Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Report Super-Powered Battery Breakthrough

another random user writes with news that researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are reporting a breakthrough in battery technology. They say: "With currently available power sources, users have had to choose between power and energy. For applications that need a lot of power, like broadcasting a radio signal over a long distance, capacitors can release energy very quickly but can only store a small amount. For applications that need a lot of energy, like playing a radio for a long time, fuel cells and batteries can hold a lot of energy but release it or recharge slowly. ... The new microbatteries offer both power and energy, and by tweaking the structure a bit, the researchers can tune them over a wide range on the power-versus-energy scale (abstract). The batteries owe their high performance to their internal three-dimensional microstructure. Batteries have two key components: the anode (minus side) and cathode (plus side). Building on a novel fast-charging cathode design by materials science and engineering professor Paul Braun’s group, King and Pikul developed a matching anode and then developed a new way to integrate the two components at the microscale to make a complete battery with superior performance. With so much power, the batteries could enable sensors or radio signals that broadcast 30 times farther, or devices 30 times smaller. The batteries are rechargeable and can charge 1,000 times faster than competing technologies – imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone in less than a second. In addition to consumer electronics, medical devices, lasers, sensors and other applications could see leaps forward in technology with such power sources available."

244 comments

  1. In other news... by Scutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Magic was discovered today and practical and affordable applications for it are now only 30 years away!

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:In other news... by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure i'll get hatred for saying this but...

      Not hatred, but pity. Pity for you are a fool. The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:In other news... by Bam_Thwok · · Score: 2

      If you think you have deeper insights into the preferences of the market that have been missed by all the major phone manufacturers, by all means write a position paper and sell your consulting services. You'll make a pretty penny.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox. Observe.

    4. Re:In other news... by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is that 'magic' (as in your example which is 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.') has been discovered with practical and affordable applications so many times in our lifetimes that it isn't an absurd to believe it will happen again.

    5. Re:In other news... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      The thing is that 'magic' (as in your example which is 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.') has been discovered with practical and affordable applications so many times in our lifetimes that it isn't an absurd to believe it will happen again.

      Wait. This new battery was written in Perl?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:In other news... by es330td · · Score: 2

      The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

      This is true. Unfortunately, TFA says that they have created "microbatteries." While an anecdotal example of jump starting a car with a microbattery is included, lacking any numbers such as kwh of energy we have no idea if these can be scaled "beyond phones."

    7. Re:In other news... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Great things have small beginnings.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great things have small beginnings.

      Yeah, that's what I said to her...

    9. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Put out a working affordable product or STFU with this shit already

    10. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There there. You'll feel better after you take your medication, Mr. Hairyfeet. The nurses will take good care of you, and you'll stop making rambling run-on sentences before you know it.

    11. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're claiming a peak output density 2000 times higher than any other microbatteries to date and one that actually rivals ultracpacitors.

      They think it can be scaled beyond phones and the like. Based on a bit of the story, it's certainly possible to scale it up to larger sizes. How large remains to be seen...

    12. Re:In other news... by Scutter · · Score: 1

      Virtually all of that magic has been incremental steps, not exponential leaps. Whenever I read a new report of a scientific breakthrough that is suddenly orders of magnitude beyond the level of what we have now, I'm skeptical of it. When there is an actual working product that is actually on the market (and not just promises that it will be there within 5 years), then I'll get excited about it. Until then, this is just another vaporware.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    13. Re:In other news... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Thus we get yet another example of the difference between the frolicking Eloi in the garden and the lurking Morlock below patiently waiting with knife and fork ready.
      To put it another way, waiting for things to become available in Walmart before noticing them means at some point wondering WTF has happened to the world.

    14. Re:In other news... by Scutter · · Score: 1

      I think you are misinterpreting what I said. The media has a habit of misreporting scientific studies and the scientific community has a habit of falsifying data to get published. Therefore, when I hear a claim of a sudden breakthrough that is unbelievable, I...don't believe it. Or at least maintain a healthy skepticism. While these batteries may very well be exactly what the story claims, the real proof in the pudding will be if this ever makes it off paper, which it surely will if it's as amazing as the story makes it sound.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    15. Re:In other news... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That mean you shouldn't be here, or reading any articles about science or engineering.. What you want to be looking at is a catalog, or Amazon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:In other news... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Inversely though children will be taught these things more and more at a young age in science class and a few nerds will remain to slowly push humanity forward tidbit by tidbit. These examples are already pretty much standard classroom fair for grade schoolers. At least they were in the 80's.

    17. Re:In other news... by gutnor · · Score: 2

      Well magic battery technology practical and affordable has been discovered several times in the last decade. We are still waiting for the practical application ... It is very cheap to claim breakthrough in science. The only interesting thing is that it is not using graphene.

      And that's not a recent phenomenon. When I was a kid almost 3 decades ago, I loved to read science magazine. I don't think a quarter of the breakthrough made it to production.

    18. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not hatred, but pity. Pity for you are a fool. The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

      B. A. Baracus? Is that you?

    19. Re:In other news... by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      agreed, where's my tricorder and phaser?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    20. Re: In other news... by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      Ask Tesla about that. The Roadster was powered by 6853 laptop battery cells. The new model S uses a similar design with even more cells.

    21. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is that 'magic' (as in your example which is 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.') has been discovered with practical and affordable applications so many times in our lifetimes that it isn't an absurd to believe it will happen again.

      Wait. This new battery was written in Perl?

      Perl6, to be precise.

    22. Re:In other news... by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Like "personal massage wands" for example

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    23. Re: In other news... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No. If you don't like science and tech news, piss off. Some of us like learning about this stuff for reasons beyond wanting to play angry birds and tweet longer between charges.

    24. Re:In other news... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm sure i'll get hatred for saying this but...

      Not hatred, but pity. Pity for you are a fool. The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

      Well, yes, that was his point. That the technology will be wasted on pointlessly thin iPhones rather than for something actually useful.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:In other news... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Great oaks from little acorns grow, grasshopper.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:In other news... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What secret information is hidden in bar codes?

      Ooh, I know this one! It's the number of the United Nations/ZOG Beast isn't it?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:In other news... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That mean you shouldn't be here, or reading any articles about science or engineering.. What you want to be looking at is a catalog, or Amazon.

      Oh bollocks, science and engineering are mostly about steady progress, not miraculous breakthroughs.

      The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or are you one of those wildly optimistic geeks who think we'll have Artificial Intelligence in about 5 years and cold fusion in about 10?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re: In other news... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No. If you don't like science and tech news, piss off. Some of us like learning about this stuff for reasons beyond wanting to play angry birds and tweet longer between charges.

      Pure science is a different matter, but for actual tech, if it's not in the shops, it might as well not exist. Discussing vapourware is just the nerd equivalent of discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re: In other news... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's called "engineering." What you're talking about is called "consumer goods."

      Perhaps you'd be happier browsing Newegg.com?

    30. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. I Copyrighted the use of a spread bank of capacitors to be released in series back in 1990 after inventing a Lightning Harnessing System in mid-1989. It took them 23 years to apply it to batteries. Had the Dept. of Energy jerks not automatically dismissed my Submission because it was on a poor-quality Dot Matrix printer paper this downline result would have been achieved 2 decades ago. When they saw my Submission it identified me as not being in the college crowd you see so obviously I had to be completely full of shit. But what they did THEN was very clever. They waited exactly 6 WEEKS before they sent their turndown letter. I would later run into that clever device. Apparently those who hate Independent Inventors have this device in their shared playbook => How to Destroy Independent American Inventors [who don't follow the standard we want to win = university advances ONLY].

      Now if you want to know just how awesome this is, in 2007 I came across Nikolai Tesla's last papers free read online and by nightfall I had figured out how to make the elusive Warp Drive... but hehehe since I was successfully SQUASHED FINANCIALLY I lack the monies to do anything with it for so far 5+ years. I could tell you of several awesome car engines, space drive engines, and a theory for making a wormhole out in front of the spaceship, but none of that will ever happen except maybe a few of the car engines since I started blasting them around online for free reading.

      But the way that works, such as my solution for cancers in 2006 and posted here first on SlashDot too btw, what they do is they see I'm down and keep me down in hopes I'll release the rest what I know for free also. Except I haven't. I posted what Mankind Needed. Mankind doesn't "need" a moveable-direction wormhole... and a few choice ribeye others. So, to work around my obstinence at WANTING TO GET PAID what they've done is made that computer mouse you're holding into an ADVANCED POLYGRAPH MACHINE that is able to see waht I think using a recently discovered advanced algoritm.

      And if you just now had sex with a willing female wife or not they read that from your brain also.

      Jesus is already arrived on Earth and he will destroy all this because they have caused me harm, but he and all the angels are invisible to our puny eyes. We're not able to see the energy they're wearing as their hiding cloaks. This thing's going down soon. Earthquakes have been occurring as fast & faster than a woman in childbirth pains just as foretold. The cry for Peace and Security is very close to More Guns Pliss and Pass the Ammo (1 Th. 5:3) while 1 Timothy (YLT & NWT) 6:14's "Manifestations of Christ" being arrived are all over the place since several years ago. He has blessed me to see them.

      My best stuff is for Armageddon survivors not this trash heap world, God's New World. And if you are wise you will tell your feet to walk through the front doors of a Kingdom Hall just as soon as possible because we play through.

    31. Re:In other news... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      ...Magic was discovered today and practical and affordable applications for it are now only 30 years away!

      You have to wait for all the myriad of patents to be filed.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  2. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll believe it when it's in my phone.

    1. Re: Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      do you say that about everything?

      the article (though i doubt you read it) doesn't claim the technology is ready to be put into products. in fact, it says the opposite: it's still got some problems, but it's a promising breakthrough.

      there's no need to be so skeptical and negative about everything.

    2. Re: Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you say that about everything?

      No, sometimes I believe it when it's in my car, other times I believe it when it's in my fridge (except that stuff that claims to not be butter, I still don't believe that).

    3. Re:Sure by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Homer Simpson predicted this - "First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    4. Re:Sure by rwise2112 · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm an idiot. I read super as sugar.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    5. Re: Sure by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Namely "safety issues" ,

      seems like forever since we've had to worry about batteries exploding and leaking acid, but batteries are kind of import to us as a race, so some risk in the consumer use of this technology may ultimately benefit us as the technology matures.

    6. Re: Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had a veritable raft of these things in the last few years.

      Consistently no change on the availability front, though.

      It's a bit tiring.

    7. Re: Sure by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Namely "safety issues" ,

      seems like forever since we've had to worry about batteries exploding

      Tell that to Boeing

    8. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't knock it. UIUC just might be the one that would do it. Sure MIT and UC Berkely get a lot of fame for being top-notch as tech colleges, but if you were to look at engineering and stuff like nuclear science or supercomputing, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana actually has a rather decent reputaion not to be overlooked. In other words, although they're not hyped as much as colleges on the coasts but they're definitely not slackers when it comes to cutting edge research.

    9. Re:Sure by dbIII · · Score: 1

      With Homer Simpson sugar makes sense anyway. Mmmm ... donuts.

  3. FINALLY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Google Glasses will now be able to broadcast for decades! :P

  4. That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That was the most worthless infomercial ever.

    1. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed. The whole article is full of vague comparison like 30 times farther, 30 times smaller, 1000 times faster etc. The abstract does not even talk about energy density. It only talks about power density. Even that is blatantly exaggerated. Based on the abstract, it translated to max 74 W/cm^3. The article claims, cell phone using batteries few millimeter in size can jump start a car. How is this possible unless the definition of "few" is overstretched and use a cell phone of the size of olden days public phone.

    2. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the most worthless infomercial ever.

      While the tech. is interesting, the lack of concrete information about it makes it useless, much like some of the hyperboly that has crept up in this place since the GREAT MIGRATION..
       

    3. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually I've jump started my car with a two way radio battery. By just connecting the battery with a couple of wires for 5 minutes I was able to put just enough power back into the car battery to crank the engine and have it start. The lead acid car battery could deliver all of the current at once where my radio battery could not. However, I totally agree. If my cell phone can transmit 30 times farther, I'm guessing that the power will drain from the battery 30 times faster. So ya, does the NEW technology increase the power density?

    4. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by GaratNW · · Score: 1

      Read the abstract instead. You get more in one paragraph that that whole PR fluff piece called an article.

    5. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Probably because it's coming from the News Bureau which generates releases for publications with general readership. There's probably something better if you dig into the homepages for the individual researchers and labs. Paul Braun's group, which created the electrodes, has some PDF articles. William King's page has a list of publications, but no links or documents.

    6. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      If my cell phone can transmit 30 times farther, I'm guessing that the power will drain from the battery 30 times faster.

      Assuming that your cellphone transmit unidirectionally (as it's natural for a cellphone to do!), is not getting 30 times the 'r' requires 'r^2' more power, i.e., your battery will drain 900 times faster? ;-)

      Paul B.

    7. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      The windows on my 2010 Holden Ute are 30% more transparent.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      That was the most worthless infomercial ever.

      BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

  5. Software-tuned batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sign me up!

    (New headline: Hackers can turn your laptop into a bomb!)

  6. Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 1

    OK, if this actually works out, this is great news. Fast charge and discharge are incredibly useful. Unfortunately, the article does not say anything about storing more energy than existing batteries, which I assume means energy storage is about the same. So, you will be able to recharge your phone very quickly (seconds?), but the phone will still last as long on the batteries as it does now.

    1. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which if we stop sacrificing everything at the alter of thin is fine.

      A GS3 or Iphone5 could be twice the thickness and easily just as portable and easy to use. This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo.

      So you would have a smartphone that lasted 2-5 days and could be charged in minutes.

      On the car side, 100 miles is plenty of range if I can charge in 10 minutes. That would give you a nice short break every 2 hours.

    2. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      As someone who carries his phone in his pocket instead of his purse I disagree.

    3. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A GS3 or Iphone5 could be twice the thickness and easily just as portable and easy to use. This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo.

      Double the thickness would triple or quadruple the battery capacity.

      But don't hold your breath. I expect this to happen around the same time fashion designers stop using walking bags of antlers to model their clothes.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I carry my phone in my pocket as well.
      Unless you are wearing your girlfriend's jeans you should not have a problem. I have placed phones with extended battery packs into my pockets just fine.

    5. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I was trying to be conservative with my estimates.

    6. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      I've considered several times trying to modify my phone to take a battery twice as large.
      If used heavily, my phone usually dies halfway through the evening which means doubling
      the capacity would be more than enough. I don't have a problem plugging my phone in every
      evening so I really only need 12-16 hours instead of the 8-10 I currently get but ideally I would
      want 40 hours (or a second battery) for the rare occasion I forget to plug it in. Either way, my
      phone is plenty thin and I would barely notice the extra thickness of a slightly larger battery
      which is easily obtainable with existing technologies. Too bad cellphones don't have battery
      options like laptops do.

    7. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I carry my phone in my pocket. I have to use a long life battery with my Galaxy Nexus to make it last more than eight hours off charge, which means the stupid thing has a big ugly hunchback cover on the back of it, so the enlarged battery will fit. But while that might be ugly, it's hardly suddenly too thick to fit in my pocket.

      Remember we're only talking about thickening a phone by a millimeter or two to get something approaching a reasonable battery life. The current situation is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with practicality or the ability to fit a phone in a pocket. It's purely looks. And it's a prime example of form being put ahead of function to an extreme degree.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      On the car side, 100 miles is plenty of range if I can charge in 10 minutes. That would give you a nice short break every 2 hours.

      No, that would give you a nice short heart-attack every hour, as you rush to find the nearest freeway exist, and nearby charging station, before running completely out of power.

      If we had Nascar-like service stations every 20 miles along every stretch of road, highway, freeway, and dirt path, everywhere... THEN 100 mile range would work just-fine. Otherwise, no. 200 is a pretty good minimum, assuming fast charging stations proliferating.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by bjs555 · · Score: 2

      You could try this:
      http://boondeeworkshop.com/cellphone/index.html
      Not exactly portable. It might make sense if you use your phone mostly in your car.

    10. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How fast are you driving? and do you only drive on freeways?

      200 is 4 hours assuming not all freeway. Even freeway you would be at 3 hours. Which is a long time to be behind the wheel. If you live out in the west I can see that.

      Here on the East coast 100 miles would be fine.

    11. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would carry my phone in my pocket but my dongle usually gets in the way.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    12. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      As someone who carries his phone in his pocket instead of his purse I disagree.

      Sigh. If only I could fit my cell phone into my pocket.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Here on the East coast 100 miles would be fine

      I doubt it. Plenty of folks on the east coast commute, too. I'm sure plenty of them drive close to 100 miles each way... enough to give them severe range anxiety.

      And that's just commuting... Start talking about weekend trips, and lots of people go way over that 100 mile trip range, and have to panic to find a station, and curse the extra time.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      100 miles would take you from NYC to Philly with 3 miles to spare. That is long way. 100 mile commutes, each way are pretty rare on the east coast.

      Even a weekend trip, that is a decent distance, much longer and you might as well take a plane.

    15. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Amusing. I actually just discovered that there are third parties that make double capacity
      batteries and modified battery covers under the name "high-capacity" or more commonly
      "extended". For my phone the prices seemed to be only $10-$20 for the new extended battery
      and the free case. Not for sure why I never thought to search for this before.

    16. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      I keep hoping for the battery that will finally allow the electric motor to kill the combustion engine. What little the article says sounds great, but it doesn't speak to a lot of questions, and too soon concludes with trite superlative and celebratory statements. "... breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources." Sure it does-- if such batteries aren't prohibitively expensive to manufacture, can be scaled up to power cars, don't have memory problems, will last for thousands of discharge cycles, aren't prone to catching on fire or blowing up, and also can withstand significant damage without burning or detonating, can handle a wide range of temperatures and altitudes, and are not difficult to recycle or scrap. At least the article covers one essential feature: they recharge quickly.

      This kind of reporting is dreadfully common and tiresome. Seems every month brings us another announcement of a fantastic battery or fuel cell breakthrough. Evidently, it's asking too much of journalists to be a little more sober and thoughtful.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    17. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the Midwest.

      100 Miles won't get you Minneapolis to Madison, Madison to Chicago, Chicago to Indianapolis, Indianapolis to Detroit, etc etc.

    18. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      100 miles would take you from NYC to Philly with 3 miles to spare. That is long way. 100 mile commutes, each way are pretty rare on the east coast.

      Even a weekend trip, that is a decent distance, much longer and you might as well take a plane.

      Wow, you are soooo out of touch.... that is not a long way... not even close...

      I do a 70+ miles round trip commute every day in the North East (Boston area). Unless there is a charge station at work, a 100 mile range just won't cut it. Especially when you start to factor in sitting in traffic due to accidents, storms, reduced range due to below freezing weather, etc. I would feel more comfortable with a 200 mile range, but that is still cutting it close in the winter time (reduced power due to frigid weather).

      As for flying, it's not even close to being worth it to fly 100 miles. My thought is that you would have to be very well off or be able to expense the trips if you were to fly every time you had to travel 100 miles. It would take you 2 hours just to start boarding the plane at most airports. If you had driven, you'd be there.

      For me, it would barely be worth it to fly the 360 miles that I drive to visit my relatives twice a year (Christmas, Summer). When you factor in cost, time, jet fuel, etc. its cheaper, faster, more comfortable, and healthier (not stuck in a tube with a bunch of people sharing cold germs) for me to drive. This trip takes me from Boston, through Maine, into New Brunswick, Canada. Not exactly a corridor that is likely to get a vast array of charging stations. Anyone traveling outside of a major metro area would run into the same problem.

      If ALL of your travel is in a major metro area, then your right, a lower range would work for you. However, it's just not going to work for the rest of us.

    19. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by es330td · · Score: 1

      I expect this to happen around the same time fashion designers stop using walking bags of antlers to model their clothes.

      Can we start a global campaign to have Christina Hendricks model all women's clothing to address this problem?

    20. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      Sigh. If only I could fit my cell phone into my pocket.

      You just need the right size pockets.

    21. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by mlts · · Score: 1

      I can see these being a step between supercaps and slow charging, but high energy density per volume batteries.

      For example, when it comes to solar, you want a charge controller that can get as much energy as possible. Then once the fast charging elements near 100%, start charging slower, but more energy dense batteries. This will help to maximize what comes from the panels for user during the night.

    22. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by rssrss · · Score: 1

      With phones and other small devices that store electricity in milliamp hours the capacity of the grid inputs is not an issue. With cars it is the gating concern.

      If a car can go 5 miles on a charge of one kilowatt hour, it will take a charge of 20 KWh to travel 100 mi. If you use a 240v 30 Amp.line which can transmit 7.2 KWh in one hour, a 20 KWh charge will take more than 3 hrs. (hint the charging process will not be 100% efficient).

      To transmit 20 KWh in 10 min requires 120 KW of power. By way of comparison, the main panel of my house is fused at 240v -- 200A or 48,000 watts. Moving power at the rate of 120 KW is arc welding territory and it will involve safety precautions.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    23. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sucks to be you

    24. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 1

      Yes, energy transfer is most certainly a gating concern.

          Tesla's supercharger cable transmits power at the rate of 90kw right now. The Model S can have an 85Kwh battery, so we are looking at recharge times of about an hour. If the batteries are not limiting in any way, one would need to connect 57 of these supercharging cables to the car to recharge in 60 seconds. Clearly, a new charging port would be needed. Let's see, if we want to move 85 KwH in one minute, our charge rate needs to be 5100 Kw or 5.1 Mw. That's going to be one h**l of a charging port....

    25. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I live on the east coast and routinely drive 5 hours at a stretch. My parents are 5 hours and just under 300 miles away. I can do it in one tank of gas easy.

      I have gone as long 6 hours before stopping to stretch. After that the car usually needs gas anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    26. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm not the only one whose noticed that pants these days seem to have smaller pockets than they used to. I've tried on some that were supposed to be my size but I couldn't even fit my hand into the damn pockets, much less store anything in there.

    27. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by lgw · · Score: 1

      I keep hoping for the battery that will finally allow the electric motor to kill the combustion engine.

      Why? Combustion engines are fun. Anyhow, this battery seems to be about faster charge rate, and the battery pack is already not the bottleneck there for cars.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with you about the thickness part.. but..

      So you would have a smartphone that lasted 2-5 days and could be charged in minutes.

      Do you mean with CURRENT battery technology, or what was described here? Even a current phone takes more than "minutes" (what people infer as "a few minutes") to charge all the way.

    29. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      If we had Nascar-like service stations every 20 miles along every stretch of road, highway, freeway, and dirt path, everywhere... THEN 100 mile range would work just-fine. Otherwise, no. 200 is a pretty good minimum, assuming fast charging stations proliferating.

      *You* must be a professional driver or be a traveling salesman or something. From http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf, 42.3% of people took fewer than 20 minutes to get to work. (You get to 56.5% for fewer than 25). Even if that 20 minutes (remember, that's the maximum) was all freeway time, let's say 21.66 miles. So double that (for return trip) and add some various driving around, and 60 miles covers a huge proportion of people's commutes.

    30. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not every one wears dockers.
      Those of us with great asses wear jeans.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you had actually been paying attention, you would have notices cell phones are getting bigger.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There was a time when 100 miles was the range of any car, yet they still drove them across the country. If it was popular all that would means in more charging station.

      Or a portable windmill

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and substantially higher density.

      Combustion engines, while fun, spew poison into the air.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      42.3% of people took fewer than 20 minutes to get to work.

      From that PDF, I count 14.6% of people, are potentially driving close to 100 miles per day (or they might all be stuck in traffic... hard to say from those numbers). It's not everybody, of course, but that that's an awfully significant percentage, and not all of them are "traveling salesmen."

      And that's an average across the whole country... Local stats (*cough* *California* *cough*) are probably much, much higher.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    35. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      Check in the men's section instead. Bigger pockets over there.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    36. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by lgw · · Score: 2

      Combustion engines, while fun, spew poison into the air.

      So do electric power plants. What matters is how much, and modern combustion engines are very well optimized in that regard - something like 1/10000th of what a car from the 60s would.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      There was a time when people rode horses across the country, too... That doesn't mean horses (or a car with similar limitations) would stand a chance of replacing a significant percentage of cars.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    38. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      And yet still twice as much as a coal fired power plant, 100 times as mich as a gas fired powerplant, and a million times more than a wind turbine.

    39. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by fnj · · Score: 1

      I can assure you those of us with indifferent or even ridiculous asses also wear jeans.

    40. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      There was a time when 100 miles was the range of any car, yet they still drove them across the country. If it was popular all that would means in more charging station.

      Or a portable windmill

      Or a sail. I love the image of a portable windmill on a car, used as a power source. Reminds me of the cartoon bathtub used as a boat, with a shower head stuck in the plug 'ole and used as a jet. (See? Cartoon Physics is NOT a waste of time!)

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    41. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      That would certainly be Electrons In Bulk, wouldn't it? Moving that much current -- wow. A lead-lined SNAP generator wouldn't be more dangerous. (/sarcasm. Yes, I know better).

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    42. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would carry my phone in my pocket but my dongle usually gets in the way.

      You're fired.

    43. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by lgw · · Score: 1

      And so? Pollution is only a problem if it becomes too concentrated. As long as it's below what naturally disperses, it doesn't matter (well, for the pollutants found in tailpipe emissions, coal is a different story).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo."

      Never. There would be either new version of the OS or new crapware nullifying the benefit, i.e. keeping battery life the same so that the client gets more "value". It has always been this way and no specific "invention" will change it.

    45. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which if we stop sacrificing everything at the alter of thin is fine.

      A GS3 or Iphone5 could be twice the thickness and easily just as portable and easy to use. This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo.

      So you would have a smartphone that lasted 2-5 days and could be charged in minutes.

      On the car side, 100 miles is plenty of range if I can charge in 10 minutes. That would give you a nice short break every 2 hours.

      Look up the 7000 mah GS3 battery

    46. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just carry an extra battery with you? I've got a Samsung Galaxy Gio and ordered an extra battery + external charger. Since these batteries are small and flat, I carry an extra one in my wallet.

      If you've got a built-in battery, just buy a case with a built-in battery which you can switch on.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    47. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every one wears dockers. Those of us with great asses wear jeans.

      Anyone over the age of 18 who wears jeans is a fucking retard.

    48. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by jools33 · · Score: 1

      Samsung designed a replacement battery for the Galaxy S2 which basically doubled the thickness of the battery - and you get a new battery case cover with the battery. Why not sell the phone with 2 versions like this - slimline battery for those that want it - and then a chunky one for those that need/want the battery life.

    49. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I have a Legendary Ass, with beautiful armour, unfortunately he can't carry me.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    50. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      In case you haven't read any of the comments in this thread (or any other dealing with mobile phones) you can get external batteries for most phones, no modification required. I used to have a phone with a swappable battery, but I got an HTC and now find having the external one a lot more useful.

      You basically get a slightly chunky protective back cover (which you'd probably have anyway) and a battery which easily doubles the length of time the phone lasts.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. I had a sports bike once which didn't do much over 100 miles to a tankful. It's amazing how quickly you start getting into "how far can I get on reserve if I crawl along at 20 mph" mode.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    52. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the Midwest.

      No thanks, you keep it. I couldn't stand the excitement.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    53. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They are getting bigger, and often thinner as well. Look at the latest iphone for an example of this.

    54. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am pretty much always wearing Levi's. Again unless you are buying women's jeans you will be fine.

    55. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of you with great asses wear jeans and also carry purses.
      Oh, you're a hipster? Well, you too could carry a purse, maybe ironically?
      Phones used to be considerably thicker than they are today, and people still somehow managed to find a way to lug them around. I remember carrying my Nokia 5125 around in my pocket. In jeans even. Just not jeans that cut off circulation to my balls.

    56. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Double the thickness and it won't fit in my shirt pocket. A phone that can be easily removed from my shirt pocket in any reasonable posture is less easy to use than one that needs to be pulled out of a pants pocket, likely while sitting down. Therefore, I'd find it less portable and harder to use. YMMV, but I'd appreciate you not making blanket statements of opinion that are against my opinions and interests.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There was a time when 100 miles was the range of any car, yet they still drove them across the country. If it was popular all that would means in more charging station.

      I'm calling [citation needed] on your first claim. Driving across the country was a difficult task under the best of circumstances when cars were limited to that kind of range. Shortly before WWII, Eisenhower was tasked with taking a truck convoy across the country, and ran into a great many problems. This was an experiment, not any sort of regular shipment, which rather implies that people in the War Department didn't know and couldn't find many people who did that already. Back then, if you went cross-country, you normally took a train.

      As far as your second goes, as you go west you will find pretty long stretches without gas stations. You're talking about maintaining recharging stations in places that don't necessarily have towns, and since this is electrical recharging stations, supposed to be the equivalent of gas stations, you're talking about running multiple megawatts into basically unpopulated areas. (You're actually handling several megawatts when you fill a gas tank.) Remember that range in the mountains is likely to be reduced. Remember that range is likely to be reduced in cold weather (and heating the car with resistive heating is likely to dig into the range; electric cars don't have all that waste heat from the engine they can use on the passenger compartment). Remember that a gas pump can run without being connected to a working power grid (any electricity needed can be provided by a generator), and without any outside supplies for some time. Remember that we want people to be able to go safely through terrain they can go safely through nowadays.

      Now, estimate how much money we'd have to invest to make all this work. It'll make your next arguments at least more well-informed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      (and heating the car with resistive heating is likely to dig into the range; electric cars don't have all that waste heat from the engine they can use on the passenger compartment)

      Since the car is going to have an A/C unit anyways, you just run it in reverse to generate heat (see: heat-pump). This gives much better efficiency than resistive heating (3-to-1 or so). Even conventional cars are starting to do this, as efficiency improvements result in insufficient engine heat to also heat the passenger compartment.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    59. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      I would like a credit card sized phone so it can fit in my wallet.

    60. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Heat pumps work well when there isn't that great a disparity in temperature. We get -30C days around here, and I commute to work then. As far as I know, nobody uses heat pumps to heat their houses around here, since it's far more economical just to burn gas to generate heat. Even the few people around here with electrical heat don't generally use heat pumps.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Motorola does with the Razr and Razr Max.

    62. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yes, burning hydrocarbons is much more economical. But when it comes to electricity, heat pumps are better. Of course resistive heating is still more popular, because it's a cheaper up-front cost (and some places have dirt-cheap electricity costs), but there's definitely a big power savings to be had.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    63. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      According to the Wikipedia article, below about -18C your typical air-source heat pump (and a moving vehicle isn't going to use ground-source) is about as efficient as the simpler resistive heating, and more complicated. It also can require some sort of heat to heat up the external coils so they don't ice up. In other words, for significant parts of the year up here, a heat pump would be an unnecessary encumbrance and there would also have to be a resistive heater.

      Since cold weather is exactly the time I'd be most worried about the range, and when a heat pump may be less efficient than resistive heating in the sorts of cold we get in Minnesota, I'm not counting a heat pump as a solution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      According to the Wikipedia article

      This is where you went wrong...

      below about -18C your typical air-source heat pump (and a moving vehicle isn't going to use ground-source) is about as efficient as the simpler resistive heating

      It does say that... with no citations to back up that claim. And frankly, it's just simply wrong. The COP depends on the working pressure of the system, the refrigerant used, and the inside temperature you want. Honestly, no simplistic little number like that will ever be accurate.

      If you bothered to read a little further into that article, you'd see the chart where they list the efficiency for two different existing heat-pump systems, based on an air temperature of -20C, and they get a COP of 2.2 and 2.4 respectively, meaning they're 2.2 to 2.4 times more efficient than resistive heating. And the theoretical limit at -20C is also listed... 5.6... So there's plenty of room for improvement, still. And those numbers are actually CITED! Hooray!

      As I said, THESE ALREADY EXIST, and are in-use, so trying to say they won't work is a bad bet to make... And no, I won't get off your lawn.

      a heat pump would be an unnecessary encumbrance

      Umm.. So you're saying you remove the A/C from your car for part of the year, and put it back in when you need it? It's there... so there's no point in NOT using it.

      a heat pump may be less efficient than resistive heating

      That is utterly untrue, and certainly not based on any info you looked-up. Instead you're completely making this up.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    65. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article isn't obviously contradicting itself. It could be that most heat pumps don't work better than resistive heating at about -18C. Looking at footnotes on the later table, these look like heat pumps designed to push the state of the art They may be commercially available, but that says nothing about cost, space and weight requirements (critical on a car), or any other issues. Moreover, you're looking at the column for heating to 35C, and that's probably much too cool to heat a car well. The table notes that it's suitable for underfloor heating, meaning you'd want a large surface area to heat something at that temperature.

      And, of course, I'm not suggesting swapping out A/C and heater as needed, but whether modifying the A/C to serve as a general-purpose heat pump would be useful given cost, space, and weight constraints.

      Your final insult is uncalled for; you are criticizing what I said referencing Wikipedia, which you haven't shown is actually wrong, and so what I said is based on information I looked up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article isn't obviously contradicting itself. It could be that most heat pumps don't work better than resistive heating at about -18C.

      The quoted statement has no such qualifiers. The statement is vastly overly-broad, so it can never be correct. And I don't see why you're defending WP, since in any case, your statement was incorrect.

      35C, and that's probably much too cool to heat a car well.

      That's very unlikely.

      whether modifying the A/C to serve as a general-purpose heat pump would be useful given cost, space, and weight constraints.

      Only minimal modifications are needed. An A/C is already a heat-pump. And as I keep saying, these exist in cars already.

      I have no interest in arguing about some theoretical issues you can come up with. If you think there are problems with heat-pumps in cars, you should go and actually FIND ONE, because they exist, and are in-use, which I said in my first reply.

      Your final insult is uncalled for; you are criticizing what I said referencing Wikipedia, which you haven't shown is actually wrong, and so what I said is based on information I looked up.

      Nowhere does the WP article (or any other) say a heat-pump will ever be less energy-efficient than resistive heating. As far as I can tell, you completely made that up, yourself.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Power Density ? by Punko · · Score: 1

    Unless there is a massive increase in power density within a battery, it ain't a super battery, nor is it a breakthrough.

    --
    If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    1. Re:Power Density ? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      If it can charge in seconds it does not need huge power density. If you could charge your phone in 1 minute than it only lasting 24 hours would be fine. If you could charge your car in 10 minutes than only having 100 mile range would be fine.

    2. Re:Power Density ? by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      If it can charge in seconds, then by very definition it has a huge power density. Perhaps you meant energy density?

    3. Re:Power Density ? by Punko · · Score: 1

      Power density is key. Yes, a reduction in charge time is great, but spending 10 mins charging for each hour of driving would NOT be desirable.

      Unless I get at least 30:1 run time vs charge time for an electric vehicle with a 3 hour minimum run time, I'm not sold. As for the phone battery, 1 minute for 24 hours that's a 1400:1 ratio (run time vs charge time) If I could get that for a car, we'd drop gasoline in a heartbeat.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    4. Re:Power Density ? by Punko · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct - energy density, not power density.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    5. Re:Power Density ? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Don't be so dense, h4rr4r is obviously an energetic power-user!

    6. Re:Power Density ? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Don't be so dense, h4rr4r is obviously an energetic power-user!

      And he recharges rapidly.

    7. Re:Power Density ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "would NOT be desirable."
      what if it was nearly free?

      anyways 1 minute is the number we are talking about.

      Yes yes, until it fits ideally with your lazy ass life, you won't change. We get it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. The Fine Print by Darth+Cider · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the supplemental material: "The energy densities of the microbatteries are initially superior to the supercapcitors, but lose an average 5% total energy density after each cycle."

    1. Re:The Fine Print by Isca · · Score: 2

      I wish I had moderator points today. This is the key. Imagine of the battery only lasted half as long after only 30 days. NO THANK YOU!

    2. Re:The Fine Print by Isca · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now I just need to imagine that I know how to use proper grammar with logical, concise sentences.

    3. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A battery that is about the size of a sim card that lasts about a year? After all, you only have to recharge it once for the first 6 weeks. At least for me, I can do 36 hours on a single charge with my current phone with no problem. Cut off about 1.5 days after each charge. It'd be a lot of cycles until the battery lasts less than 24 hours. It's not a great technology but it is interesting.

    4. Re:The Fine Print by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 1

      ... WITHIN logical...

      would be more concise :-)

      --
      - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
    5. Re:The Fine Print by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Apart from changing 'of' to 'if', I couldn't find much fault. It's pretty clear in its meaning, and I think that should take precedence over longer, more 'eloquent', yet ultimately more verbose sentences. (*Maybe* change 'lasted' to 'lasts' come to think of it...)

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if a professor's research group didn't produce a finished commercial product, but was just working on new technologies. This may not be the final tech that you want, but it may very well be a key step in getting to it.

    7. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typos happen...

      Imagine of the battery -> Imagine if the battery

      Not a big deal.

    8. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grammar isn't too bad; it's your typing that is at fault. You just need to learn how to use the preview.

    9. Re:The Fine Print by Spaham · · Score: 1

      So it will NEVER be really out, since you *only* lose 5% each time, there's always 95% left !!!!

    10. Re:The Fine Print by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      Hey Spaham, there's a visitor for you out in the hall --- says his name is Zeno. You might need to go out and help him --- he seems to be having some trouble making it to the door.

    11. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grammar isn't too bad; it's your typing that is at fault. You just need to learn how to use the preview.

      And waht is thsi 'preview' yuo speak of?

    12. Re:The Fine Print by lgw · · Score: 2

      I find it cool that Zeno's paradoxes still aren't really resolved. We still don't know what spacetime and motion actually look like at Plank scale. Assuming motion is somehow quantized at small enough scale does answer Zeno, but it's not clear why that would be so or how it would work. But hey, maybe one day Zeno will finally catch his pet tortoise.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:The Fine Print by geekoid · · Score: 1

      depends on cost of replacement, and it's total capacity.

      What if you could drive 1000 miles on a charge(5% less on then next charge and so on per charge))? and it cost 200 bucks to replace it?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:The Fine Print by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes they are.

      There is a pojnt that is nthe smallest point. You don't traverse the space in between.

      The argument is wrong becasue it incorrectly assume you need to pass through all the space to get somewhere.

      Sure, ti was a great paradox in 450 BC.

      This is why I have come to loath philosophy. They never move on even when the problem has been solved. Modern philosophy is an unchanging echo chamber riding on the coat tails of greats.
      I say this as a form philosophy major.

      I literally heard someone on 'philosophy talk' bring up chicken and egg. Seriously, ion 21st century.
      Solved dumb shit, it turns out to be an invalid question.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:The Fine Print by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Zeno's paradox is slipperier than just being unresolved with respect to physical spacetime. Even from a pure philosophical/mathematical perspective, it's still quite vexing. For example, ask a mathematician to do the infinite sum 1/2+1/4+1/8+...+1/2^n+..., and you will discover they are quite lazy: they will absolutely refuse to actually sit there and sum up an infinite number of terms. Instead, they'll try to weasel out: "can't we just agree that 1 is close enough? No matter how small your definition of 'close enough' is (don't be a jerk and say '0'), I can get you that close to 1 with a finite number of terms." So, mathematicians avoid doing what Achilles apparently can: actually summing an infinite number of terms. Instead, they come up with a cop-out: "let's just call it 1, 'cus that's formally close enough, and we'd rather go get some beers than stay here summing up all infinity terms. You know Achilles actually gets there anyway, so quite arguing and come have some beer."

    16. Re:The Fine Print by lgw · · Score: 1

      Limit theory exists to address this formally and explicitly. Mathematicians speaking informally (and others who don't know the difference) will handwave away the distinction between "the sum to infinity is X" and "the sum converges at X at the limit of infinity".

      But Zeno knew that 1/2+1/4+... = 1. He said so in the setup for some of his paradoxes. The kicker in most of them is "you can't complete an infinite set of actions in a finite time", which is still a reasonable point.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:The Fine Print by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      I know limit theory addresses this "formally" (I actually picked up a BA in mathematics along my way). My point was that people often say "oh, Zeno's been 'solved' mathematically" and point to limits --- but these actually don't address the full philosophical nuances of the paradox, because they skirt around the "hard" part (actually "doing" an infinite sum) and instead "leap" to the answer (based on "hey, it's close enough no matter how picky you get."). With regard to the philosophical question: "can you perform an infinite set of actions?" (regardless of reference to time), mathematical limit theory begs the question by starting from the "answer" (the limit, which pre-assumes you *can* "do" an infinite sum), then proving that answer is "correct" in a delta-epsilon sense (avoiding confronting any actual infinities). The mathematics of limits is incredibly useful on its own, but I don't think resolves all the philosophical difficulties posed by Zeno's paradoxes.

    18. Re:The Fine Print by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your typing is worse than mine, and that's saying something. Might want to get a modern browser with built-in spellcheck.

      There is a pojnt that is nthe smallest point. You don't traverse the space in between. The argument is wrong becasue it incorrectly assume you need to pass through all the space to get somewhere.

      That's a bold assertion, but it's not an accepted scientific theory - not even close. There is some work being done on viewing space as a lattice of allowed loci, and I think that's a cool concept, but it's far from a hypothesis making falsifiable predictions at this point. It's not even clear what the mechanism for motion would be, or how to reconcile the idea with relativity (given your velocity depends on the reference frame it's viewed from, "motion through space" just isn't that simple).

      If we view spacetime as more than a topological abstraction, it's very hard to say what it is. From what I hear, physicists are starting to expect that a theory that successfully unifies quantum mechanics and relativity will have to address this question, and the lack of doing so has been a barrier to achieving a GUT thus far.

      I literally heard someone on 'philosophy talk' bring up chicken and egg. Seriously, ion 21st century.
      Solved dumb shit, it turns out to be an invalid question.

      How accurate is scientific journalism in your experience? How representative of the actual state of science? Are you really asserting that "philosophical journalism" is any better? Philosophy seems to move very slowly, but that's mostly because once someone gets a good answer to a question it stops being philosophy. The open questions that people are actually publishing about are still interesting questions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:The Fine Print by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Your response is a little rough, but fundamentally correct.

      I will give you props for the reminder that the way a question is cast is subject to validation, and that questions can be wrong, too.

      (e.g. "Which is closer, New York or by train?")

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:The Fine Print by lgw · · Score: 1

      Didn't I just say all that in half as many words? :) Just because I'm replying to your post doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:The Fine Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the solution is simple!

      Just before the battery discharges, we recharge it, preventing it from ever fully cycling!

      Suck it, logic!

  9. Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric cars breaktrough,

    Now Musk can build his electric plane :)

  10. It'll be great until... by cgiannelli · · Score: 1

    Another company buys and buries this tech. Or it'll be released in 10 years. It would be a fantastic battery to put into Electric cars, which is another technology we're far overdue for and have the ability to make right now.

    1. Re:It'll be great until... by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure the crackpot breakthroughs get ignored in the business realm and die off, while the really game-changing ones get scooped up by Duracell and Big Oil and friends before they can ever be patented...and die off.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  11. Motorola back in the game! by srussia · · Score: 1

    Behold the Motorola TAZR!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Motorola back in the game! by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      and the TAZR MAXX

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  12. Is that the last one we need? by Daetrin · · Score: 0

    By all your battery breakthroughs combined... I am Captain Perpetual Motion!!!

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  13. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all fine and dandy, but can you tell us how your REALLY feel?

  14. Perhaps I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this new battery has a superior energy density than a supercapacitor, but lithium ion batteries generally have in the region of 100x the energy density of a supercapacitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials) so this doesn't sound too revolutionary to me. Energy density is surely the important factor for most personal electronic equipment, rather than power density.

  15. missing clause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 times faster than the worst amongst the competing technologies.

    That 3rd image on the abstract link shows a much better summary. At best it claims to be better than current lithium ion batteries by a factor of 10 in power density, but lithium ion batteries are still able to beat it in energy density.

  16. "imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone..." by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone in less than a second

    I'd like to, but my fuses just blew, the connector in the phone melted down, there's a smell of burning plastic insulation in my room, and a small fire seems to have started burning here, so I have other things on my mind!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  17. Capacity... by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    It's why I opted for the lower performance but much better battery in my RAZR MAXX over the RAZR when they first came out.

    Next though, it'll be performance. Holding out to see if it'll be the S4 or if another flagship phone will be worth buying Q3/4 ish...

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    1. Re:Capacity... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      If they offered that with stock android or at least an unlocked boot loader I would have considered it.

    2. Re:Capacity... by EdZ · · Score: 1

      If they offered that with stock android or at least an unlocked boot loader I would have considered it.

      If you're willing to buy it off-contract (and thus unsubsidised) such a thing exists, in the US at least.

    3. Re:Capacity... by EdZ · · Score: 1

      Whoops, no it's not, got the MAXX and HD mixed up.

  18. the key is reaction surface area by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Previous attempts to increase reaction surface area have included alternatining disks, folded sheets, porous poweders, nanotubes ... But the tiny networked cubes shown in the diagram looks like it could be a winner.

  19. Interesting, but.... by d0n0v6n · · Score: 2

    ...do we ignore the first law of thermodynamics? If these batteries charge 1,000 times faster then they must put off 1,000 times the heat or so one would think under the law. Further, the largest collection of Lithium is sea water, but it is very inefficient to harvest existing at the ppm level.

    1. Re:Interesting, but.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "If these batteries charge 1,000 times faster then they must put off 1,000 times the heat "
      so..? If its in a device that actually needed to discharge at that rate, then the devices it is in would be design to disapate the heat.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Interesting, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller granularity electrode structure would mean that the average electron travel would drop by some factor depending on electron granularity. Turn in your geek card.

  20. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 3, Funny

    The phone is credit-card thin, but the power connectors equal those on a car battery.

    --
    I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  21. I see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Marketing: "Phone batteries that fully re-charge in a minute!"
    Reality: Monthly $50 battery replacement

  22. Infomercial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informercial? TFA specifically stated "pushing into an area in the energy storage design space that is not currently available with technologies today.” as opposed to advertising something that it available. As science report goes, this is remarkably adequate.

  23. Somewhere... by LordStormes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... Elon Musk has one hell of a rager over this. This could make electric cars that could go from Florida to New York on one charge, and recharge in similar time to a gas refill, a possibility.

    Say you got 500 miles to a charge, which is a reasonable amount if these numbers are to be believed. That's the amount of miles driven by the average US driver in 2 weeks. So if the battery needs to be replaced after 8-10 charges, you're talking once a quarter. If the battery costs $250 and is easily user-replaceable, this isn't a big deal:

    My quick, rough math says that if it lost 5% of the original maximum after every charge and the maximum charge of a brand new battery were 500 miles, 10 charges would come out to 3875 miles. If the battery can be produced for $250, that comes out to 15.5 miles to every $1 spent on the battery. Now, consider experiments are in progress to allow free/nearly free recharges, so the cost would really be reduced to just the battery. The current gas price I see out my window is $3.33/gal and my Scion xB gets about 30 MPG.

    So, my Scion costs $3.33 to go 30 miles. The Tesla with a $250 battery would cost $2, and not explode the environment.

    I'm sold. // of course these costs are pure conjecture until we know more.

    1. Re:Somewhere... by Alioth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Recharging in the same time as a gas refill is unlikely to ever happen.

      To go NY to Florida in an electric car will take on the order of 1MWh. To recharge this in 5 minutes (gas refill time) would require a cable transferring a power of 12MW. If we used 25,000 volts to do this (the voltage of overhead electrical lines for high speed electric trains) the current would be 480 amps. It's simply not practical to do while obeying the laws of physics.

      Now think of how many people are fuelling up at a gas station at any given moment, and think about it if they are all drawing a power of 12 megawatts. There is no practical technology for the forseeable future that you can use to build a power grid capable of doing this. This is before we even get to safety issues of a power interconnect which is both high voltage and high current.

      Also think of that 12MW figure for a moment, and you may get an inkling why personal motorised transport is absolutely unsustainable.

    2. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, my Scion costs $3.33 to go 30 miles. The Tesla with a $250 battery would cost $2, and not explode the environment.

      Woah, woah, woah, hold it right there. I was with you until the last part. What happens to the batteries that get replaced in this scheme? And at what point in the article are these superbatteries regarded as eco-friendly in disposal?

    3. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >unsustainable

      no.

      It means that it would be impossible to use batteries and charging wires. Losing even a thousandth in the battery while charging means massive cooling systems, etc, etc.

      But gasoline works, today. Why is that?

      Because when you need lots of energy, the easiest way to store it is chemical fuel.

      The biggest problem with carbon-based fuels is that carbon is hard to fix. Plants can fix it, or, we can just use nitrogen instead. Buses in Belgium were run on ammonia during the war.

      Ammonia fuel cells would be just as environmentally friendly as batteries, and stores more energy.

    4. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why battery swap stations are going to be pretty important - especially for commercial electric vehicles.

    5. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fill up once going from florida to NY ?

    6. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about having small nuclear power plants at gas stations?

    7. Re:Somewhere... by QuarkofNature · · Score: 1

      Close, only off by an order of magnitude or so. Taking specs from a Tesla S, it's got an 85 kWh battery good for an estimated 300 mile range. To go from NY to Florida (even, say, Key West, as far as you can drive) is about 1400 miles, or about 400 kWh. But, of course, you can't drive 1400 miles on a tank of gas either (in your average production car). So let's say you stop every 300 miles, and put 85 kWh into your battery (presumably one a little larger than the Tesla...you wouldn't want to drive it right to empty). If THAT takes 5 minutes, you're talking 1 MW power transfer, or 250A at 4KV. I sure wouldn't want to get shocked by that cable, but it doesn't seem crazy, physics-wise. Tesla already has in operation "supercharger" stations that can handle up to 100kW transfers (250A at 400V). I gather that's not a physics limitation, but rather practical limits on what the battery can handle.

    8. Re:Somewhere... by jimmux · · Score: 2

      Swapping would still work with this kind of rapid degradation, as well (assuming the kind of costings detailed above). People may not want a full charge every time, in which case it doesn't matter if they swap with a degraded battery.

      When a swapping location gets too many batteries at a certain level of degradation, they can simply adjust the price to encourage sales. When a battery is too degraded to sell, even at a discount, then it is ready to be shipped off (for recycling or whatever the case may be).

    9. Re:Somewhere... by Brannon · · Score: 2

      > Recharging in the same time as a gas refill is unlikely to ever happen.

      Agreed, but only because it is unnecessary, not because it is impossible. A 15 minute recharge every 4 hours (250 miles) is about as good as anyone really needs.

      > To go NY to Florida in an electric car will take on the order of 1MWh.

      Tesla Model S goes 265 miles on 85 Kwh for 3 miles/kwh, so the trip from Orlando to NYC (~1000 miles) would take about 333kwh which is about $40 worth of power (nothing unsustainable about that for the occasional long trip). Break this up into one 15 minute recharge every 4 hours of driving (250 miles) leads us to a recharge power of 333 kW (with a battery sized ~85kWh). The existing Tesla superchargers are already outputting 90 kW, so we are not that far off from the "plenty good enough" point. No laws of physics need to be broken to output 4x that current.

      > Now think of how many people are fuelling up at a gas station at any given moment, and think about it if they are all drawing a power of 12 megawatts.

      The instantaneous draw is irrelevant because there are energy storage elements in the grid and at the charger (batteries, capacitors, etc) to smooth everything out to the average demand. The average demand is less than 40 miles per car per day, which is 15 kwH per car per day; and overwhelmingly people will choose to charge low and slow from their home outlets at night. There really aren't enough people driving 1000 miles in a day to generate a gigantic continuous supercharge demand on the grid. Pretty much every study that has been done on this has shown that the existing grid and generating facilities can easily keep up with increasing power demand from electric vehicles.

    10. Re:Somewhere... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Now think of how many people are fuelling up at a gas station at any given moment, "

      On average, less than one.

      Now the *peak* number may be high. That's why you have a local buffer to manage differing instantaneous rates at input and output... just they they do for gasoline.

    11. Re:Somewhere... by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Actually, increasing the voltage won't help. You can't charge a 400V battery with 4KV without some hefty transformers or solid state switching supplies in the car that would be heavy and waste energy. Not to mention still generating 2.5kA internally. Switching to a higher voltage system (battery and motor) increases the weight and complexity of the system. I built the controls for a system that regularly handles 2.9kA and more. The slightest imperfection in a join or link causes things to get red hot very quickly. If you plan on pushing 2.5kA into a battery, I want to be very very far away.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    12. Re:Somewhere... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Correction: It's not practical without cheap-room temperature superconductors. They don't break the laws of physics, we just don't know how to make em yet.
      Through a superconducting cable a mm in diameter you can easily run a couple of MA. You can lower the voltage to something safe (50V) and run 960.000 A through it.
      Now where did I leave my recepie for cheap room temperature superconducting cables?
      But until that dream is realized we could just replace the empty battery with a full one by means of a robot arm. The capacity decrease makes that necessary anyways.

      As to your last remark: I do agree that bikes should be the future for short distance, trains for long distance. But we'll never get most fat bastards on a bike. Since we can't have the world we want, we got to make the world we have as good as we can.
      Electric cars are better (CO2 wise) than gasoline cars, although they aren't perfect.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    13. Re:Somewhere... by nadaou · · Score: 1

      This is why people are working on standardized exchangable slide-in slide-out battery packs. Packs slow-charge & self-check at the station. You pull in, slide your dead one out, slide a full one in, pay your money and off you go. Dying packs are taken out of circulation so you never see them.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    14. Re:Somewhere... by urusan · · Score: 1

      The sun outputs 384.6*10^24W. Of that 174.0 PW reaches the Earth directly. Of that 89.0 PW reaches the ground and is absorbed by it. The gross efficiency of modern solar power facilities is around 2.6%, so that cuts it down to 2.314 PW. Split over 10 billion people, that leaves each person on Earth with a maximum energy budget of 231.4 MW. If we capture only 1% of that energy (as clearly we don't want to cover the Earth in solar panels), it comes out to 2.3MW of sustainable energy per person (23.14 TW total compared to 16 TW today). At 1MW, a car is less than half of this budget.

      Additionally, each person is not travelling by car 100% of the time. On average people drive close to 3 hours a day, so it only takes 12.5% of the above figure. That means that we would only use about 5.4% of our energy budget on transport. Now of course, this assumes everyone is driving alone in 1MW personal vehicles, which isn't true, there's lots of larger vehicles as well as carpooling. However, the real figure is unlikely to exceed the 20% we use on transportation currently, and personal transport is only a portion of that pie.

      Finally, my initial assumptions are fairly conservative. We could gather more than 1% of the Earth's energy by building more solar or using other sources such as wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. We could capture energy that would normally miss the Earth entirely by building solar arrays in space. Increases in efficiency could improve the situation as well. Lastly, although it's not as sustainable as fusion power from the sun, fission power from the Earth could dramatically boost our total energy budget for a very long time.

      My point is that there's plenty of sustainable energy for personal transport. It really is sustainable.

      One last note...I'm not saying this will be easy either. There's a lot of challenges to be overcome and infrastructure to be built to make sustainable energy a reality. In particular the power grid needs a great deal of rework. There may even be some changes that many people do not like (such as longer refuelling times or having to use communal batteries). However, I don't see any insurmountable obstacles to keeping up our present energy usage while switching to sustainable sources.

    15. Re:Somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To recharge this in 5 minutes"

      When has filling your tank (even near empty) ever taken 5 minutes? Are you counting the time it takes to swipe your card and push buttons or something?

  24. Anode versus Cathode by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

    In my country the Anode is the plus side of the battery ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Anode versus Cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anionic is negative and Cationic is positive. Its charge chemistry 101.

    2. Re:Anode versus Cathode by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      The anode is the side current flows into, not necessarily the negative one. From wiki:

      In a discharging battery or galvanic cell (diagram at right), the anode is the negative terminal because it is where the current flows into "the device" (i.e. the battery cell). This inward current is carried externally by electrons moving outwards, negative charge moving one way constituting positive current flowing the other way.

      In a recharging battery, or an electrolytic cell, the anode is the positive terminal, which receives current from an external generator. The current through a recharging battery is opposite to the direction of current during discharge; in other words, the electrode which was the cathode during battery discharge becomes the anode while the battery is recharging.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  25. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 2

    Apple's Lightning II connector coming soon...

  26. One step closer to Shipstones by DrTung · · Score: 1

    In Friday by Heinlein they have these batteries called Shipstones :-)

  27. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the tech. is interesting, the lack of concrete information about it makes it useless, much like some of the hyperboly that has crept up in this place since the GREAT MIGRATION..Now based on the above comment about fuses blown, could also be dangerous.. Thanks /.

  28. In other news by dainbug · · Score: 0

    Oil Companies pay researchers to shut their mouths and sell them, their new discovery, where it will be hidden and never see the light of day.

    1. Re:In other news by geekoid · · Score: 1

      who do you think would be producing the electricity to charge these with? Have more of these in more devices MAKE the energy company money.

      Idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will soon by tekrat · · Score: 1

    "Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will soon be here!"
    "Well, where is he?"

    Every damn week, there's another article here on Slashdot about some revolutionary energy tech, and every week it gets forgotten about, and in the meantime we can't even get our country to agree to build a pebble bed reactor to make electricity from all the nuclear waste we're currently throwing into the ocean.

    I'll believe this advancement (like the super efficient or the super cheap solar cells), when it's available to the consumer. Because if it's that revolutionary, someone will want to get rich off it. But right now, I still can't afford to cover my roof with solar cells.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  30. You know what? by Dripdry · · Score: 2

    All I want on the side of my battery not is a logo that says, "King/Pikul" Start a jam band, name it King Pickle, profit.

    --
    -
  31. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeremiah Cornelius just as he did here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 and made the mistake of posting as his registered user name instead of his hundreds of anonymous coward ones he plastered into every post last month.

  32. Re:Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will so by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Pebble Bed Reactor?!?
    Pffttt....
    Didn't you hear were in the midst of a Natual Gas Revolution!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  33. Not so fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you look at the supplemental material http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/extref/ncomms2747-s1.pdf it becomes obvious this only gives an unfavorable tradeoff.
    The configurations that give high power give lousy power density. Assuming using the same volume of batteries as modern cars you would wind up with a car that can go either 30Mi on a 10 minute full charge or a car that can go 100Mi on a 40 minute full charge.
    This is not a good deal compared to modern tech that gets you 280 Mi on a 70 minute charge.
    And that isn't even taking into account the 5% per cycle capacity degradation.

  34. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up, Paul.

  35. anode vs cathode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot: News for fuckwits who don't the difference between an anode and a cathode.

  36. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by mikael · · Score: 1

    Wow! Did he win the slashdot awards for the longest article, and the longest article that was totally impossible to understand?

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  37. Hmmm... by Sigmon · · Score: 1

    Technology break-though in Urbana, Illinois? That is also where the HAL 9000 was created.

  38. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lightning bolt! lightning bolt! lightning bolt!

  39. Not 30 times distance! Square Root 30 distance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the battery can supply 30 times the power, the distance that it can power a transmission is still proportional to square root power, i.e. 5.5 times the original.

  40. Quick...someone phone Chevron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And get them to buy the patent and make it impossible to use like they did with nimh....

  41. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by dzelenka · · Score: 1

    imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone in less than a second

    I'd like to, but my fuses just blew, the connector in the phone melted down, there's a smell of burning plastic insulation in my room, and a small fire seems to have started burning here, so I have other things on my mind!

    Why is this rated funny instead of insightful? Moving more energy in less time is going to generate heat, lots of heat.

    Also, instead of flawed batteries that seriously overheat we could have flawed batteries that explode.

    --
    Bah!
  42. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by foobsr · · Score: 1
    Manic depression is a frustrating mess

    My guess.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  43. Re:Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the same with storage technologies. We keep getting teased by advances in holographic storage, be it Tamarak in the early 90s, to InPhase/hVault. Always just right out there.

    Energy is a matter of won't, than can't. Didn't we have a working thorium reactor at one point? The issue is that there is a whole market structure whose only reason for existing is to extract every single yuan/dinero/dollar from anything that can be used for energy. Should an actual discovery be usable, it would totally decimate the energy market, and likely the world economy built on that house of cards.

    Realistically: a civilization as advanced as ours should be on at least nickel fusion reactors at the minimum.

  44. amg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!!!

  45. Yes it does by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4mWcm2m1,which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries."

    WTF more do you want? you can calculate almost everything from there.

    Sheesh.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Yes it does by fnj · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4mWcm2m1,which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries."
      WTF more do you want? you can calculate almost everything from there.

      For god's sake, if you're going to quote technical math, can't you at least get it transcribed right? 7.4mWcm2m1 is utter nonsense. I realize for reasons unknown slashdot does not implement even elementary HTML markup like Greek letters, superscript and subscript. Preview shows garbage from cut and paste, so just improvise.

      The article says 7.4 mW cm^-2 micrometer^-1, which are pretty bizarre units, but readily convertinle to 74 GW/m^3, or 74 MW/liter. That gives us the power density in meaningful form, and it seems pretty damn impressive to me.

    2. Re:Yes it does by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What concerns me is how this density is going to react to being shorted out.

      Flames? Explosion? China Syndrome?

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you are off by 3 orders of magnitude. It's 74 KW/L. Also not bad.

    4. Re:Yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so bizarre. It is in scales that people with this sort of battery would actually use. No one in this century will run 74 GW of anything with a battery, and liters are more common for liquids.

    5. Re:Yes it does by fnj · · Score: 1

      Except you are off by 3 orders of magnitude. It's 74 KW/L. Also not bad.

      7.4 mW//cm/cm/micrometer = 740 mW/m/cm/micrometer = 74 k mW/m/m/micrometer = 74 G mW/m/m/m = 74 M W/m/m/m

      You are correct, sir. Thank you. My calculator calculated perfectly, but I did not remember to handle the unit change from mW to W.

    6. Re:Yes it does by es330td · · Score: 1

      You're right, I read the article but not the abstract. It is still unclear if this scales. I am very curious to know what happens when this is shorted when fully charged.

    7. Re:Yes it does by fnj · · Score: 1

      It's not so bizarre. It is in scales that people with this sort of battery would actually use. No one in this century will run 74 GW of anything with a battery, and liters are more common for liquids.

      The reason it's absurd is because it's a mishmash of units. Come on; volume expressed as cm times cm times micrometer? Ludicrous. Standard practice is to express the volume as m^3 or liter or cm^3. Pick one. Any table of power density will use one of those. Instead this thing is expressed as an outlandish square cuboid in which the thickness dimension is in units which are one ten thousandth the size of the units of the square faces.

      As was pointed out to me, the 74 GW/m^3 is a conversional error (oops) and should be 74 MW/m^3, or 74 kW/liter. If the normalized number is difficult for you to relate to because of its size, you could always express it as 74 W/cm^3, which is also normalized.

      I'd bet that somebody working with capacitor banks for generating very brief discharges to form a magnetic field to confine hydrogen for fusion would be right at home with the expression as 74 MW/m^3.

    8. Re:Yes it does by CaveatUK · · Score: 1

      "Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4mWcm2m1,which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries." WTF more do you want? you can calculate almost everything from there.

      For god's sake, if you're going to quote technical math, can't you at least get it transcribed right? 7.4mWcm2m1 is utter nonsense. I realize for reasons unknown slashdot does not implement even elementary HTML markup like Greek letters, superscript and subscript. Preview shows garbage from cut and paste, so just improvise.

      The article says 7.4 mW cm^-2 micrometer^-1, which are pretty bizarre units, but readily convertinle to 74 GW/m^3, or 74 MW/liter. That gives us the power density in meaningful form, and it seems pretty damn impressive to me.

      "74 MW/liter" would imply 3 litre sized batteries could power an Enterprise-class aircraft carrier. Impressive would be a slight understatement.

      mW / cm^2 / micrometre = 10^-3 W / (10^-2 m)^2 . 10^-6 m = 10^-3 W / 10^-10 m^3 = 10 MW / m^3 aka 10 Megawatts per cubic metre.

      So I think we're looking at 74 kW / litre. Which is still impressive. It also ties in with the A123 data point on Figure 3 of the Nature preview and this page http://www.a123systems.com/prismatic-cell-amp20.htm quoting "4,500 W/L" energy density.

      Looking at Figure 3 on the Nature preview, they seem to be offering energy densities of 0.1 to 10 microwatt hours / cm^2 / micrometre, or 1 to 100 Wh per litre. This would imply that at full output these batteries discharge in seconds. Right now these seem to be top of the range* capacitors. James Pikul hints that there is more to come: "if you want high power it’s very difficult to get high energy. But for very interesting applications, especially modern applications, you really need both. That’s what our batteries are starting to do."

      I'm hoping this means they can drive the performance into that upper right quadrant of figure 3.

      * = I refuse to climb any further aboard the super/mega/ultra/mithril superlative escalator.

  46. Maybe you should learn to read? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    from the abstract:
    "Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4mWcm2m1..."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Maybe you should learn to read? by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm afraid your cut and paste came out complete garbage. The number you want to express is 7.4 mW cm^-2 micrometer^-1, which is more conventionally expressed as 74 MW/liter. Slashdot's markup support for compositions is incredibly crude.

    2. Re:Maybe you should learn to read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop spreading your arithmetic error. It's 74KW/L, not 74MW/L.

    3. Re:Maybe you should learn to read? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Stop spreading your arithmetic error. It's 74KW/L, not 74MW/L.

      Correction noted in the original thread.

  47. Anyting 2 can Buy FOr Me Solar Panels Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got Something real to Sell Right now? I needs 440 AH
    Is Lookin at those golf cart batteries at the Sams Clup, cause the sli's R2 spenziv.

  48. Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    move more energy through the same cable size generates more heat.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  49. Re:Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will so by geekoid · · Score: 1

    " I still can't afford to cover my roof with solar cells."

    why not? can't get a loan? can't use a service that lets you pay off the solar panels based on the energy saved?
    Or just too lazy to look into it?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  50. Sugar Batteries by Radtastic · · Score: 1
    --
    You stereotypers are all the same...
  51. you misunderstand circuitry and thermodynamics by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    .do we ignore the first law of thermodynamics? If these batteries charge 1,000 times faster then they must put off 1,000 times the heat or so one would think under the law.

    The first law of thermodynamics says that energy isn't created or destroyed. It has nothing to do with charging rates. With respect to charging it just tells you that the stored energy added plus the losses (mostly heat) add up to the energy you supplied. (Second law says you have to lose SOMETHING to make the charging happen - though it doesn't say how much.)

    The key here is battery resistance. The heat produced is proportional to the SQUARE of the current. If you charged a battery with the same resistance a thousand times as fast, you'd generate a MILLION times the heat.

    Charge is determined by current times time. Maximum charging rate is determined by the highest charging current you can drive while creating heat no faster than it can be dissipated with the battery almost at the maximum temperature it can stand. Resistance tells you how much heat you generate at a given current. Cut the resistance by a factor of a million and you can multiply your charging rate by a factor of a thousand and get the same heat generation.

    The micro-geometry of the plates in this case (along with most of the recent ultra-fast-charge battery designs) results in drastically lowered resistance.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  52. Embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, Paul.

  53. If it has the same destructive potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as lithium ion, but with much more power, there might be stories about heads and arms being removed instead of just being burned when a cell battery fails.

  54. Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Wow, your post has just doubled the size of the internet.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  55. other articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2747.html

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22191650

  56. Exchange batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recharging in the same time as a gas refill is unlikely to ever happen.

    Just exchange batteries at the refill station instead of recharging your own. A well thought device could make this happen even faster than current gas filling times.

  57. civilian and military uses by dakra137 · · Score: 1
    This research was funded in part by the US Air Force. If this technology can really be tweaked to outdischarge supercapacitors at similar or better energy densities, I am surprised it wasn't declared a military secret.

    On the civilian side, I am sure many hearing aid users will look forward to recharging their device, maybe by induction while wearing it, rather than consuming zinc-air batteries.

  58. Finally, laser pistols are within grasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, really powerful Tasers!

  59. Will it blend? by kodomo · · Score: 1

    That sounds fantastic, but will it blend?

  60. battery breakthough article collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an electric vehicle enthusiast, (who owns no electric vehicles), I've been collecting battery breakthrough articles like this for a few years now and keep them listed on the worlds most boring blog. If any of you are having trouble sleeping at night google halsbatteryblog and try not to let your head hit the keyboard.