Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Huawei Battery Upgrade Means Dramatically Faster Charging For Mobile Devices

Posted by timothy on from the newfangled-and-fancy dept.

Computerworld reports a welcome development for everyone with battery powered portable electronics, which might just have applications further afield, too (like electric cars): Huawei has developed a battery based on conventional lithium-ion chemistry but tweaked with the addition of graphite atoms bonded to the anode. From the article: That change means faster charging but not at the expense of usage life or a sacrifice in the amount of energy that can be stored in each battery, [the company] said. It was developed by Huawei research and development subsidiary Watt Lab and the company showed off two prototypes in videos posted online. One of the two batteries has a capacity of 3,000mAh (milliampere hours) -- about equivalent to the batteries in modern smartphones -- and can be charged to 48 percent of capacity in five minutes. The second has a much smaller capacity of 600mAh but reaches 68 percent of capacity in just two minutes.

75 comments

  1. Weird numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Charge to 48% in 5 minutes, and to 100% in 5 years? That's what crosses my mind when I read such numbers. It used to be "charged to 80%" or something relevant like that. Charge to 80% in 10 minutes and heck, just get a tea/coffee/vodka while you wait.

    1. Re:Weird numbers... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even thought it could take some more time to complete the charge from 49 to 100%, what's really great is when your smartphone is agonizing at 1~2%, you just need to plug it somewhere in a coffee shop, work, ... to get to 50% charge in just 5 minutes, which is usually - depending on what phone you have - enough until the evening to then charge it fully.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  2. Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc" by NotInHere · · Score: 0

    All these days I hear about batteries having more power, charging faster, and so on. Do these developments make it actually into consumer products? Never. I guess they get abandoned because of some problems.

    I do think that thanks to the abundant use of rechargeable battery technology, and whole industries like the car industry waiting to get "disrupted" (to use the new SV startup term; its a phenomenon as old as mankind) by battery driven solutions, so there is alot of attention on the technology. However, lots of this stuff the press generates doesn't make it into production, so why do they write about such early research?

  3. 3000mAh vs. 600mAh by mwvdlee · · Score: 0

    How is this a fair comparison?

    I can sell you a 0mAh battery that'll reach 100% of capacity in zero seconds.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The smaller battery has less surface area.
      There is probably some other limiting factor that's restricting the charge current. The 3000mAh is being charged at 18A and the 600mAh at 12A.
      If I had to guess it would be heat. A smaller battery has a larger surface area to volume and the internal structures have less material between them and the surface, so a lower thermal resistance.

    2. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      It ISN'T 3000 vs 600. They have developed BOTH. the 3000mAH charges to around 50% in 5 mins, while the smaller one charges to 68% in 2 mins. Both are a huge leap forward. depending on exact times for charge they are actually both charging at similar rates, the larger one slightly faster.

    3. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You misread. It's ok, I made the same mistake the first time I read it: it's poorly written.

      Look at the times though....both of those phones were charged to ~50% in five minutes. That's some fast charging. (Why didn't they report the time to a total charge? I don't know).

      Stanford also developed a kind of fast-charging battery recently, using aluminum-ion cells. This is something a lot of people are researching, so eventually one of the ideas is going to make it into consumer products. It's just a matter of time.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't they report the time to a total charge?

      Because the second 50% takes much longer than the first 50%. To avoid overcharge, the charger decreases the current once a certain voltage has been reached.

    5. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by MyAlternateID · · Score: 2

      Look at the times though....both of those phones were charged to ~50% in five minutes. That's some fast charging. (Why didn't they report the time to a total charge? I don't know).

      It's standard marketing procedure to recognize a weak point and pretend like it doesn't exist, being careful never to voluntarily mention it. I don't know if that's what happened here, but Huawei is a corporation with a Marketing department, and this is such a widespread practice as to be my default assumption unless compelling independent evidence to the contrary is presented.

    6. Re:3000mAh vs. 600mAh by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Look at the times though....both of those phones were charged to ~50% in five minutes. That's some fast charging. (Why didn't they report the time to a total charge? I don't know).

      Because we now have an attention span less than a goldfish

      http://time.com/3858309/attent...

      5 minutes is inconceivable to today's smartphone addicted. A total charge? Might as well be to the end of the universe. Call them back when charging time is 5 seconds, and they might comprehend (5 seconds is within the thought focusing of 8 seconds the modern person has)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  4. Graphite isn't an element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you mean carbon?

  5. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They do get better
    I have a 4850mAh lithium battery in my RC car that can discharge a peak of 630A and 315A continuously. That's 100% to 0% in less than a minute.

  6. Atoms of graphite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the majority not reading the article, it is the article that mistakenly mentions atoms of graphite (instead of carbon), the summary is just quoting the mistake

    1. Re:Atoms of graphite? by MyAlternateID · · Score: 1

      For the majority not reading the article, it is the article that mistakenly mentions atoms of graphite (instead of carbon), the summary is just quoting the mistake

      Graphite is a form of carbon. Diamond is a form of carbon. Baryonic matter in general is made of atoms (okay, if you REALLY enjoy being anal [Freud would be pleased], the electrons are leptons). Since it didn't say "atoms of the element graphite", I don't see the problem here, other than your (and others') urge to be pedantic. Yes, they could have said "molecules of graphite", but still, there are much more egregious examples of shitty writing in the summary -- the kind a minimally-competent editor would have corrected -- if you enjoy pointing out that sort of thing.

  7. Pedantic but... by FrankSchwab · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even though it's in the original FA, I wouldn't expect a competent editor here to let "graphite atoms" by. Sheesh.

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
    1. Re:Pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why use graphite atoms when you can get diamond atoms for the same price. Don't know about you but I would much prefer diamond atoms in my batteries.

    2. Re:Pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows they're 3D printed atoms.

    3. Re:Pedantic but... by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Apparently, there is a difference. This paper for instance lists graphite and carbon separately as anode materials. So I'd guess the "crystal" structure of the various forms of carbon does make a difference.

    4. Re:Pedantic but... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. Graphite is a molecular structure, not a type of atom.

      TFA has it like this:
      "The battery is based on the same lithium ion chemistry used in cellphone batteries today but gets its advantage from atoms of graphite bonded to the anode, Huawei said on Friday at an industry conference in Japan."

      It is still unnecessarily misleading and badly written, but in that sentence they are probably (or hopefully) referring to the thickness of the layer of graphite.

    5. Re:Pedantic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still doesn't make a molecule into an atom.

    6. Re:Pedantic but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The problem is the word ATOM.

      "the basic unit of a chemical element."

      Carbon is the basic unit. Graphite is a MOLECULE - comprised of connected carbon atoms.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Pedantic but... by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      No, they're taking advantage of the different molecular structures possible with carbon. Which (and that was my point) means it does make sense to talk about graphite vs. carbon, even if they get the word 'atom' wrong.

      Quoting an answer from elsewhere in the discussion:
      "Introducing extra carbon atoms into the graphite anode to create artificial fault sites in the graphene sheets, allowing lithium ions to enter through those locations into the interlayer space instead of having to enter from the sides of the stack."

    8. Re:Pedantic but... by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Which (and that was my point) means it does make sense to talk about graphite vs. carbon, even if they get the word 'atom' wrong.

      No, it doesn't.
      'Graphite vs. amorphous (or non-crystalline) carbon' is fine. 'Graphite vs. carbon' is nonsensical.

      Also, the whole point was that they got the word atom wrong. Neither OP nor I ever implied that the distinction between graphite and amorphous carbon is irrelevant here. Please keep your straw men to yourself.

  8. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.oppo.com/en/technol... Faster charging doesn't make it into consumer products? 30 minutes for 75% charge. Though I find it charges faster than that (about twice as fast), but they don't advertise the best case, they advertise the worst case, so they'll always meet it.

    The problems with heat were there, but were evidently solved well enough to sell it. And in over a year of use, the battery is holding up much better than my Galaxy S3 did after a year. Though I noticed a drop in standby time after one of the Android updates, but I even reverted to verify it was the update, not age that caused it to drop to standby under 48 hours.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  9. Poorly read, not poorly written. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no ambiguity in the article. The meaning you just explained was clear on a first pass reading.

    1. Re:Poorly read, not poorly written. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      The meaning you just explained was clear on a first pass reading.

      I'm so glad you're such an intelligent reader.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. I just want to charge at the current specs by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Wake me when vendors actually agree on a common way of drawing the required power from the USB chargers. Sure there's a standard published but when will vendors actually follow the current standard, or in the case of Apple follow any standard at all.

    1. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Wake me when vendors actually agree on a common way of drawing the required power from the USB chargers. Sure there's a standard published but when will vendors actually follow the current standard, or in the case of Apple follow any standard at all.

      uhh,,,what? not an apple fanboi here, but why does apple need to follow a standard? standards are for companies who are selling products in a competitive market place, but don't want to have to compete on *everything.* Since Apple is really not competing in the same space as LG, Samsung, Motorola, et al, they do not need to follow every standard adopted by those other companies or even a fraction of those standards. standards promote interoperability between market competitors, and that is it, full stop. Standards are useful if you are competing where interoperability gives you a market advantage. That is a battle that Apple has dodged, quite successfully. As Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Mushashi point out again and again, only fight battles you are likely to win. Apple is competing in the design space, not the tech space, and that is probably why they are the wealthiest company in the history of the world, and with just a minuscule market share, to boot. Think: Apple is not about how well the tech works with the competition, but what the tech does for the consumer who purchases it. It's called choosing your battles, and Jobs chose well, dying an incredibly wealthy man.

    2. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Who said competition with other companies?

      How about Apple is a company who provides a USB charger which doesn't follow the USB charging spec?
      They aren't alone in this either.

    3. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Who said competition with other companies?

      How about Apple is a company who provides a USB charger which doesn't follow the USB charging spec?
      They aren't alone in this either.

      In what way doesn't it follow the USB spec? Apple's USB charger implements the USB power spec exactly - it will deliver 500 mA at 5V DC to any USB device plugged into it, exactly as the spec requires.

      It can also break the spec and deliver more current (1 amp) to an iPhone or iPad, or any other device that behaves the same way by measuring the resistance across the data pins. Many other types of USB chargers also do this since 500 mA is pretty low and when the spec was implemented it was never imagined that it would be used to charge high power batteries.

    4. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Apple's USB charger implements the USB power spec exactly

      No it doesn't. There's resistance on the line that is not compatible with the USB charging spec. So devices that can fast charge from their USB chargers don't, and using any generic USB charging port doesn't work with Apple devices either.

      Thought I wonder if they will actually keep this up since it's slowly becoming in vogue for houses to have USB sockets in the walls for charging. Currently our Apple devices are the only ones which don't even attempt to draw the rated current from sockets which meet the USB-IF BC1.2 spec.

      It can also break the spec and deliver more current (1 amp) to an iPhone or iPad, or any other device that behaves the same way by measuring the resistance across the data pins.

      Part right. The spec allows the delivery of max 1.5A by detection of shorted D+/D- lines. (the iDevices don't comply with this). The spec does not allow at all for measuring resistances despite the fact that Sony, Apple, Samsung, etc all implement this in their chargers. But quite critically at least some of them (Samsung) correctly implement enumeration of the charger to determine the maximum current draw, as per the standard.

      The spec has been out for 5 years now. Yet we're still shipping chargers and devices which don't comply with it.

    5. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Wake me when vendors actually agree on a common way of drawing the required power from the USB chargers. Sure there's a standard published but when will vendors actually follow the current standard, or in the case of Apple follow any standard at all.

      Of course this is completely deliberate of Apple to oblige people to buy their cables/chargers regardless of the USB standard - so they will never 'agree' and you will stay asleep forever.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Part right. The spec allows the delivery of max 1.5A by detection of shorted D+/D- lines. (the iDevices don't comply with this). The spec does not allow at all for measuring resistances despite the fact that Sony, Apple, Samsung, etc all implement this in their chargers. But quite critically at least some of them (Samsung) correctly implement enumeration of the charger to determine the maximum current draw, as per the standard.

      And the reason is, guess what? Shorting D+/D- says UP TO 1.5A.

      Which means really, you can't draw that much anyways because if the user plugs you into a device that only provides 500mA, guess what? You can only draw that.

      Which is why I don't see why the USB folks didn't take a page from Apple and use their spec, because shoring D+/D- says absolutely nothing about how much current you can draw. And I've seen rather ... explosive ... results from devices that tried to draw 1.5A from a charger incapable of doing so.

      At one point, it was 500mA. At another point, it was 800mA. Now it's 1.5A.

      As a spec, it sucks - it means I can't tell how much current I can draw. And there's way too many made-in-china crap with a USB port that makes it risky to assume you can draw 1.5A from them. If you say the user must use the same charger with the device, that eliminates the whole reason to standardize.

      At least the Apple spec tells you electrically. And there are many devices where it says "2A" on the plate but the resistors say 500mA.

    7. Re:I just want to charge at the current specs by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And the reason is, guess what? Shorting D+/D- says UP TO 1.5A.
      Which means really, you can't draw that much anyways because if the user plugs you into a device that only provides 500mA, guess what? You can only draw that.

      Which is why I don't see why the USB folks didn't take a page from Apple and use their spec, because shoring D+/D- says absolutely nothing about how much current you can draw. And I've seen rather ... explosive ... results from devices that tried to draw 1.5A from a charger incapable of doing so.

      At one point, it was 500mA. At another point, it was 800mA. Now it's 1.5A.

      Nope, nope and yep. Shorted datalines have only ever meant a charger is capable of providing 1.5A, no less. There was no facility to short USB datalines before 2007 with the release of BC1.1 without breaking the USB spec in the process.

      As a spec, it sucks - it means I can't tell how much current I can draw. And there's way too many made-in-china crap with a USB port that makes it risky to assume you can draw 1.5A from them. If you say the user must use the same charger with the device, that eliminates the whole reason to standardize.

      At least the Apple spec tells you electrically. And there are many devices where it says "2A" on the plate but the resistors say 500mA.

      I don't know why you would you would praise the Apple spec which relies on a set of specific resistances when the inclusion of those resistances will mean that a device is either capable of acting as a dedicated charging port, or a standard downstream port, but not both. The USB BC1.2 charging spec that's been around for a good 5 years now on the other hand features a proper data communication that tells the device exactly what the charger is capable of. Comparatively Apple's spec looks quite 1970s in comparison. No serious, 1970s era electronics thrived on opamps and comparators for voltage detection for many devices. Using that at this day an age, on 2 signal wires designed specifically for digital serial communication no less is just backwards.

      As for the China thing, that's quite irrelevant. The Chinese are able to copy every spec and are equally able to burn your house down in the process. And I'm typing this after having just moved to Europe from Australia using a Chinese travel adapter to run my computer. A travel adapter that has 3 pins in the wall, 3 pins in the socket but none the less there's no earth connection between my PC and my mains. Just assume the Chinese will attempt to kill you in any number of cheap ways, including ripping off the Apple spec and overstating the charger capacity. Nothing protects you from them.

  11. Re: Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge et by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My phone used to have a battery that weighted 5 kg and ladted half an hour.

  12. mAh vs. Watt by short · · Score: 1

    What if that 3000mAh battery has 0.001V = 3mWh while that 600mAh has 230V = 128Wh. TFA does not say anything meaningful, just that its author is idiot. Explanation how to read mAh was funny in that context.

    1. Re:mAh vs. Watt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather unlikely, given that both are "based on conventional lithium-ion chemistry", so probably nominally 3.6 - 3.7V/cell But rather sloppy use of battery vs. cell...

    2. Re:mAh vs. Watt by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's a li-ion chemistry as TFA states, so it's directly comparable to existing li-ion batteries. They're 4.1-4.2 volts per cell nominal depending on the precise details.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. Fucksakes. Amp-hours is NOT a unit of energy capacity. It is meaningless without being told the nominal voltage. Ok, so if it's a single (series of) lithium cells it's gonna be 3.7V, but why be ambiguous? The unit we're after Watt-hours, right? Do you pay your electricity bill by fucking Amp-hours? Of course not, that's nonsense.

    When you see the shiny new Anker portable battery pack on amazon rated at 20000mAh for charging your fondle-slab so you can keep burning through the next 10,000 losers on tindr while you wait for the bus, maybe you're aware your device is charged on 5V and you might think you're getting 100Wh for your money. But you ain't, are ya? No, they mean 3.7V x 20Ah = 74Wh.

    Ok just one more beer and we can forget about this ugly outburst.

    1. Re:I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by gb · · Score: 0

      No, but it is a unit of electrical charge - and since it's what bateries are conventionally quoted in, it's not a completely stupid thing for a company to quote when announcing a new battery product.
      Not knowing the output voltage is not really an issue since you can always stack the cells up in series if they don't give you enough emf - just like you do with pretty much anything that takes more than one AA size battery!

    2. Re:I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      Bigger numbers are easier to relate to. Let's be honest, which gadget would you rather buy, one with a 4000 mAh battery or another with a 16Wh battery? Simple consumer mathematics will tell you the 4000 mAhssive battery 250 x better than the 16 Whatever battery.

    3. Re:I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mAh

      So SI prefixes are allowed? In that case, I'll take the 57600000000000000000000000000 yJ one.
      If not, 16 > 4.

    4. Re:I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it looks like the salient details of the AC's post made it safely over your head

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    5. Re:I'm drunk and I'm gonna rant about "mAh" by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "It is meaningless without being told the nominal voltage. "

      The nominal voltage at the terminals is itself pretty meaningless. It varies widely with the current being drawn, the charge remaining in the battery, etc.

      What is pretty stable is the measure of how much charge is in the battery. Note that an ampere is charge per time so that the product of current and time is literally charge. The integral of current drawn over time is much less variable with respect to other conditions, so it really is most meaningful to measure a battery by amp-hours.

      Amp-hours is what the battery is actually delivering, not watt-hours.

  14. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The power tools, garden tools, battery pack accessories market always likes the idea of more power, less recharge time at a site per interchangeable power pack. Cell phone users, dslr, led camera lights, small flash systems, camera slider systems used away from mains power might like more power, quicker for a creative project.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Re:Thanks! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Thanks for coming to slashdot and read the story even though you saw that stuff already on google news.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  16. Hang on by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    doesn't a lithium ion battery already have an anode made of graphite?

    1. Re:Hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They generally do.
      Did a bit of digging, and I think I know what they're doing here.
      Introducing extra carbon atoms into the graphite anode to create artificial fault sites in the graphene sheets, allowing lithium ions to enter through those locations into the interlayer space instead of having to enter from the sides of the stack.

  17. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by hackertourist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you been asleep? Around 1990, a rechargable AA battery had 500 mAh capacity, took 14 hours to charge and had memory effect issues (NiCd, remember?). These days AA means 2500 mAh NiMH rechargable in under 1 hour. Li-ion is even better but generally not available in AA (cell chemistry means a much higher voltage per cell).
    So that's 2 entirely new battery chemistries and a 5-fold increase in capacity.

    Also, you may not want to read about early research, but I do. If you want nothing but product announcements, go read manufacturer press releases instead of coming to Slashdot.

  18. give me longer run-time, then I am interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care whether it has to charge for 30 minutes or 5 hours, in either case it is too long to just sit around idle and wait for it anyway. Make me charge less often though, and you make me happy.

  19. 600 mAh good for e-cigs by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    If you ever have been stuck waiting for an e-cig battery to charge for an hour or more at 500mA USB, you might want something like this.
    Although USB type C might be needed, perhaps not strictly but it would be a good hint that the "Power Delivery" specification be supported. Or doing without, and simply using 3 amps at 5 volts it would be quite good already.

    1. Re:600 mAh good for e-cigs by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I've never had that waiting problem as my e-cig works directly from USB. No battery required (or even in the unit itself,) just plug that fucker in and hit the switch.

      Then I've also got a 120w vaporizer built into my tower as well.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:600 mAh good for e-cigs by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      not really, not like this.

      your ecig CHARGER and the usb it's connected to can only charge with 500ma. you could buy a charger/battery that does 2 amps. it's just a matter of buying it you know.

      also on mobile phones.. several manufacturers have now different kinds of fast charging.. samsung fast charging ups the voltage for example.. apple uses 2.1amps at 5v.. all these result in much faster charging than at base 5v 500ma.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  20. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Also, you may not want to read about early research, but I do. If you want nothing but product announcements, go read manufacturer press releases instead of coming to Slashdot.

    Battery History and physics is a fascinating subject. And once you know about the physics involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/An...

    You can see we aren't even close to done yet. OP has no clue about battery advances, Compared to even five years ago, we've come quite a way.

    But once we pay attention to the physics, and not Top Gear or disgruntled NYT reviewers, there are real reasons to get excited about the potential of electric vehicles.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  21. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, even newer are low self discharge NiMH batteries (Eneloop, GP Recyko+).
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneloop:
    "In October 2011 the batteries were again improved to retain their capacity for up to 90% after one year, 80% after 3 years and 70% after five years."

  22. Electric Cars? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    How long until Tesla or someone else uses this? would be kinda cool to *fill up* in 5 minutes like conventional cars.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  23. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    In my completely (full disclosure) anecdotal opinion yes, these technologies DO make it into consumer products, but the change seems to be incremental, not all at once. So I've seen batteries get better over time, but I've never purchased a product with a battery that is a game changer.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  24. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "These days AA means 2500 mAh NiMH rechargable in under 1 hour."

    Physics says no to that when your charger only outputs 1Ah.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

    Yeah they do. Especially the ones that improves the rate at which you can charge your battery.

    It is better for the phone maker if you have a relatively low capacity battery with rapid charging than a high capacity battery with slow charging, since the former will be charged a lot more often and will get a lot hotter when it is charged and will therefore wear out a lot sooner, which will prompt you to buy a new phone.

    Sony is the one company that is consistently doing the opposite of this, by making high-end Android phones that last for two days, but that does not seem to be a winning strategy for them.

  26. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should stop buying $1 chargers that can't even get their units right.

  27. Let me know when it comes from a safer company. by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    Given Huawei's checkered history with corporate espionage (such as their complete theft of Nortel) and ties to the Chinese government, I'll wait for a better company.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Let me know when it comes from a safer company. by neerolyte · · Score: 1

      Given Huawei's checkered history with corporate espionage ... I'll wait for a better company.

      Surely given their past history you'd expect that this technology actually came from a "better" company :)

  28. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by DaTrueDave · · Score: 1

    If you have a charger that only outputs 1Ah, why do you still have it? Does it output 1Ah every time you plug it in, or just the one time? Either way, end that madness and get a decent 2A charger: http://www.thomasdistributing....

  29. Current: that nearly 20A by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you just need to plug it somewhere in a coffee shop, work, ... to get to 50% charge in just 5 minutes, which is usually {..} enough until the evening to then charge it fully.

    Which is also a whoping 18 amps down the cable (or 6C in charger parlance). Which (due to RI^2) is quite some thermal loss, and require large cables.

    Which is also 90W, as much as a heavy laptop charger (definitely *NOT* the kind of mini charger that your Asus eeePC/etc. uses. Think more the kind of heavy huge brick that Lenovo packs with its bigger Wxx-series laptops [=100W], or the biggest of the Dell laptop charger [=90W] sold with some of their docks)

    For the "50% in 5 minutes" charging to work, you would need:

    - to move from the 5V used by regular USB to higher voltage in order to reduce (due to P = UI) the current to something that doesn't require the same size of cabling as an electric oven or a domestic electric car charger (= 15A to 25A appliances).
    USB-C could support "USD Power Delivery" which asks for 20V support when charging 100W - thus only 5A current.
    So you need to move everyone to USB-C before starting this. (Good luck. See how people are eager when they need to re-buy every single other cable and dock that they have)

    - massively improve charger technology so the charger isn't 3x bigger that the phone it self. (is not coming anyway soon)
    or design special charger that can sustain 100W for 5minutes and then limit their output for a certain time to avoid burning (seems to be the only realistic option)
    or have all the coffee shop deploy a network of 20V / 100W standardised chargers (good luck with that. See how long it took until trains started to equip their coaches with mains current for laptops. And how not every coffee shop is filled with 5V USB ports every where).

    But you will definitely NOT quickcharge your phone with a miniature wall wart that looks no bigger than a standard mains plug.

    You could in a pinch use your laptop/chromebook USB-C powerbrick to quick charge your phone. But that means that you have a backpack with your laptop in it. At which point it would be easier to plug the phone to the laptop itself, and have it slow charge to 100% over the charge port. That's if you don't also have a powerbank in said backpack.

    So although it's a nice idea, it will take some time and effort until it works smoothly, due to the shear amount of energy.

    ----

    Coincidentally, 5minutes is *ALSO* the 50% charge time you would get if the technology gets ported to the cells used by Tesla in it's car.
    (well not that surprising given that basically it's your "phone to 50% in 5m" situation only massively parallelized as Telsa batteries are just huge array of the same simple lithium cell).
    (But that would require Tesla Supercharger able to pump 810kWh instead of the actual 135kWh. Yup, almost a megawhat to quick charge your car. And don't even start to think about the kind of cabling and/or voltage needed to push that power.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  30. Units by DrYak · · Score: 2

    when your charger only outputs 1Ah

    Maybe you should stop buying $1 chargers that can't even get their units right.

    No, no. The parent was right. 1A*h*.

    The 1$ charger is able to maintain 500mAh for 2 hours, after which point it breaks. And explodes. And puts your dog on fire in the process. You should really not buy 1$ no-name electronics from shady chinese manufacturer.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  31. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "5-fold increase in capacity."

    Compared to other advances in electronics, 5x over 25 years is terrible. Even combining with the 14x charge rate gives a doubling at longer than 4 years.

  32. Typo Crap... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The 1$ charger is able to maintain 500mA for 2 hours, after which point it breaks.

    Damn. Typo. I ruined my joke.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  33. The bitchslapping of Khyber... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    VirusTotal & NOD32 SHOW CLEAN IN ITS EXES

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    There's only 2 exe's & 5 text files in it - The exe's are proven clean above in 2 links from VirusTotal & installer's a SFX rar (keeps it 2mb smaller) - that's NO virus per VIRSCAN http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    (Unless YOU know way that .txt files are "viruses")

    ---

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    My program doesn't transmit outward ONLY intake of data from 10 reputable security community sources!

    ---

    "APK is apparently too fucking stupid to do this at the ROUTER level where it's most effective" - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    You believe in "eggshell security" which fails-> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    COMPETENT NETWORK ADMINS DO MORE THAN PERIMETER SECURITY @ ROUTER LEVEL - they get bushwhacked ALL THE TIME in DNS hijacks!

    (Right down to endpoints level in PC workstations also using tools you already have in hosts + firewalls (vs. "piling on 'MOAR'" that's inefficient & not as effective in slower usermode browser addons)).

    ---

    "Windows 10 has hardcoded IPs and bypasses HOSTs." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    Windows ONLY bypasses hosts files for Windows update (Win8 & below) & for tracking "telemetry" in Windows 10 (this is going to KILL Windows 10 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ) - test it yourself, that removes it.

    ---

    "Browsers can bypass HOSTs as well." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    WTF? They'd be bypassing the IP stack if hostname is used ala http://slashdot.org/ (not http://216.34.181.45/ hosts are part of it - not impossible!

    APK

    P.S.=> "EAT YOUR WORDS"... apk

    1. Re:The bitchslapping of Khyber... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My program doesn't transmit outward ONLY intake of data from 10 reputable security community sources!"

      Except those security sources are selling that information on who downloads what to other people to make up in their budget shortfalls.

      So, nope. Your program is SPYWARE!

  34. The bitchslapping of Khyber... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    VirusTotal & NOD32 SHOW CLEAN IN ITS EXES

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    There's only 2 exe's & 5 text files in it - The exe's are proven clean above in 2 links from VirusTotal & installer's a SFX rar (keeps it 2mb smaller) - that's NO virus per VIRSCAN http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    (Unless YOU know way that .txt files are "viruses")

    ---

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    My program doesn't transmit outward ONLY intake of data from 10 reputable security community sources!

    ---

    "APK is apparently too fucking stupid to do this at the ROUTER level where it's most effective" - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    You believe in "eggshell security" which fails-> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    COMPETENT NETWORK ADMINS DO MORE THAN PERIMETER SECURITY @ ROUTER LEVEL - they get bushwhacked ALL THE TIME in DNS hijacks!

    (Right down to endpoints level in PC workstations also using tools you already have in hosts + firewalls (vs. "piling on 'MOAR'" that's inefficient & not as effective in slower usermode browser addons)).

    ---

    "Windows 10 has hardcoded IPs and bypasses HOSTs." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    Windows ONLY bypasses hosts files for Windows update (Win8 & below) & for tracking "telemetry" in Windows 10 (this is going to KILL Windows 10 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ) - test it yourself, that removes it.

    ---

    "Browsers can bypass HOSTs as well." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    WTF? They'd be bypassing the IP stack if hostname is used ala http://slashdot.org/ (not http://216.34.181.45/ hosts are part of it - not impossible!

    APK

    P.S.=> "EAT YOUR WORDS"... apk

  35. The bitchslapping of Khyber... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    VirusTotal & NOD32 SHOW CLEAN IN ITS EXES

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    There's only 2 exe's & 5 text files in it - The exe's are proven clean above in 2 links from VirusTotal & installer's a SFX rar (keeps it 2mb smaller) - that's NO virus per VIRSCAN http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    (Unless YOU know way that .txt files are "viruses")

    ---

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    My program doesn't transmit outward ONLY intake of data from 10 reputable security community sources!

    ---

    "APK is apparently too fucking stupid to do this at the ROUTER level where it's most effective" - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    You believe in "eggshell security" which fails-> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    COMPETENT NETWORK ADMINS DO MORE THAN PERIMETER SECURITY @ ROUTER LEVEL - they get bushwhacked ALL THE TIME in DNS hijacks!

    (Right down to endpoints level in PC workstations also using tools you already have in hosts + firewalls (vs. "piling on 'MOAR'" that's inefficient & not as effective in slower usermode browser addons)).

    ---

    "Windows 10 has hardcoded IPs and bypasses HOSTs." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    Windows ONLY bypasses hosts files for Windows update (Win8 & below) & for tracking "telemetry" in Windows 10 (this is going to KILL Windows 10 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ) - test it yourself, that removes it.

    ---

    "Browsers can bypass HOSTs as well." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    WTF? They'd be bypassing the IP stack if hostname is used ala http://slashdot.org/ (not http://216.34.181.45/ hosts are part of it - not possible!

    APK

    P.S.=> "EAT YOUR WORDS"... apk

  36. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    One of the single biggest problem with traction applications has been deliberate patent encumberances which are still echoing through the manufacturing arena.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  37. Re:Batteries "dramatically faster, more charge etc by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    One of the single biggest problem with traction applications has been deliberate patent encumberances which are still echoing through the manufacturing arena.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Yup. But in the end, it's only delaying the inevitable.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.