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?
No - It's lithium.
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.
"Anyone else think snake oil?"
Someone's trying not to look so stupid this time around...
Maybe it uses cold-fusion?
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
When did Slashdot start posting messages from stock pumpers?
Mirror:9 4a874986d9cdd32/index.html
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/2807875cb6676ed0
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.
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.
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.
We don't need this crap, we have BatMax!
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
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.
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.
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.
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
They should add a warning label: "May require personal nuclear reactor, shrapnel shields and additional fire insurance payments."
Does everything include nothing?
"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.
For those that don't want to take the time to look at the article (and before it gets /.'ed), here is the meat:
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.
More detail and not yet Slashdotted; http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050210/080729.html
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
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
It's those inconsiderate jerks who read the article before they post. Now all of us who posted first can't read it.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.