Video Shows Why Recharging Kills Batteries

Can't wait for the same on supercaps by alfredos · 2010-12-09 09:30 · Score: 1

Probably easier said than done, though. I believe these don't alter their structures but merely support a larger or smaller buzz of electrons. Any +5 insightful candidate to comment on that?

Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by eexaa · 2010-12-09 10:06 · Score: 1

Not that it wouldn't be offtopic, but...
Some guy was developing a theory that actual money we have now can be replaced by energy, when it can be properly easily stored for use.
Supercapacitators provide the way to do this.
I'd be happy to finally pay with real resources.
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by Bucky24 · 2010-12-09 10:10 · Score: 2

Sure, then someone would finally come up with a working fusion reactor and wham! Inflation makes all your "energy money" useless.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wouldn't it be just the same system we use now, except backed by electrons (instead of fiat, or metals)?
I can't see our physical money tokens being replaced by batteries - not unless either the storage density goes up a few orders of magnitude or power prices do, and that's not counting the price of the battery itself. Power is about 10 cents per kilowatt hour. My laptop battery is, what, 60 watt hours? Even if it was 600 watt hours in the same volume and weight, that's worth less than ten cents.
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by __aatirs3925 · 2010-12-09 13:34 · Score: 1

I'm a +5 insightful CANDIDATE, but no one seems to vote for me. I think the title was VERY misleading in saying that there is a video showing why recharging kills batteries when in fact it's just a hypothesis. no need to say welcome to /., I already know. :P
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by wierd_w · 2010-12-09 13:41 · Score: 2

A super capacitor is basically a highly convoluted labarynth of activated carbon, submerged in an electrolyte solution.
It works by radically increasing the surface area of the interface layer, where the electrical charge potential gets stored. More surface area==More theoretical maximum charge.
An electron micrograph of the kind of activated carbon in question is really all you need to see to understand just how much surface area you are talking here by using the activated carbon instead of the more traditional interfaces used in normal electrolytic capacitors.
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by irober02 · 2010-12-09 16:57 · Score: 1

Carrying around compact energy devices instead of cash. What an idea! Think how dangerous Bill Gates's wallet might be (I was going to write 'Warren Buffett' and then thought he doesn't seem to spend much money.) You wouldn't want to be in the vicinity of an uncontained wallet failure. Bang! It's raining pennies from Heaven...
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by Hognoxious · 2010-12-09 19:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

A market based on real energy would be immune to inflation.
Why? Because it can't be created or destroyed?
You fail to see the difference between energy and useful energy. The supply of the latter certainly went up when the water wheel & steam engine were invented. If your currency was backed by energy it would crash just like one backed by gold would if you suddenly stole tons of it from a South American kingdom that you'd just conquered.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by vegiVamp · 2010-12-09 19:18 · Score: 2

Cue Roddenberry's money-free society.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by jonbryce · 2010-12-10 02:35 · Score: 1

No it wouldn't, because you would have bank-made paper energy caused by the credit multiplier effect, just like you do with money at the moment.
Re:Can't wait for the same on supercaps by treeves · 2010-12-10 11:42 · Score: 1

All the markets would crash if energy were "free"? Why? It's not as though energy is the only finite resource that exists.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

You got all that from THAT video? by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-12-09 09:34 · Score: 4, Funny

I keep watching it over and over again, in its 17 second glory... and I honestly wish I could believe you.

No, I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that this is actually a Rorschach inkblot VIDEO. You see whatever your subconscious is thinking about. Edwin Cartlidge is obviously suffering from the stress of a bad phone lithium ion battery - and when he stumbled across this video thats what he percieved is happening.

For me, I think this is the opening bit to a Frank Miller or James Bond Flick - I can almost hear the rock/Jazz music chime in.

What about you guys? What do YOU see?

Re:You got all that from THAT video? by snookerhog · 2010-12-09 09:37 · Score: 1

It made me thing of Eraserhead. what does that say about me Doc?
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by callmebill · 2010-12-09 09:41 · Score: 1

Close up of a drop of pond water.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-12-09 09:43 · Score: 4, Funny

It says you've seen too much of David Lynch's films, which is to say, more than 10 minutes.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by f3rret · 2010-12-09 09:44 · Score: 1

I highly doubt that the video was the only data gathered in this particular experiment. It's just that it's hard to make a "snappy" video out of pages and pages of numerical data gathered from whatever else they were using to gather data from the experiment.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by eepok · 2010-12-09 09:54 · Score: 1

FTFA JUST below the video: As lithium ions flow from the positively charged cathode into the 200-nanometre diameter wires of tin oxide that make up the negatively charged anode, the nanowires writhe and bulge, causing them to expand up to 2.5 fold. The wires also change structure from a neatly ordered crystal to a disordered glassy material. These distortions may explain why such batteries ultimately wear down, the team reports online today in Science.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 10:20 · Score: 1

I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that this is actually a Rorschach inkblot VIDEO.
Rorschach? Isn't he the guy who drew all those pictures of dead hookers?
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by thedonger · 2010-12-09 10:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

That is also in TFS, but after watching the video it may just as well have said, "watch this worm."

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by cababunga · 2010-12-09 10:46 · Score: 2

Rorschach? Isn't he the guy who drew all those pictures of dead hookers?
Ah, I see why you are posting anonymously.
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by formfeed · 2010-12-09 11:02 · Score: 1

[..] that this is actually a Rorschach inkblot VIDEO
You mean like these pornographic ink drawings of naked women?
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by apoc.famine · 2010-12-09 14:53 · Score: 1

I don't see anything. No video to be found. I allowed most of the scripts on the page, but google-analytics is on my blacklist. Perhaps it needs to be enabled to watch the video? No idea.

So what do I see? I see a site that runs a shitton of sketchy-ass scripts, and doesn't work without them.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by tehcyder · 2010-12-10 03:01 · Score: 1

I'll tell you this, David Lynch has never made as good an animation as Bambi.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by tehcyder · 2010-12-10 03:47 · Score: 1

Re: your sig.
Try Digg.
After a few days there, slashdot comments will look like extracts from "The World's Greatest Wits and Philosophers" by comparison.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:You got all that from THAT video? by Grizzley9 · 2010-12-10 03:49 · Score: 1

"These distortions may explain why such batteries ultimately wear down. Knowing more about the process may help researchers develop longer lasting, and perhaps much smaller, batteries in the future."
Perhaps I'm slow but wouldn't battery companies and researchers already know this given the rather long time these batteries have been around?

It seems akin to saying, to use the car analogy, "See how this oil breaks down over time and doesn't lubricate as well, studying this researchers may find out ways to extend engine life."

What am I missing?

For my fellow noscript and requestpolicy users... by TheCarp · 2010-12-09 09:40 · Score: 4, Informative

The sight has a boatload of requests going all over the place... the video is hosted on "brightcove"

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

What we don't know why or how? by Twinbee · 2010-12-09 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I find it pretty amazing that we don't really still understand why these things wear out. It's a bit more forgivable for something like the human brain which is much more complicated, and where we can't easily poke around for obvious reasons.

But batteries?

I'm guessing our tools to get a peak of the microscopic realm must still be in their early stages technogically.

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc

Re:What we don't know why or how? by jeffmeden · 2010-12-09 09:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

We do know why, and it's simple; parts of the insides of the battery end up in different places over time. The chemical reactions that take place during charging and discharging don't happen with perfect symmetry in forward and reverse, therefore each cycle will leave a little less reactive material than before. Making a battery with such perfect symmetry might be theoretically possible but it's not been achieved with any cost-beneficial success.
The bottom line is that batteries, like many other things, are only gradually improved since the process of production that establishes their characteristics can only be gradually improved. The lithium-ion system was a LONG time coming from the days of lead and nickel, but nevertheless it's just another stop on the road to better things.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by Twinbee · 2010-12-09 10:20 · Score: 3, Informative

The CRT is a mature technology too. Doesn't mean it's ideal, or nearly ideal. Anyway, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscopy#Limitations

Yes a lot of the problem is holes in our knowledge of the presumably complicated battery physics, but I bet we'd have a lot more insight if these things could be analyzed and seen in realtime without any of the tedious preparation and other obstacles. Ideally, we'd even have the battery running as normal the whole time, though that may be almost impossible.

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:What we don't know why or how? by koolguy442 · 2010-12-09 10:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

TEM Comments
This experiment was actually quite a bit harder to carry out than you think. (I imagine, as I wasn't involved in this study but do similar work.) Doing these experiments is like traveling to the moon in that the principles are relatively simple, but it's the details that are hard. While operation of the TEM is relatively easy, preparation of samples is extremely tedious even when the sample is relatively robust and isotropic and it doesn't matter where you need to look on the sample. Constructing a TEM specimen with the intention of looking at a tiny little feature of some larger piece of material is extremely difficult, taking hours or days, if even possible. It's even more difficult to prepare a specimen and have the right equipment set up to control and observe dynamic processes, such as lithium discharge from a single nanofiber. And viewing dynamics in a complicated system, like a battery, which contains at a very minimum three active components, anode, cathode, and electrolyte, is another order of magnitude harder. Plus you have to find a way to make the thing less than 20 nanometers thick and get it into a microscope at high vacuum without breaking or contaminating it, which is nontrivial. There's also the cost of the equipment, which is between $500,000 and $10 million for the microscope itself and another couple hundred thousand dollars for the specialized probes required to do this experiment. I do this for a living myself, as do many people across the world who are either pursuing or already have PhDs in microscopy and analysis, and if it were easy, it'd've already been done and we'd be out of the job.
Battery comments
We understand pretty much exactly why batteries wear out. Though the anodes in "real" batteries are usually some form of graphite, which expands less than 10% versus the SnOx in the video (~250%), there is still jostling of all the little powders that form the battery upon charging and discharging that eventually lead to the individual particles separating from the electrodes as a whole and essentially becoming dead micro-paperweights within the battery cell. It's just very hard to image them dynamically in a realistic operation because air and water vapor tend to destroy the materials nearly instantly.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by commodore64_love · 2010-12-09 10:53 · Score: 1

Don't know if anyone cares but during the 90s, when Toyota & Honda were developing their Hybrids, they discovered batteries could last near-forever if kept betweens 50% and 80% state-of-charge.
If charged to full or depleted, then the stress would cause internal damage to the cells, but by keeping them in that "sweet spot" the batteries lasted 200,000 miles of drive time w/o almost no measurable loss in capacity.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:What we don't know why or how? by noidentity · 2010-12-09 10:53 · Score: 1

Have you considered that the people reporting on this aren't well-informed om what is known about batteries?
Re:What we don't know why or how? by Twinbee · 2010-12-09 11:14 · Score: 1

That did cross my mind. I have heard it elsewhere, but I expected better from the Slashdot editors.

(yes, that last bit was a joke).

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:What we don't know why or how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 11:39 · Score: 1

There are actually many batteries that are durable through a vast number of cycles. Nickel-hydrogen batteries last for around 20,000 charge cycles (if you charge it once a day, that's over 50 years) and nickel-iron batteries last basically forever.
The advantage of lithium-ion batteries is their high energy density, but they are still far inferior to nickel-iron batteries when it comes to durability.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by Twinbee · 2010-12-09 12:43 · Score: 1

Hi again, I'm trying to reconcile your comment with this one, which seems to indicate it's slightly tricky (a bit of an understatement):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1903996&cid=34507858

Sorry, do you actually research in the field of battery tech?

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:What we don't know why or how? by dpilot · 2010-12-09 12:48 · Score: 1

I've heard something like that, and that the hybrids on the road today operate in that sweet spot. But it makes me wonder what's going to happen to the batteries of those people who buy the plug-in kit for the Prius, and presumably deep cycle regularly. BTW, I believe current cars run on NiMH. (Is the Volt the first Li battery car?)

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by amRadioHed · 2010-12-09 13:21 · Score: 2

Maybe there's no loss of capacity, but if you're only allowed to use 30% of that capacity isn't that just as bad?

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:What we don't know why or how? by sexconker · 2010-12-09 13:35 · Score: 1

The CRT is a mature technology too. Doesn't mean it's ideal, or nearly ideal.
CRTs are the best display technology we have.
I'm sorry if you've only dealt with shitty consumer CRTs, but you can't just go shitting on the Display King like that without getting called out.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by Twinbee · 2010-12-09 14:13 · Score: 1

Forget LCD - I'm sure you've heard of OLED. It will be better than CRT in most or every way.

However, have you heard of QLED (quantum dots)? It's been making the news recently, and promises again to be better than *even* OLED in every way that OLED could even remotely fall short, including better colour, much brighter, more energy efficient (even OLED requires colour filters), easily printable, better resolution, and even thinner. And it should obsolete all current lighting technologies too. See these links:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19591482
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot_display
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/12/quantum-dot-led.php

When these things become available (or even when OLED does), I'm sure you'll be the first to throw (along with any incandescent, flourescent, or LED bulbs you happen to have) the CRT in the trash ;) .

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:What we don't know why or how? by jeffmeden · 2010-12-09 14:35 · Score: 1

If you only use 30% of the capacity of the lithium battery... you might as well just save your money and buy long life lead acid batteries instead. They will end up being the same size/weight and with the money you can buy three sets that will get you way past 200,000 miles of life.
Re:What we don't know why or how? by commodore64_love · 2010-12-09 23:59 · Score: 1

What's cheaper?
A slightly-more expensive 2x battery that lasts the life of the vehicle and never needs replaced? Or a 1x battery that has to be replaced every 75,000 miles at ~$4000 a pop (plus labor)??? I think Toyota/Honda chose wisely when they decided to make the battery last the life of the car, rather than sock customers with expensive replacement costs.
.
>>>if you're only allowed to use 30% of that capacity isn't that just as bad?
Well considering Toyota's first hybrid (prius) got 50-60 MPG and Honda's first hybrid (insight) got 70-80 MPG, I'd say "no". They accomplished what they set-out to do: create a car that was extremely fuel efficient without loss of acceleration.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:What we don't know why or how? by stdarg · 2010-12-10 04:18 · Score: 1

I wonder if the technology from that story on self-healing solar cells would help with batteries.

Annealing, anyone? by Velox_SwiftFox · 2010-12-09 09:44 · Score: 1

The usual cure for material fatigue

Re:Annealing, anyone? by Jeffrey+Baker · 2010-12-09 09:55 · Score: 2

Sure, they'll just need to develop the rest of the battery so it can survive temperatures above 300C for extended periods.

Positive and negative? by rdsingh · 2010-12-09 09:45 · Score: 1

I thought, Anode is positively charged and Cathode is negatively charged, in my whole life... Is this a typo? Or is this because positive and negative are entirely our convention and it depends on where we observe them from?

Re:Positive and negative? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 10:02 · Score: 1

I thought, Anode is positively charged and Cathode is negatively charged, in my whole life... Is this a typo? Or is this because positive and negative are entirely our convention and it depends on where we observe them from?
You and the article are both correct. It's just that while recharging the battery, you need flip the direction of the current, which means the charges get reversed.
Re:Positive and negative? by cdrudge · 2010-12-09 10:06 · Score: 4, Informative

It depends on if the battery is charging or discharging as to if the anode or cathode is the positive or negative terminal. Read the top of the wiki page for cathod or anode for more info.
Re:Positive and negative? by rdsingh · 2010-12-09 10:08 · Score: 1

Indeed, the mantra i was taught in chemistry is "The Anode oxidizes, it's electrons flow to the Cathode where the reduction occurs."
If anode loses electrons, it should become positive and if cathode receive electrons, it should become negative - so tells my electrical book!
Re:Positive and negative? by snookums · 2010-12-09 11:11 · Score: 1

The anode is where oxidation happens, the cathode where reduction happens.
Then recall the OILRIG. Reduction is loss (of electrons), oxidation is gain (of electrons).
In the normal operation (discharge) of a cell, reduction is going on at the cathode, "sucking out" electrons, if you will, leaving a positive electrical potential. Thus, in normal operation the cathode is the cell/battery terminal marked +. The reverse is happening at the anode, which thus is the terminal marked -.
During charging, you're pumping electrons back into the negative terminal "forcing" reduction to happen there, and thus the negative terminal becomes a cathode.
Confusion can easily arrise because the relationship of cathode and anode to + and - markings is reversed for power sources and power sinks. Say you want to connect and LED to a battery. You connect the "negative", cathode lead to the negative battery terminal, and the anode lead to the positive terminal, but you're not connecting anode to anode. Think about a chained circuit of several devices -- it goes anode-cathode-anode-cathode all the way around. The battery (or other power source) is no different. The anode of the battery connects to the cathode of the LED.

--
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
Re:Positive and negative? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 12:23 · Score: 1

Care to explain OILRIG further?
You claim:
Reduction is loss and Oxidation is gain, but if OILRIG is an acronym, is would stand for:
Oxidation Is Loss (OIL) and Reduction Is Gain (RIG).
thx
Re:Positive and negative? by snookums · 2010-12-09 12:44 · Score: 1

Sorry, the mnemonic works as you have it written. I had it the wrong way around.
At the cathode of a discharging battery cell, the chemical in the cell is being reduced and is thus gaining electrons. These electrons are, in a sense, taken from the electrode leaving it with a positive potential.

--
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
Re:Positive and negative? by rdsingh · 2010-12-09 14:10 · Score: 1

Thank you! Much appreciated reply.

It's an engineering trade-off by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 09:53 · Score: 5, Informative

You can have a battery which has almost infinite charge-discharge cycles. (iron-nickel) It will be very large and heavy for the energy it stores and also has quite a large self-discharge.

If you want a small light battery that stores a large amount of energy, something has to give. In this case battery life suffers. You can make batteries that last a lot longer, they will just be big.

Re:It's an engineering trade-off by Bigjeff5 · 2010-12-09 10:21 · Score: 1

While that's true, there are always improvements to be made.
We don't currently get the maximum amount of energy possible out of a battery that lasts for X amount of recharge cycles and is Y big. There is a limit, but new materials and manufacturing techniques get us closer and closer.
That is what incremental improvement is all about.

--
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Re:It's an engineering trade-off by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2010-12-09 10:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you want a small light battery that stores a large amount of energy, something has to give.
Why?

--
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Re:It's an engineering trade-off by jeff4747 · 2010-12-09 11:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Because no one has found a material for batteries without trade-offs. All currently known chemistries maximize at best two of weight, power density and cell life.
When someone finds a material that maximizes all 3, then we get that whole 'world-changing-invention' situation.
Re:It's an engineering trade-off by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 17:42 · Score: 1

Weight? Making a battery lighter is easy. It's just that half-size batteries only store half as much energy. It's really the energy density that matters. I don't think "power density" is much of a concern nowadays. However, cost is a big issue that you forgot to mention. An unaffordable battery that maximizes all three of your conditions won't be much of a "world-changing-invention".
Re:It's an engineering trade-off by Nyeerrmm · 2010-12-09 18:32 · Score: 1

Its a common engineering pattern.
The 90s-00s NASA paradigm to go for 'better, faster, cheaper' unmanned missions was usually followed by the half-joke "choose 2 of the 3."
Re:It's an engineering trade-off by tkjtkj · 2010-12-10 02:52 · Score: 1

" If you want a small light battery that stores a large amount of energy, something has to give. In this case battery life suffers. You can make batteries that last a lot longer, they will just be big. " I could not disagree with you more. In fact, your view about 'required trade-off's in engineering are counter-productive to the field. Sometimes its true, but applying your views as the 'general case' just makes no sense. For example, just what were the 'trade-off's when a new electric switching device design was realized? I speak of the transistor: was the trade off losing enormous weight ? losing big size? losing the ability to be unable to switch micro-circuits? It is not true that significant trade-offs are a required constituent of improved designs. Battery technology is even now in the 'morning' of drastic improvements: call it an 'ultra capacitor' or call it an enormously-faster charging battery : it's hard to find where that design's 'trade offs ' are!

--
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"

Xiao Hua Liu by Wocka_Wocka · 2010-12-09 09:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

This will probably be modded off topic or the like, but I wanted to just add a random fact. One of the authors of this paper was a post-doc in the same lab as me before he started working at Sandia; we were working on a solar cell material project together.

The paper regarding lithium intercalation is located here.

Direct link by qwertyatwork · 2010-12-09 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

http://bcove.me/581iaz9a

Re:Direct link by Tetch · 2010-12-10 05:46 · Score: 1

You, Sir, are my hero of the day. I'd read this article with interest (having suffered battery death crap like all the rest of us here), but gave up in despair trying to watch that video.
As a long-time Noscript user, I wondered whether Brightcove might be involved in all the script nonsense, but their name never appears in the Noscript whitelist candidate menu.
Your link however, works perfectly - Brightcove appears in the right-click menu, along with ScienceMag - and that's it.
Hey, ScienceMag .... sort it out :-/

--
If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Making Sausage ... by ryan.onsrc · 2010-12-09 10:06 · Score: 2

Yeah, all I can say is it looks ... kinda nasty.

I'm just glad I don't actually *see* this shit happening (full-blown magnification and all) every time I charge stuff up at my bedside.

Re:Making Sausage ... by clone52431 · 2010-12-09 10:08 · Score: 1

Mmm, yeah...

the nanowires writhe and bulge, causing them to expand up to 2.5 fold. The wires also change structure from a neatly ordered crystal to a disordered glassy material
Rule 34 on that!

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.

Re:For my fellow noscript and requestpolicy users. by CCarrot · 2010-12-09 10:36 · Score: 1

The sight has a boatload of requests going all over the place... the video is hosted on "brightcove"

Thanks!

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant

Iron-Nickel Innuendo by jdev · 2010-12-09 10:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Large, heavy and a lot of self-discharge? Are we talking about batteries still or Slashdot users?

Re:Iron-Nickel Innuendo by adolf · 2010-12-09 10:54 · Score: 1

Large, heavy and a lot of self-discharge? Are we talking about batteries still or Slashdot users?
Perhaps we are talking about both batteries and Slashdot users simutaneously.

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Has anybody thought by rossdee · 2010-12-09 10:49 · Score: 1

Of making batteries out of DiLithium instaed of just Lithium?

Re:Has anybody thought by Kittenman · 2010-12-09 14:15 · Score: 1

But that's only crystals?

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Has anybody thought by mysidia · 2010-12-09 14:22 · Score: 1

Of making batteries out of DiLithium instaed of just Lithium?
TriLithium resin based batteries would probably be a better choice, since they could store more energy per unit density between charge cycles

Re:High school chem? by reg106 · 2010-12-09 11:36 · Score: 2

From the abstract of the associated article, the contribution is realtime visualization of the growth of the nanowire during charging. It's hard to get this sort of setup into a transmission electron microscope. If your institution has access, the full article can be obtained by following the link from the abstract. I can't imagine why the editor posted this without an appropriate link to the article. The video is otherwise meaningless.

Re:SPECTACULAR! by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2010-12-09 11:58 · Score: 1

I smell the Nobel peace prize already.

Or at least the Nobel piece prize, as things go to pieces. B-)

Appropriate, since Nobel made his fortune by inventing dynamite (and was inspired to endow the prizes as a way to undo some of the damage done by dynamite's use in war).

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Why can't they put a simple FET in there by imgod2u · 2010-12-09 13:31 · Score: 1

I keep wondering about this. Why do laptops not come with a switch to cut off the charge when the battery is, say, 99% full? Is it purposely so that the battery will die faster? The laptop works without a battery (while plugged in) so the regulator obviously is capable of handling both AC and battery levels of voltage.

So why are they constantly destroying batteries while plugged in?

Re:Why can't they put a simple FET in there by wramsdel · 2010-12-09 14:17 · Score: 1

Oh, they certainly exist. I design small consumer electronics devices, some of which have lithium-chemistry batteries. Many of the sub-amp battery charger ICs that I've used (case in point, the Intersil ISL6292) will drop to zero charge current at the end of the charge, when current into the cell drops below a certain threshold for a given voltage. I can't speak to current design practices for laptops, but I'd guess that they do the same. Of course, charging a device that's operating is an entirely different scenario and can be a real can of worms from a design standpoint.
Re:Why can't they put a simple FET in there by mysidia · 2010-12-09 14:31 · Score: 2

I keep wondering about this. Why do laptops not come with a switch to cut off the charge when the battery is, say, 99% full? Is it purposely so that the battery will die faster?
Lithium ION battery life is maximized, when kept fully charged at all time; the best possible lifetime is achieved if it's never significantly discharged, so adding a switch would be detrimental. Maintaining the battery fully charged at the float voltage while plugged in increases life of the battery.
The wiring scheme in a laptop, where the computer is always powered by the battery, also has the benefit, that should power unexpectedly go out, power to the computer power will be maintained, as if maintained by an Online UPS.
This means data will not be lost immediately by a a power outage or surge, and the computer will be protected. The protection by the combination of this design and the external power supply with regulated DC output is a bit better than that of a consumer-level (standby) UPS design you would find used for desktop computers. When combined with a surge protector, the safety of a laptop against power issues is top notch, and much better than a standard desktop's power protection. The computer is less likely to get fried if there is a surge.
Compared to the expense of the computer itself, the battery is an inexpensive replaceable component.
Re:Why can't they put a simple FET in there by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 14:39 · Score: 1

It really depends on how well your device was designed. I have an Acer laptop from a couple of years ago. If I use it on battery for a few minutes and plug it back in, Windows will report a status along the lines of "Plugged in, 97%, not charging". It has to hit 95% before it'll top up to 100% again, and this is all without any of Acer's miserable software installed.
I also have a smartphone from HTC that will not function at all without the battery plugged in. I frequently remove it from the charger to see it at 96% charge despite having connected it at 60% charge and left it the whole night. I have low hopes for the long term-battery life on this device, while the laptop still pushes four hours of battery life after two years of fairly regular deep-cycle usage.
Re:Why can't they put a simple FET in there by shird · 2010-12-09 16:34 · Score: 1

Lenovo Thinkpad's have expensive batteries that allow for fine-grained control of these charging ranges. It can maintain it automatically, or you can set custom thresholds. i.e charge if below x%, stop charging at y%. This allows you to do things like commute back and forth from work without the constant 99% -> 100% charge cycle. Otherwise you lose a bit of charge on your commute and plugin at work/home inducing another cycle.

--
I.O.U One Sig.

Video Shows Squirmy Worm Thingy Squirming by Max+Littlemore · 2010-12-09 14:21 · Score: 1

I see a digestive track gurgling.

I must be hungry.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.

Re:For my fellow noscript and requestpolicy users. by apoc.famine · 2010-12-09 14:55 · Score: 1

Thanks, but that's not even an option for me. I apparently have to enable some other script to get that one... Yet another site which loses my eyeballs due to its sketchy-ass maze of scripts.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor

Proof positive... by feepness · 2010-12-09 15:04 · Score: 1

Why we need to go back to tightly wound springs.

how many can you did it? by Xylona · 2010-12-09 17:32 · Score: 1

I didn't know that. It's really weird that they didn't mention this as an option when I called on the tech support line, don't you think? They almost tried to dissuade me from taking my laptop into the store.

Is that a good thing? by pjt33 · 2010-12-09 19:19 · Score: 1

So it would break when the population increases?

Re:For my fellow noscript and requestpolicy users. by vegiVamp · 2010-12-09 19:21 · Score: 2

So does the site, from what I've seen.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Re:Ignore this post by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-10 03:45 · Score: 2

Slashdot 2.0 no longer requires confirmation for moderation (and has no undo feature). You'd know this, if you didn't spend all of your time trolling.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:For my fellow noscript and requestpolicy users. by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-12-10 04:08 · Score: 1

Will you fucks please learn the difference between "site" and "sight"?

For example, the "sight" of your blatant fucking stupidity could fill up an Internet site. See?

A psychiatrist could probably help with your issues. Consider it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

I don't really get this. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-12-10 04:45 · Score: 1

What's the deal with battery chemistry, anyway?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm missing information, but the whole idea behind a battery is that there are more electrons in the plate of metal at one end than there are at the other, right? The electrolyte just frees up the electrons and lets them move from one end of the battery to the other. So any fluid which allows a metal to break down and which can transport electrons is doing the job; even potato or lemon juices work.

So what exactly is so special about Lithium? What's wrong with salt water? Or lemon juice? --I'm not saying that I have some superior insight here, I'm honestly asking. And please don't jump in with the assumption that just because it is in use means it's the best idea and that I need to be punished for not agreeing with the herd; I need thinkers and skeptics here, not true believers.

Also, I've heard that regular Alkaline batteries can be recharged if you rig a charger to do it in stages with cool-down periods in between. That Alkaline chemistry doesn't fart out like Lithium does.

The conspiracy guy inside me is very dubious about all of this and wants to say that the industry is deliberately picking battery chemistry in order to maintain sales. (I mean, when you do the math, these rechargeable lithium batteries end up costing quite a lot more than alkaline in the long run.)

So what gives? Is there a valid reason for Lithium to sit between the metal plates rather than any other medium?

And. . .

Wouldn't it also make sense to just replace the plates and mineral water to a battery rather than try to recharge them? I'm not saying it should be done that way, but is there anything about that which makes it a poor option? Metal and minerals are pretty darned portable and water is pretty abundant. . .

-FL

Slashdot Mirror

Video Shows Why Recharging Kills Batteries

86 of 111 comments (clear)