Sony Creating Sulfur-Based Batteries With 40% More Capacity Than Li-Ion (hothardware.com) 151
MojoKid writes: Since the original iPhone was released in 2007, we have seen some incredible advances in smartphone processing power along with a wealth of feature improvements like faster Wi-Fi and cellular speeds and larger, higher resolution displays. However, battery technology, for the most part, hasn't kept up. There are a few major battery suppliers but Sony is currently an underdog, commanding just 8 percent of the market for compact lithium-ion batteries. Its three largest competitors — Samsung (SDI), Panasonic and LG Chem — each command around 20 percent of the market. In an effort to change that, Sony is developing a new type of battery chemistry that can boost runtimes by 40 percent compared to lithium-ion batteries of the same volume. Sony's batteries use a sulfur compound instead of lithium compounds for the positive electrodes, reportedly allowing for much great energy density. Sulfur batteries can also supposedly be made 30 percent smaller than traditional lithium-ion cells while maintaining the same run times. The company is now working to ensure that the new battery chemistry is safe enough for commercial use.
where is the factory? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me know when there are factories building these batteries, until then, *yawn*
Re:where is the factory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know when there are factories building these batteries, until then, *yawn*
This is a site with "news for nerds". If you are not interested in reading about interesting scientific research then go elsewhere. I am just happy that it is Friday, and so far there are no SJW articles.
Btw, the summary is muddle-headed. It compares "lithium compounds" to "sulfer compounds" when the Sony battery is actually Lithium-Sulfur [wikipedia.org], with both lithium and sulfer. Lithium-Sulfur batteries are not new, but they are not widely used because they tend to degrade and have short lifetimes. Maybe Sony figured out a solution to that.
Re: where is the factory? (Score:2)
Is it the electrodes that decay or the charge storage compound (not sure the right term)?
Re: (Score:2)
In standard LI-Ion, it's the electrodes - specifically the anode as they mechanically swell and shrink with charge/discharge and eventually flake away to powder.
Almost all the cutting level research as been about finding ways of allowing the electrodes to hold/release ions without the mechanical changes that eventually destroy them.
Re: (Score:2)
allowing for much great energy density
Engrish great much happy speaking... **I couldn't resist**
But it does make me wonder, more and more everyday, if I'm reading something a human wrote or a bot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's precisely because of this kind of shenanigan that the EU stepped in to mandate compatibliity requirements - and minimum warranties for consumer equipment.
TTIP is likely to dismantle those consumer protections.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you never use an actual working vagina, that actually stays warm 24/7 and self lubricates?
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicular transport makes up about 20% of oil use.
Oh, but you knew that already. You just wanted to say something else for some other reason.
There are plenty of interesting things about EVs, and plenty of horrible things about oil barons. But this isn't a valid link between them. Oil barons have much bigger things to worry about than the replacement tomorrow of every vehicle in the world with an EV.
it's all about the batteries (Score:1)
"Supposedly"?! (Score:3)
If the headline is true, ie 40% more capacity, isn't "smaller batteries can maintain the same run time" pretty much a given?
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think phones are small enough. How about we work on making them last at least 1 day on a full charge?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we work on making them last at least 1 day on a full charge?
I have a Galaxy 5. After a full day, it is typically still about 90% charged. I turn off Bluetooth and Wifi when I am not using them. I don't play games on my phone, and I don't use it to watch Youtube.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:5, Funny)
And my laptop charge lasts weeks, thanks to my never turning it on.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:4)
How about making them smaller in the x and y directions? Or why not have a keypad at least.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why consumers "prefer" bigger phones is not because people want a change of clothing with bigger pockets... but the faster CPUs and such require more area to deal with heat.
Of course, I've been told by someone in the industry that nobody would give up CPU and RAM for a smaller phone, but it would be nice to have a phone about the size of an iPhone 4.
In general, it seems phone form factor choices have went from candybars, flip-phones, sliders, keyboards, clamshells... to the typical all-glass touch screen smartphone that fundamentally looks the same. across all models. Is this better? Not really.
Then, there are capabilities built in. Phones are powerful enough that one can build in an entire desktop OS. The Motorola Atrix and Atrix2 are examples of this. It would be nice, with the USB 3.1/USB 3 standard to be able to plug a keyboard, mouse, and monitor into a cellphone, and use it as a desktop. If one creates a dedicated network GPU server that allows devices to send graphics commands, and gets back streaming video (think OnLive for the LAN), then the device wouldn't need to have much in the way of video, and a phone could drive a standard monitor. This essentially allows one device to perform multiple roles, similar to how Microsoft's Surface Pro can work as a tablet, as well as function as a full desktop computer.
Right now, smartphones seem to be stagnating. We have faster CPUs and payment methods, maybe even touchscreens that register pressure on them... but those are evolution, "0.1" or "0.0.1" style improvements. Having the ability to use the phone as a desktop via USB-C, or even as a document repository, similar to Intel's personal server concept, would be a real "1.0" advance. Especially if BlueTooth could be used with a hard drive to get respectable transfer rates, at least USB 2.0, if not greater for short distances. Barring that, there are companies saying they could get 1GB/sec from infrared, so maybe update the IrDA protocol and have that as an alternative to wireless.
Lots of ways phones can be improved on, but there are no players interested in doing anything to affect the status quo right now.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why consumers "prefer" bigger phones is not because people want a change of clothing with bigger pockets... but the faster CPUs and such require more area to deal with heat.
Of course, I've been told by someone in the industry that nobody would give up CPU and RAM for a smaller phone, but it would be nice to have a phone about the size of an iPhone 4.
I work in the industry. I can tell you that the size is due to the display. It's not primarily due to heat dissipation. The manufacturers are convinced (based on trends and sales) that people want big phones with 5" or larger screens.
Re: (Score:3)
I work in the industry. I can tell you that the size is due to the display. It's not primarily due to heat dissipation. The manufacturers are convinced (based on trends and sales) that people want big phones with 5" or larger screens.
Yup. Big screens are easier for older folks to see, and easier for bigger folks to poke at with fingers.
Young, pajama boy pussy millennials might want or appreciate a small phone for their skinny jeans... but other people that actually have money to spend on a phone don't.
Re: (Score:3)
If you happen to carry a purse, a large cellphone is not a problem. At that point, the big screen has no downside. That said, for those of us of the pants pocket persuasion, a 5.2 inch screen with minimal bezels makes a perfect compromise - if only someone would build a decent device with those dimensions at a decent price and decent battery life. Seems like this sweet spot was hit a few years back by the LG-G2, but now even LG has blown past it and can't seem to get back to the form factor that makes th
Re: (Score:2)
but other people that actually have money to spend on a phone don't.
As the market does not offer small phones with either iOs or Android: no one knows.
Most people I know who have the money have a phone and a tablet. And most if them would prefer a flip phone or a phone with maximum 'iPhone 3 size'. And yes, I prefer my phine thick, hence I stick to my iPhone 4 till a similar phone shows up, or it stops working.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, they're utterly convinced we want them thinner.
I want one with enough battery to last the day doing the stuff that I want to do, without having to carry a spare, a powerbank or a charger with me.
Battery life of modern smartphones under day to day use is on par with my original Motorola Microtac of 30 years ago - less than a day - when 15 years ago it was out to 5 days.
Inmates in California prison (Score:2)
A reporter wrote about inmates in a prison in California and what their lives behind bars were like, remarking that all the inmates had cell phones even though they were forbidden.
You could tell what model cell phone a prisoner had by the bar of soap they had carved into a (ahem) "keeper." You see, they stored their cell phone "where the sun doesn't shine", and the shaped bar of soap was to reserve a space for the phone. The reporter than quipped, "I pity the man with a Galaxy S4 . . ."
What I never f
Re: (Score:3)
Similarly but sort of the other way around, what about a dumb phone (classic form factor) that can also act as a "slave" hand set for a smartphone?
With more integration still, use the dumb phone with SIM card in it ; contacts are sync'ed to the smartphone, and even call history, SMS. Select someone to call on the smartphone (or compose a SMS), then the dumb phone calls the number and handles the conversation. Optionally the smartphone is a "hand set" or bluetooth speaker/mic for the dumb phone. (smartphone
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why I still come to Slashdot..you're already at 5 so I'll post instead.
A star for your nerd badge, sir!
I still carry an iPhone 4 for the size, but recent OS "upgrades" make it very slow...
Re: (Score:2)
OR
They use their phones for more than one thing at a time.
Personally, I use my Note 3 to draw schematics, and draw engineering details with dimensions. I tried to do that on a 320x240 screen, and you could not read the dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My brother in law want's a smaller phone than the 5.5" monster he currently has. Fend up with the size, as he looks enviously at my Z1 Compact, which is more iPhone4 size.
To behonest before my Z1 Compact I had an Xperia Ray and the upgrade was most forced by a woefully inadequate amount of onboard flash. I would love a modern phone of that size, just nobody makes them.
Thankfully Sony are still doing the Z? Compact models.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:4, Funny)
Actually it`s hard to type on a small phone with my large penis.. I mean fingers!
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest complaint about bluetooth keyboards is that every one ive ever owned would go into sleep mode after 10 to 30 minutes to save power and then when I started typing on the keyboard I would have a 5 to 10 second delay while the bluetooth reconnected Ive never had this problem with any keyboard using a proprietary protocol.
Second is the tendacy they have to do thissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss when you are typing.
I've never seen a micro usb keyboard have either of those problems
I have seen very fe
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for enough wireless bandwith for display and storage etc. then 5GHz wifi is what you should be after, or perhaps even 60GHz wifi in the near future.
Bluetooth was and still is a replacement for serial cables and such, it is barely enough for real time compressed stereo sound.
USB type-C populated with Displayport (in the connector's high speed lines) is the "magical" solution for your dock (which can trivially convert it to HDMI), it covers the power needs too.
Stuff like that might get cheap
Re: (Score:2)
I have a ZUK Z1, and after a full day, 6am to 6pm, it's somewhere around 60-80%, depending on how much I've been using it. Admittedly it weighs 180g or so, but seems not to be a downside to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy Chinese. There are several models with 6Ah or larger battery (e.g. Oukitel K6000), which is twice the capacity of the Galaxy S6 battery.
That's good enough for 10 hours display-on time. Quick charge is supported as well as the option to let this phone charge other devices.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not.
Weight energy and volumic energy are two different things.
The article does not say which is which.
Re:"Supposedly"?! (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. Weight energy and volumic energy are two different things. The article does not say which is which.
It's a good thing that the summary (didn't even have to click through to the article) indicates that it's using volumetric energy density for both:
"Sony is developing a new type of battery chemistry that can boost runtimes by 40 percent compared to lithium-ion batteries of the same volume. Sony's batteries use a sulfur compound instead of lithium compounds for the positive electrodes, reportedly allowing for much great energy density. Sulfur batteries can also supposedly be made 30 percent smaller than traditional lithium-ion cells while maintaining the same run times."
Weight - and therefore energy density per unit mass - isn't mentioned or implied.
The grandparent's observation is spot on--the summary is indeed saying exactly the same thing in two different ways. If you can have the same runtime in 30% less volume, you can always get 40% more runtime with the original-sized package. To within a trivial rounding error, 140% and 70% are reciprocals; they're just saying "40% improvement in volumetric energy density".
Re: (Score:2)
it's using volumetric energy density for both:
Volumetric energy density is what matters for cellphones. For electric cars, weight density is more important. Lithium-sulfur batteries [wikipedia.org] tend to have short lifetimes, which isn't so important for cellphones, because they are replaced every year or two. It is a bigger issue for cars, which are expected to last at least 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The current crop of li-ion batteries that Samsung are using have a lifespan of less than 12 months to sub-50% capacity. Switching to something with an even shorter life would be insane.
Energy density is not all that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Energy density is not all that matters (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if you can make a battery with very high energy density but with a very short lifespan.
And sulfur-lithium cells have had a history of short lifetimes. It will be interesting to see if Sony has beaten that - or at least gotten them to last longer than equivalently priced lithium cells of more conventional design.
In general, I'm skeptical of claims of massive improvement in batteries. As with new solar systems, if every single in-lab claimed battery improvement all were genuine and implementable we'd have solves all the world's energy problems years ago.
On the other hand, commercially available, UL-approved (so they don't void your fire insurance), solar panels are now cheap enough (WITHOUT subsidies) to beat grid power on price/performance on sunny sites in the temperate zone. The control and conversion electronics has participated in the general Moore's Law style semiconductor technology improvement curve (and will also benefit from economy-of-scale as deployments continue to ramp up). The third piece of the off-gridding puzzle is storage...
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, commercially available, UL-approved (so they don't void your fire insurance), solar panels are now cheap enough (WITHOUT subsidies) to beat grid power on price/performance on sunny sites in the temperate zone.
I wish people would stop saying that, it just isn't true...
Even with subsidies, they are STILL too expensive...
I priced solar just 2 months ago, talked to two local companies that sell solar, the end price is just nuts, about $3.40 a watt installed for a 10.5 KW system in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would ask the question... "Why does so much of the world pay more for power than we do?"
What is it that causes power in other places to be 25 cents per kWh when we pay 10 cents (or less).
I actually don't have any say in my home's power price, I'm in a co-op. It was cheap 9 years ago, but has gotten expensive. My office pays far less for power, just over 7 cents per kWh.
Solar isn't even close, even wind costs more than that at about 10 cents per kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you are being ripped off. $2/W is the most you should pay, installed with tax etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but I haven't found anyone who will do it for $3 a watt, much less $2.
Perhaps the problem is a lack of competition, or simply a lack of people who know how to do it here.
But I have called around and shopped around, most companies simply don't have any interest, the two I spoke with were around the same price.
I'm all ears with any suggestions for a company in the North Texas area that does it for $2 a watt.
Re: (Score:3)
I priced solar just 2 months ago, talked to two local companies that sell solar, the end price is just nuts, about $3.40 a watt installed for a 10.5 KW system in Texas.
Then you're probably paying about $2.45/W for supports and installation. Raw panels - in pallet lots or slightly more if repackaged for fewer than 25 panels - are regularly well under $1/W, and you can get B grade (blemished but still fully functional and guaranteed) for about half that.
One of the cheaper places to get them is Sun Electronic [sunelec.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I priced solar just 2 months ago, talked to two local companies that sell solar, the end price is just nuts, about $3.40 a watt installed for a 10.5 KW system in Texas.
Then you're probably paying about $2.45/W for supports and installation.
And storage and electronics (systems are a lot more than panel farms) and site planning and contractor/electrician licenses and insurance and their kid's college education ...
What was in the proposal besides the panels?
Re: (Score:2)
For $3.40 per watt, that included a "smart inverter", one that runs each panel to its max power, if one is dirty, blocked, or fails, it doesn't stop the others. It included wiring, permits, grid-tie, a second power box in the garage, and all the attachment hardware for the roof.
I imagine it is about double what the hardware costs, it just seems like a whole pile of money for the labor side.
Re: (Score:2)
For $3.40 per watt, that included a "smart inverter", one that runs each panel to its max power, ...
Sounds like a distorted description of a "max power point"" inverter - which runs the panels at the voltage where the most energy is extracted from them and down-converting to the desired output voltage, trading the extra voltage for more output current, rather than clamping them to the output voltage and discarding the extra energy as heat in the panels. ... if one is dirty, blocked, or fails, it doesn't sto
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the link. Those are raw panels, but yes, that is about what I expected to see.
What do you think of this complete kit:
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/... [wholesalesolar.com]
I imagine it isn't EVERYTHING that is needed, but it seems mostly complete, at least to include inverter, panels, mounting hardware, etc.
The panels themselves they sell for about $1 per watt, but that appears to be for grade A panels. So they want about $6,400 for all the other stuff besides panels.
This is not a job that I'm prepared to do myse
Re: (Score:2)
Solar PV only generates usable amounts for 28-30% of the 24-hour cycle on average.
Your $3.40 per watt is even worse than you thought and of no use on a still, cloudless winter night in a future when oil/gas fired home heating is likely to be outlawed.
Energy density is not power density (Score:2)
What will make these batteries successful is if the actual capacity at a typical discharg
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they fail though? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of them remind you of the old joke about nuclear fusion; it's always 20 years away.
Actually it's 40 years - and it's been 40 years away for the past 60 years or so. However batteries are a bit different in that there are regular claims of working prototypes with capacities 2-10 times the current limit and/or recharge rates similarly improved yet none ever seem to make it into a commercial product and yet the capabilities of Li-ion are slowly improving. What I would love to know is where all these ideas fail (as so many clearly have). Is that they cost too much to make, aren't safe in everyday environments or that the improvements claimed are woefully optimistic? or is if that by the time they would come to market Li-ion has improved itself to the point where there is not much difference in capability?
Re:Why do they fail though? (Score:4, Informative)
The devil is in the details. And in particular, the cost of those details and how they chip away at the results you start with.
Disclaimer: I'm by no means a battery expert in any way, shape or form. But if you read enough about battery tech, one thing that becomes clear is that it's basically a fuzzy science due to the many factors involved. Some examples:
In the lab, you may use ultra-pure compounds to construct your battery. Such compounds can be expensive though. So for mass production you'd need to use some commercial-grade material that's less pure. The contaminants in there may not matter much. Or they may. It may depend on where that commercial-grade material is sourced. One way or the other, chances are performance / longevity / capacity is reduced vs. your lab sample.
In the lab, there's lots of things you could try with the materials used. Nano-size structures, layers a few atoms thick deposited on some base material, etc, etc. But for production, none of that matters as you have to be able to actually mass-produce it. And at low enough cost. Which means most of of those nifty tricks will be out. Possibly exactly those tricks that made the improvement.
In the lab, you'll have carefully controlled conditions. Once it's turned into a product, not so. Cells may be overcharged, over-discharged, dropped, dented, overheated, etc. Providing sufficient safety margins / features for that, can easily nullify those gains seen in the lab. A cell that sees most of its cycles around 40 degrees C may have a vastly different cycle life than one operating at 20 degrees C. Etc, etc.
Last but not least: it's a long road from lab to product. As explained above: many factors involved.
I own NiCad, NiMH, lIon, liPoly (Score:3)
Try using a NiCad again and you'll see what's happened with these great new battery technologies. I still have some NiCad laying around because not long ago that was the option for an affordable battery. Then nickel metal hydride came out, which was much better. Lithium ion was even better. Then lithium polymer, which was much and continues to improve.
See also lead acid, nickel acid, and half a dozen other chemistries that have been used commercially in the last 20 years. Batteries have come a long way
Re: (Score:2)
I've got some NiMH AA batteries (Sanyo Eneloop) I bought in 2007 that I still use regularly. They've been through a couple of hundred charge cycles or so in cheap non-intelligent chargers of various kinds. I don't know what capacity losses they've suffered but they still do the job in flashlights and a digital camera. They're the low-self-discharge type that holds a charge for long periods and they're still doing that part of the job too, even after nearly a decade. I expect I'll still be using them for ano
Re: (Score:2)
As another already commented, the devil is in the details. He briefly mentioned longevity, but I'd like to elaborate on that. Some materials, like silicon, can carry 4 times tge charge of regular batteries, but they tend to swell when they take up the charge and shrink when they lose it. Apart from the mechanical problems, this is a major limitation of the amount of cycles that the battery can withstand. After a few cycles the material is so worn that you lose all the benefits. A material may look so awesom
Re:Another day, another future battery tech story (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a "where are they now" battery roundup story where they look at why all the promising breakthroughs never delivered.
Re: (Score:3)
"household and grid storage"
For those applications cost per kWh is a far more important factor than density/weight. Who cares if a residential battery is the size of a small car, in most situations you can just bury it in the back yard. Density and weight do of course become major factors in mobile device & EV applications but even here cost is quite important. It doesn't matter if an EV battery is developed that has the same energy density and weight as petroleum fuels, if it costs $30k per battery
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if an EV battery is developed that has the same energy density and weight as petroleum fuels, if it costs $30k per battery it is next to useless for the general public. For those two applications I'd rather have a battery cell the size of a 5 gallon bucket that can store 1 kWh for a hundred bucks instead of a cell the size of a 16oz bottle that can store the same amount of energy but cost $500.
If that's one EV battery for $30k and not just a fuel cell it's a bargain. My gas tank is 14 gallons = 472 kWh and weighs about 14*6 lbs = 84 lbs. Compare that to Tesla's 85 kWh battery weighing 1200 lbs, which I believe costs roughly the same. Size doesn't matter that much, but weight does as the Tesla is starting to hit the practical limits on how much battery the car can hold before the added power is lost in additional weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously adding battery power also adds weight, but does it actually become negative net power at some point, where the added power of more battery actually can't offset more weight?
If you had an EV semi truck and you filled a semi-trailer with battery power, could it not pull itself?
Re: (Score:2)
"My gas tank is 14 gallons = 472 kWh ... Compare that to Tesla's 85 kWh battery"
Apples and oranges. You count heat of combustion for your fuel tank. Of that energy, about 17% (80 kWh) will actually reach the wheels. And that's not counting regenerative braking and the low air resistance of a Tesla.
It's also not counting losses in a power plant, windmill, or PV installation, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Prius has lower CO2 emissions than Tesla? (Score:2)
What does a Tesla use in highway cruise? About a third of a kWHr to the mile? If an efficient constant-speed fossil fuel generator can produce 12 kWHr per gallon of gasoline equivalent, the Tesla is getting about 36 MPG? People are claiming 50 MPG average usage from a Prius?
For all of the low drag coefficient and regen braking of the Tesla, the breakthrough with that vehicle is the large capacity battery.
On the other hand, some 40 years ago I knew an engineering professor who was doing EV conversion
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Otherwise you would never be able to recharge 50% of 85 kWh in 20 minutes in a stationary car without boiling the batteries. For the Tesla, 92% round-trip efficiency seems to be a widely quoted value.
Re: (Score:2)
"household and grid storage"
For those applications cost per kWh is a far more important factor than density/weight.
Also charge/discharge rate and recharge cycle lifespan, the latter of which plays into the cost per kWh you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Laptops and Mobile phones became more popular (sorry, "cell phones") these articles have been at least 5/year for over a decade.
I am under the impression batteries now, ARE much better than a decade ago for storage density, but I have no idea if a SINGLE piece of "milestone huge improvement" technology from these articles were used or not.
I know your post is a very common theme in these news articles but ... yeah I'm completely sick of them at this point, "WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE AMAZING BATTERIES,
Re: (Score:2)
New battery technologies are being implemented, and battery technology has been constantly improving. Batteries today are far better - smaller, lighter, energy denser - than those of twenty years ago.
Some of the announcements of the past twelve months will end up in working batteries. But it will take a few years, and there will be no fanfare or press releases when it happens. Your next model phone or whatever will just be a bit faster, or support some new transmission standard, or charge a bit quicker, and
Re:Another day, another future battery tech story (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea, and as soon as you suspend all patents, every company trying to make money off of this will say "fuck it" and go do something else.
Greed is a bitch, but it can drive innovation. The whole idea of patents is that you have to give your invention away after 17 years, so society has benefited greatly by the patent system. It isn't perfect (like stupid software patents, which aren't "things"), but you fix a system, you don't erase it and all the gains.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea of patents is that you have to give your invention away after 17 years, so society has benefited greatly by the patent system.
Dubious---people have been abusing patents for ages.
James Watt himself was the victim when someone patented the idea of a crank BUT ON A STEAM ENGINE!!! which is why his engines had funny sun-and-planet gear arrangements. He then got a bunch of patents and sued a lot, dragging the industry back by 17 years.
Recently, a good part of the 3D printer explosion has been the
Re: (Score:2)
suspend all patents and force corporations to work together with universities and the government
Even if you suspend all patents, how exactly are you going to "force" corporations to do anything?
Find the CEO and put a gun to his head?
It doesn't work the way you think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to change the entire economic model of the US to do what you're suggesting...
Like I said, it doesn't work the way you think it does (or maybe wish it does).
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is if government were serious and not themselves governed by corporate greed, they would do what they have done in war time, suspend all patents and force corporations to work together with universities and the government in order to achieve the best possible battery in the shortest possible time and then sort out the patents.
That strategy was a real winner for the USSR, it's what gave them the superior technology they needed to win the Cold War.
Re: (Score:2)
Matter of fact it was. Tsarist Russia was technologically almost a century behind the rest of the developed world. USSR closed that gap despite their horrendous losses in WW2. Only by 1970ies they have started to falling behind the times yet again but even then they had their share of innovations.
Think of the fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Li-Ion batteries already go up in nice flames. Consider what you would get with 40% more energy and sulphur getting burned off into the air.
Re:Think of the fire (Score:5, Funny)
V O L C A N O E S !!!
wow !
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, a cell phone bursting into flames and smelling like brimstone sounds pretty metal to me. Ironically demonic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Think of the fire (Score:5, Interesting)
At least a battery made with sulfur can be extinguished with something other than a Class D fire extinguisher, unlike lithium.
Lithium fires are the sort of bad news where best practice might be "throw the burning laptop through the window, and then work on putting out the secondary fires."
Re: (Score:2)
At least a battery made with sulfur can be extinguished with something other than a Class D fire extinguisher, unlike lithium.
Lithium fires are the sort of bad news where best practice might be "throw the burning laptop through the window, and then work on putting out the secondary fires."
I was under the impression that it was the construction of lithium ion batteries, not the lithium itself, that is the real problem. Very narrow layers with delicate foils that can easily be shorted if there is physical damage or a manufacturing defect. Once a short starts, the heat causes more distortion and shorting. I assume a similar construction approach would be used for sulfur based batteries.
Think of the Brimstone (Score:2)
They're not trying hard enough (Score:2, Funny)
I'm creating a battery that uses air and common garden dirt to produce 200% more power in a cell that is 46.7% smaller than a conventional Li-ion equivalent.
I'm an idea man.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you be saying it is 0.467 times smaller? That doesn't mean anything according to the language police and worse, that must mean it's 2.14 times bigger!
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be saying it is 0.467 times smaller? That doesn't mean anything according to the language police and worse, that must mean it's 2.14 times bigger!
He can say that because he is an IDEA man, don't question him!
YADBS (Score:2)
We don't need no sinkin' sulfur batteries! (Score:5, Funny)
Advances to be eaten by new hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict, that most — if not all — of the added capacity will be eaten by new hardware and features, as happened with the rest of the computer-industry.
By Moore's law, today's computers ought to be over 256 more powerful, than in the previous millennium (16 years ago) — and the hardware is. But the operating systems and applications ate most of it. And not only because of the new features which the users want (as well as those we do not), but also because the programmers choose wasteful technologies like programming languages, that are more convenient for them, and otherwise sacrificing speed to software portability and maintainability.
It is quite common for people to complain, that their computer has "become slow" — they don't realize, that the machine is just as fast as when they bought it, but the software (including open-source [slashdot.org]) has become more demanding.
For similar reasons, the phones using these new batteries will not run for 40% longer...
Re: (Score:2)
Further to this, companies like Apple are considering re-engineering the bloody 3.5mm standard headphone socket, just to make the phones, sub 7.5mm.
We get it, we like a lighter, sleeker phone, WITHIN REASON. I don't want to be a typical hardware neckbeard who says "Make it an inch thick and last a week!!" but just once, just ONCE when they figure out a way to shave 1 or 2mm off a phone, I wish they would and then put it right fucking back with battery.
I am FINE with a phone 9mm or less, if the thing lasts
Re: (Score:2)
I predict, that most â" if not all â" of the added capacity will be eaten by new hardware and features, as happened with the rest of the computer-industry.
And I predict that nobody (other than a few habitual complainers on Slashdot) will be the least bit bothered by that, because once you get to about 18 hours of battery life, that's good enough.
As long as my cell phone can keep going until I plug it in to the charger, just before I go to sleep, it doesn't matter at all to me whether it has 5 minutes of battery remaining or 5 hours. Either way, it will be fully charged again in the morning.
Re:Advances to be eaten by new hardware (Score:5, Funny)
It is quite common for people to complain, that their computer has "become slow" — they don't realize, that the machine is just as fast as when they bought it, but the software (including open-source [slashdot.org]) has become more demanding.
tl;dr:
Moore's law: Hardware speed doubles every 18 months.
Gates's law: Software speed halves every 18 months.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite interesting that both of those stopped being true at the same time. New versions of Windows aren't much slower than old versions. New Intel processors aren't much faster than old ones.
Angry Consumer Law: Software grows to fill the available CPU cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
I do realize that. And it is exactly that realization, that drove me to the above prediction.
The actual curse of the programming profession is that a lot more
In other news (Score:2)
Apple is working on a phone 1mm thinner than iPhone 6s, battery still lasts the same time! Some unhappy owners claim it slowly bends under its own weight.
Long term disposal strategy? (Score:2)
What is the long ter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that final disposal is probably a few decades off for a vast majority of batteries. Teslas powerwall and industrial system plans to make use of the batteries long after the 8+ years the battery is warrantied for in vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony? (Score:2)
Everybody knows that Sony is the devil, small wonder that they use sulfur for their stuff.
Right after I buy my laptop fuel cell (Score:2)
Color me skeptical, but these "battery breakthrough" stories are the new "laptop fuel cell" stories, which have appeared here since about the first month Slashdot has existed, and always been shipping just a little bit in the future.
When they put them in a shipping product, then I'll pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so oblivious that you haven't noticed the batteries in your devices getting more and more powerful for the same weight and size? Every year they squeeze more and more out of the batteries and you've been ignoring it the whole time. Years of these breakthroughs dramatically improving the batteries you use every day and you haven't even noticed.
There is little reason to point this out to you, because you are ignorant of it even when it's in your hand every day.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you so oblivious that you haven't noticed the batteries in your devices getting more and more powerful for the same weight and size?"
Not in the same way that silicon has been getting smaller and more efficient.
For that matter the battery in my 2015 Note4 is about twice the capacity and 90% of the volume of the one in my 2010 S2, BUT, after 9 months it's down to less than 50% of the quoted charge capacity.
Weekly super battery post (Score:2)