21–30 of 89 posts
For people having trouble interpreting the graph, the legend from the actual paper says: "The energy and power density of our microbattery cells (A–H) at low to high C rates, along with previous microbattery cells having 3D electrodes (MB1 through MB3). The plot also includes the performance range of conventional power technologies and commercial batteries from A123 (high power) and Sony (high energy)." Where C rates…
For people having trouble interpreting the graph, the legend from the actual paper says: "The energy and power density of our microbattery cells (A–H) at low to high C rates, along with previous microbattery cells having 3D electrodes (MB1 through MB3). The plot also includes the performance range of conventional power technologies and commercial batteries from A123 (high power) and Sony (high energy)." Where C rates…
Electric cars?
PS: As to faster charging, issues are going to Limit that. A 99% efficient battery charging 100x as fast as Li-Ion is going to dump a lot of heat vary quickly. Duping heat is not really an issue for small battery's but scale this up into the 50+kwh range for an electric car or even just a cellphone battery and you will have significant issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So far, the researchers have used this tech to create a button-sized microbattery, and you can see in the graph below how well their battery compares to a conventional Sony CR1620 button cell. That sounds like a battery to me. The new design has actually been built and tested. The quote you pulled out refers to scaling it up to things like lasers and F1 cars. A button-sized battery sounds fine for a lot of electron…
Building one in the lab likely does not give you the ability to build a million of them at a decent price in a factory. Yield probably is low, and the current process will likely be way too labour intensive.
For people having trouble interpreting the graph, the legend from the actual paper says: "The energy and power density of our microbattery cells (A–H) at low to high C rates, along with previous microbattery cells having 3D electrodes (MB1 through MB3). The plot also includes the performance range of conventional power technologies and commercial batteries from A123 (high power) and Sony (high energy)." Where C rates…
Electric cars?
So... now you end up with like a 30-60 mile range range, and can charge up fully in like 3-5 minutes. So we've brought charge times into the realm of filly up gas, but you're doing it waaay more often.
If this is a useful advancement or not depends completely on what type of infrastructure we want to envision. I would certainly love a world where this was possible/feasible, but it's certainly not a grand slam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electric cars?
Well... it's tricky. If you assume that current electric cars have the performance of that A123 battery from the graph, and then pick something in the middle of the spread of the colourful dots, you get a roughly 1 order decrease in energy density, and a 1 order increase in power density. So, taking the Model S as an example, you have a 300 mile range, and a charge time of like 45 minutes at a super charger. So... no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"New lithium-ion battery design 2000x more powerful, recharges 1000x faster" fits with out altering the meaning at all.
I didn't say you couldn't do better, I just pointed out the likely source of the problem. GGP says > copy the article's title, do not invent your own. Unfortunately you can't always do that. Dropping words is one technique to shorten the title, rewriting it is another, both techniques are employed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electric cars?
Well... it's tricky. If you assume that current electric cars have the performance of that A123 battery from the graph, and then pick something in the middle of the spread of the colourful dots, you get a roughly 1 order decrease in energy density, and a 1 order increase in power density. So, taking the Model S as an example, you have a 300 mile range, and a charge time of like 45 minutes at a super charger. So... no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say you couldn't do better, I just pointed out the likely source of the problem. GGP says > copy the article's title, do not invent your own. Unfortunately you can't always do that. Dropping words is one technique to shorten the title, rewriting it is another, both techniques are employed.
We agree on the topic. Indeed it is tricky to strike the right balance when trying to edit something down to fit and keep the meaning. I probably do this dozens of times a week trying to get the full intent of a thought down to 140 chars. :)
"New Li+ battery design - 2,000x more powerful, recharges 1,000x faster"
Now you just have to know that Li is Lithium and the + is for an ion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building one in the lab likely does not give you the ability to build a million of them at a decent price in a factory. Yield probably is low, and the current process will likely be way too labour intensive.
True. But lutusp was shitting all over the submitter for dropping the almighty "design" word from the title and then claimed this is not an article about a battery but only about a design for one. That claim is wrong. It is more than a design... it is an actual battery. Maybe there is only one unit that exists. But that is still one more than a design. And if the tech proves sound but too labor intensive, your next t…
True technological innovation needs not just engineering feasibility but also economic feasibility. I'm not trying to say that the research that "dead ends" is pointless. Progress is progress. All I am trying to say is that it doesn't mean economic viability is right around the corner.
Often, researchers are well aware of scaling or manufacturing hurdles when they embark on the experiments. For the sake of academic careers and exposure, the research will get hyped regardless of the viability of implementing the research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some level, it doesn't make too much sense to go that much higher in the power (which I'm assuming is the same as discharge rate, since voltage is fixed). Current lipoly batteries are rated at 30C (Amps per watt*hour). Essentially this means that the battery can be fully discharged in a minimum of two minutes. It doesn't seem like there are that many applications that require higher power output.
cars, for one, especially if high power output correlates with high power input for charging.