Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Create A Lithium-Ion Battery With Built-In Flame Retardant (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Engadget:
One big problem with lithium-ion batteries is that they have the tendency to catch fire and blow up all kinds of gadgets like toys and phones. To solve that issue, a group of researchers from Stanford University created lithium-ion batteries with built-in fire extinguishers. They added a component called "triphenyl phosphate" to the plastic fibers of the part that keeps negative and positive electrodes separate. Triphenyl phosphate is a compound commonly used as a flame retardant for various electronics. If the battery's temperature reaches 150 degrees Celsius, the plastic fibers melt and release the chemical. Based on the researchers' tests, the method can stop batteries from burning up within 0.4 seconds.
It gives the impression that the more dangerous the battery is, the more it stores, at a point i wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a lithium-Nitroglycerin battery that outperforms everything else.
What we need is a DiLithium battery to propel us to the 24th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> batteries can be recycled pretty easily
Are they? Is there enough pressure in place for that?
> Personally, I prefer a bit of leaked flame retardant over a plane crash
Point is: less flights overall is even better. Of course my mumbling above about a "hipster blazing off his balls" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the serious part is: at the moment we are not willing (are we even able) to renounce to a bit of "instant gratification" (also called "progress") in the name of a longer term vision. Of course you could dial down energy density by a couple of percent, maybe a smallish ten percent, and that wouldn't only make the flame retardant unnecessary, but let the battery last *much* longer and be more resistant to abuse (LiFePO, y'know). But octocore and play HD video seems more important.
For me, this is utterly disgusting.
Remember the times where we said free market economies give you a choice -- contrary to the grey Soviet communism? We are reaching a point where shaving off the last .03 percent costs in economy of scale is taking this choice from us.
Free market economies give us a choice... of course "us" means that sometimes others will do the choosing for you. Phone manufacturers prefer batteries with higher energy densities that are (usually) safe enough, over more expensive batteries that might let the owners of those phones keep theirs a little but longer. And if this flame retardant makes the battery (and the phone) a little bit bulkier, then manufacturers will not use it either. Especially Apple, since they need to placate the growing mob of belligerent protesters outside their HQ screaming for even thinner phones. Because above all we want thinner phones. Right?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
What's more satisfying than a model airplane that crashes AND bursts into flames?
This battery will prevent CPUs from executing HCF instruction, that is vital for the proper functioning of a well known smartphone brand.
What makes a battery more hazardous than fuel, is having the reaction occurs at the same location as the stored energy.
There are an estimated 150,000 car fires in the US every year. I don't think either of us has the data available to make an apples to apples comparison but I very much doubt that battery powered cars will prove to be meaningfully more hazardous that gasoline powered ones.
With fuel, combustion chambers are very distinct and distant from storage tanks.
Gasoline does not have to be in a combustion chamber to ignite. A hot manifold with a leaking fuel line is more than enough to set a car on fire.
No. It prevents the heat from forming in the first place by stopping the reaction that would produce it.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Well, batteries can be recycled pretty easily so the toxic elements should only enter the environment if they leak out when activated.
You're a little off the mark here... The most significant environmental contamination is far far more likely going to occur where the batteries are manufactured from handling [or mishandling] of bulked raw materials and wastes. The overlook is understandable though, because electronics manufacturing and recycling operations typically occur in poorer Asian countries and people in the western world rarely take note environmental damage unless it happens in their backyard. (That's not meant as an insult, just a statement about people in general)
In addition, it can be very hard to determine environmental risk until a chemical is used and monitored in the environment for a period of time. You cannot wait until all questions of potential risk are answered before allowing technology progress. Proceed with caution is usually the best approach for everyone.
Personally, I prefer a bit of leaked flame retardant over a plane crash. Plane crashes kind of suck for the environment, too.
I agree with this sentiment in there are plenty of potential applications for a safer Lion battery that could save lives. For example, many industries have with potentially flammable environments require "Intrinsically Safe" equipment http://www.indsci.com/services... (e.g. oil refineries, chemical plants, natural gas utilities, etc.) or sensitive locations that can't risk even small fires or explosions (e.g. planes, data centers, electric grid, historical buildings, etc.).