous discharge rate. These come at a price, about $145 for an 11.1V 3200 mAh pack.

      Pete

    2. Re:3x max current, not capacity by mr_zorg · · Score: 1
      It won't make your laptop run any longer, but you'll be able to charge it 3x faster.

      I'm no electronics expert (though that won't stop me), but if I remember correctly, batteries capacity is rated in amp-hours (or milli- as appropriate). So if the max current is three times higher, but the draw remains the same, doesn't that equate to 3x capacity?

  60. Nanotechnology? by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    Like every 5th word in the press release is "nanotechnology." Back in the day, when you mixed a bunch of chemicals up in a lab, it was called "Chemistry". Does anyone else smell a new dot bomb cycle coming? Are venture capitalists going to start pouring their money in every company with "nanotechnology" in their name? Guess I should wait a few weeks and start selling short.

    1. Re:Nanotechnology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else smell a new dot bomb cycle coming? Are venture capitalists going to start pouring their money in every company with "nanotechnology" in their name?

      Welcome to 1999. Sit down, stay a while.

  61. Altair? Bah by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    I'll wait for Apple to introduce their version.

  62. "Two eminent experts' by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody writes a phrase like that unless they're bogus. That's the kind of language you get in endorsements for the latest diet fad or transcendental meditation technique.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:"Two eminent experts' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Abraham is on the Advisory board of the company and is therefore not an independent expert.

  63. Cancer anyone?? by mustangdavis · · Score: 1
    A recharge time of 2 mins is about the same time it might take me to refill my car, So this makes it quite viable as an alternative 'fuel'.... However, the cables from the 'pump' would have to be hugely thick to carry that sort of power.


    Aren't cell phones doing enough damage already?

    We're all going to die from caner before 40!!! :)
  64. FYI: Stock options by whovian · · Score: 1

    Take note: The Senior VP of Sales owns 100,000 stock options as of 2005-01-07.

    -- 20,000 vested 2005-01-07.
    -- 40,000 vest if the stock price is at least $4.50 for 15 consecutive trading days.
    -- 40,000 vest if the stock price is at least $5.50 for 15 consecutive trading days.

    Source: Edgar.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  65. Possible but doubtful by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

    The Power$ that be will not allow dense energy storage devices to exist. The only way a product like this can be created is by a lone inventor, slaving in their basement.

    Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if someone announced they made a "battery" with a storage in the kW range? If it could be provided with a large solar cell input and in a few weeks of charging would power a house? The inventor would quietly disappear.

    Someone put a paranoia filter on news blurbs like this.

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  66. Re:300% More Power or Last For 3x Times the Charge by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 1

    Any one else interpret it the same way?

    The article says:
    "three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price"

    Which could just mean that they cost a third to produce compared to older batteries, which isn't quite as exciting as 3x more oomph in the same package.

    --
    A witty .sig proves nothing
  67. if this is actually true... by distantbody · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...well im sure you understand the potential. instead, ive just been reading an article about the huge difficulties facing the viablity of fuel-cell vehicles. my green heart has been prepared to wait 10~15 to drive my first, but by what the article says, it will probably take longer (goverments and organisations can never be trusted to deliver on time), and even then, they'll be very expensive to buy AND refuel, not to mention lousy performers. So do you know what im getting at? ...many climate experts agree that we are only a matter of months (10~40) away from the point of no return for dramatic, long term climatic disaster and its consequences (numerous experts say we have even passed it). given the 10~20 years until fuel cell transport is available, people must not be allowed to fall into the false sense of security that "fuel cells will save us". the most viable technology for now is the battery to power cars. most of us have read about or seen them, and they do the job exceptionally for 99% of vehicles; the electricity must be generated by renewable energy sources. if you know someone who is influential or have access to a motor corp. executive, please reason to them that 20 years will mean the life or death of much of what we enjoy today. we need solutions NOW, not in 2 decades. i hope Altairs claims are true as it would be another addition to the already compeling argument for battery driven vehicles. P.S. i can't avoid being dramatic, i do not apologies because this is what i beleive to be the truth

  68. Power vs. Capacity by mike449 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They carefully avoid the word "capacity" in the press release. This and the claim about faster charge makes me think that they somehow managed to reduce the internal resistance of the battery, but the capacity (measured in Ampere-hours) hasn't changed.
    "3 times the power" probably means that the battery can yield 3 times higher current when discharged into a short circuit (before exploding). But the energy storage capacity is the same. I believe that battery technology is already pretty close to the theoretical limit here.

    This new development may allow to replace NiCd batteries in very high current applications, which is good.

    1. Re:Power vs. Capacity by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      OF course, one might be able to justify a 3x capacity improvement by taking the same battery size in A-H and extending the useful life from 300 to 1000 charges. That's three times the total capacity (over the life of the battery). And, quite honestly, it resonates with me, as my Inspiron battery is definitley past its prime, and they're way to freakin' expensive for a useful life of 300 charges.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  69. Watching DVDs by raygundan · · Score: 1

    As somebody else suggested, your best bet is ripping to the hard drive first and then shutting down the DVD drive. This was enough to buy me an extra 15 minutes or so on my old machine.

    In the longer run, my biggest gain came from moving from an old PIII laptop to a Pentium M machine-- I get battery life reliably over four hours, and sometimes over five. The battery doesn't have any significant capacity advantage over my old one (it's a hair bigger), and the screen is the same size (15.1"), but I get a staggering increase in battery life. If you're in the market for a new one, make sure to hunt around for a nice Pentium M machine. Mine's an IBM A30, for reference.

    1. Re:Watching DVDs by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Typo on the model? I am pretty sure (meant as sarcasm, I am actually positive) my Thinkpad A30 is a PIII machine.

    2. Re:Watching DVDs by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the big reasons you're getting fantastic battery life is that your batteries are new. As laptop batteries age, they lose an enormous amount of their storage capacity. It's even worse if you leave a laptop plugged in most of the time. Laptop "battery conditioning" circuitry seems to greatly reduce the life of batteries, no matter what kind of laptop you have. I've got these Dell Latitudes at work that come with two batteries. Because we have crappy power here, I always leave one plugged in and only swap the other one in when I'm on the road (they hold charge really well though, so leaving it out for a month is not a problem). After a year the battery I left in the laptop all of the time has about 1/3 of the runtime of the one I only swapped in occasionally. This is not unique to Dells either, every laptop brand I've ever used (going back to Powerbook 170s and the like) has the same problem. If you leave the batteries in all of the time the laptop will kill them.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Watching DVDs by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Not the case here, although that does make some difference. The difference between the two when both batteries were brand-new was still more than double. The *most* I ever managed on the PIII (A30) was a hair under two hours, with aggressive power management. By the end of a year, I was getting just over 90 minutes, and it dropped to slightly below that at the end of two.

      At the end of one year, my R40 is *still* getting significantly more than four hours-- more than double what the A30 was capable of when it was brand-new.

    4. Re:Watching DVDs by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      This is not unique to Dells either, every laptop brand I've ever used (going back to Powerbook 170s and the like) has the same problem.

      Oh, come, now a Powerbook 170 used a Ni-Cad battery, it's not even relevant to the discussion of modern Li-Ion batteries.

      You may have gotten a bum battery from Dell, or perhaps Dell uses crap batteries (the savings has to come from somewhere, right?). Apple, for instance, expects their batteries to have 80% capacity after 300 charge cycles, which is about what I'm getting on my iBook.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Watching DVDs by default+luser · · Score: 1

      The reason for that is obvious:

      When your laptop has the battery installed, it's running just like a destop PC connected to a UPS. The battery is constantly charging, and the PC is feeding directly off the battery.

      That way, if you disconnect the power cord, the power to the PC is uninterrupted. There is really no cheaper or easier way to implement such a feature.

      So, you want your battery to last? Take it out when it's just sitting there on your desk. Otherwise, suffer the consequences.

      Your laptop may offer the same feature as a UPS, but it's not designed for the same duration as a UPS...those lead-acid batteries have a much better discharge lifetimes than lithium ion.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    6. Re:Watching DVDs by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      Crap batteries.

      I had a Dell Inspiron at my last job, and it became an AC-only unit after about two years. The batteries were only rated for a useful life of 500 charge/discharge cycles... stated right on the spec sheet, in fact.

    7. Re:Watching DVDs by racermd · · Score: 1

      The Dell Inspiron 8200 I purchased in July of '03 has Li-Ion batteries manufactured by Sony and are still going strong today (I have a pair of them that I can use concurrently). I get about 3.5 hours of run-time at full-tilt.

      From my experience, Sony doesn't manufacture crappy batteries. OVERPRICED, maybe, but not crappy.

      The mains power adapter is another story, however... It gets hot enough to burn skin. It's also not covered by the recent recall as it doesn't match any of the recalled part/serial numbers. If mine is this hot, how much hotter are the recalled units?! Yikes!

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    8. Re:Watching DVDs by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Actually, a UPS is quite a bit cheaper then a laptop battery. A basic UPS costs about $40-50, even the cheapest laptop batteries are over $100. Miniaturization always kills on cost.

      Also, lead-acid batteries do NOT have a "better discharge lifetime", whatever that means-the energy density in AH/kg is far -less- for lead acid batteries, and they also must be far physically larger. A UPS battery wouldn't last 6 months in the duty cycle of a typical laptop battery (frequent deep discharges), but they're also not expected to. They're expected to be maintained on a "float" (low-current, low charge voltage) type charge for months or years at a time, and be cycled only occasionally during an extended outage. Lead acid batteries are excellently suited to this type of duty cycle.

      Also, for an application like a stationary UPS, where physical size and weight are not a large concern, lead-acid batteries have another significant advantage-they're the cheapest chemistry of rechargeable battery out there. They're also the largest and heaviest, which is why laptops will continue to use $200 Li-Ion batteries instead of an equivalent capacity lead acid battery that's a quarter the cost but triple the size and ten times the weight. But it's a far more complex equation then just duty cycling, and "best suited" to a particular use has to do with more then raw number of charge/discharge cycles or number of years in service.

      As to laptops killing batteries, especially while plugged in, the biggest reason for this is not current at all, but the fact that plugging a laptop into AC generally sets the power management to run full steam (full processor speed and so on). This generates far more heat then the conservative "on-battery" settings designed to conserve power. Batteries degrade FAR faster when hot-a battery that has a useful service life of 3-4 years at 70F might only last around a year at 85-90F. Of course, heat isn't great on any other computer component either. So the moral of the story-if you don't absolutely need that CPU running ultrafast for what you're doing, keep the power management at a conservative setting, even on AC. You'll see a far longer useful lifetime from the batteries, and at what laptop batteries cost, this is not a trivial thing.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  70. Cynic's take by brokenwndw · · Score: 1

    ...a National Science Foundation grant was successfully completed in January 2005...

    Maybe the translation of this is "we lost our grant money and now our only hope is to pump our stock prices by hyping stuff that doesn't really work"?

  71. Re:300% More Power or Last For 3x Times the Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That would seem to indicate that it will make the batteries last for three times as long rather than hold 3x more power at once."

    That would be nice, but it could never happen. The portable electronics industry would hold it down. How else would they force us to buy new portable devices every 2 - 4 years?

  72. Hybrid drivetrains with smaller batteries? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think if that battery is practical, one place where it could be very useful is hybrid drivetrains.

    Imagine with this new battery you could dramatically reduce the size of the battery pack, which means lower dead weight of the car and more interior space for the car.

  73. Reduced # of fires? by chiph · · Score: 1

    What about reducing the chance of fires?

    There's a lot of energy in a Li-Ion battery, and when it gets an internal short (or really overheated) it's usually bad for your homeowner's policy. Or pants, depending on the device.

    Chip H.

  74. Power != Capacity by hellopolly · · Score: 1

    The article talks about three times the battery Power (watts), not three times the capacity (Ampere*hr).

    The technology basically seems to reduce the internal resistance by creating more stable electrodes.

    If it works, it may very well do exactly what they claim.

  75. Snake Oil by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

    This type of increase isn't orders of magnitude larger than the increases in storage media seen in the computer industry. If someone had said a few years ago that soon we would have tiny removable cards that could hold up to 4GB of data, I believe that many would have called this a snake oil claim. In 1995 at my office I had a hard drive with 300 MB capacity and thought that was pretty good.

    BTW, instead of calling BS when they see a claim they feel is wrong, now slashdotters can call "snake oil."

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    1. Re: Snake oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Abraham works for Altair and I suspect that the other good Dr. soon will, if he doesn't already. Altair did a private placement of stock about two weeks before this announcement. The announcement appears to be timed since Altair received two patents last month, so the "break through" was long ago. It smells like snake oil.

    2. Re:Snake Oil by jtriangle · · Score: 1

      The technical advances of the computer industry in terms of transistor size, memory density and cost are unique to say the least. To expect any other technology to advance as rapidly, expecially battery technology, for any reason is wishfull thinking at best.

      When Gordon Moore made his famous observation in 1965 (http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.h tm/) almost nobody believed it would hold true for more than a few years. The fact that it has held true for some 40 years is simply a miracle.

  76. Heat. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    Revolutionary new battery also doubles as hotplate for 36 second charging period.

    Seriously. That's alot of wattage going to be tossed around to get it charged in under a minute.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  77. when to sell? by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 4, Informative
    The only question is... do you dump the stock before the conference call, or do you expect the hype to endure?

    Disclaimer: This is not investment advice, but my own personal opinion. I am not a financial advisor, I'm just an IT geek and web developer.

    My two cents:

    I'd sell before the conference call. In this case I would have already doubled my stake, it would be time for me to cash out. Stock is not money.

    It's very very hard not to get caught up in the moment. I'd rather miss the next Google than suffer an Enron. If I'm going to speculate again, I'll do it wisely.

    My rules:

    Stick to your guns - if you're up by X percentage, sell. If you're down by Y percentage, sell.

    Never, ever, *EVER* day trade with money you cannot afford to lose. Under *no circumstances* do you ever put all of your money into a single stock. Or even a single industry. Doing any of these is roulette, not speculative investment.

    My personal opinion is that it's better to go with a stock market index fund and invest for the long term than it is to day trade. If long term investment is good enough for Warren Buffett, it's good enough for me. I don't have his savvy; hence an index fund.

    1. Re:when to sell? by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      Superb financial advice. Glad you mentioned Indexing.

    2. Re:when to sell? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      My personal opinion is that it's better to go with a stock market index fund and invest for the long term than it is to day trade. If long term investment is good enough for Warren Buffett, it's good enough for me. I don't have his savvy; hence an index fund.

      I don't either, but luckily its available for free - hence my interest in BRK.A :-) Besides, who can miss out on the shareholder meeting?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:when to sell? by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      Well Warren Buffett would say to cut your losers and let your winners ride. Why people insist on selling the winner and holding the loser is beyond me. That is usually bad investment advice.

      But with that said, as a day trader I would dump it before the conference call or at least cover half to 3/4 your position. Let the profits ride if you really want the excitement. But the problem here is the hype is built in so if the hype doesn't pan out you are back to square one. If the hype seems to be true its already priced in and might not go up too much further. If I had 1,000 shares I would cover between 500-1000 no doubt. Maybe hold 100-300 in case its revolutionizes the battery world.

  78. Re:300~% more power is good, but I want more capac by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

    In some cases, higher power is good too, specially in this case where it also means you can charge it quickly.

    It would allow, for example, to make electric cars that you can charge in a couple of minutes while you're paying for the "gas" at the register.
    Or would it be much of a stretch to include charging stations in conjunction with parking meters?

  79. RC crowd by Uncle_Destroy · · Score: 0

    Is going to love this, especially those that fly electric planes and helicopters. Less weight than NiMH and about the same discharge rates. Good stuff!

  80. These guys are published by Super+Happy+Fun+Chem · · Score: 2, Informative

    Both of these guys have publications (100+ a piece assuming that I have the right guys) and for the most part they appear to be Tier-I and II journals (peer reviewed materials). What strikes me is that Keramidas isnt a battery chemist, he's a thin film semiconductor/ferroelectric materials guy. Abraham is just what the article says, a electrochemical researcher with lots of publications in Li based materials.

    1. Re:These guys are published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keramidas was also a VP at Bell Labs.

  81. We Have A Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This argument is 300% stupider than any argument I've ever read on /. But then again, those percentages always got me in math class.

  82. just remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are liars, there are damn liars, and then there are battery chemists

  83. Energy Piracy by jafuser · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering for some time, what will be the implications of battery technology becoming portable, cheap, and powerful by another couple orders of magnitude?

    How long would it be before people start using "super batteries" to swipe energy from external A/C outlets that are ubiquitous everywhere?

    Imagine people who swipe energy from a motel and then use it to power their home for a month.

    Sounds like an interesting minor sub-topic for a science-fiction novel (if it's not already).

    --
    Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    1. Re:Energy Piracy by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      I guess individual hotel room meters would become common place. So just like the phone, you get charged for your personal energy usage as well.

      Actually energy stealing is done all the time NOW. People bury extension cords from their neighbors house or a nereby buisness. One enterprising farmer actually buried some miles of cable on his property directly under a power line creating an open core transformer and leached a power off the grid.

      But in all those cases, the culprit is eventually caught, even with today's relatively unsophisticated power monitoring systems.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  84. Is it really 3 times the power? by grahamsz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If so then it's only going to allow power to flow out of the battery 3 times faster, allowing a whole new generation of power-hungry athalon laptops (at 1/3rd of the current battery life)

    However if it were 3 times the ENERGY then it'd make existing laptops run for 3 times longer.

    1. Re:Is it really 3 times the power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, yeah. I decided I'd take on just one of the issues at a time. :)

  85. I just don't get it by stripe4 · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that all components of a laptop are progressing except one - the battery. No matter what kind of configuration you have - a standard single battery won't let you work for more than 3 - 6 hours. Every six months there is a post on /. that a major breakthrough in the battery technology has been achieved - superior capacities and quick recharge rates. Judging from what the scientists say a crappy battery should not be an issue these days. What is the deal that these technologies are still not common?

  86. Sony's jumping for joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this revolutionary new battery technology, the PlayStation Portable now allows for up to 3 hours of play time.

  87. Battery .vs. Condenser by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    "three times the power of existing Lithium Ion batteries at the same price and with recharge times measured in a few minutes rather than hour"

    Isn't this just another form of condenser?

  88. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new lithium titanium oxide nanomaterial overlords.

  89. In minutes! by geekster · · Score: 1

    Recharges in just 240 minutes!

  90. Great... by Upaut · · Score: 1

    If this is true, all apple needs to worry about now is trying to get the G5 to run a bit cooler, and improve the heatsink, and we might see shiny new G5 powerboooks...

    *Drool*

    Now, here is a little question I have, and correct me if I'm wrong: If this battery has the ability to store 200% more energy, then what makes you think that it will last 200% as long? Meaning if computers are running faster and fater, and consuming more power, than all this will do is either provide the computers of today a longer charge, or the computers of the next couple of years the same average lifespan we see today.

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
  91. You're not doing it right. :) by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Rip while on AC.

    Then watch from the HD on battery.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  92. Some hard facts by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1, Interesting



    What kills Li-on is heat, current li-on are good at flat power output, but no good for high current like portable electric drills, in any event charging is worked out in "C"

    e.g. a 2000 mAh cell charged at 2 ampere for 1 hour is charged at 1C, charge at 0.5 amperes and it's 0.25C

    Li-on typically, irrespective of capacity, are constant current constant voltage charging, and 80% of the charging is done in the first hour, with up to two more hours to top off the remaining 20%

    They don't say recharging to 80%, they say recharging, but we'll play in their favour and assume it's 80% charging they are talking about.

    60 minutes normal charging time over 3 minutes claimed charging time = 60/3=20

    one twentieth the time, add real world electrochemisty and physics and rule of thumb lets say 25 x the charging current is required, pushing that current is going to take some serious charging voltage, which will totally screw every li-on battery chemistry and more importantly li-on safety circuits won't allow those sorts of volatges.

    Quite apart from the voltage aspect, charging currents of the order of 25 times greater than present = LOTS of heat and MUCH heavier duty kit (150 watt dell cmains brick replaced with a 3.5 Kw 3 phase charger) and heat = lithium death.

    No, I think if there is any truth at all in this article is will apply only to a very specialised and small capacity cell, not a laptop sized device.

    my 2c etc

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Some hard facts by serbanp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fully agree with the parent poster. These guys just wanted to pump-up their stock price with BS statements. It looks they've been successful at that.

      Not only they blurr the line intentionally between power and capacity, but also they liberally use the nano-* buzzword.

      A three-fold increase in the battery capacity would be an enormous advancement. LiIon is already the highest energy-density type of battery, so it would matter a lot.

      Maybe they merely found a way in decreasing the internal resistance; advanced LiPoly batteries already do this and there are 2000mAh types rated at 15-20 C discharge rate.

      Charging them, however, still requires no more than 2 C. Chemistry has its own reaction rate and no amount of snake-oil will speed it up.

      If this thingie has any value, it may be for miniature batteries, but don't hold your breath.

  93. Re:Anyone Else Think Slashdot Editors Fail Grammer by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

    /.ers typically fail in several arenas such as spelling, grammar, social skills, and healthy living.

    However, they almost always excel in arenas such as Final Fantasy, sci-fi tv watching, obscure quotes, and criticizing.

    --
    Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
  94. I wonder what the tradeoff is by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    I'm much more inclined to believe the 3x current claim vs. a 3x capacity claim. In general, increasing current handling capability is simply a function of increasing electrode surface area. They've just figured out a way to significantly increase that surface area, which doesn't do much for capacity but will help current handling capability.

    The one thing I wonder is what tradeoffs they might not be telling us about. Lead-acid battery manufacturers have used the same trick for years to make extremely high-discharge-rate batteries (think automotive starter motors...).

    The thing is that electrodes with high surface area tend to be very thin, and as a result, degrade quickly (and permanently) if discharged too far. This is why you see lead-acid batteries specifically marketed as "deep cycle" - They have thicker electrodes, which reduces their current handling capacity, but increases their ability to survive deep discharging.

    i.e. "deep cycle" batteries can reliably be cycled down to 50% of their capacity over and over again, while I believe automotive batteries take a small amount of permanent damage if cycled below even 90% of their capacity. They're designed not for energy storage capacity, but the ability to deliver short high-power bursts. (100+ amperes for a few seconds at most followed by minutes or even hours of charging.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  95. Ob Spaceballs by Drathos · · Score: 1

    It's my industrial strength hair dryer. And I can't live without it!

    --
    End of line..
  96. Re:cold fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out one of the decmber 2004 issues of new scientist. cold fusion is real, its just still n lab deveolpment and my not be scalable for large scale use....

  97. Ah Coffee! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    And think of what you could brew while charging, coffee, tea, hot chocolate. Heck, even soups would be nice and hot by the time you're done!

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  98. I do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only watch them for the acting.

  99. OT Re:"Two eminent experts' by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    "Eminent" reminds me of a headline I saw in my college newspaper once:

    Bombing of Iraq Eminent

    This was in 1997 or 1998. Yay for vocabulary!

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  100. Informative post by corngrower · · Score: 1

    I'ld mod you up if i had mod points.

  101. Won't say, but.... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

    I won't say whether this is real or not, as I obviously have no idea.

    I will, however, say this: check out the TZero electric car, which has a range equivalent to my Nissan Sentra 1.8* and supercar-like performance using an onboard pack of Li-Ion laptop batteries.

    Now reduce the number of batteries (and associated cost) by 2/3, and add the ability to charge it up in a few minutes. While still not practical for daily use (still no A/C or windows), you've now got something you could drive from LA to Las Vegas, play a single slot machine, "fill up" the batteries in a hurry, then drive back.

    Less weight, long range, short recharging time -- those are the three things electric car manufacturers have been hoping for.

    *Note that the TZero model on their front page, and currently for sale, does NOT have the Li-Ion batteries to my knowledge, and so has a shorter posted range (100mi); the model in the linked page above, however, carries Li-Ion batteries and traveled 245 miles to Vegas without stopping (and with some range left).

    **Note: this post does not explicitly endorse the use of electric cars in any way, shape or form, and was written from the point of view of the technology only. No need to start a side war about electrics vs others.

  102. correction by raygundan · · Score: 1

    Whoops-- you're right. The A30 was my previous laptop, the PIII model. The new one is an R40. Sorry for the mixup!

  103. This is patented by Meor · · Score: 0

    Where's the slashdot patent rage over this? Microsoft patents isNot and generates 500 posts of how much they hate the company, this company comes up with a technology that could revolutionize moble devices as we know it and the only instance of the word "patent" in all of these replies is someone making a joke.

  104. Cables rated for current, not power? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If cables are rated for current not power, why do I have a power strip and an extension cord labeled, "do not exceed a total of 1350 watts" ?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Cables rated for current, not power? by njh · · Score: 1

      Because appliances are rated in watts. With a fixed mains operating voltage the two are (almost) equivalent.

  105. coincidence or news engineering? by Y2 · · Score: 1

    They sold 5 million shares of their stock on the Monday following the press release, at a price double what they had been trading for. Lucky coincidence? Perhaps.

    --
    "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
  106. Yes, Electric Cars by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If this is for real, it does great things for the viability of electric cars.

    And here is a technology that could produce even greater breakthroughs in battery storage capacity.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  107. Altair by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    Is their capacity 8800 mAh ?

  108. I smell bullshit. by pclminion · · Score: 1

    300% more power at the same voltage means 3 times the current. Since power dissipation goes as the current squared, this supposed battery would produce 9 times as much waste heat. Smells like bullshit to me.

    1. Re:I smell bullshit. by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that the battery resistance is the same. The reason that a certain battery type can produce a maximum current output is because of level of internal resistance.

      The ability to deliver 3x the current means that they must have lowered the internal resistance which means that the amount of heat produced will be 1/3 per amp as a normal battery.

      In other words, at the 3x current draw of a normal battery, it'll produce the same amount of heat.

      Heat and current capacity are two faces of the same internal process of the battery.

      And as others have pointed out, this will merely take the Li-Ion battery tech to the level of good old Ni-Cd in terms of charge time and discharge rate. Nice, but nothing earth shattering.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  109. compatibility? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    A year from now, would I (theoretically) be able to purchase one of these batteries and have it work in an existing laptop (provided they made the proper model battery, yadda yadda), or is the technology too fundamentally different? Maybe if I had an external charger?

    It'd really be nice to increase the battery life of my thinkpad x30 from roughly 3 hours to 9 hours. That would remove the only barrier I see in laptops becoming true mobile computing devices.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  110. winners and losers by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 1
    Well Warren Buffett would say to cut your losers and let your winners ride.

    Disclaimer: This is not investment advice, but my own personal opinion. I am not a financial advisor, I'm just an IT geek and web developer.

    Right on, couldn't agree more - it may be well worth the risk to hang on to some stock but to recoup your initial investment to preserve capital in case it goes south. Buffett does an amazing amount of research into the companies he invests in and people who run it; he goes for the long haul. I like that.

    The most important thing with day trading (and investing) is preservation of capital; things move so fast and you *never* hold a position overnight (you would be surprised how many people do this in day trading).

    Keep a close eye on the volume. You can't afford losers; and like you I don't understand why folks hang on to stocks that are circling the drain with the forlorn hope things will get better. Just cut your losses when it downticks a couple of times and move on (in day trading; for long term it's all about fundamentals).

    You have an excellent point about recouping your capital by selling 1/2 your position (if it doubled) or 3/4 of your position (for a smaller profit) on speculation that there will be good news from the conference call. Risky, as you point out; I'd get rid of at least 3/4 of the stock so I could lock in a small profit.

    I tend to be conservative about this stuff, though it's easy to get caught up in the rush and excitement of day trading. And easy to get ulcers and have a heart attack.

    My best friend (a level-headed guy) lost his entire stake. The stock went up-up-up, then crashed suddenly after expected news didn't materialize. All of his eggs in one basket, margin call, etc etc. He stayed in bed for a week after that.

    Here's a weak analogy:

    Everyone's trying to catch the big fish that will make them fat and happy forever. I prefer to go for the minnows and little fish; there are more of them and I'll catch my fill regularly. Sure, maybe a couple of folks will get lucky and feast long before me, others will go hungry and sometimes so will I, but in the long run I'll have eaten well for a lifetime.

    The battery news is exciting, but the devil's in the details. I wouldn't put in a dime at this point; the day trading opportunity has come and gone for now. I would only take a long term position if the product was vetted by independent reviewers and the company had OEMs/distributors on board. I'd rather miss an opportunity for huge money and get in for small money than flush everything down the toilet on hype.

    Day trading just ain't my thing anymore, I guess. Getting old; for me it's just too much stress.

    The battery news is exciting and I hope it pans out.

  111. Size? by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

    Sure they last 3 times longer and charge in 10 minutes which are both great features but what about the size?

  112. Excellent battery background resource here - by wsanders · · Score: 1

    The single best resource I've found on the web is http://www.buchmann.ca/, formerly cadex.com (Buchmann is founder of Cadex, a battery technology company).

    Read the "Batteries in a Portable World" section. A brief quote: "Li-ion batteries for defense applications are being produced that far exceed the energy density of the commercial equivalent. Unfortunately, these super-high capacity Li-ion batteries are deemed unsafe in the hands of the public. Neither would the general public be able to afford to buy them."

    HA! What does he know about ./ readers!

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  113. Won't charge by Bob+4knee · · Score: 1
    You cannot do this while charging a battery. The voltage MUST be kept below the voltage of the battery or you will start doing funky things with the battery.

    If your input voltage is below battery voltage, current flows out of the battery and you discharge the battery. You don't want it (charging voltage) too much above the battery voltage, or bad things happen. Warped plates and cells drying out for lead acid batteries. Explosions and fires and such for other types. Hence the voltage regulator on your car.

  114. $145000 for the lead-acid to Li-Ion upgrade!! by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I'll stick with golf cart batteries for now, thanks.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  115. Need expert opinion here by klui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My friend quotes some guy from Lockheed who is an LiIon battery engineer (I think) and says that LiIon batteries should be charged all the time because they have a set number of charge cycles (around 100?). i.e. do not let them drop below 70%, if you do it counts as charge a cycle. But your post contradicts this other methodology.

    I have a Dell and I used to run the battery down all the way, and it has lasted for around 3 years. Several months ago I started to have the unit plugged in all the time with the battery installed. Now the battery is dead, but I cannot say for sure if it was due to me cycling the battery or of the recent change in usage pattern.

    Can anyone with more qualifications comment?

    1. Re:Need expert opinion here by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Informative

      All rechargable batteries have a fixed number of recharge cycles. How many cycles you can get out of the battery depends on:

      - Battery chemistry (e.g. Li-Ion vs. Ni-MH)
      - Manufacturing tolerences (how well is the product built)
      - Environmental considerations (temperature of storage, etc.)
      - Charging methods (e.g. overcharging / charging too quickly)
      - Cycle depth

      It's best with Li-Ion to cycle the battery as little as possible. Depending on how deeply - and how frequently - you discharge the battery, you may experience reduced lifespan.

      It's bad to overcharge, but modern Li-Ion battery packs won't allow themselves to be overcharged. There's nothing wrong in leaving your notebook plugged in all the time.

  116. 300 % More Power, not Energy by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    That it 300% more power, as in they can provide 3 Watts of power instead of just 1. Of course, this does not have any effect on the amount of energy which may be stored in the batteries. Running the batteries at three times the power would result in 1/3 the battery life (assuming the batteries were similar in other respects). Unless you have an Athlon 64 laptop (or some other high-wattage need) the main thing you'll like about these batteries is that they can charge much faster (because they can also absorb energy at an increased rate).

    It doesn't sound like snake oil to me, but it does sound like an incremental advance.

  117. Re:cold fusion by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 2
    check out one of the decmber 2004 issues of new scientist. cold fusion is real, its just still n lab deveolpment and my not be scalable for large scale use....

    Cold fusion is sufficiently real to the powers-that-be that the principal expert in the field was mysteriously murdered by a mugger in rural New Hampshire. Lot of violent muggings up there, let me tell you. Then the man accused of murdering him was murdered.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  118. Car analogies suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I mean, if most car's MPG and tank capacity give them roughly 300 miles of range, why should the industry let you get away with using your laptop unplugged for more than 2 hours?"

    Hmmm...let's see now. Gasoline has a volumetric energy density of, what, about 8kWh per litre? A Lithium-Ion battery has a density of 0.2-0.3 kWh/l. Petrol has about 30 times more enery stored in it by volume than a LiIon battery.

    OK, so your average battery doesn't have to contain enough juice to push a car, but at the same time, the cells in your laptop's battery aren't usually 10 gallons in volume or anything like that. They have to be small(ish), and you just can't pack a lot of energy into 'em.

    If you want your laptop to go 10 hours on a single battery, then you need to end up with a massive battery along the lines of one of those Electrovaya thingies.

    Alternatively, methanol has about half the energy density of gasoline, or over 10 times that of current LiIon batteries. Once fuel cells eventually arrive, you'll be able to drive your laptop a good bit further on a full tank...

  119. 300% ? by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

    My bullshit detector just exploded.

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  120. the rules as I learnt them by tqft · · Score: 1

    "Disclaimer: This is not investment advice, but my own personal opinion. I am not a financial advisor"
    Same here.

    "If I'm going to speculate again, I'll do it wisely."
    I am not sure this is possible - if you are going to speculate treat it as a trip to the casino - kiss your money goodbye before you go in, count yourself lucky if you get back enough to buy a meal, drinks and a cab fare home.

    Nothing against your rules but I like rules simple enough to explain to manaegement.

    1. You never go broke taking a profit
    2. Hogs get slaughtered

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  121. lol by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 1
    Great rules; simple enough for a CEO.

    You definitely have to be prepared to lose it all if you're going to speculate or invest.

  122. Is the main page of slashdot DOWN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the main page of slashdot DOWN?
    Anyone else having trouble?

  123. Li-Poly already outperforms NiMH in peak discharge by Frinkiac8 · · Score: 1

    There are already Li-Poly batteries on the market that support 20C discharge rates http://www.aeromicro.com/Catalog/kokam_super_high_ discharge_li-poly_340_mah_3-cell__11_1v__pack_2660 314.htm. NiMH typically only support 8C-10C discharge rates. However, standard Li-Ion/Li-Poly batteries only support 3C-6C discharge. 3 times this is only 9C to 18C, so for a product that isn't on the market yet, this isn't that impressive, unless it can be scaled up to higher capacity cells than the current 20C batteries support. The recharge rate is impressive, though, since even the 20C cells require at least an hour to charge.