Batteries Becoming Limiting Step For Portable Toys

grqb writes "Reuters is reporting that strong growth for portable devices such as laptop computers, game and music players, PDAs and mobile phones is expected to pressure battery manufacturers to improve their products, which are quickly becoming the limiting step in portable technology development. The lithium-ion battery technology that is commonly used hasn't changed in several years. The race is on to find battery technologies that are lighter and have increased life, but major breakthroughs don't seem to be on the horizon other than the lithium polymer battery, which can squeeze roughly 10-20% more life than lithium-ion. Micro fuel cells that run off of methanol are touted to be the next major wave for portable power, although logistics and price still make these fuel cells long shots, which is why Nokia recently dropped development of this technology."

Comments

The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[AKAImBatman]

The Solution: Nuclear Batteries

The market is practically screaming for a battery that doesn't run down in a short period of time. At the very least, nuclear radioisotope technology could be used to create batteries that have longer lives and recharge themselves. If the full potential of this technology were used, then our devices could be powered for YEARS without replacing the battery. Potentially, the battery could even outlast the device!

I realize a lot of people have concerns over the safety of nuclear batteries. But before you run off half-cocked, consider a few points:

1. They use the radiation for power. As a result, the batteries would be designed to capture as much of it as possible. In the case of Alpha and Beta radiation, that can easily reach 100% even if power isn't realized for all of the radiation.

2. You're probably sitting on a highly unstable, very dangerous bomb right now. See that Lithium-Ion battery in your phone? It just happens to be a powerful explosive.

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[killermookie]

But here's the catch...

If manufacturer's create a battery that lasts for years...how is that good business?

Right now, if you use items that suck up a lot of battery power, you have to buy more. That's more profit for the manufacturer.

If they produce a product that you only have to buy ever 3 years, then either the manufacturer will lose profit as less batteries are being sold or the cost of these batteries will be so enormously high that it'll be out of consumer range prices.

Imagine if the razor companies created a blade that lasts for 3 years. Fat chance! Blades are their cash cow!

Re:The Problem: Batteries don't last long enough.

[AKAImBatman]

Someone is trolling with a bot. The bot picks up highly rated posts from previous articles and then reposts them to places where they seem really odd.

I have something of a theory on why they are doing this. I think the purpose of the bot is to cause the moderators to use up all their points, thus ensuring that trolls get time in the limelight. The previous version of this scheme were all the "Please help me mod down this trash" posts.

Recharge time is where it's at.

[johndierks]

I'd like the advancement in battery technology not to come in weight or longevity, but in recharge time.

I wouldn't care if my laptop battery only lasts 3 hours if I can recharge it in 5 minutes.

LiPolys

[caseih]

I've been using Lithium Polymer batteries for quite some time on my electric remote control airplanes. They are amazingly light weight, pack a lot of energy and can handle enormous current loads. My airplanes draw up to 10 Amps of steady current from my 7.4V 1500 mAh batteries, although typical flights use much less, about 12 to 14 minutes per charge of constant flying.

The downsides to LiPoly are the same as LiIon. They are expensive and don't have an operational lifetime that is very long. They wear out just sitting on the shelf. I anticipate having to replace my airplane batteries every year or so. LiPoly batteries also take a long time to completely charge. Filling an empty 1500 mAh battery takes almost one and a half hours at 1.5 A charging current. Also if a LiPoly is every discharged below a certain voltage, the cells are ruined.

Re:They aren't becoming the limiting step

[Mr2cents]

So you're saying that back then, people had more realistic expectations?

Re:Obvious solution

[MillionthMonkey]

So.. I haven't done the calcs yet, but nuclear batteries would probably be more feasible than you are thinking from an engineering standpoint.

You obviously haven't done the calcs. Efficiency is not even the major problem here. The problem is that ionizing radiation is an extremely deadly form of energy- a median lethal dose in humans is about several watt seconds per kg of body mass. And to get even a tiny little bit of heat, you need an enormous amount of radiation.

Say we use a radioisotope to power a space heater. Efficiency is not an issue in a heater, since all it needs to do is trap the radiation in enough shielding so that all the energy is converted to heat. If the decay mode yields 10 MeV of energy, 100 watts will require 62.4 trillion decays per second, or 1700 Curies (Ci)- something nominally similar to 1700 grams of radium. For comparison, total leakage in the Three Mile Island incident was approximately 13 Ci. (Chernobyl leaked millions.) If your laptop were running on a 1700 Ci source, it wouldn't be on your lap.

Pu-238 is the sort of isotope used for generating heat via decay. It generates about a half watt per gram. You'd need to run around with several hundred grams of it to power your laptop. The Am-241 in smoke detectors generates 114 milliwatts per gram. You'd need to scrape clean about 10000 smoke detectors to get a gram of Am-241 together- and about ten million smoke detectors will generate enough power to run a laptop. In fact all the smoke detectors ever sold in the world probably contribute something around 1 kilowatt of heat to their surroundings.